Good morning, everyone.

I'm Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson.

I chair the OPS committee, County Operations Committee.

The members on the committee with me is Commissioner Ladina Bowden.

This is probably the first time that she ever beat me to a meeting.

You know.

And that commission Commissioner Robert Patrick, who is on his way.

And so with that, we're gonna start the meeting with the uh approval of the minutes.

Have you had an opportunity to read the minutes?

Yes, ma'am.

And at this time, I move to approve item 0370.

And I second all in favor.

Aye.

Okay, so the minutes approved.

Uh the new agenda item CEO 261070.

Oh, Commission this is request for proposal.

Number 260, 2026 006, constituent financial empowerment services, three-year multi-year contract with one option to renew for use by the office of the CEO to obtain home ownership counseling, financial literacy, and credit counseling for county residents and small businesses.

Recommend award to the highest uh score on proposal operation hope inc.

Amount not to exceed 929,460 dollars.

Yes, uh thank you, uh Madam Chair, and I'll be uh carrying this item this morning, and what it is is as indicated, it's uh essentially uh purchasing the services of Operation Hope uh for a total of $929,460.

And what they will be responsible for doing is providing um uh homeownership, technical assistance and financial literacy um to the Cab County residents, which would help them in uh uh in many instances in securing homes and starting and expanding businesses and overall financial management of various households.

Um the service will be delivered uh in two primary ways.

One is classroom training.

Uh this will be um individual classroom sessions that will uh you know uh take those those who apply and and also case management.

So there'll be individual case management where each uh adult in a household will be entitled to three uh individual counseling sessions.

Uh they will include long-term tracking, so as we go through the implementation of the program, we'll be able to have metrics in terms of um homeownership and uh really how the training and how the program worked for the families.

So this is part of our overall strategy dealing with um not only um people who are unhoused and underhoused, but the need to develop stronger financial literacy throughout the county.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Yes.

Okay.

But I did want to ask how that would impact the work that the county is doing with NACA.

We've done quite a bit over the past couple of months.

It haven't even been a year.

We still have some stuff that happened on Saturday, some programming in September.

I think so far in between February and March, maybe about 15,000 families were helped.

And of course, with NACA, we know they do not just the counseling training, case management, but they also help families to identify homes to get the funding and to move into those homes.

So can you just talk through how this would impact the other relationship?

I think I think it's additive, if that's the right word.

Um they do have some similar services being provided.

For free.

Uh and so we will continue the relationship with NACA, but I believe the um, and I think NACA is primarily aimed at that home ownership counseling, but the financial literacy, the credit counseling, um, and really the technical assistance for small businesses are gonna be key components that uh this will offer that really expands on those services from NACA.

Okay, and then hold on, let me finish my note, small business technical assistance.

And then the other thing is especially considering the with Operation Hope, the addition of small businesses.

I believe it was in 2019 Super 7 at that time, Commissioner Cochrane Johnson worked with Operation Hope to help get, I think about 20 million dollars in funding toward first-time home buyers and other things.

So at the culmination of this program, will there be some similar investment or throughout?

Will there be uh that from um from Operation Hope, will there be similar investments in terms of infusing millions of dollars of back into either homeownership, but in particular small business.

This doesn't speak this does not speak directly to that, but I think our relationship with uh um John Hope Bryant, right?

Um and and his firm and and Operation Hope has borne fruit in the past.

We anticipate continuing that relationship.

So wherever possible, I am certain that uh they will continue to work with the county um, you know, to increase homeownership.

And my last question is how many families or individuals or businesses do we anticipate can be helped with?

We'll we'll have to get that number because a lot of the uh homeownership counseling and lit financial literacy is going to be based on um kind of first come, first serve in classrooms.

Um then from there they will, you know, some number of them will take advantage of individual case management.

But we'll get you a number uh before tomorrow in terms of what our best estimate is, but it's still going to be an estimate.

Okay.

And so the amount, the 929,000 is based more so on their calculation of how much time or investment they will make, but not necessarily the product of the government.

I think that's an accurate statement.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

I yield back.

And I would just like to throw in that what we didn't have when we were dealing with operational before was a housing.

Right.

A housing director that can coordinate and put all of the different moving pieces together.

And this will be managed by and that would be yeah, and this is just one of the moving pieces when it comes to housing.

And welcome.

This is one that's always late.

But we always welcome him when he gets here.

Well, and he didn't have time to share your bad.

Thank you all.

Happy Monday to everybody else.

Okay.

Uh just a reminder that 285 Spaghetti Junction is in district one, and so that's always uh getting through that.

Okay.

But um acknowledging uh my colleagues uh questions and uh and uh comments that she made, I know through Decide to Cab, we had put some money aside for small businesses, uh a loan program, and um decide to cab sort of backfield that with business training, you know, helping people get up uh up to speed on operating a business.

Um you have one program it can be very focused, but if you have multiple programs, it has sort of a wider catch.

And so that um basically want to say as I I approve of this.

I think this is a great idea.

Uh and again, this attached uh follows up with that notion of more opportunities, a wider catch to be able to engage with other residents and hopeful small business owners as well.

So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I move to approve item 1070.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

That items is approved.

The next item is 260899, all commissioned districts, renewal, contract number 138497, chilling inspection, uh repair, preventative maintenance service, second renewal of two options to renew for use by the Department of Facility Management to obtain inspections, repair, preventative maintenance services for county chillers.

Exercising section second option, renewal option through July the 31st, 2027 awarded to that can apply to American America's amount not to exceed 400,000.

Good morning.

Good morning, madam chair and commissioners.

Uh this um renewal is for our uh chiller contract, which is very important to the county.

It supports our chiller systems and cooling towers throughout our big buildings like the Maloof, the Courthouse, the courts to police and fire headquarters.

Lou Walker has a cooling tower.

So this is to uh renew that uh take that option and renew it for another year to provide that service.

Any questions?

Okay.

Um yeah, Madam Chair, I do.

Um do we know the general age of a lot of the chillers and equipment?

So my my ultimate question is is what's the point at replacement?

And are we still within repair on a lot of these?

Yes, we have, you know, using SPLOSS funds in the last seven or eight years, we have replaced chillers, and uh we're we're putting those on the CIP.

Anything that's age, we are replacing those.

So 1520 years is probably your timeline for uh useful life for these.

So we do do do that in the CIP and SPLOS.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 0899.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

The next item is 261006.

All commission districts change order to contract number 2001 nine five, maintenance repair operations, supplies, parts, equipment, material, and related services, cooperative agreement, multi-year with two options to renew for use by the Department of Facility Management, watershed, recreation parks, and cultural affairs, police services, property appraisal and assessment, fire rescue, sanitation, beautification, the Cab County Emergency Management, voter registration and election, fleet management seeking to add E911 and animal services as users to the contract and to increase contract funds awarded to uh J, I mean, I'm sorry, WW Ganger Inc.

Amount not to exceed $2,105.

Yes, this is uh Granger is a major supplier of operating supplies for the county, so there's multiple departments on this contract, and we're asking to uh renew that contract for another year.

Okay, and um is that contract?

Was that a two million dollar contract for all, or is that the um addition to well?

I should ask this.

The addition to uh and adding E911 and animal services.

Yeah, that's the top that's the total amount for all the departments.

For all of the departments, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

Are any other questions?

I just want to say that's impressive that we're adding two additional departments, but the request is less than the original.

Did you negotiate for a list?

We try to negotiate prices with Granger because we we buy a lot.

So I don't know if that was specifically negotiated, but yeah, we do ask for discounts when we go buy supplies.

Okay.

I see you.

I yield back.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 1006.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

The next item is 261061.

Change order number one, the contract number 2000 89, on call heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, uh, annual contract with two options to renew for use by the Department of Facilities, uh, recreation parks, cultural affairs, water, watershed management, thought rescue to provide on call HVAC services, seeking to add human services to the contract and increase contract funds and scope to repair and I replace condensers units at Lou Walker Senior Center amount awarded to Maxair Mechanical LLC amount not to exceed $70,000.

Madam Chair, um purchasing a requested that we um do agenda item 2026 0953 and if we can approve that before this one because this there's a change to the contract in the I'm sorry, can you say that again?

Uh purchasing and contracting requested that we actually uh put agenda item 2026 0953, which is the on-call heating and uh v ventilation and air conditioning annual contract for renewal to do that one first before this contract because we're actually changing some scope.

Uh huh.

What pages is that on?

Um topic page four top of four.

Okay, that'll be five.

Okay, uh 260953, all commission districts renewal contract number one three eight four nine six three, one three eight four five eight one and one three eight four nine five five on-call heating and ventilation and air conditioning, and your contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility management, recreation parks, cultural affairs, watershed management, and fire rescue to provide on call HVAC services, uh exercising second renewal option through July the 31st, 2027 and authorizing a consent to assignment of contract 1384 955 to Maxair Mechanical LLC water to B and W Mechanical Contractors, Man Mechanical Mechanical Company LLC and Gagan HVAC Mechanical Services Inc.

Total amount not to exceed $3,440.

Has this come back for my yes ma'am?

Yes.

Okay.

Was it supported?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Yes, and also uh Galgon HPA C Mechanical Services was uh purchased by Max Air, so the change is gonna be from Galgon to Max Air for the name change.

Okay.

Do you all have any questions?

Okay, is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 0953.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so we'll go back to 26 uh 1061.

We've already read it.

So if you want to okay, this this um change order is for um human services for Lew Walker Senior Center.

So the scope of work in the HVAC contract doesn't specifically um detail that they can service refrigeration equipment such as um the walk-in coolers and the walkman freezers.

So what this allows is uh Max Air to come in and do repairs on the walk-in coolers and the walk-in freezers at um Lou Walker Senior Center.

And it's gonna add that scope, and then we're adding $70,000 to the contract to allow them to go in and do repairs because we are doing repairs to the kitchen and buying new appliances, so this will help bring the kitchen up to specs.

That's my understanding that we're getting new appliances.

We are, yes.

There's a lot of new appliances being purchased.

Okay, and this is to repair or maintain.

This is actually to go in and do repairs because the walk-in coolers you can actually replace the condenser units, the cooling part, the compressors, and the equipment in it.

You don't have to replace the whole thing.

Oh it's not, you know, a cooler's pretty good size or walk in like eight by ten.

So you're actually you're it's basically redoing it.

Uh you're not replacing the insulation part or the door, you're putting just a new condenser unit in.

Okay.

Okay.

I got you.

Any elevator.

Yes, like an elevator, yeah.

You're just doing the guts.

Yeah.

And I just want to clarify the 70,000 is strictly for the condensers and the other upgrades to the kitchen are coming from another.

They're a separate, yes, ma'am.

It's a separate deal.

Yeah.

I yield back.

Okay.

Do you have anything?

No, no question.

Okay, so motion to approve 1061.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Innovation and technology.

Good morning.

Good morning.

All commission districts.

Change order to contract number 115081.

G's uh cab license and support soul source for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain licenses and support services to GCATs.

Uh software for the county.

Seek an increase in contract funds in terms through December 31st, 2029.

Order to Kenyan solutions in not to exceed 233, 178.75 cents.

Hey, good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Commissioners.

We're requesting approval to extend contract terms through 1231-2029, which is three years with Canyon Solutions.

This change order is necessary to continue the licensing, the maintenance and technical support for the county's existing JCATs, which stands for Justice Case Activity Tracking System, which is used by our juvenile court.

So yeah, we're just extending the contract for an additional three years.

Okay.

Any questions?

Yeah, and that includes uh maintenance, any updates.

Yes.

Waiting for all of the whole nine yards to go with that.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh I see that the first change order was in September 2019.

With the change orders, are there opportunities to renegotiate these contracts or do we need I I see that it's a sole source, but I would assume if we were to do a new contract, we can negotiate some of the terms because we've been with them for a while now.

Yes, and that's something we can look into.

I'll check with um purchasing to see if that has been done.

Um, if we've negotiated some of the terms, but yeah, I can check on that for you.

Okay, thank you, sir.

I yield back.

I move to approve item 0937.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

260945, all commission distance, cooperative agreement.

Umward schedules, contract number GS35 F119W for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain license subscriptions for all red hat umsible products utilized throughout the county in order to emergent LLC not to exceed 204,907.

Yes.

So we use Red Hat Ansible to manage the county's Microsoft Active Directory environment, which includes the provisioning and the configuration of the users, the groups, the organizational units, and security policies that manage like the groups within Outlook.

Um so the software also automates security updates for our window servers, uh improving operational efficiency, security, and compliance.

And we're seeking a one-year renewal for this.

Any questions?

Can you just clarify the difference between the last item 0937 and this one 0945, since they're both to obtain license subscriptions?

So 0937 is a renewal for the JCATs system that juvenile court uses.

And 0945 is the tool that IT uses to manage the users and the groups throughout the county through active directory.

Okay, and that's all other users outside of juvenile.

Correct.

Yes, all users within the county.

Within the county.

Thank you, sir.

I yield back.

Okay.

Do you have anything?

No questions.

Okay, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 0945.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

260989.

All commission districts change number two to contract number 13432 software and accelerator services for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain software less software licenses and technical support to cover all new and existing Microsoft products utilized by the county.

Seek an increase in contract funds in terms through August 31st, 2029.

Awarded to SHI and a national corporation.

Amount not to exceed 18,927, 592.89.

Has that come back?

It has not come back yet.

Okay, so it's an audit.

Is there a motion?

Well, it haven't come back from audit.

But you will I mean when it comes back for audited, you may have an additional point.

Yes, yes.

Yeah.

So is there a motion?

Um motion to hold in committee.

Second.

Okay.

Motion to hold in committee.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, 26098.

Uh all commission districts change order.

Number two to contract number 12544.

33, secure signing enterprise plan, sole source for use by the Department of Innovation Technology to obtain digital signature solutions services for the county of other body previously provided contract term.

Increase and seeking increase in contract funds and term through July the 12th.

12th, 2029, awarded to secure signing limited amount not to exceed 105,940.

Yes, we're seeking to extend the term through July 12, 2029 to continue providing secure electronic signature services for the entire county.

Would that include our offices as well?

Yes.

Okay.

So for any contracts that need to be routed and signed, that's we're using this software to do that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I know that uh we use a lot of Adobe products and Microsoft products.

Those products don't cover this need right here already.

Not to the extent that this does for the routing.

Okay.

Yes.

So there is an electronic signature within Adobe, but this handles the routing from one stage to the next for certain contracts.

Okay, I think that County Attorney Terry has come in.

Mr.

Shelton, if you would help us, I just want to explain from a technical legal perspective how significant this is.

Thank you.

Often we route internal documents using this software.

Ordinances and the like.

We also route contracts to vendors and outside parties as well as the internal parties.

Just from a practical layperson's perspective, my understanding is the purchasing department will set up the order for execution.

This software will allow the document to automatically route and ensure that it's executed by all the parties in the right place in order so that the county gets it executed the way they want to, and there's a significant security component with this software as well.

I just wanted to share that because he referenced the legal compliance point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 0998.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

That items approved.

26100.

All commission districts to change order.

Number one to contract number two zero zero zero one four nine.

Fuelmaster software and hardware upgrade sole source for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain maintenance and upgrade services to the existing Pure Master System.

Seek an increase the contract term funds and term through December 31st, 2030, awarded to Syntax Systems Inc.

Amount not to exceed 53 20572 dollars.

Yes, and we've requested that this agenda item be removed or deferred while we work on on the numbers, making sure this number is correct.

Do you want it withdrawn?

Yes.

Okay.

Is there a motion to withdraw?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

That motion is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's previously heard item.

We've already completed 0952.

Now we're on discussion.

We're going to only discuss the um standing procedure rules this morning.

Okay.

Okay, we've been working on these standard procedures for a while.

Hopefully you can get through them today.

Oh yeah.

Yeah, we've been working on these standard procedure rules for a while.

And hopefully we can get through them today.

Okay, so let's talk about what we have already um discussed and agreed upon for a final list to be voted on by the by the full board.

Um you want to discuss that or you want me to discuss it?

From here, or you want to do that?

Yeah.

We're gonna put you in the hot seat.

Good morning, commissioners.

Good morning.

All right, you all have been working on this for quite some time and uh predates me even being uh on this board, but you all have uh been going through um uh pretty consistently and really seeking to uh I have my uh uh working to um uh to reach consensus on a number of of areas and you all have been having these discussions and uh and I think we're uh at the uh place now, thank you, where you can um go through uh if you have the uh memo uh dated 7926 standing procedural rules, consensus items.

These are items where you as a committee have come together and had robust discussions and and landed on a consensus here.

So if we can just start at the first one, um items with consensus from the committee.

Um it's in the meetings and attendance section under number three elections.

And uh what I'll do is I'll read what is currently uh in the blue book, and then um we'll read what looks like the consensus and um the consensus language will be uh as well.

So meetings and attendance if you go to that and then under um number three elections.

If you have that in your blue book, I think everyone has these blue books are not um numbered.

Marks, could you get uh Commissioner Patrick?

Yeah, they that that's one of the things we need to probably look at numbering them because it's really difficult.

We want to number the trying to find that.

So we're gonna make a note of the new addition.

Um elections three.

Okay, got it.

Okay.

It currently reads at the first regular meeting in January of each year.

The commission shall elect from its membership a presiding officer and a deputy presiding officer.

Um the memo, if you look at the memo, it adds uh some language here, and I'll just read that out completely.

Um it keeps the the beginning part at the first regular meeting in January of each year.

That remains the same.

Then it adds the newly elected presiding officer and deputy presiding officer shall assume their roles at the end of the meeting in which they were elected.

Okay.

So that just gives specificity of when they will uh begin to uh to to take their leadership role.

Okay.

So that'd be brought back.

That'd be brought brought forward as consensus, yes.

All right.

Uh the next uh section is still under meetings and attendance.

So if you would just go to number eight, night uh night committee of the whole meetings.

Now this section, I don't I think it's better just to read the new language because it really um changes a lot um uh on here versus going back from the original language.

Um the Board of Commissioners, this is the new language under the memo.

The Board of Commissioners may allow three meetings of the DeCab County Board of Commissioners, uh and then it just adds in uh brackets here, Committee of the Whole meeting to be held at 5 30 p.m.

These meetings, meeting or meetings may be held during the months of February, June, and October, and the location of these meetings shall be at different locations.

That's specifying a little bit more around the county to allow for more citizen involvement during the three-night meetings of the Board of Commissioners.

Um the Committee of the Whole, the Board shall allow for public comments.

The public comment section of the meeting shall start at 6 30 p.m.

and last for 30 minutes.

Okay.

Okay.

That was a consensus.

That's consensus as well.

Madam Chair, if I may, a very minor tweak you may want to consider.

You list um may be held during the months of February, June, and October.

I think it should say February, June, and or October.

In case you don't do all three.

So if I would add commissioners, um, I'm I'm thankful for our county attorney giving his suggestions like that.

Uh, I would ask that you continue to do that, because I think that's going to be critical.

One of the things after, I know you will.

I just want to give them the freedom in case he thinks I'm looking at them funny.

Okay.

Why he keep jumping in or something like that.

You're okay, Terry.

Right, right.

It never stopped him before, but I'm just you uh and and on top of that as well, after all of this consensus, we'll give it back to the county attorney to review to make sure all the language does fit.

Yeah, okay.

So we're just putting R.

Yeah.

October.

Okay.

I do have four.

Okay.

Um where it discusses the locations and the location of these meetings shall be at different locations.

Why is shell in brackets?

Why is what?

Shall why is it in brackets?

Uh I can say that if I like.

To make sure that it is done.

And it's not an option.

That it would be it shall be at different locations each meeting.

So if you put will, or if you put May, it's not as definite.

Well, it's not the word that I'm concerned with the bracket.

So there shall is in brackets, but then below where it says the board shall allow for public comments.

That is not, and that seems more confirmatory to me without the bracket, which is why I was asking with respect to location.

Why is there a bracket?

I don't know why it's in the bracket.

And this was this memo was prepared by John Manson.

He's out, and and so I get again I I go back to the county attorney.

Um, we'll look at those and where some of the brackets, because there are a few of them in here where it doesn't make sense, we'll pull them out.

You know, there so there's no specific reason that I that I'm aware of in terms of the brackets, Terry May.

If I may, madam chair.

If I may, I I was just gonna say my my recollection, Dr.

Bolton, is the way some of the language was crafted was to capture discussion.

The final version might not have all these brackets.

Right.

But I think a real discussion point was the purpose of having these was to move it to people in the evening who may not be able to come to your regular meetings during the day in the cater.

That that's been a part of this dialogue as I've followed your discussion.

And then I would also assume that the brackets would be that if we want to change shell to May or will the only thing that I want that may need to be clarified, but this might only be a meeting whether this indicates each of the three meetings need to be at a different location or just a different location from where our regular Tuesday meetings are, because we've had two evening meetings at Lou Walker.

We have, but they have rotated around.

We have not had two consecutive meetings at New Walker.

So so that kind of speaks to what I'm saying, whether the three meetings themselves need to be in different locations, or is it is it okay if we just cycle them around and then repeat a location, even though it's only three, just that would be the only thing.

Just clarifying that a little bit.

I yield back.

Okay.

Mr.

May, do you want me to wait on that?

Yeah.

We can go ahead.

I will just for Dr.

Bolton.

I'm sorry.

For Dr.

Bolton, if you would look at the language before you, I'm going to suggest something to capture what I understood you to articulate a second ago.

In the third full line, you have the conjunction and after the the months.

So we now have February, June, and or October in the third line.

And the location of these meetings shall be at a different locations is plural, right?

So you would say, and the location of each of these meetings shall be at a different, and that would specify each one must be different than the other.

You couldn't have three meetings at Lou Walker, just as an example, Madam Chair.

I I understood you to articulate that nuance.

I is that language satisfactory to specify it?

And it's minus 10 in that you're talking about consecutively.

Because when we come back after the three meetings, we come back, we still may have the one back at Luauka after him to other locations in the county.

Like we could have them at what we have them in Brookhaven City Hall.

You know, I mean, after you go on to the other location, you can go back to Brookhaven.

It's not the um we just don't want them consecutively.

I I would offer this the way the language is crafted now, including the slight tweak that we just added, each year, three meetings in different locations would be held.

Right.

The next year, I guess you may have those same three locations again.

But each year it would be three different locations.

That's what's drafted.

I don't mean to try to make a decision.

I want to be clear about what I've understood and why this language works.

Yeah.

And commissioners, if if I could.

I think that captured the spirit of that.

It's not fully captured in here that these will be annual.

So I think in your language.

Isn't it each year?

I don't see where it says each year in here.

But I think it's presumed.

Yeah, it's implied.

Yeah.

So absolutely.

I may want to just put each yearly.

Okay.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Yeah.

Okay.

That works.

Okay, let's move on.

All right.

So that's meetings and attendance of section eight night committee of the whole meetings.

Let's move on to section nine of that same uh area, inclement weather.

Again, I'm gonna just read the new language.

Well, I'll read the old language because it's just a brief sentence.

Uh the old language uh states in the in in the event of inclement weather, that would preclude a meeting of the Board of Commissioners.

The decision to cancel the meeting shall be based upon the closure of county operations.

It's pretty simple, but I think it lacks a bit of the nuance that uh you all are have reflected in the new language.

The new language says in the event of inclement weather or an emergency that would preclude an in-person meeting of the board of commissioners, the decision to cancel the meeting or to hold the meeting in a remote format shall be based upon the closure of county operations.

The open meetings act uh applies to commission meetings, but the commission will allow attendance via teleconference zoom or other electronic means, so long as such attendance complies with the requirements of the open meetings act as it is codified today or maybe hereafter amended.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, if we're fine with that.

Okay.

Just a question for your consideration.

I'm sorry, Dr.

Bolton.

I would just say if we could remove Zoom, because that's a specific brand and or vendor, but the other things, teleconference, other electronic means, virtual attendance, something like that, but not a specific vendor or product.

I agree.

That's a good call out.

Yeah.

So it's teleconference or other electronic.

That's good.

Madam Chair, may I pose a question for the committee's consideration?

The open meetings act requires the declaration of an emergency in order to hold a remote meeting.

This indicates that you will comply with the open meetings act, but the closure of county operations is a very different standard.

So I just thought I'd pose this question to you as a group.

You could face a rare circumstance where there are some county operations open but a state of emergency declared.

And I just want to be clear about county operations.

We never close.

We we close certain things, but obviously first responders are constantly open.

How nuanced do you want that decision to be as a group?

That's good.

Yeah, well, I think that uh we've already discussed it, so whatever needs to be tweaked in there, you should be able to do it because we've already discussed it.

Okay.

You really have to do that.

If I could follow if I could follow up with that, you know, whatever reference that you just cited for open meetings in acknowledging that you know the state of closures handled by the CEO's office, maybe something that contemplates or acknowledges that so that whoever is here after us can look back to it and know where to where to go to.

We we've left room for the law changing.

The the end of this provision as written is not that precise because if that law changes, we'll just follow what the new law is without having to change your rules.

Um I was I was really thinking if you guys ever decided to cancel.

It and we had operations open.

Do you want to box yourselves in, or do you want to leave that as a possibility?

Right now you cancel for a variety of reasons.

This is a supplement to being able to just cancel at your discretion.

So it doesn't have to be at my meetings.

These are items that we've already discussed.

That we've already had consensus.

And so anything further than a tweet is going to open it back up.

You know, we've had all of the commissioners here.

We've discussed it, so I said let's tweak it rather than change it the way that you would see fit in the county's office, in the county attorney's office for it to be legal.

Duly noted.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that takes care of the meetings and attendance area section of the blue book.

If we could move on to the parliamentary parliamentary rules, and we will go to number four.

Number four is the full reading of purpose for agenda item.

The current version.

The current version reads: no motion may be heard nor any action taken on an agenda item without a full reading by the chair of the listed subject and purpose for the agenda item.

The new version takes into consideration a little bit more depth in terms of understanding that actual rule.

Um it states no motion may be heard nor any action taken on an individual item without a reading of the listed subject and number for the agenda item.

So it doesn't just say full, it says uh reading of the listed subject and number of the agenda item.

This rule shall not apply to the consent agenda, which can be adopted which can be adopted in whole or in part through a single motion and with a single reference to the details that are included in the printed agenda.

Any okay yeah, just a question.

So recently we we've had our BOC meetings run quite long, and we haven't been able to get to committees, which means when we come back to the BOC for the next hearing, we have a list of items that hadn't been heard on committee, and we've sort of just been reading out the the case caption.

Does that keep us still with that ability to do that if it's like a deferral item that we can still just read out the agenda number and then move forward or is this question?

Yes.

I I think in fact this language helps with that process to specify that it's permissible given that it takes out some of the larger language that's existing now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh no.

That's the question.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Well that item is five.

So we do with that.

Okay, agenda.

Okay.

So now we're uh section three.

We're moving on from parliamentary rules to agenda and preliminary items.

Um if you would see number one, agenda publication, just continue on to subsection A as an apple.

I'm gonna read the new language here, if you would, uh if you have it.

The presiding officer or designee will issue a call for proposed agenda items pursuant to a schedule set by the clerk.

Each item shall be presented at a committee of the whole meeting prior to the commission meeting at which the item is to be introduced and voted on.

Okay.

The committee of the whole shall accept the item for inclusion on the agenda for the next commission meeting upon one commissioner's request.

If accepted for inclusion on the agenda, the committee of the whole may recommend deferral on the agenda item to a committee, in which case the item either is placed on the agenda for the next commission meeting as a preliminary item with a recommendation to go to a committee, or if required by law notice or advertising, is placed on the public hearing or appeals portion of the agenda with a recommendation to go to a committee.

Questions, comments.

I gotta read that again.

That's let's go.

Let's read it again.

All right.

Now I will say this if we could put it, I don't know if we want to put a pen in it, um, because the second memo really would adjust all of this.

Um it's up to your discretion, uh, Madam Chair, with uh the other um agenda items.

How does it differ from the last one?

Well, this um how how does this differ from the last one?

Uh from what's in the blue book?

Okay.

Okay, let's read it once more.

Okay, let me read that.

I'll read the entire sentence by sentence.

I'm reading from the memo.

Okay, but let's do that.

So you're gonna read okay.

You look at the blue book and while I'm reading this and tell me where it differs.

The presiding officer or designee will issue a call for proposed agenda items pursuant to a schedule set by the clerk.

Each item shall be presented at a committee of the whole meeting prior to the commission meeting at which the item is to be introduced and voted on.

We're tracking the same so far.

Exactly the same.

Okay.

Uh the committee of the whole shall accept the item for inclusion on the agenda for the next commission meeting upon one commissioner's request.

If accepted for inclusion on the agenda, the committee of the whole may recommend deferral of the agenda item to a committee.

In which case the item either is placed on the agenda for the next commission meeting as a preliminary item with a recommendation to go to a committee, or if required by law, notice or advertising is placed on the public hearing or appeals portion of the agenda with a recommendation to go to a committee.

No change.

No change.

Maybe that was the consensus.

It looks like it was some grammar.

Yeah, some grammatical things there.

Yeah, that's the only thing I'm changing.

Um saying there's some capitalization here and all that.

So P O and the presiding officer is remember that.

Okay.

So the only thing that was changed is the capitalization in the P and the O of presiding officer.

Okay.

Let's go.

Item three, we're still in agenda and preliminary items.

Um this is superseding uh agenda.

This is number two now.

Um superseding agenda.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I'll read the old and then we'll we'll read the the new as well.

The agenda old in the blue book states the agenda as prepared by the clerk may be reordered upon official action of the of the commission.

The chief executive officer or designee, a constitutional officer or designee, or an individual commissioner may, upon motion of any commissioner, withdraw from the agenda an item that he or she has sponsored so long as a withdrawal occurs before the item is finally acted upon by the commission.

It looks like there is just a change from chief executive office to CEO.

Yeah, to CEO.

Yeah, these are more just capitalizations here.

Can I Madam Chair?

I just want to ask one quick question.

On item three, Roman number three agenda and preliminary item.

If we have an emergency walk-on item.

Yeah, which happens from time to time.

How do how does that every now and then?

Yeah.

And then so it's rare, but you know, I could see you know, there's grant money or whatever, you know.

Uh it's just it's rare that things are walked on for a vote, but it does happen.

So I just want to see how does that comport with what's written here.

And we are you item three A?

Is that thinking that's where it would be addressed?

I don't know.

It may be someplace else.

I just this is kind of silent on that, that's all.

It's it's someplace else.

Okay, thank you.

Just want to make sure that item preclude to the agenda of the code.

Yeah, and you oh, you're not looking at the blue.

Okay.

Yeah.

Let's let's get him one, please.

Okay.

So that moves the let's move on to the next one.

Madam Chair, that concludes the this memo for those areas of consensus.

Okay.

Okay.

And so we are ready to bring these forward.

Okay.

Um Madam Chair, if you will uh turn your microphone on for DCTV.

Okay, we're ready to bring those forward.

And I would assume that this would be on the um committee or the whole on August 11th.

I mean, not for the committee of the whole.

That's a BOC August 11.

Um BOC is the BOC August 11th.

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Yeah.

So we're ready to bring this these on on August 11th.

Let's see if we can get through the other ones.

Madam Chair, would it be better to have it um on the August 18th committee of the whole to then be considered for the 25th?

No, we're in committee now.

And that's what we that's the reason we're going through it.

Yeah.

So is there unless it's an objection?

I think that's what uh we're dealing with this with prequel.

That's the reason we're just dealing with rules.

Yeah.

I was just thinking about timing.

That's all in terms of the the staff, central staff's time.

I'm sorry.

No, I was just thinking about not not about the work of this committee.

I was thinking about just making sure that we go through the process to get it on the board's um uh official board of commissioners agendas.

When do you have to do that for the August 11th?

I mean, when do y'all have to do that?

Yeah, we'll we'll work it out.

And I wanted to give um legal a little time too, but they they may be sufficient.

I was just trying to be on the safer side.

Legal army that would bring forward.

But then it's something that we haven't been through.

So okay.

Well, let's see.

Let's see what we can do.

Okay.

We'll push for the 11th.

Yeah, it'll be good so that we can go and deal with the charter review.

Okay.

And we'll be through with this.

But he works 24-7.

He does.

He's always here.

Uh it's my man.

He's always on the job.

Okay.

So now we got items for discussion.

What is this?

Committee.

Did we want to approve this what we've consented to and then move on to the other items or still keep the conversation going for all of it together?

Okay.

Well, let's let's approve this.

Okay, is there a motion to approve the con the items for consensus?

But but just to make sure, uh is this a part of the memo before we approve everything else?

Because it's number six committees.

No, I don't.

That that is a new piece that I crafted pursuant to direction from the chair and commissioner Patrick.

Um that is their decision on if if they want to hold that outside of the memo or try to get it added.

No, we well, you know something.

This is something that we haven't consented on.

That's correct.

Okay.

And so we're gonna go through and make a recommendation on that.

Right.

And then we'll send it to the to the board.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

So a motion to approve the uh consensus items from the standing procedure rules for the uh August 11th BOC.

Second.

All in favor.

I think I'm chair.

Commissioner.

I'm sorry.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Terry.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

I didn't no one told us you were on Commissioner Taylor.

I know I didn't have a I didn't have a question.

Just in terms of the final version.

I'm sorry, I hear feedback.

You also make a red line version of what the final uh version will be looking at the option?

Yeah, we will after we only went back through the consensus right now.

Now we're getting ready to go through the items that uh that need discussion, need further discussion.

Okay, correct, thank you.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I don't know if anyone said that he was on.

Well, he was trying, he didn't have the link, so I didn't know he was actually on at this point.

So is he on the official link?

He's on the official and that's what I asked.

Do we have that in here?

About yes.

Okay, we do.

Okay.

Okay.

So uh madam chair, just uh for clarity.

Um, can central staff send out this consent document to all commissioners, and that way they're yeah, I mean that's um of our discussions that we've had here, and and we're sort of working on the assumption we've we've all kind of agreed to this.

Okay.

That's fine.

So you want to send out the just the consent.

The consent.

Yeah.

Okay.

Or the consensus, pardon me.

Consensus.

The consensus.

Okay.

Thank you.

Now, so let's go with uh Steph is directed to develop a list of standing procedures that the chairs will say okay, public comment.

Okay, so let's go with the public comments first.

Okay.

Um committee, uh, madam chair.

Um, this memo that you're looking at um dated July the 9th.

Um is dealing with standing procedural rules that uh have not been discussed or it's been discussed limited um to this point, and we just not had a consensus.

It's not it had a consensus, absolutely.

And so we want to just continue down.

There's four items on here, and we'll go to the fourth one as the chair just mentioned, uh, public comment rules and language.

Uh if you um were to go to the public comment rules on the second page of the memo that was just passed out to you.

And I'll just read um the um read read what this paragraph says.

There was a suggested language change that removed certain sections of the public comment rules.

Uh multiple commissioners requested that the original language be preserved.

This item was originally a part of the law list um on that um document of that items for review by the law department.

Um there has been no change to the original language.

So the item that um is um in discussion right now is under public comment, is item number six?

It is that long text that um that the clerk reads out at the um board of commissioners meeting.

I think there was some desire to make changes.

Well, there was some conversation to bring uh changes, but um there has been no changes to the original language.

That's in here.

So unless there is a desire to make some changes to uh the public comment language.

Well, which is not here.

So the public comment is to allow the public to come down.

Can you talk through what some of the suggestions were for commissioners?

It looks like Commissioner Vaughn Spears had quite a bit.

She did.

And I think that was because again, this goes back some time.

Um Commissioner Merita Long Spears stated the following additional rules shall apply to the public comment.

What did I say?

Did I say Marita Long Spears?

Lord, have mercy.

You didn't.

You didn't.

She didn't even think of it.

All right.

Michelle Long Spears.

Um the following additional rules shall apply to the public comment portion of each person, each in-person commission meeting, and should be read.

And so this is the language that she provided here as well.

Um the purpose of public comment is to allow the public to voice county-related request concerns or opinions during the commission meeting.

Um speakers will have uh only have the opportunity for one public comment per meeting.

Each speaker must complete a speaker card and present it to the clerk before the beginning of the public uh comment portion of the meeting.

I'm just looking to see what tracks from the old to what she had brought forward.

Cards turned into the clerk from the time the general meeting is convened, generally 9 a.m.

and by the beginning of the public comment portion, generally following presentations on the agenda.

The clerk will accept cards on a first come, first served basis prior to the clerk's call for public comment, speakers who are residents of the CAB County shall be allowed to speak before residents of other counties are allowed to speak.

I do want to highlight that because I know that came up recently.

I think there was a particular commissioner that highlighted that.

She sure did.

Oh, was that you?

What was that?

Um where in the last was it public comment or public hearing, there were folks from other states and other counties speaking before the CAP residents.

So we opted to give more time for our residents to have an opportunity to share.

Absolutely.

So I just wanted to highlight that that's in the rules, and I think we just need to whoever's chairing exactly execute that.

Umce the public comment portion of the meeting begins, speaker cards will no longer be accepted.

Speakers will be f allowed to speak for three minutes each, and public comment shall not exceed 30 minutes in length.

I do want to highlight one portion of this, and I think we need to come to a uh decision on this.

There are times when people stand to give their public comments.

The overwhelming majority of people take their full three minutes, but some do not.

And so in that, and and I don't know where the boards or this committee stands on that, but they just go with 10 speakers at the three-minute allotment.

Well, if if there's a speaker, a couple of speakers that don't take their full three-minute allotment, technically there's not been 30 minutes of of public comment.

Well, it should be, excuse me, it should be uh someone should be keeping 30 minutes because what I understood.

Yeah.

Because I keep 30 minutes.

I turn on my timer and I keep 30 minutes.

Yeah.

So whether or not a speaker, because some speakers doesn't use utilize all their time, and that gives other speakers an opportunity to speak.

But in the 30 minutes, um we're um utilizing 30 minutes, the full 30 minute minutes for public speaking, is not based upon the time that each individual speak.

It's the 30 minutes.

It's the 30 minutes.

And it it's just not as clean as I want it to be, and I don't know if that's language that should be reflected in here or not.

Um because there's times when I've calculated and it didn't quite add up.

There's been no, but anyway, I just want to put a note that the question is.

Yeah uh change.

I mean, if y'all are not doing it and you say you are, that should be an in-house.

What's the clerk's office?

Well, we'll we'll get on there.

We'll get it.

We'll make sure.

I mean, you y'all you've already told the public they get three minutes up to three minutes to speak with the total of time allotted, 30 minutes.

Now I think central staff should be monitoring each three minutes and the entirety of the 30 minutes.

Yeah.

Because if someone have not utilized the time.

Yeah, I mean, because we've had 11 and 12 speakers before.

Because I write down each speaker, trying to see who's gonna talk about me.

But I write down each speaker as they come up, so I know that there has been over 10 speakers speaking.

So that's something that y'all can deal with.

Gotcha.

That's what I need to do.

Okay.

All right.

That's really all I want to hear.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Okay.

Um Commissioners, have you been tracking um the commit her change the the um her language in here?

It doesn't appear to be that there's much.

It's just the last line in the blue book, it says abusive, profane or derogatory language, holding up signs, clapping, yelling, standing, or laying in the aisles to show support for opposition to.

But her language changes any behavior that disrupts the legislative procedural process is prohibited, but a show of hands or quietly standing in place, and then the rest is the same.

Okay.

Um what I would like to see, and tell me if that can be done, that this cannot be used as a campaign platform.

You can't come before the county and um campaign.

And so I think that that needs to be very clear in uh these rules.

Commissioner, we'll gladly look at that.

Okay, yeah, I think we have multiple issues tied up in your statement about not campaigning, for example, just as a a classic candidate Terry Phillips wears a shirt that says Terry Phillips for dog kids.

And then Terry Phillips comes to the stand and talk about why Terry Phillips should be elected.

Well, I I'm arguing that those are two different things.

Right, I understand.

Without the statements, I simply speak to an item.

Right.

But I'm wearing the shirt, and now that's broadcast.

Right.

Right?

Those those dynamics we have to look at because it gets nuanced.

Okay.

You know, the the hat elect Terry Phillips dog catcher.

Yeah.

All of that needs to be considered in your statement.

I think you're making a really important thing.

Because then you um limit the time for residents to have their concern and their statements when you have people coming up to the poll polium campaigning for free.

And if they're gonna campaign, we need to charge them.

The rate that you the lowest rate as they would do at Channel 2, a five or 11.

You know.

We'll look at it, Commissioner.

Madam Chair, I don't know.

Okay, um.

Okay.

Okay, let me uh let my uh commissioner speak and then we'll come to you.

Um I have two concerns, and I'm not sure if they could be addressed here or if this is just in-house, but I do want to make sure this is top of mind.

So also with respect to campaigning, but folks passing out materials inside of the building at our meetings, I can understand outside of, but the passing out of materials within our meetings, and then on our premises.

Or on the premises, and then residents have brought to my attention, and I did send an email to the clerk's office.

I'm not sure how we're addressing this, but we get folks who come early, fill out multiple cards for all of their people, hand them in, and then their folks can come in, you know, kind of drag their feet and come in when they get ready, and then there's not enough time for the people who were the other folks who were on time, which is why we get huge clusters of one subject, even though overall our community members have a plethora of concerns they want to discuss.

But if we could monitor how many cards an individual is able to turn in, that they're not turning in cards for people who are not present.

And when do they get those cards?

When do they get those cards?

The cards have to be um set up so they can pick them up when they come into the room.

Okay, so maybe that's something to each member of the clerk's office.

Yeah.

So then that's maybe something that central staff may want to look at as well.

Or the clerk's office, I don't know.

It's the clerk's office, but that may be something that the clerk's office may want to look.

Because it I if if if someone is actually handing me a card, or I could pick up 10 cards, it makes a difference, and that's a good point.

Madam Chair, and to to um Dr.

Bolton's um position here, the the current language says each speaker must complete a speaker card.

So that speaks directly to this person, one one card, one person.

Um but I don't know if you want to add any additional language, or do you feel fine?

Well, I mean, if the cards are there, how do we know who's filling out for each person?

Yeah.

If somebody take 10 cards and start, how do we know?

I guess my point is, um, Commissioner, that they the person who's speaking must hand it to county staff, whether it's the clerk.

Yeah, they hand it.

They already is already prepared.

Yeah.

And they hand it.

I mean, the person though, the actual speaker is my point.

Yes.

That's what that's what she's saying.

That they have numerous cards that they fill they know who's coming.

They fill out those cards for people that are not there, but that's coming.

Give them the card when they get there, and they're able to hand it.

Yeah.

So we need to correct that.

And so we don't need the cards.

We don't need the car standing there.

We need somebody handing out the cards.

And I think that on those cards, you're affirming that you are the person that is filling it out.

So we need new language under penalty of perjury.

I mean, that's what you do.

Under penalty of perjury, you're the person that is filling out this card.

Okay.

Let's be careful, Commissioner.

Let us look at that with you.

There are some nuances we'll have to address.

For example, a person who's unable to fill out the card but wants an operation of the city.

Well, you know that.

But they're present.

You know, but they're present and somebody gone.

I just wanted us, yeah.

I wanted to say that for all of us in the room who are working on this for the commission.

It's nuanced, so we'll be careful to give you the language.

I get the spirit of the comment.

Yeah.

But we need to be careful not to have a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Yeah.

Well, really, you may need the sledgehammer to kill the fly.

We got a big fly.

You know, and it's it's reoccurring.

And so it's not fair.

And so I think the only thing just like with voting, you know, you're affirming, and if that person, if that person is being assisted, is something that protects them based upon that.

But if I'm taking 10 cards and I'm filling them out for people, and then they'll say I'm no, and they're not there, it's just not fair.

I understand the abuse that's being addressed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then Commissioner Terry.

Okay, I know.

I was trying to see if she was finished.

I yield back.

Okay.

Now do you have anything?

Uh we get our commission, I mean our committee members first.

Oh, and then so when it comes to the things that can be said during the meetings, I know um when I was presiding officer, we had a situation where someone came up and said um some uncivil language.

Um, and then that caused a lot of ruckus, and then people were asked to leave the the meeting room.

I just want to make sure that whatever we're talking about when we're getting into language that can be spoken, uh, even if it's not flattering to individuals like I've received recently.

Um they do have a right to say what they want.

That's their purpose of the residents being able to come and speak to us.

Correct?

W with limits.

With those.

Okay.

Yeah, because no foul, I mean, you can't curse somebody out of there.

And then the presiding officer should have the um the right to determine what is appropriate as far as what we've put in the language, what is appropriate or not.

And the mics can be turned off.

And that's what I'd like to see, because if someone was cursing and using um language that should not be used, the presiding officers say cut off the mic, like I've done when I was presiding officer.

Like I've done when I was presenting office.

You know, I mean, because um we don't want that.

I'll just note, Commissioner, that's the question.

And and and I believe I'm a lawyer.

You a lawyer.

I believe in free speech.

But you can't go to a movie theater and holler fine, and there's no fire.

So there's limit on free speech.

Exactly.

Um, I I just wanted to note that as a group, you had significant discussion about whether or not that language would be included.

The list abusive, profane or derogatory language will not be permitted.

Um, and what you're speaking to, I believe, madam chair, is the discretion exercised by the presiding officer in interpreting whether or not the language being used at the moment constitutes abusive.

Derogatory.

Profane is fairly objective.

The the other two take on a different connotation.

Okay.

But I said foul.

I understand.

I I I think those kinds of terms, what the language that's in front of us, just looking at the notes that uh Mr.

Mayor's reading from I think Dr.

Bolton and yourself, Madam Chair, asked that the express list of prohibited language and behavior be added back.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there a consequence?

Because we've had, and I'll give in recent example.

A candidate came in and spoke and used profanity and was able to sit down in the remainder of the meeting and then I think get back up again and speak during public hearing.

So we we have this list of things that we don't want them to do in the event that they're done, and we see that they have been done on occasion.

Is it to the presiding officer's discretion what happens?

I I think that was frankly a part of what Commissioner Messiah asked about what consequences and repercussions would be involved and if they should be listed.

We'll gladly look at how to manage consequences.

For example, obviously disruptive behavior at the podium and a refusal to comply could result in removal from the auditorium and the person being ejected in order to leave the premises or something that strong.

But we'll gladly look at that for you, Dr.

Bolton.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Terry, I didn't have my mic on.

There's a little bit of speed back.

It's very difficult to participate in these meetings when I can hear myself speaking seconds later.

Is there anything that can be done about that?

They're working on it.

They're working on it.

They're working on it, Commissioner Terry.

Okay.

All right, I'll just uh Okay, that's better.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to ask the county attorney if he could um just you know be very diligent in their research about where our restrictions on public comment begin and end in the First Amendment comes in.

And is distasteful as some things are said at public comment.

I just don't think that we should be embarking upon what I think is a could be a slippery slope to potentially infringe on people's right to say what they gotta say.

Um I I definitely support the restriction on abuse of profane language.

I think that's very clear.

Um I I don't believe that we should limit it anything beyond that.

Uh and I just you know would take issue generally with the with the notion that the Board of Commissioners should be considered a hammer and our public commenters, our residents should be considered flies.

I think we should just stay away from that metaphor.

Let's just treat the public comment as an opportunity for people to say what they gotta say and not overly restrict it.

Thank you.

May I, Madam Chair?

Yes.

Received, Commissioner Terry, and I I think that's an important point, but I want all of you to know that the restrictions imposed in public comments and a public forum are very, very nuanced.

And there are a host of rules that govern what we can and cannot do.

I hope this is a fair and easy example.

There is Supreme Court case law on the county's ability to limit what county employees can say in those settings, and it's nuanced to the fact that it is an employee identifying themselves as an employee and then speaking to the public.

So it's really nuanced, but we will gladly look at it.

I received and heard loud and clear what you said, Commissioner Terry, and we will keep that in mind.

Thank you.

Okay, so we'll get something on that.

Okay.

And that may be something that we have to bring back later.

Okay.

So moving moving on.

But you got all of the points that we've talked about campaigning, we talked about the cards.

And did you third?

Huh?

The third one I noted was Dr.

Bolton expressly asked that we looked at consequences and repercussions.

What I would really characterize as the enforcement component as well.

And the presiding officer having the discretion.

We can turn the mics off.

Did you have one?

Um, my questions, my concerns were taken care of in the commissioner Terry, basically.

Okay.

Reiterated the okay.

So the next item is meeting attendance.

Number nine.

Do uh make a note that these pages needs to number these pages.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Madam Madam Chair, you said um meeting attendance.

You you got it uh we're looking at the memo still the uh items for discussion.

Yeah.

That memo has four items.

Um we we started with the fourth one, public comment rules and language.

The next one would be telephone conference rules if we're if we're moving our way upwards.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

I'm looking at the wrong one.

I got so many papers up there.

Okay.

These are the review options.

Okay, these are the telephone conference papers.

Okay.

And so, hold on a second.

We just did public comment.

We just did legislature.

Okay.

No, sorry.

No, we just did public comment.

Okay.

So let's talk about telephone conference rules.

Okay.

Right here.

Okay.

Number three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

You doing a pretty good job over there.

We got a great team, Commissioner.

Yeah.

Okay.

Teleconference.

Okay, that would be on the second page of the memo, uh, item number three, telephone conference rules.

Um, currently, um, that is that is not a section in the blue book.

We would need to add that to, I would believe, in the meeting and attendance um uh section of the blue book and just add a new section that um that maybe is labeled telephone conference rules.

Um the chair requested that staff develop language to be considered by the committee regarding phone conference calls for board meetings.

Um and this is our recommendations uh for this language.

It would read the section would read if a commissioner or guest speaker requires a telephone conference call to participate in a meeting, that telephone conference shall be facilitated by the innovation and technology department.

A participant in the meeting may not call a guest on their personal phone to speak at the meeting.

Right.

And um I think that I think that if it is I think the guest speaker should be taken out because if it's a commissioner, it it would be what are their guest speakers, and it should be the guest speaker that would initiate a call.

It should be the commissioner on behalf of the guests.

Guest speaker.

So I think the guest speaker would not have the privilege of setting up a conference call that would be on the commissioner.

They would talk to the commissioner that invited them in to say that I need to have someone on the conference call.

Okay.

If if I may, madam chair.

I would recommend that the language commissioner or guest speaker be deleted.

And I'm gonna read the sentence without that language in it.

If a speaker requires a telephone conference call to participate in a meeting, that telephone conference shall be facilitated by the innovation and technology department.

That is the complete sentence.

Who sets it up, who's requesting it, whether they're a commissioner, whether they are someone presenting, or whatever the circumstance is, is a distant second to the fact that the only way you're gonna participate in a commission meeting or committee meeting, etc.

is if you go through the formal IT facilitated telephone conference.

You will not be participating otherwise, is my reason for saying take that language out, whoever you are.

Now my question is that means anyone can.

Yeah, so I mean, Joe Blow that wanna give a public comment that's not here, could use a conference call by going through that.

May I respond, Madam Chair?

Only if the commission facilitated public comment by conference call.

The commission would still control who gets to speak in their meeting.

This is simply saying if you are speaking and participating by telephone conference, you're doing it through IT.

Whoever you are, whatever your circumstances.

Oh, okay, I got you.

I understand it.

You are okay.

I got hands up.

Okay.

Well, Robert have a gone.

Okay, go ahead.

Um my question to the county attorney would be should we add a qualifier?

So at the discretion of the presiding officer, and then the rest of the statement.

You you could say that.

I I really think that we are adding the authority to speak at your meeting to the fact that what we're really addressing here is how you speak when you're not in the in the room.

That's and and maybe I'm missing it.

All this should address to avoid conflating issues is the fact that if you are participating via teleconference, that will happen through IT.

Period.

Right.

Whoever you refers to as a pronoun, that's generic.

That's why I'm suggesting we take it out.

The authority to do so is covered in many other places.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

I get you.

Don't have the belt and suspenders, just the belt.

Well, you can put the belt and suspenders, but let me offer one tidbit, if I may, Mr.

Williams.

The the thing, if you say presiding officer, she'd have the authority.

When the presiding officer and commissioner Phillips from District 8 disagree, Commissioner Phillips has an issue now.

Because the presiding officer is saying Commissioner Phillips can't have his consultant who did research at UGA call in from UGA.

Yeah.

So okay.

Uh okay, let me get okay.

Just real quick, yeah.

As long as the staff we can point to somewhere where that authority is granted.

I like the idea of having, you know, at the discretion of the chair or presiding officer.

What I can't have is people going to IT directly.

And so I that's so I'm just looking for some place that I can I got you.

You know what I mean?

Right.

I got you.

And that's a good point.

That's a good point.

That's a good point.

Okay.

And my concern is with the second sentence.

Uh or yeah, with this last sentence specifically identifying a personal phone.

I I think we should open that language up because it could be a county divide phone, it could be a tablet, it could be anything at all.

Because that was some foolishness that we saw in that meeting.

Okay.

Um, but but I do believe that we should either take that sentence out or restate it because it's too restrictive.

Well, I I agree with what uh attorney Phillips said that if it goes through, it's going through IT.

And don't even have to identify what type of phone it is, because if it's not through IT, you can't do it.

So now the question that you had, I mean the segment that you made, uh COO, I think it's good, because you don't want everybody bum bottom at T like the Bombard legal.

May I, Madam Chair?

Uh uh just out out of respect for what I've heard.

Please tell me if this language works for you.

I'm gonna again read it with a slight tweak.

Okay.

If an authorized speaker requires a telephone conference call to participate in a meeting, that telephone conference shall be facilitated by the innovation and technology department, period.

By putting the word authorized in, it means that's it.

Now, if you want to specify who authorizes, you can do that, but I want to make a point.

Whenever anybody calls into this meeting, the only people who have the right to call because you don't take public comment in this committee meeting.

If a commissioner calls, they don't get to speak till you say so.

That's just how you run your committee.

You can put in authorized by the chair, or a presiding officer authorized, would do precisely what I heard COO Williams, and I'm not trying to decide that I'm trying to help you with language to solve this.

So I would I would invite you to consider that language now based on my the nonverbal feedback I think I'm getting.

If a presiding officer or other authorized speaker, because if it's not the presiding officer, it's gonna be the deputy presiding officer, the committee chair, you can list all of the above.

Right.

Is that uh presiding officer or committee chair works for me?

And I think that gives clan uh staff clear understanding that it doesn't happen without that authorization.

Okay.

Let me let me read it one more time so we can all take it.

Okay, well, let me see if um commissioner Terry have comments.

No, Madam Chair, thank you.

Okay, okay, go on now.

May I read it?

Yeah.

All right.

If a presiding officer, deputy presiding officer, or committee chair authorized speaker requires a telephone conference call.

That's what you have now.

Can you read it all?

Yes.

Yeah.

I'm gonna change it a little bit because I think it sounds better this way.

If a speaker authorized by the presiding officer, deputy presiding officer, or committee chair requires a telephone conference call to participate in a meeting, that telephone conference call shall be facilitated by the innovation technology department, period.

Period.

So removal of that last sentence.

Yeah, correct.

Okay.

No telephone would be permitted in that circumstance other than one IT was using.

Right.

Unless I'm reading this wrong.

Right.

You're right.

Okay.

So are we good with that?

You're good.

So do we want to move that one forward from the committee?

Yes.

Okay.

In the first batch that we did, I'd say 100%.

Let's move forward as we've already voted on that.

Um I'd be comfortable bringing it to the BOC for conversation.

I don't know if all members would be comfortable voting on that.

Well, I mean, they're gonna have to vote on that.

Five members gonna have to vote on the consent.

Five members, whatever we bring, five members gonna have to vote on that.

Okay.

So I mean, if we want to bring it out for them to vote on it, we can do that.

So let's it requires.

Do that.

I mean, to vote on, let's do that.

And then see, he can send what we're sending out to the uh commission members prior to the next um board of commission meeting.

Okay, you got me?

I got you.

Yeah, okay.

See, we won't be sending out the one on public comment, because he has a lot to do with do on that.

But if we we we've agreed that this one should go.

So this one is going.

That is the telephone conference to BOC August 12th.

And August 11th.

Are we consenting to where it it may go as well?

Because Mr.

May suggested where it could go in the blue book.

Okay.

Well, uh central staff can figure that out.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh legislative sponsor and um.

Am I right now?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Legislative sponsor and review process.

You want to read that?

Yeah, if I could, thank you.

Um Madam Chair, we're going to do one and two together essentially.

So let's we'll start with the one.

Yeah, one is the legislative sponsor and review process, and then two is time limits for an agenda item to be removed from the agenda.

I got it.

Um two separate, but they do have some connection in terms of trying to uh land kind of at a place where um our central staff would hear me say this a lot.

You all heard me say this uh when I was talking, interviewing for this position.

You know, we really want to help increase the level of professionalism, efficiency and capacity capacity.

This is really on that efficiency standpoint.

So let's say but let me let me say this.

The time limits are different, my opinion to the sponsor, the legislative sponsor and review process.

I think that that is an independent section.

Yes.

That should probably be heard before the time limits.

And then we can deal with the time limits because the time limit is set once this process have taken place.

So if we could deal with the legislators sponsor, sponsor and review process first, because that's gonna be uh sort of complicated.

It is, it is.

Thank you.

And absolutely correct.

It's you know, this should um start off first the way that it's ordered.

So let's talk about the legislative sponsor and review um process.

Uh, you all began having a conversation back in February about uh proposed policy review methodology for um how agenda items um um BOC sponsored uh agenda items, how they get reviewed and ultimately land on the agenda as well.

Um this is a proposal that um that we as central staff have really discussed um in hearing from you all and and um and and what we believe is really that it will help us really move uh the needle in terms of efficiency.

So let's begin.

Um commissioners will begin if you look at the proposed legislative resolution review process.

Commissioner um will develop a legislative proposal, uh, or it could it could be just an idea or a fully formed resolution, but commissioner develops his legislative proposal, the commissioner then um discusses the legislation with their fellow commissioners to acquire two additional sponsors for the legislation.

So that would mean you would have your original original commissioner, and then you would have two additional commissioners.

Absolutely.

Okay, in addition to yourself.

Absolutely.

So it would be three commissioners that would bring it forward.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yes.

Good.

Third point on here, the legislation after you get the two additional sponsors would then be sent to central staff to us to undergo um a review methodology uh which includes um operational review from the administration uh as well as legal review from the law department.

Um and then we would uh collectively um have reviewed the legislation for it now to be number four um submitted to the board for consideration via via the legislatar um system by the district staff.

So whoever is the sponsor of the of the legislation after the review would then bring it forward to be submitted officially through the legislative through the legislature process.

Okay, okay.

So now just a quick recap.

You got an idea.

You have two additional sponsors.

You have a review by central staff, by the administration, and by the law department, and now it's been submitted into the the um the legislator process.

Now we go to point number five.

Once it's been submitted officially, the presiding officer will then determine which committee the proposed legislation will be discussed in and assigned to that committee to be presented at a committee of the whole.

Great.

Right.

So now you have the item that has been submitted.

The presiding officer says, all right, this is the committee of jurisdiction.

We will send it to that committee for discussion within the committee process first.

This is before it gets to the official um board of commissioners agenda.

All right, now let's go to uh item number number six.

So let's see if we can agree.

Okay.

On that part.

Okay.

And then turn your microphone on if you could.

Yeah, let's see if we can agree upon the proposed legislative resolution review process.

And then we'll deal separately with the time frame.

Okay.

Okay.

Is it any questions on that?

Okay.

I was just going to say I'm generally comfortable with what was presented up to point number five.

Okay.

Okay.

And I was going to communicate that when I first started, one of the questions that I think I asked everybody, but I know I definitely asked Commissioner Patrick is how do you get an agenda item on the at the Cal or the BOC?

And there was no straightforward answer.

So this is extremely helpful for me.

I think all new commissioners would appreciate this.

But I do want to just discuss number three and four a little bit more.

Okay.

This is a resolution.

This is not just an agenda item.

You don't have to go through all this.

Well, when I started out, I I didn't know how to do any of it.

So it was just a open-ended question.

So for the resolutions, and I'll start with four because I think we can get through that answer more quickly.

Here it indicates that only staff, and I assume this meant central staff would put it in legislature.

Or does that also include district staff?

Actually, the district staff would actually be the one officially put it in in legislatar because it's a sponsor, it's sponsored by whoever the district commissioner is.

Okay.

So after the staff review is everybody, administration and central staff review.

Yes.

Okay.

And then it's right for the district staff to go ahead and officially put it in legislature.

Okay.

All right.

So that's clear.

And then on number three, I could see someone being concerned that a particular department, whether it's law, central staff, or administration, they may have concerns about one of those entities holding up their resolution so that it could move forward.

And we haven't gotten to time limit, so I don't know if this is in included in the time where we are suggesting a time period that it can be held with law or central staff or whomever before it moves on to the next.

And not that I'm suggesting it.

Could we say in normal course?

Could we say in normal course?

Or within a certain amount of time.

Okay, go on.

Legal.

I cannot speak for the administration and the departments who may have to review things for law.

I I would ask that you just consider a specified period of time.

I think 30 days is obviously a window where we have to get our work done and back to you.

If you decided something shorter with like an opportunity to look at that, but a specified period of time would work for us.

Okay.

Yes, and if I could, Madam Chair, and 30 days, you know, sounds like it is uh feasible.

Uh I would love the opportunity to just kind of um talk amongst some members of our team.

Um because it's gonna vary, you know.

Um some items, 30 days is plenty of time, some will require a level of research that maybe may go beyond that.

But if nothing else, we built in a service level agreement that said within 30 days you will have some sort of feedback, you know, to that we can so is that like 30, 30, 30.

Because that's 60 days.

I mean, that's 90 days.

Yeah, I would see it as concurrent.

I'm gonna recruit okay.

I I would envision a team consisting of myself and/or my design.

Okay, territory.

And Lear it's that's okay.

Okay.

I think that's reasonable.

May I, Madam Chair?

I I think the point Mr.

Williams just made is critical, and we may need to put a caveat in here because we recognize that and you get that initial feedback, it would be appropriate to complete the work in the amount of time necessary for some items.

And I I say this with all due respect to the professionals that we work with in the administration.

When we the lawyers change something, it may change their perspective.

So there's going to be some collaboration and back and forth throughout that 30-day window.

Okay.

Madam Chair.

Well, and and I just want to close out my comment.

And one of the reasons that I did not explicitly say that I supported a time frame is number one, you mentioned it, um COO about things needing different periods of time.

But also I find a lot of value comes out of the discussions when the items come before the board and when we talk collectively, and then you take it back and you're able to add to it.

So it'll be in advance of that.

I I would say it would just be a preliminary product or review or address, but more from what I've experienced, way more value comes after we've had an opportunity to discuss it as a whole unit.

I yield back.

Well, if we're getting too okay, I got you.

If if we're getting okay.

I I the way I understood this discussion, please help me if I'm misunderstanding.

What COO Williams said was exactly right, and it would fit what you're describing, Dr.

Bolton.

This would be preliminary to make sure there's no obvious glaring issue.

And then as the commission completed its work and had its dialogue, we would continue to monitor and give input offline to help you get to a finished product.

This is just to avoid something that's glaringly and obviously an issue getting in the public domain before we've got any chance to give any input.

That's how I've received this.

Okay.

Okay.

I I concur.

That that was going to be my point.

I think this process helps to perfect the item, but there's so much value when you all get an opportunity to discuss all collectively, you know, all seven commissioners as well.

And I think this doesn't uh prohibit that.

This actually just helps.

Okay.

Okay.

Do you have anything?

Uh nothing right now.

Okay.

Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, just a couple things I'll flag for this proposal.

Um, so one, I'm trying to understand where the um CEOs uh sort of allowances are to introduce resolutions that they would like on the agenda.

Does it only take an action of them asking the presiding officer?

Do they have to also get three commissioners to sponsor um for in essence the same thing a commissioner would have to do?

So that's one.

Um number two, I think we're we're gonna get ourselves caught up in um kind of a catch-22 here because uh since I've been commissioner, the law department has advised us that any two commissioners on the same committee are not allowed to meet with each other.

And so basically what we're setting up here is requiring three commissioners to have to meet with each other to sponsor legislation, which inevitably might conflict with committee uh membership.

And so either we need to clarify the ability for commissioners to meet with each other below the four quorum uh threshold uh to discuss these policy matters, or we should consider uh a different sort of version, I think, of trying to get to this um I think what's the goal of this is uh have a consensus-driven process.

Um and so to that end, I might suggest that as opposed to requiring a three commissioner um sponsored agenda item uh before it could even begin to be reviewed, um, instead consider maybe a committee level discussion requirement.

Um, for instance, if the committee chairs in each committee could have a biannual or quarterly opportunity for any commissioner to bring policy ideas to the committee of jurisdiction uh seeking support or sponsorship, that might be a way um for individual commissioners to bring policy ideas to the forefront, um, you know, to the committee of jurisdiction, um and and use that as the vetting process um because naturally the committee processes and the committee jurisdictions are very important with a lot of the legislation that we deal with.

And so uh I'd love for uh county attorney Phillips just to, if you can't address any concerns with the the committee members meeting outside of a committee, and then would love to um further discuss the idea of um my second proposal.

Thank you.

Yeah, and um and and and of course I'm gonna turn it over to Attorney Phillips, but I want to ask him a question.

Could I mean I would think that if I'm um if if I'm going to sponsor legislation and I need two additional um sponsors, could I speak with a commissioner individually to explain uh specifically about my legislation to explain what I'm trying to do and solicit their support on that particular piece of legislation rather than having three people sitting around talking about legislation, and I would assume it would be specific to that legislation, not business of the county, other than the legislation that they would be sponsoring.

May I madam chair?

I I think the way this scheme is crafted by the central staff inherent in step three and four would be the sponsoring commissioner who initially drafted the resolution, sharing that resolution, not necessarily meeting with colleagues, but sharing it in writing, hard copy, email, and then once they share it, they're soliciting support.

And they may strategically share it.

That's a business decision each of you would make when you sponsor an item.

I'm going to share it with these two and ask them to support it as opposed to just giving it to everyone and get this initial support in that fashion.

It could be done in writing.

A second mechanism that is available without violating the open meetings act is sending that individual sponsor, commissioner's staff to get questions and meet with colleagues.

So it's not two commissioners violating open meetings.

For example, the three at the table now, Commissioner Patrick, you, Madam Chair, Davis Johnson, and Dr.

Bolton, two of you cannot meet without creating a quorum of this committee.

But what you can do is email each other.

You can send a staff member to meet with one of the others and get questions, deliver answers, explain answers in positions, just to facilitate some of that communication.

And I would defer to uh chief of staff may, but as I've understood this, this is preliminary just to facilitate some communication and help the process on the front end.

And those are the ways that you would do it without creating an issue of a committee quorum.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Um with my mic off I asked uh attorney uh Phillips if he could uh submit a memo to us to that effect to go along with this piece of legislation.

Okay, understood.

Now I appreciate that.

Um just a quick follow-up to um uh county attorney Phillips um point, I do think it um does make sense.

Um I did like that uh suggestion about staff meeting on things.

Um I do and I my memory of the ops meeting that I think the memo is referring to um I I remember it us discussing, and this was in the rules, I thought section was related to two commissioners sponsoring and co-sponsoring, and and and I supported that because you know, in a fair reading of Roberts rules, any two commissioners can bring a motion in a second and create discussion.

And so I think if we're gonna follow the spirit of Roberts Robert's rules of order, that in essence allows two commissioners with a motion a second to initiate any discussion that that should apply also to the legislation.

And so I I would request that we um instead of making this a three commissioner uh uh threshold, simply make it a two commissioner threshold.

Well, my response to that is that we've been holding meetings to three and four o'clock in the evenings every day.

And we need to be, I mean, every meeting.

I think that we need to be more efficient.

Uh everybody that I know requires more than one person.

It was my initial um request that there be a sponsor and two, I mean that there be the initiating uh uh sponsor, I mean the initiating commissioner plus two sponsors to um to uh sign off on resolutions and to go through this process.

The same as we uh reduced our speaking time from 10 minutes from 10 to 10 now from five to three is to be more efficient in what we're doing, to have a better consensus of what we're doing.

And so I like the initiating sponsor plus two.

And once we get that, the initiation, the initiating sponsor would only need one vote, one additional vote to get that legislation through.

And so it's um really we're really looking at the efficiency on that.

And then it would give the law and central staff, everybody have their own uh responsibility in this process.

And so I think it would move more smoothly and quickly, and um trying to get back to the meetings where we can at least have two-minute comments, like you all used to have, Lee.

Y'all used to have comments, and you talked about every meeting.

I remember when Hank was at every meeting, they would have comments to let the public know what they've done, you know, what they're going to do.

We just can't, we just haven't done that.

And we haven't been able to even get through lunch.

And so these are processes that will help us be more efficient to do the people's business and to move forward, move the county forward.

So I would uh want to stay with the uh initiating commissioner and two sponsors.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Um yeah, I would would love to continue discussing this.

Um I reminded of the the my favorite um my favorite uh quote from the 1990s hit Mo Money Mo Problems.

Um you got more money, you got more problems and you got more things to do.

And I think that if you look at our agenda, the reason why our agendas are so long is because we basically have a budget that is twice what it was 20 years ago.

So I I would just argue that the the goal of these of this process shouldn't be to make our meetings quicker.

I don't think that really serves democracy or the ability for commissioners to bring up important issues.

Um what I'm observing is that commissioners are just more full-time and more active than they were 10, 15, 20 years ago.

And I think that's a good thing.

And I would just suggest that um we've abided by a rule that I think most governing bodies across the state follow, including the state legislature, including Congress, any member of Congress, State House, State Senate, and Georgia, or any city council, county commissioners, for the most part, one commissioner, one elected official can introduce an agenda item.

And so I just don't think I think we're we're we're we're doing a slippery slope here where we're sort of saying let's make the process more transparent and methodical, but we're also putting up a lot of barriers.

So I would just encourage us to not go too far.

I think having two commissioners makes practical and logical sense.

It's literally how you make a motion in a second in Roberts Rules of Order.

And I think the the natural result of having this three commission bar is that two commissioners will get together and we'll just start adding items to the agenda on our own and making comments about it of why we can't get a third sponsor.

I think you're just gonna create more chaos and more consternation amongst the body, let everyone have a chance to at least work with one other commissioner to bring ideas forward.

When you create this super minority requirement, it it just stifles the ability for us to address issues.

And I I would ask we that we really really consider that um before we move forward.

Okay, and then I would like to clarify the fact that uh I did not say quicker, I said more efficient.

And I think it's um a difference between quicker and efficient.

And that's what we're trying to do is to get um more efficient.

And thank you.

Now I don't know about Lee, but I'm gonna talk about my husband 20 years ago, 24 years ago.

Uh he was just as involved and just as active as I am today.

And I think that those commissioners worked hard, and I remember all of them.

They worked hard every day to uh push this county forward and dealing with the agendas that was brought before them.

So I will not say that they were like and what they've done.

I mean, this commission, Hank's seat on this commission prompt him up to US Congressman.

And so I think that his constituents uh understood what he did.

I know I understood what he did because he came home every night and worked on commission business.

And so I can't speak for Lee, but I would think that Lee would have been as diligent as Hank has was at that time.

And I could say Gail Wadroff.

I remember all of them.

You know, and Terry was here.

I mean, he would know.

So I would take exception.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, so I would take exception to the fact that um the commissioners didn't do anything.

They were slighted.

Uh they're not uh they were not working as hard as we are working now.

I respect what they did.

I mean, they brought the commission.

I remember when the cab became the cab.

You know, they brought us to where we are now.

And um and and so there was a lot of work that had to be done that was done and have brought us to this level.

Um I think that disruption and chaos, chaos comes from the people, not the body.

You know, we're all adults.

We all respect each other, and hopefully we'll be able to move forward, but policies do not create that.

People create that.

And so hopefully we won't do that.

Commission, I mean, um county attorney interim county attorney.

I just wanted to share.

Um I worked in the late 90s as an assistant county attorney here in DeCab and watched the season that you're referring to, and it's just my personal perspective in watching this commission over 28 years now, consistently work to be more effective and more efficient.

And one of the seminal points that I recall was changing the dollar threshold.

We we changed the dollar threshold where 85% of the contracts this commission had to approve represented 15% of the dollars.

So the dollar threshold was raised just a little to move those items over and not require review as a matter of efficiency.

85% of the county funds still went through the commission for the approval process, but the agenda shrunk dramatically because it was 85% of the contracts, small dollar contracts represented by just 15% of the dollars.

Those kinds of things have consistently happened over the 28 years by this body.

Thank you.

And do you have any comments?

Well, I I I did want to say uh I I definitely uh hear you, Commissioner Terry, in terms of some of the cons.

Let's talk about some of the the pros, I think for this.

Um it encourages communication and conversation amongst commissioners.

It encourages you to kind of bounce off ideas and get feedback uh early on.

And I understand the the difference uh between the one additional sponsor or the two additional um sponsors um as well.

I uh for me, I personally I like the two, of course, um, because we've we really worked hard to do this only because not to prohibit um anything from moving, but to actually help with the the communication.

I definitely heard um your concern uh relative to the quorum issue.

Um uh county attorney and uh myself have been talking long and hard about that and what are some ways to uh to still be able to work together without violating um those committee quorum issues as well.

I think we have some solutions, but we're also working on some other things I think could help bring some relief uh to that uh as well.

For me, it's all about efficiency.

This is not about politics, it's about efficiency.

Um not just in getting things um on the agenda and dispense stuff quickly, but to really flesh out the ideas and uh and the communication.

One of the differences I will say that I've seen from my time and this time is um is just the working together, the communication of ideas, even with commissioners that didn't really get along well.

We uh we spent robust amount of time talking about ideas, creating crafting resolutions, and that's when the good stuff really happened.

And uh, and that's what the attempt of this is uh for for this methodology.

Thank you, yes, and we're gonna go on.

Uh this would be the last comment on this.

Yes, ma'am, I'll be brief.

Um I do um wanna just acknowledge the again something that I was saying earlier.

I wasn't saying the previous board wasn't doing things.

Um that's uh there was a lot going on back in the day, so I'm not gonna try to judge that.

Um I'm just you know pointing out factually that for instance the PWI committee like literally has twice the number of watershed contracts and dollars to that we have to go through.

So I think there's just like functionally, there's aspects of our government where we're just we're spending a lot more money, and so we just have to have more audits, more reviews.

Um there's just more to it.

And so that that's a big part of the uh the agenda.

And I think because of that, what's happening in the committees is that commissioner sponsored items are not actually getting hearings.

Um I can point out the fact that I've had several items on different committees uh for months now that have not actually been called to you know present on.

So if an item just sits in a committee and is never heard, it it literally will just continue to be on the agenda, and that does slow things down.

So I uh um I appreciate and I definitely support efficiency and making sure that we're being um thoughtful with the time that we spend in the board meetings where we have to take action.

Um what I I'm what I'm hearing when I hear efficiency, I'm also hearing stifling speech.

And so again, like I I wasn't in favor of changing the one commissioner rule.

I think that's I think it's been a fine you know rule to begin with, but I heard my colleagues say they wanted to make things more efficient.

Central staff wanted to create more vetting, and so that's why I did support the the last meeting, which I remember it being a two commissioner threshold.

So the three commissioner threshold to me wasn't I mean, maybe it was a consensus on the ops committee, but I haven't heard that consensus at the whole body, and so I would just ask the central staff go back through and poll all the commissioners um one on that consensus and then give us all opportunity to debate this particular issue because I think ultimately this is a major decision which would have implications uh for every commissioner.

Um and then finally I will uh applaud the central staff for pointing out a best practice um in regards to an office of legislative counsel.

I would simply argue that those other bodies that have uh best practices on legislative policy research do have office of legislative counsel, which helps commissioners draft legislation and work through these issues.

And so if we were to go to the three vote threshold, I would respectfully request that we have an office of legislative counsel, which I do believe would help facilitate greater cooperation on key policy areas.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, thank you for your comments.

Um Commissioner Terry.

Uh, do we have a motion on this item?

Yeah, uh motion to advance uh legislative sponsor and review process as proposed second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

And do understand uh everyone, I'm I'm gonna say just commission do understand that we have to bring this to the board to vote.

And it has to be five votes on it.

Okay.

So the next one is the time limit.

Well, madam chair, if I could.

Uh we stopped at um still uh the first um item um the legislative sponsor and review process.

We stopped at uh number uh number five.

Um and then so we have items number six, seven, and eight, if you all want to discuss that as a part of it because I think it sounded like the I don't I I don't copy on the back.

That's y'all copy on the back.

Okay, I'm sorry.

So we have to so it sounded like uh Dr.

Bolton wanted to kind of separate the conversations between um kind of the the process for submitting and all of that with the with the uh time limits in committees.

Am I right in in hearing your uh feedback on that?

I think that was Commissioner Davis Jones.

Okay, so we're good.

Okay, all right.

I just want to make it.

Do we need to motion to reconsider?

No, I think that this deals.

It's all confirming, yeah.

Okay.

I mean this should be seven and eight.

Okay, yes, so six, seven and eight was a part of it.

I just want to make sure that y'all understood that, okay.

And shouldn't that be under the time limits?

Because these are dealing with time that well, so just real quick because I didn't go through six, seven, and eight.

Um, once in committee, um I think this is very helpful to reconsider until we go through a motion to reconsider.

So move.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

So item number six after assignment, um, after the uh um legislation is assigned to a committee, the committee will have a total of six consecutive four.

Four.

I'm sorry, four, yeah.

Um four consecutive um excuse me, um county attorney.

Uh what was the actual language you said uh for not regularly scheduled, but I I use different I'm sorry.

I use different language because I was placing this elsewhere.

I I referred to it as a committee cycle.

Okay, committee cycle, yes.

Your language in paragraph six as presented, consecutive regularly scheduled meetings is important.

Yeah, and your distinction about specially called this sets essentially a three-month window as you've crafted it, which I had some alternative language.

I think the bigger issue, and I'm I'm bouncing a little bit, madam chair.

The bigger issue is the timing for an item in a committee would likely go in a different place in the agenda than how something gets on your agenda.

Okay, and bunching this together could create a placement challenge in your blue book because they're in different sections.

So this should be in a different section.

I think so.

Number six.

I thought that's what I was thinking.

Right.

Six six, seven, and eight could be left off of this in one through five.

You've addressed how an item gets added and how it gets to committee, right?

And stop there for this process separately, you would address once in committee how and how moved.

That's a different section in the bookbook.

There's a different nuance that I think is equally important just to can complete my thought.

This is for resolutions only.

How items generally have a timetable through committee is addressed separately, and that would include resolutions, but it wouldn't be limited to resolutions, which is another reason why I would bifurcate the two discussions.

Well, with that, do we need another motion to reconsider no?

Yes, perfect.

Okay.

So how how would we do that?

I'm sorry.

Oh, my bad.

No, I was just gonna answer the presiding officer's question.

I thought you were asking me how you would separate these.

No, no, not separate.

We've already voted on one through five.

So what do we do now?

And we voted on a reconsideration.

Right.

You would again vote to approve one through five only.

So Robert, make a motion to approve items one through five as part of the legislative uh sponsor and review process.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Now, so the time frame, and that's the last would that go under the the uh time limits for the agenda items.

Would that be separate than the would that go under that or would that need to be a separate if if I'm following your question, madam chair?

The legislate legislative sponsor review process.

The time limits is separate.

Oh, okay.

The time that's a separate issue.

Okay.

And then you have time limits for the legislative review.

Correct.

Process.

Okay.

Okay.

So y'all want to go to those two.

Those six, seven, and what's the heading for six, seven, and eight?

Six six, seven, and eight would go with time limits.

That's that's what we're talking about.

Okay.

Legislative sponsorship is what you've just dealt with in one through five.

So you can move six, seven, and eight under bullet two.

Correct.

And there are some expected additional language outside of six, seven, and eight that would go with number two.

Right.

Okay.

It's not it, it's really an alternative that was crafted outside of the process.

Central staff was working on so after assignment, the committee will have four consecutive regularly scheduled meetings.

After assignment, the committee will have oh, well, that's you.

Yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

That's fine.

Um after assignment, the committee will have a total of four um consecutive regularly scheduled meetings to adjudicate the item.

Special call meetings do not count towards this towards the four meetings.

Additionally, if a regularly scheduled meeting is canceled, it does not impede the cycle of meetings.

So if I can just kind of explain real quick what six is.

So this is intended to give a a timeline of what that looks like.

Um so let's go to number seven, if you would.

Okay.

Any questions around number six before I go to seven and eight?

Because it's all kind of connected.

Madam Chair.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Yes.

Um, I have to uh leave for a 12 noon appointment.

Um, but I actually realized I didn't.

I'm looking only looking at the memo that was sent.

Um I don't have the um the other documents.

So could um Central Staff please send that to me.

You'll have that um and then I'll I'll uh respond back with any other comments.

Absolutely.

You'll have that by the end of the day, and we can talk offline if you want to as well to explain it a little deeper.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm signing off now.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

All right, well, number seven, um proposed legislation may return to the full board at a board of commissioners meeting with a recommendation from committee after two readings um slash discussions and committee.

Um this really comes um um how the state actually operates when an item goes to committee at the state level, there have they has to be read twice before it can come out to the uh full body.

There's a lot of other procedural things as well.

But this makes sure that any item that's brought forward will have two times in committee to uh to be discussed.

Okay.

That's number seven.

Number eight is still connected to this.

If an item has not been discussed once in committee after four regularly scheduled meetings, it may return to the full board for discussion with no recommendation.

Again, this is uh aligned.

If there's not if the chair just has not given it a reading or or two readings, um the sponsor of that legislation can rest assured that it will ultimately get to the board of commissioners in its due time.

Okay according to these um uh these little uh bullets.

Do y'all have any particular bullets?

Y'all have any comments, questions?

Okay, uh I want to clarify for number eight, where it says if an item has not been discussed once in committee, that's not indicative of a number of times it's been discussed, it's more in addressing the location of the item.

I hope that makes sense.

One the way once is used here, it's not saying that it hasn't been read once, but really it's if it's not been discussed at all.

But that it's reached committee.

Yeah, it's definitely a reached committee at this point.

It is a good thing.

The usage of the word once through five.

The usage of the word once specifically, it's indicating that it's reached committee, not the number one.

Read it, read it to yourself twice.

Use it each of the means.

Just remove the word once.

Is that what you're saying?

But y'all understand what I'm asking.

Okay, reach commitment.

I'm just slow.

So it's not indicating the number of times.

Yeah.

So we'll remove that word.

Okay.

It's just saying that.

Right.

Okay.

I'm again stating that the way this entire contract is drafted, it is for resolutions.

Right.

And I think the timing of any item should be addressed separately, because this is just for resolutions.

Right.

When you tack it on.

So I know you've removed it, but think in the broader context of when an item comes and it goes to committee, how long does it stay, and what happens to it?

That's what this is really describing now that it's been separated.

Any item.

And so this is time limits for resolutions.

Well, you've separated it, so I would I'm just asking that you think of it in the larger context of all items.

Well, we have number two is time limits for agenda items to be removed from the agenda.

So that's a separate.

But now six, seven, and eight are fitting under that.

No, six, seven, and eight is has a new category, and there's time limits for resolutions.

I understand, Madam Presiding Officer.

What I'm asking this committee to consider is to not make a separate time limit for resolutions, but to include this in the larger discussion for all items.

All agendas.

Yes.

Any item that goes to committee, what's the time limit?

And let resolutions fit that time limit as well.

Oh, okay.

Madam Chair, if I could including uh items from the administration, so yes.

Okay.

Well, that's we may have purchasing items or something.

Yeah.

Well, that's what I'm thinking.

Yeah, because agenda items, yeah.

When you deal with agenda items and resolutions, yeah, they're somewhat different.

How they're managed in committee is listed in your blue book.

I understand.

And it's not separate.

And adding a timetable to that by piecemeal changes the way that's addressed.

Uh-huh.

Well, you know, with agenda items, you can walk them on, and if they're if it's necessary to pass that same day, you can do that.

But okay, what are you saying, Robert?

Oh, is this right here?

I think this should be part of the conversation.

Oh, okay.

Well, see, you didn't okay.

Committee's on.

May I, Madam Presiding Officer?

If we all look at the blue book as it exists under Roman numeral six committees, which is what we're talking about, paragraph five recommendation.

Okay.

That is the context in which we would address, in my opinion, the timetable for an item in committee.

In paragraph five, committees only give recommendations with respect to agenda items.

These recommendations include but are not limited to, and then you have A through F as options.

Then you have the closing paragraph for committee meetings, which consist of an even number of members in attendance, a tie vote will be reported as a tie vote on recommendations.

Committee recommendations are non-binding and shall not indefinitely delay consideration of an agenda item by the commission.

What's missing is a timetable for items and an automatic mechanism to move items back to the full body.

And a proposal to do that would include all items as this covers resolutions or whatever else it may be.

And what you have is a proposal for tweaking this section to cover that construct, and it could include resolutions very easily, as well as contracts or any and everything else with full flexibility, but some automatic timing is what's in front of me.

Right.

I see.

Do you see that?

Um you see that because yeah, if something comes, we still have the ability to recommend approval, recommend referral, recommend approval for receipt of additional information.

Um you see that because yeah, if something comes, we still have the ability to recommend approval, recommend referral, recommend approval for receipt of additional information, recommend holding in committee, recommend uh withdrawal, and no recommendation, expired committee cycle.

I see what you're saying, because you first with the resolutions, you first had to get one through five.

And after one through five, this is it.

So you have the flexibility.

Okay.

May I walk everyone through that?

Because we're we're referencing it and it we've not really discussed it.

I just want to explain what this is.

Okay.

A propos what I read was is in the blue book.

If you add one additional option of a recommendation, it would be letter G, expired committee cycle.

And then you would add a paragraph right after that.

If an item remains assigned to a committee for three consecutive months without a recommendation, the clerk shall automatically place it on the commission agenda marked expired committee cycle.

At that point, you could go back to anything you want.

We're gonna send it back to committee.

We're gonna withdraw it from the agenda.

It prevents an item from living in purgatory and sitting in committee indefinitely.

It just it's an automatic cycle to bring it back because the committee hadn't said anything.

I want to be very clear.

The committee today, this committee on agenda item 2026 0989 said we recommend holding in committee because the item is still in audit.

That prevents it from having an expired committee cycle.

You've now ruled on it.

Yeah.

You've taken action.

So 90 days from today, you revisit that.

If you've done nothing 90 days from today, it goes to the board, and you would have that discussion.

Oh, it's still in audit.

We need to send it back to committee.

I got you.

Or we can withdraw it, or whatever the body decided.

It's just an automatic mechanism to move things.

So I think it's good.

Do y'all have a questions about it?

Commissioner.

You have questions about it?

Yeah, I think it's good for the resolutions for everything.

Okay, so let's offer one other thing for complete.

Yeah, this is it, because the only thing that we're going to be holding back is the public comment.

The rest of the things we're going to vote on it on August 11th.

Okay.

If you look at section three, agenda and parliamentary items under number one, paragraph D.

The Commission should only act on an item assigned to a committee after it's heard by the committee, and committee recommendation is rendered.

If an agenda item is assigned to committee and the committee does not render a recommendation or meet between introduction and the time an item is to appear before the commission, then those agenda items may still be acted upon by the commission.

The record will note that no committee meeting was held or recommendation given on that item.

What we've proposed would supplement that section, supplement where it's written, and instead of that just happening with no indication of why, you'd now have that expired committee cycle go in.

Right.

And then something would happen.

Either you'd move to withdraw, move to say that, or whatever.

I got you.

Okay.

Zach, you have any questions on that?

It's good.

It works.

And Madam Chair, and just to uh put a fine point on that, what uh Mr.

Mr.

Phillips just highlighted will replace six, seven, and eight.

And I just want to make sure.

Right.

Okay.

Sure would.

Okay.

Yes.

Good.

Six, seven, and eight.

Okay.

So then it would also replace um time limits for agenda items.

Or would that be in?

That would be part of this.

Yes.

Okay.

This creates the time limit for committee processes.

Okay.

So is there a motion on that?

I don't even know how to say it.

Motion and recommend.

How about um motion to approve the recommended uh section six committees uh recommendation five, specifically G and the following paragraph?

Is that that cover?

Is that how about this, Commissioners?

A motion to replace section.

Yeah, Roman numeral six.

Subsection five with the revised version discussed in committee today.

So moved.

Motion to replace Roman numeral six committees.

Uh-huh.

Section five recommendations.

Okay.

With the alternative.

You have the alternative here.

You're replacing it with this alternative.

Yes.

Okay.

And that includes what's on this red line and six.

It's just adjusted.

It just includes what's on this page.

This will become your section five.

Five, right.

What's red is the new part, but this whole thing will be section five now.

Okay.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay, so that concludes the blue book.

Give y'all self a hand.

We've got well, the blue book matters public hearing.

And so we will deal with that after the uh break.

Well, Madam Presiding Officer, public comment, which is different than public hearing.

There'll be some overlap, but public comment is what we're re the instructions for public comment are what you directed me to visit and rewrite.

Right.

Okay.

Well, public comment and yeah, do they do the same?

Did you hear did you hear any complaints about them doing the same with public comment?

I mean with public hearing.

May I offer this with with all due respect?

The comments, the the instructions for public comment are different than the instructions for public hearing.

Okay.

But what you've asked us to write will apply and cover those concerns if they surface during public hearing.

Okay.

It's really gonna cover the rules for someone coming to the podium and speaking to you guys.

That's that's what I'm gonna rewrite.

Okay.

Um we asked, can we put in that anos can remove anybody that he feels that's causing problems, huh?

My only concern is if you do that, he'll remove me.

Okay, thank y'all so much.

We have been able to get through this blue but we will vote on it, and umce we get the section done on public comment, uh we will just move forward on the charter review to hopefully get it in before the legislative session begins.

Agreed.

Yeah.

Okay, well, thank y'all.

Is there a motion to motion to adjourn?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank y'all.