The regular session of the Friday, November 14, 2025, will come to order.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the role?

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Scott Benson.

Councilmember Faye Duha III.

Present.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

What was that?

Councilmember Gabriel Sajaco Romero.

Present.

Councilmember Mary Walters.

President.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Colloway.

Councilman McComayound the second.

Council President Pro Tim James Tate.

And Council President Mary Sheffield.

You have a you have a quorum present, Mr.

President.

Thank you, ma'am.

We have a quorum present, which means we're now in session.

Again, good morning, everyone.

We'd like to begin with our and uh Madam Clerk, if you can please note that we've been joined by Member Young.

Clip was so low.

Thank you.

Uh so we would like to begin with an invocation and joining us online.

I believe online or not in person.

Joining us, yep.

Joining us online is none other than Reverend KC Pierce, the second of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church.

Uh good morning.

Good morning, Council.

How are you?

We're doing very well.

Thank you for joining us and providing today's invocation.

You may proceed as you will, sir.

Yes, sir.

Thanks for having me.

Let us pray.

Gracious and eternal God, we thank you for another day of purpose and possibility.

We pause in the sacred moment to acknowledge your sovereignty over our city, over our leaders, and every decision that will be made today.

Lord, we thank you for Detroit for its resilience, its creativity, and its unbreakable spirit.

God, we ask now for your wisdom to guide through this council.

Let integrity shape every conversation and unity anchor every decision.

Remind us that leadership is service and power is responsibility.

God bless each council member with discernment that transcend politics and seeks the greater good of the people that we represent.

We lift up every neighborhood, every business owner, every family, and every young person who dares to dream in this city.

Let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream through every policy, every partnership, every plan.

God, we ask that you will let this city rise as a model of innovation, unity, and hope.

Bless every neighborhood, every small business, every school, every servant leader that's working to make this city better.

And Father, strengthen us to bridge to be bridge builders across race, across class, across creed, and until Detroit just not only becomes a greater city, but an even greater community.

We declare that today will be a day of progress, a day of peace, and a day of purpose.

In the mighty name of Jesus, we pray.

Amen.

If you would like to remain online, we would love to have you, but if you have to attend other duties, we understand that as well.

Again, we just thank you.

Thank you so much.

Absolutely.

All right, so uh just giving folks an understanding of how things are going to go today.

We uh have a public hearing that is set within the formal session, which is extremely rare.

Uh so we're gonna have two uh public comment sections.

Uh one will be for the public hearing, that will be first.

Secondly, we will have general public comment.

Uh the comments that are directed to that are that take place during the public hearing will will have to remain germane to the subject of the public hearing, and that is the Detroit City Council rules.

Can't go outside of those boundaries.

Um bound by those rules uh and laws as well.

Uh so we will ask for everyone who has their hand up currently for general public comment to please lower your hand.

Please lower your hand, uh, and we will open up uh the opportunity for those who are seeking to provide public comment uh online uh very shortly for the public hearing, but that will be first.

Again, if you're raising your hand for public comment, uh that will not uh be for the general public uh comment but for the public hearing.

Okay.

We're gonna start off first with a presentation by member Benson.

I know Member Benson has a presentation that he would like to provide.

Um we're gonna we might have to cut in between because we got this.

I gotta call it at 1015 and it's 1012 now.

So just letting you know.

Understood.

Yes, sir.

All right, so let's floor yours, sir.

Thank you.

So quickly then for two minutes before we have to call and then recess to call the chair the uh public hearing.

I just want to be able to recognize the Matrix Center's Lakers basketball team who is here today.

And if you all could quickly please stand up.

Now, these young men are city champions, and they are led by Coach John Johnson at a Detroit's Matrix Center.

And what is unique about the Matrix Center, while it sits in the fourth district with my colleague who is a proud resident there as well, this has been the location of my district office since February of 2014, where we proudly stood as a first district council to have a unique office uh in the city of Detroit.

Very proud of that fact and the Matrix Center's role in that.

But what I really want to do is make sure that we recognize these young men and then Coach Johnson, who has been doing this for over 20 years.

And that if we can have the players please sit down and then the leadership remains standing.

And I also saw Starr here one time.

There you go.

And then we've got Gary, we've got our coaches here, and so these are your Matrix Center leaders who are helping to ensure that these young men, these champions, city champions, are led in the right direction and are making things happen.

I know we're gonna have to quickly pause, but I wanted to make sure that we got a chance to see both the players as well as the senior leadership, and then they could sit down, then we can have the parents to please stand.

And what oftentimes goes overlooked behind, there we go.

Behind the excellence of young people stand the parents who through sacrifice and just pure bragging rights are able to sustain and ensure that these young men have the opportunity for excellence.

And so I wanted to recognize the parents for being here as well today and the sacrifices that you all give to make sure these young men are performing at such a high level to earn a city champion.

All right, thank you so much.

As we take a slight pause, I'd like to call the 10 to 15 public hearing and recess it to the call of the chair.

Member Benson, the floor remains yours, sir.

Thank you.

And if I could have Mr.

John Johnson, Coach Johnson, please come to the table.

Twenty years of coaching, everybody.

Yes, sir.

And so this is a spirit of Detroit Award.

And young men, can you all please hold up your Spirit of Detroit Awards?

That document that we gave you.

There we go.

Everybody gets one.

There we go.

Senior leadership as well.

And so this is a Spirit of Detroit Award is presented here with as an expression of the gratitude and esteem of the citizens of Detroit to Coach John Johnson, Matrix Center's Lakers basketball team head coach, in recognition of exceptional achievement, outstanding leadership and dedication to improving the quality of life.

Councilman Scott Benson and Detroit City Council celebrate Coach Johnson for serving as the head coach of the Matrix Center's Lakers basketball team.

You have led the team through a remarkable year earning first place during the inner city championship.

That deserves a round of applause.

First place, you are city champions.

You have led the team through a remarkable year.

You are congratulated for empowering young minds with strategic thinking and gameplay within basketball.

Thank you for your dedication and patience.

Due to your dedication, you have created winners and memories that will last the youth a lifetime.

You are a source of enlightenment through basketball and their everyday lives.

Your commitment is an inspiration to us all.

May God continue to bless you and your future endeavors as well as your team.

And it's one last item.

As Coach Johnson's been doing this for over 20 years, if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time you've been recognized by the city of Detroit.

And it is coming far too late.

We should have been talking about this years ago.

And that at because of that, there was a bit of emotion that came from you.

I'm not going to call you out, but I understand that you did get emotional upon being recognized for this source of excellence.

And I want to thank the Matrix Center leadership for ensuring that my office became aware of this as well.

But Coach Johnson, thank you for what you've done.

Thank you for your leadership, and thank you for your continued commitment to the youth in the city of Detroit.

It's not an easy endeavor.

This is a passion project for you, and you are seeing the fruits and the minds that you are shaping.

And as I said earlier, there is a representative from the Detroit Pistons here today.

And I'll let all the young men know that that could be a future employer of theirs, not only being talent on the court, but being talent behind the scenes.

And so people need to recognize that.

And the Pistons, beyond just being a source of professional basketball players, also have a behind the office staff that needs to be sourced, and you all have a very unique opportunity to try to fill those positions and start thinking about that today.

And through the through the chair, opening the floor to Coach Johnson for a few words.

Coach, the floor is yours, sir.

Good morning.

Push the button on the microphone.

Green.

Yeah.

You want to push that button in the front to the red turns green.

There you go.

Good morning.

I'd like to thank the city council and city council members for recognizing what I do.

And I also like to thank my umbrella at the Matrix Center for recognizing what I do.

I'm not gonna say too much because I know my boys back there, they'll be talking coach wants to be quiet.

Okay, but uh that's my job.

Uh but what I would like to say is I looked up the word coach this morning on my way here, and it said training, conditioning for athletes.

But it's more than that.

I look at it as a father, a mentor, a teacher for kids to come to you when they are down, for kids that come to you when they don't have that opportunity to speak up.

A lot of kids don't have that.

But that's what I look at and say that's what a coach is.

And out of my years of working at the Matrix, I've come to the point to where a lot of times I can't walk the street without hey coach, hey coach, hey coach.

And and that hits me right here.

That I've touched so many young men and have seen them move on and to develop and to be better young men in the city of Detroit.

Now, have I been completely successful with all the kids that come up under me?

No, I haven't.

But I still reach out to them.

A lot of times, a lot of them see me on the streets, it's not doing what they're supposed to be doing, but they still recognize me.

And I don't turn my back on them.

I tried to still instill in them that they can change.

But again, I'd like to thank the city council for what they are doing in the city of Detroit.

And I'd like to thank you guys for what you are letting my young man see what they could be, other than a basketball player.

And that's what we try to do at the Matrix.

Let them know and understand that it's more to life than just playing basketball.

And that's what we teach.

We teach more than just basketball.

We teach skill, we teach life skills, uh solutions.

All of that is taught within the Matrix Center basketball program.

And again, I would like to thank you guys for recognizing the Matrix Center, and thank you for recognizing my young man.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

So to extend an opportunity to speak to one of our basketball players.

Do you have a spokesperson from the basketball team coach?

You see how to talk there.

You know they get kind of nervous when I know when I put them on the spot.

It's a great opportunity.

Yep.

Leadership.

There we go.

There we go.

You can use that one right in front of me.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

Um, I like thank you for giving me the opportunity to see you today.

Uh thank you for what you're doing to my coaches and my teammates.

And I'm kind of nursed.

I don't want to say thank you.

Thank you a lot.

Mr.

Chair, is it possible to find out number one?

Your name.

My name is Aaron Carswell.

Number two, your position.

Point guard.

And number three, what school do you attend?

I go to Hartford Woods High School.

My man.

And not too far from the edge of Detroit.

What are your some of your stats?

Uh I could score, I can pass the ball, but I really like to pass the ball and play defense.

Assist, my man.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Um, Member Benson, do you want to take a photo with the team?

We'd like to take a photo, but open it up to some of my colleagues.

I'm hoping and I know that Member Johnson was there.

Yes.

All right, Member Johnson, my apologies.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good morning to all of you.

It is so great to see you.

Um, coach.

I I remember when I came to the Matrix Center, you find you just put the face with uh when I came to the Matrix Center, and we uh provided pizza to the young man and got an opportunity to speak with you and really see how big your heart is for our young man.

And so just want to say thank you to continuing to be who you are for your dedication and your commitment, even though I know there are times when the finances aren't there, um, but you still show up every day.

You still show up and really share with our young men that it's okay for them to be emotional, that it's okay for them to be who they are, and that you are guiding them in the right direction.

So we appreciate that.

It's not all on you.

We know that it's not all on you.

So even though you said that there are times when you haven't been successful, our young people need to see what they can be, and then they make the choice.

They make the choice, but you give them that opportunity to guide them and direct them in the right way.

I want to say thank you to the Matrix leadership uh as well.

We know that you all have supported Coach Johnson.

Um, and I know that you all will continue to.

We appreciate the work that you do because you all do amazing work at the Matrix Center on the east side of Detroit, uh, six mile and grash it.

Okay.

People need to recognize that because the Matrix Center does not get its just due.

I think there are other organizations that people here talked about a lot.

You all do some amazing work, and that's why several of us were proud to extend some additional ARPA funds to you when we had the opportunity to.

So thank you again for everything that you all do for continuing to provide that support to not only our young men but our young people on the east side of Detroit.

Uh we appreciate you greatly.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Anyone else?

Well, I would like to say uh congratulations and thank you, Coach.

Um, you know, I I was a challenging young man, uh, personally myself from kindergarten to graduating high school, kicked out, put back, or transferred nine times.

Uh so I understand, I know, right?

But look at me now.

But and and and I say that to say, and that's with the two-parent household that I had, all right?

Um as a young person, you don't hear uh all the guidance and the mentoring and all those things that you should from the people who are the closest to you.

So you need someone outside of that household to reinforce those things, and that's where you come in and your other coaching staff.

So thank you for the 20, I don't know, 20 plus years, 20 years of coaching, but 20 plus years of being just a phenomenal leader uh to these young men uh within our community and to the young men who are here.

Uh you have a uh village of folks who are surrounding you.

You see it right here.

Uh member Benson is always there in your corner, brought you down here to show you a little bit of slice of life that you typically don't get a chance to see.

Um lean on these type of individuals uh on a daily basis because we all care about you, and thank you for doing the thing that we need you to do to be the best you for the city of Detroit.

All right, anything else, too?

One last item.

Member Benson.

This is for the players.

Can the centers please stand up?

This is by position.

Where are our centers?

Yay.

Where are the forwards?

Okay, okay.

Don't be shy.

Where are our guards?

That's why you can stand up too.

Yes, yes, sir.

So this is the division of labor.

You all specialize in certain areas, and so thank you all for coming out today.

I want to make sure that you are also recognized this is excellence, and we don't always recognize young black excellence, especially in our young black males, and so I want to make sure that's not lost on you as well.

We recognize that.

This is a tough space.

You guys are a very unique position in your lives.

Don't take anything for granted.

You have the chance.

And you have to make decisions and choices.

Look to make the decisions that will make your parents proud.

You all know right from wrong.

And give your parents bragging rights.

That's all they really ask for.

Bragging rights.

Make sure that your parents can go to the water cooler.

They can go talk to your aunts and uncles.

They can say, my son is a city champion.

My son is aspiring with this.

My son goes to school here.

My son does this.

And you know what they are.

Make those decisions.

That's my advice to you all.

And you're on the right track right now.

City championship.

It's a big deal.

It's a big deal.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And yes, I would like to take a photo with the colleagues and with the players.

It's gonna be very unique opportunities.

And Mr.

Chair, I understand they have a presentation for us as well.

They like to present us with something.

Oh, get gifts.

Yes, we do.

That's a good that's a great guest.

Let the gifts begin.

No, I was so bad.

Give them a bag.

Don't be shy.

That's okay.

Don't be shy.

And for the record, it looks like these are bags that would be provided to anyone.

And not just specially not as specially made for us.

But we appreciate the one that got bags.

Don't leave out yet, because we're gonna take our photo now.

James, you got yours?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

We got extra.

I'm not smaller, that's for sure.

Yeah, they didn't really give you that four.

Right off.

Yeah, there we go.

Large.

Three X.

I was just gonna ask if we can have our council members to come up with the players, because they're kind of tall.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

I have a frame it, I guess.

So I was just getting ready to say, so can we do rows of twos?

So if you're short, shorter people in the front, taller gentlemen in the back, please.

So yeah, keep on coming.

And then keep on coming.

Come on, nope.

And it better tell him right there.

No, with the grace wipe.

Yeah, stand right there.

Gentlemen, come on in.

Don't be shy.

Yeah.

You're short.

You try so hard.

Oh, that's beautiful.

Okay.

And then everyone looking.

It's okay.

Everyone looking right here at me.

Awesome great smiles.

Hold it for just a moment so that way the parents can get it.

Smile, gentlemen, for just once.

Great job.

Perfect.

Okay.

That's cool.

We got LL.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

Always a pleasure and honor to honor our young folks.

And the coaches and the parents who make sure that they are who they need to be.

We appreciate you so much.

Too many times we hear about so-called bad kids, so we got to always lift them up.

All right.

We're gonna get we're gonna continue moving, ladies and gentlemen, into the agenda where I would like to now call back to order the 10 15 public hearing.

The 1015 public hearing is uh to uh uh it's for the proposed amendments to make several targeted updates and changes to the council rules of order.

Um the member the chair is not here in the room right now.

Wanted to provide the chair an opportunity to say a few words as we and we're losing the quorum.

Uh member young okay, all righty.

So can we see if uh member Callaway is available so we can be continue?

Yes.

We're we're now inside of the public hearing.

Oh, okay.

All right, we'll like to now post like to uh recess the uh 1015 public hearing to the call of the chair.

All right, uh Madam Clerk, let's go ahead and knock out some of these items while we can, at least the referrals.

Uh the journal of the session, the journal of the session of Tuesday, October 21st, 2025, uh, will be approved.

Um for the budget finance and audit standing committee.

To be put in the office of the chief initial officer, officer budget.

The two reports will be referred to the budget finance and audit standing committee from the internal operations standing committee.

Nine reports from various departments.

The nine reports will be referred to the internal operations standing committee for the neighborhood and community services standing committee.

Two reports from various city departments.

The two reports shall be referred to the neighborhood and community services standing committee for the planning and economic development standing committee.

Two reports from various city departments.

Thank you, madam clerk.

The two reports will be referred to the planning and economic development standing committee for the public health and safety standing committee.

13 reports from various city departments.

The 13 reports we refer will be referred, excuse me, to the public health and uh safety standing committee.

Uh, we will pause on the uh voting action items.

Madam Clerk, sound we have something else.

Mr.

Chair, should we go back to the um unfitnessed business?

We missed that part.

Um, because it was your first uh business.

Well, there being no reconsiderations or unfinished business.

Um thank you so much.

All right, we'll now like to call back to order the 10 uh 15 public hearing regarding the uh amendments to the rules of order for the Detroit City Council.

Um we have worked extremely hard under the leadership of member Callaway over the last four years to uh address some of these uh outline items.

Actually, some of them were inherited from the uh previous term uh to allow to uh get uh uh align some items that we had uh in the previous years as well as some of the concerns that members have brought to the table recently.

And uh with that being said, would like to now turn the mic over to uh our chair member calloway.

The floor is yours, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

Um pro tem Tate and good morning, everyone.

It has been my pleasure to serve as the chair of the rules committee.

were inherited from the uh previous term uh to allow to uh get uh align some items that we had uh in the previous years as well as some of the concerns the members have brought to the table recently and uh with that being said would like to now turn the mic over to uh our chair member caller the floor is yours ma'am thank you so much um um pro tempate and good morning everyone it has been my pleasure to serve as the chair of the rules committee it has been my pleasure to serve as the rules committee chair over the last four years um we put a lot of hard work into um what's before us today a lot of back and forth a lot of debate um good debate healthy debate and that brings us here today so this these um suggestions revisions amendments didn't happen overnight it's a four year process that brings us here today so I'm just very proud of the work that um we've done um pro Tim Tate and of course um um council member Coleman A young and I appreciate the support that you you both um exhibited during the last four years and it hasn't been easy um some things like you said pro temptate um there were before they we inherited them but we had to deal with them it was not going to be um where we were going to continue to kick the can down the road there were some very tough decisions that we had to make some very tough amendments that had to we had to debate um and I'm just proud of the work that we've done so it's been a pleasure serving with you pro temptate on the rules committee and also it's been a pleasure serving with you as well um member young it's been a lot of fun and um I just thank you for um your support both of you and um you were there um the entire way was my first time chairing um such a committee um being a brand new city council person never having ever served in a political capacity before at this level so I was grateful and I um appreciate your patience with me and um I'm just excited about what we've done over the last four years and that's what that's why we're here today so I'm looking forward to the public comment and um thank you again thank you thank you pro tip Tate thank you so much all right and procedurally I believe it it's most appropriate to outline uh those uh proposed changes that are being made in the belief uh attorney Barcliff is that your role or would that be Dr.

Powers Dr.

Powers thank you please introduce yourself for the record I've always wanted to say that to you Anneline Powers a parliamentarian uh legislative policy division you may proceed ma'am thank you sir um the the version of the rules that you have in front of you today has all of the suggested amendments um and um that that were uh set discussed in the rules committee approved in the rules committee to be sent to the body um there is um there are two ways I could proceed it's uh you tell me which way you would prefer I can go page by page in the document itself or we can go to the resolution that approved today's public hearing because it has all of the um changes listed in that document so how would you like me to proceed?

I believe it'd be most more efficient for the res to go through the resolution.

Okay I agree sir yes ma'am um and and let me just say that for those who would like to provide public comment uh who are in person on the rules for the rules of public hearing that you're about to you know experience right now feel free to raise your hand so we can have folks go and get your information we're still going to open it up for those who are online but we can begin collecting cards uh now again for efficiency sake Dr.

Powers um I'm not going to bother reading the beginning part which is just um whereas it's authorized to do this so the first um change um is in section 2.0 composition of council it reads as now pursuant to the authority set forth in section and this was the wrong section so it got crossed out and it's section 4-105 of the 2012 Detroit charter the Detroit City Council is the city's legislative body composed of nine council members and this is this is new this sentence is um there shall be seven non-at-large districts and one at-large district established in the city and one member shall be elected from each of the seven non-at-large districts and two members shall be elected from the at-large district the two at-large members shall represent the whole city and what was crossed out is one member is elected from each of the seven non at large districts and two members are elected at-large that was crossed out finally all members serve on concurrent four year terms if there's anyone who doesn't have this um I have copies here okay um what was totally removed was section 3.5 point two joint committees joint committees are created by the city council from two or more standing committees to perform a specific task for a limited duration in the case of a joint

If there's anyone who doesn't have this, um, I have copies here.

Okay.

Um what was totally removed was section 3.5.2.

Joint committees.

Joint committees are created by the city council from two or more standing committees to perform a specific task for a limited duration.

In the case of a joint committee, the chair of the committee designated first by the president in order of referral shall serve as chair of the joint committee, and the chair of the committee designated second shall serve as a vice chair of the joint committee, subject to the approval of the city council.

That's crossed out.

It's no longer part of the rules, assuming you approve them.

What also was crossed out was section 3.6.

And this section is very long, and it all deals with electronic meetings.

Um would you like me to read this?

Yes.

And highlights.

Okay.

Um electronic meetings.

Any scheduled meeting of the Detroit City Council may be held as an electronic meeting, subject to the following.

Um 3.6.1 agenda.

The agenda for every scheduled meeting shall state.

3.6.1.1 rationale.

The reason why the meeting is being held electronically.1.2 public participation.

How members of the public may participate in the meeting electronically.

If a telephone number, internet address, or both are needed to participate, that information must be provided specifically.

Persons with disabilities.

How persons with disabilities may participate in the meeting.

3.6.1.4 posting.

Be posted to the official City of Detroit City Clerk's website at least 18 hours before the electronic meeting begins and made available to the public at least two hours before the electronic meeting begins.

This publication of the agenda does not prohibit subsequent amendment to the agenda at the meeting.

Excuse me.

A quorum shall consist of a majority of members serving on city council or on a standing committee.

Once a quorum has been announced, the continued presence of a quorum during the meeting shall be determined by the members' video and audio connection.

No member shall leave the meeting while in session if that member member's departure will cause the loss of a quorum.

Excuse me, Dr.

Powers.

I just got a hand from uh Mr.

Whitaker.

Mr.

Whitaker.

I I think rather than reading this section, this section was removed because the law changed that took away the ability of council to have electronic meetings.

So to read it might just create confusion with the public, so I think it would be good just to not bother reading the section because it's no longer possible to have electronic meeting because this these rules were put in because of COVID.

COVID rules.

So we'll just say that these rules were stricken by state law.

That would be my advice, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

And I thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wood.

Thank you, Dr.

Powers.

You may proceed, ma'am.

All right.

The um the next uh relevant section for now is 3.6 point.

Oh, I'm sorry, um, we're at 4.2.

This question.

Are we uh member of Santiago Romero?

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair, are we able to ask questions during this process or are we just going through all the changes?

If she can go through the changes first and then we'll ask the questions a bit more.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

Section 4.2 Board of Review.

Pursuant to Section 9-401 of the Detroit of the 2012 Detroit City Charter, there shall be a board of review known as the, and this is new, a new addition, property assessment board of review to hear and determine appeals from tax assessments.

4.2.1 members.

The property assessment, and that's those are the new words, board of review, consists of nine members with at least seven members appointed from each of the non-at-large districts.

4.4.1 appointment.

The nine member city planning commission shall be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the city council.

There shall be at least one member appointed from each of the city council's non-at-large districts.

The next sentence has been stricken.

Seven of the members shall be appointed, one each from the non-large districts.

Mr.

Chair.

This is the question.

Before we go forward, want to uh go to Madam Chair.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I was listening to you read the citation you said for the one for appointments through the chair to Dr.

Powers.

What did you say?

Did you say 4.1?

Because I'm looking at 4.2.2.

Well it we did.

I um looking at the actual document.

Right, through the chair.

4.2 deals with Board of Review, and there was only that very small change, property assessment added in that section.

The next section that we're dealing with, so it's now we're in a new section, and we are with the City Planning Commission, and the first thing that was changed under the City Planning Commission is 4.4.

Okay.

Through the chair to Dr.

Powers.

Um, can we go back to appointments under Board of Review?

Property assessment.

Um we can, but there were no changes to appointments, it was just the members.

Right.

But my question, Dr.

Powers, through the chair, is what number did you cite?

I cited appointments.

Yes.

I I read 4.2 and I read 4.2.1 entitled members.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's fine.

I'm sorry for the confusion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe I was about to tell you the one sentence that's stricken from appointments for the city planning commission.

Seven of the members shall be appointed, one each from the non-at-large districts.

That's gone.

Next um the following is already there.

No more than two members shall be appointed from any one district.

As far as possible, different professions and occupations shall be represented on the commission.

4.5.1 deals with appointments.

The in this uh the the words nine, the word nine has been stricken, and it reads the historic designation advisory board consists of 12 members, nine of whom are appointed to three-year terms by the Detroit City Council.

The other three are city department heads or their representatives serving as ex officio.

The historic designation board has a permanent staff of four FTEs.

That is a new section that was put in there.

What was stricken is the number 12 plus permanent members of the 12 member board shall be appointed by city council.

So that last sentence was stricken.

4.5.3.

The next sentence has been stricken.

The term of appointment for permanent members is three years on a staggered term basis.

The new language reads nine of the members are appointed to three-year terms by the Detroit City Council.

The next section deals with committee creations.

So I will read the current language for committee creation, and that is section 9.2.

Committee creation.

The following standing committees are hereby created.

The following committees are responsible for the associated departments, line items and issues pertaining to various city departments and agencies will be directed to this to the council committees as outlined below.

Just the changes, if you thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Under public health and safety, the regional transit authority of Southeast Michigan was added.

Detroit Transportation Corporation was added.

Under Internal Operations Standing Committee.

After elections, the phrase or election commission was added.

General Services was stricken.

And inspector general was added.

It is as it is suggested that it be as it is.

Before you continue, Dr.

Powers, Member Durham.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And just very quickly, and maybe this is a minor change, not even considered substantive, but we always arrive at the question, particularly during budget finance and audit for particularly.

Is it something that's on here?

Because we wanted to leave the questions until afterwards for clarity if necessary.

Well, I did.

I just wanted to clarify as before she moved through.

So it's kind of a question, but not I want to clarify if it falls under there, but there's always a question about citywide contracts that come in front of BFNA that may have a particular subcategory that are in these other committees.

Is that still contained under there for BFA?

I just wanted to see if that is added up in that subgroup because all citywide contracts come through budget.

I believe I think it's my understanding that most citywide contracts actually go up under internal operations.

Through you, Mr.

President, every citywide contract comes through budget finance and audit because it's of course citywide.

And so I didn't see it listed under there under that particular committee or you know, notated, but I think that that goes through the referral process when when all of the contracts come through the president's office refers them according to where they belong in each committee.

So I think that that happens more through the referral process than it does with the rules.

And I and I think procurement obviously they take recommendations from procurement, they you know refer all of those to budget because they're citywide.

So I just wanted to clarify because it's not under there, so uh I did want to just clarify that before we moved on.

It would have seemed then it would seem then that there's nothing really that needs to be added or taken away from here, but rather there needs to be discussion with the person responsible for referring to the committees.

Correct.

And and and I'm just clarifying the make sure as we're moved, you know, as we move on.

Obviously, there's that referral process.

Uh, but again, um in those committees, we we get those questions all the time of why is this contract in budget?

Uh and that's because every citywide contract falls through there.

So uh did not know under the responsibilities of each committee, should that be notated, and that was my question.

Uh Mr.

Whitaker.

I I believe for clarity, I think we probably should amend this to list it specifically under that because if there is a citywide contract, it really doesn't fit in any of the departments necessarily.

So I think designated and in the rules would be a good addition to make sure it happens every time.

Okay.

What I would like for us to do is if we can please go through, allow Dr.

Power to go through the presentation.

We will all have an opportunity to ask every question we we want, but will allow for her to please go through the presentation.

You may proceed.

Thank you, sir.

Under neighborhoods and community services standing committee, um, cable commission and other broadcast operations has been stricken, and the following two have been added: cultural affairs and department of neighborhoods.

And on the next page, added is human services and media services.

For planning and economic development, standing committee.

There have been a number of things added.

Um the first is convention authority, Detroit Brownfield Development Authority has been added, Detroit Building Authority added, Detroit Land Bank Authority added, Detroit Wayne County Port Authority has been added, Detroit Wayne County Stadium Authority has been added, and those are the only uh changes to uh PED.

The next section where there is a suggested change is uh 10.

10.14.2 dot one motion to wave reconsideration.

A motion to waive reconsideration of a vote may be applied to any main motion that passes with a vote of two-thirds of the members serving.

A motion that fall fails shall not have a waiver of reconsideration attached.

If any member objects to placing a waiver of reconsideration on a vote, the waiver shall not be attached.

If adopted, no member may reconsider a vote on the motion to which it is attached.

That is the current reading of the rules.

What has been added is the next sentence.

For items approved to have a waiver of reconsideration, those waivers shall take effect just prior to the motion to adjourn.

Next section fifteen point five point three.

Resolution writing resolution shall be prepared by the individual council members' office by the requesting department or by the legislative policy division.

That's how it currently reads.

The next section is new 15.5.3.1.

Resolutions in the name of the council.

Resolutions in the name of the council must be approved through a motion requested by the chair at the formal session.

If a majority of those present indicate that they want to join the sponsor on the resolution, then a motion may be made to put it in the name of the council.

Next section where there is an addition.

The city council shall award citizens, visiting dignitaries, and others as determined by the city council with testimonial resolutions, testimonial memorial, memorium resolutions, awards of recognition, spirit of Detroit Awards, and the Distinguished Service Award.

The next sentence or two.

Oh, did I say three?

I apologize.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

No, no worries.

You're doing five, Dr.

Okay.

The next section is suggested to be added.

Testimonial resolutions and spirit of Detroit resolutions shall only be awarded to individuals deserving higher honors.

Individuals deserving higher honors shall be defined as performing an act, an accomplishment, being involved in a socially beneficial, unique event, or living a life devoted to social well-being and the betterment of humankind and society.

All testimonial resolutions shall have original signatures by the city by the council member of their or their designee.

So those both set those both were added.

And it reads currently completed assignments.

All completed assignments will be directed to the standing committee whose jurisdiction covers the issue for review and consideration.

The assignments will be addressed to the chair of the committee, members of the committee, the president as ex officio, all city council members, and the city clerk.

The last sentence is new.

Completed assignments shall not go back to the formal session for referral to a standing committee.

Next 18.5 annual city council calendar.

This is all new.

Each year, the legislative policy division shall prepare an annual calendar for city council.

This annual calendar, excuse me, shall be re-approved by city council no later than October the 31st of the previous year.

Changes to the approved annual calendar shall be done through resolution approved by the body.

The next section is also totally new.

It's section 18.6.

Legislative agenda.

City Council shall vote to approve the final legislative agenda by January the 31st of the subsequent year.

In the subsequent years of the four-year term, City Council shall review and determine if changes are needed to the legislative agenda.

If changes are needed, they shall be approved by January the 31st of those years.

You said subsequent year under 18.6, it says second year.

Okay, well under 18 point six, because I have the resolution.

And as I'm reading it, not unless I have uh different copy than what you provided, it says 18.6, January 31st of the second year.

But you said subsequent, but in the resolution it says second.

Then you went on through the chair to yourself.

You said in the subsequent years of the four-year term.

So is it second year in 18.6 or is it subsequent?

It is subsequent year.

Okay.

And this document you provided, it says second.

So I there may have go ahead.

Are you talking when you when you ask the general question?

So it says the first line to your point does say second.

And then the line after that does say subsequent.

Okay.

Is it that's what you're suggesting?

You're saying rather.

I'm only reading.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Dr.

Howard.

It actually should say both as as indicated in the uh in the resolution.

It should be on the second year.

I mean, by January 31st of the second year.

And the subsequent year, when they use that term, is really referring to year three and four.

Thank you.

So both, so both the language is correct.

Okay.

Point of information?

Member Benson?

Just a verify.

Are we reading from the same document?

Yes, dated November 7th.

So it has to be agenda.

On this point through the chair to Dr.

Pollard.

What is this?

Member Callaway.

Through the chair, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And um to Councilmember Benson's point.

You said to your left or to your right, you have copies of the resolution.

Can you provide those so we can all have the same thing?

Someone from the team provide those to members.

Um I I don't know why there would be two versions, but this is the one that I'm reading from.

May I provide some clarity?

The correct language is in the resolution that we provided you on October the third, 2025.

So that's the that's the I understand that it's incorrect.

But that the correct version is the version that we provided to the clerk's office on October 3rd, 2025 in our memorandum.

So that's what I have.

Point of information.

I have November 7th as a version from which I'm reading.

You have okay, so we're gonna make sure we all have the same version.

You're reading from which version, Dr.

Powers?

Just to make sure.

Mine doesn't have a date on it, sir.

But it's so it was the latest version.

November 7th.

Okay.

No, you I that's that's the latest latest version that we that I'm aware of.

And nothing has been changed at the end.

Correct.

We just we right I get it.

We just have to make sure we level set.

Right.

And if I if I'm right if I may, whether it reads subsequent year or second year, it's the same position in time, but we can have second year in there, not a problem.

Roll Tim Tate.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Yeah.

Um to Dr.

Powers.

It's very important.

These rules govern this body.

So second is not the same as subsequent according to the language.

So either it's going to be subsequent and sec or or second, because some says second, some say subsequent.

It could be subsequent to third.

But I understand what you're saying, but we need to make sure that this document is accurate because it's going to govern us in years to come.

If since it appears to be a scrivener's error, um I can easily put second where that first subsequent is okay.

Member member Caluman, just to be clear, which version are you um October 3rd, and I am um I'll tell you exactly where I am.

I am on page 7.

I am reading from 18.6.

And the last sentence underlined, it says January 31st of the second year, when Dr.

Powers read it, she said subsequent year.

Then in the uh final sentence of that section of 18.6, it says in the subsequent years of the four-year term.

So I just want to make sure is it subsequent year after January 31st in the first section of 18.6, or is it second?

It's either second or subsequent.

That's that's the clear care clarification I was requested.

Point of information.

Um quick, so I I understand what Dr.

Powers is saying, the subsequent and and second really does mean the same in that capacity.

It's just a matter of the script because it's the subsequent year as opposed to subsequent years plural.

Okay.

The language should be uniform, though.

I agree.

I totally agree.

So which one would you prefer?

I mean, we we could make the change now.

Um I just want to make sure we're all on the same page and it's all reading the same.

So subsequent does not uh doesn't necessarily mean second, subsequent means something after, it could be after third, it could be after anything, but what I'm reading and what she read is something different.

So I just want to make sure that what she's reading is what I have through the chair.

Thank you.

Member Benson.

My point of information is I am looking at the November 7th document that came from the legislative policy division.

So my question is why are we reading from two separate documents?

And typically, the document with the most recent date for me would be the one from which we would be reading today, which would clarify any language differences that we're speaking about now.

So should I not be reading from the most recent date, or should I refer to an older document that does not have a date on it from what I've just been given?

We're gonna get to Dr.

Powers.

I think the most recent version is the one that we should be using.

And just I'm not in uh I I just I remember the discussion in the rules committee about uh using the term subsequent year where it is now uh and subsequent years where they are now, and that's how the term subsequent year got in there.

Uh I remember the discussion in the rules committee, but be that as it may, if it's the body's wish to to use the word second, it's not a problem.

Okay, so Mr.

Chair.

So we can we can certainly uh we can please note it, allow to go through and then we'll make all the changes.

I think that all of that is gonna be up because it sounds like many members have things that they want to address.

So we can please note our changes.

Yeah, to allow Dr.

Powers to finish.

And then I'm gonna open up the floor.

We all are gonna again have an opportunity to ask all yep, you're gonna have a chance too.

I promise.

Everybody, Mr.

Chair, I gotta go back to point of information then.

Yes, sir.

Because we still have two documents separate from which we are reading.

We should all be on the same document.

Just if I need to switch and go to the older document, then I suggest that we at least be on the same document at this table.

And I am on the November 7th version versus the October 3rd version.

So my suggestion is that we switch over to the November 7th version of the rules that we are all on the same document.

Because right now we are not.

And that does not make for a good deliberation.

So Dr.

Powers, the document that we have here that does not have a date on it.

This is what you're reading from.

It's the one that I'm reading from.

It was put on E Scribe.

This is the one that officially went through E Scribe.

Yes, it did.

Okay, so colleagues, this should be the one.

Older document.

And and if I may, sir, up to this point, there's been no deviation.

This is the first time that there's been something different.

But be that as it may, um, it would make sense to use the most current version.

Point of information, which would be the November 7th version here.

And I'm not sure what the date is for this document here, since there's no date on it.

No, there were there wasn't a date on the document that just got passed out because it was it was decided that you better, in case you didn't have it from E Scribe, we'd bring up copies.

So but again, if if there's different language that and I remember the again, the subsequent subsequent conversation, but this version that we have, well, the version I'm looking at is uh October 3rd and it has second and it has subsequently on the October 3rd one.

But it sounds like Member Benson, yours has what?

Just for that 18.6, just so we'll make sure I know you asked for point of clarification.

Subsequent, there is no word that says second in 18.6 in the November 7th version, which is what I'm reading from what was handed out at the table.

So the peers that you're reading, Member Benson, based on just that change alone, what you're looking at is this version that's in my hand that was handed out with no date on it.

Yes, I'm just I I get it.

I'm again trying to level set, yeah.

Yep, just trying to level set.

This is what we have right now in our hands.

That's what it sounds like is November 7th, the one without a date.

Yes, sir.

All that is about to be verified, but that it was that's what it appears to be at this moment.

On the clip point of clarification, member Young.

Dr.

Powers, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here because I cannot pretend to be able to comprehend your knowledge of this subject.

And excellence, but for my understanding, I think what it had here is we had this because this one actually goes through the changes, what it is, what we're changing.

But if you want a more comprehensive view of all the rules, we had the November one because this is the bigger, thicker document.

So if I want to look through more comprehensively the rules, what they are, what they're not, I would look to November 7th for my reference.

But the actual changes that we're gonna be voting on, that's what the smaller document is for.

Is that why we have these two documents?

But the reason there are two documents is this is the version of the rules right now, the thicker one.

That yes, the thicker document is the one that has all of these suggested changes that the rules committee has made, suggested amendments.

Okay, it's it it's easier to go through this rather than to have to go through you know back and and find that section in the larger document.

Right, and since anything that's in this summary document is right out of this, right?

Um that's why I'm reading the small document.

That's what I figured.

Okay.

I just wanted to get that clear for um clarity.

Thank you.

You were on the point of clarification, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so just to further clarify, the document that was just passed out to us is the resolution of changes.

Yes, that was approved.

So the larger document that we have is the rules with everything.

The incorporated changes, correct.

Okay, thank you.

So although we still have Mr.

Chair, the subsequent and second, right?

I believe that this so we know the subsequent and second.

That is definitely a difference between the two documents.

Yes.

No, this one doesn't say second.

So you have the November 7th, as well as the document with correct, those are the same.

October 3rd is the one that's different.

That's the one I'm looking at this as subsequent and second.

So that's the only difference that we have.

But we what was sub submitted to E Scribe, and that is the official document, is the one that has no date on it and coincides with November 7th.

Yes.

Are we all clear?

The November 7th version is the one that we are operating on because that is the version that was submitted through ESCROT.

So if you have October 3rd, it's a nice guide, but that's not the one we're looking at right now.

So I'm gonna close my computer and just look at this document that we have in our hand now.

That's the one that went to East Grab.

That's the one that coincides with November 7th, the document that we also have the thicker version.

The one to have November 7th is different from this one.

Some of the information.

Okay, we'll give an opportunity to point it out because it we want to again.

Let's allow Dr.

Powers to complete.

Now that we know that we're operating on the November 7th version.

Level set.

I suggest this whole thing.

No, we can't cancel it.

Not yet.

Not after four years of work.

Right.

We're gonna move forward and we will deliberate afterwards.

Dr.

Powers, you may proceed.

Thank you, sir.

Um we are at the almost at the end.

Um section 22.0.

Procedures for persons wishing to address council.

Um this is currently this paragraph is currently in your rules.

It reads a brief written notice of a request to address the city council shall be filed with the city clerk, not later than 2 p.m.

of the business day immediately preceding the day of the scheduled meeting to which the request pertains.

The clerk shall provide reasonable assistance in the preparation of such request to any person requesting assistance.

The next paragraph does have a change in it.

I'll read uh the of the first part, of course, has not yet wasn't changed.

It reads a written notice of a request to address the city council shall identify the person making the request.

Identification shall include, and here's where we um additional things were added, um, address both resident and business, phone number, and it wasn't, I'm sorry, it wasn't added, but was stricken in this in this paragraph, and shall and shall state the subject matter on which such person wishes to address the city council.

So that last part of the sentence in that paragraph was stricken.

This was added instead.

This is a brand new paragraph.

The petitioner shall include a paragraph stating their standing and or interest in the subject matter, the relief expected, what they want, and the number of times they have previously petitioned to speak before council, and the issue associated with each petition request.

The next paragraph is also new.

Council may request the law department to opine on whether the petitioner is currently in litigation with the city of Detroit or otherwise has a pending claim against the city.

The next paragraph has been stricken.

Upon approval of the request by the body, the chair of the standing committee or committee of the whole shall have the discretion as to when during the meeting the person shall be heard and shall also have the discretion to improve a reasonable limitation on the time allotted to hear such person.

That paragraph has been replaced by the next paragraph.

It reads after the request has been processed by the city clerk by the clerk's office, it shall appear as a line item on a formal session agenda.

The request shall then be voted upon by the whole body.

A majority of the body must approve the request for the petitioner to present to the whole body at a formal session.

Approval by the whole body is also required for a presentation at a standing committee meeting.

If the body approves the standing committee presentation, the petitioner shall be referred to the appropriate standing committee.

Next par uh next paragraph is also new.

The chair of the formal session or of the standing committee may be may determine when the petitioner may be heard, and may also have the discretion to impose a reasonable limitation on the time allotted to hear such person.

Last paragraph in that section is the same.

This procedure, excuse me, shall not apply to scheduled public hearings or to persons invited by the city council to participate in discussions before the city council.

The last is simply the uh now therefore be it resolved that the Detroit City Council sets the required public hearing to amend the rules of the order of the order rules of order for the Detroit City Council on November the 14th, 2025, and finally that the clerk published the notice.

We didn't have a time when this went out, so that's why there's no time on it.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh before we go to colleagues, uh Mr.

Whitaker, the floor is yours, sir.

I I just wanted to indicate at the conclusion of this, you should state when you want these rules to become effective.

We're suggesting that you do it at the start of the next term.

Got it.

Got that, madam chair.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

So uh I know that we had a number of questions that uh colleagues had some clarifying questions, some uh even beyond that, and we'll start.

I know Member Santiago Romero had her hand up first.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I will be very brief.

Just want clarity on the electrical meeting section.

I know there were changes to state law, but we still conduct meetings electronically.

Are we simply stating that we are no longer doing solely online um electrical meetings or um electronic meetings, or will we still have this available for the public to join and to watch uh council Dr.

Powers?

Sure, I would defer.

Ohcliffe.

Those will be considered a hybrid beaties what we do now.

The the meeting itself is not electronic.

The meeting itself is in person, and we have um have provided the public with additional access through um through um Zoom, but the meeting itself is not an electric uh um electronic meeting as indicated with this.

These were special rules that were put in place for the pandemic, and since the the state has rescinded those um uh additional um access, we've we're removing the rules.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to be clear for the public, we're still holding hybrid meetings.

We will still be able to do that.

We'll still have these options to to join us moving forward.

Yes, but did these were rules for meetings that were totally during the climate?

Yes.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any additional questions, colleagues?

Uh member Durhal.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and um just want to make sure that we get clarity on that and amend uh which we spoke about earlier as far as citywide contracts falling under the jurisdiction of the budget finance and hardest standing committee.

If you if it is your body's desire, we can add that language to um to the list of uh responsibilities for that committee.

That's that's not and just for the record that does not equate to a substantive change, which would send us back just for the record.

Discussion.

Um point of clarity on that.

Point of clarity.

And so I want to make sure I'm clear.

And so what I heard was all contracts that are citywide should go through budget.

And so I'm unfamiliar with contracts that do not that do not impact the entire well, very rarely do we see contracts that don't impact the entire city.

What does that mean?

Well, some contracts may um impact and and and Mr.

Johnson can um clarify.

Some and some contracts um involve more than one department.

Um so there's kind of citywide contracts, for instance.

Um I can't think of something right now, but water, you know, staples.

Water supplies procurement.

For instance, um, our contracts were staples for our office supplies, each department um uses that those contracts, so it's not centralized in one in particular departments.

We just have a a citywide contracts for any department to use.

So those are the you know, differing from contracts that are say, for instance, for the airport or for GSD.

So what I heard was any citywide contract, and so a water contract, which comes through public health and safety would now be transferred over to budget.

That's what I heard.

That's why I want the point of clarification here, please.

Usually citywide contracts are serving a particular that serve the departments.

Okay.

So Mr.

Whitaker.

Yeah, the citywide contracts are so designated citywide by the purchasing department, correct?

Maybe you speak to it, Anthony.

Come to you got a mic there.

Take my seat.

Councilmember Benson.

So like to my colleague mentioned a staples contract is for the entire city, but a water department contract is specifically for that water department, so that would still come through the public health and safety committee.

Okay.

Does that help?

Okay, very helpful.

And then how does that differ from something that would be internal operations?

Because typically I see internal operations contracts for state things of that nature typically going through that because it impacts the internal operations of the city versus something that's citywide versus something that is department specific.

That makes through you, Mr.

President to Member Benson.

From my understanding, the reason why it falls under that.

I'm sorry, Mr.

President.

Uh why it falls under uh that because it also comes through procurement, which is now attached to budget finance and audit.

Okay.

Discussion.

Uh discussion on that point.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, can we perhaps use different terminology as opposed to a citywide contract?

Um, perhaps a contract that impacts multiple departments.

A citywide contract is just so elusive.

I mean, it's it's it's difficult to really understand what a citywide contract refers to procurement identifies which contracts are considered citywide.

That is not a function that we do, right?

That's an actual category of special category of contracts within procurement.

And it's so designated and when it's submitted through for your approval, is designated citywide.

So can we do something similar to what member Johnson is asking?

Contracts designated as citywide, also known as again, a very that way gives a bit of a definition of what uh a delineation rather uh rather than just the overall seems like that would at least alleviate some confusion as as we try to define what citywide means.

Seeing that we are going to be able to open up four amendments, member Johnson.

Uh thank you for that because I do my mind is going to citywide contracts that we've seen come through us, it then further identifies the department, I believe, that the contract applies to, which in essence creates it a citywide contract.

I'm not certain that I've seen just a citywide contract without departments associated with it that gives us further clarification of what departments the contract is for.

Um, but maybe that's a conversation with OCP because citywide just I'm with Member Benson.

Pretty much everything is citywide.

I I understand how OCP defines it.

It's just I think it can open uh a can of worms if it's not defined.

Um Durhal.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And we have voted on citywide contracts before.

Uh as the clerk reason to the record, when you talk about anything that is specific, you know, we go through the contractor, we go through the amount and says this is for this department.

When it's saying this is for citywide, is because there are multiple department multiple departments that are involved and they don't fall under a particular category, and it is categorized like that under procurement because it is allowed to be spent through multiple departments citywide.

And from that cost, uh that's without getting to deep into the minutiae of the cost center, which is a whole nother conversation, but that is why it is defined that way.

So for instance, uh council, and we are our we have our own allotments, right?

But the contract with staples in which we get from our office papers or inc or whatever the case may be, is a citywide negotiated contract having the ability to be utilized by every department of the city.

So it is not specifically services for the residents, as you would say, talking about DWSD.

It is for the departments that operate under city government uh and what procurement contracts for us to utilize those services citywide, our departments citywide.

Discussion.

And so this this offers a ton of clarity.

Is this where procurement initiates the contract and manages they all manage all the but does procurement or these procurement contracts basically that come through the procurement department?

Could it be better or more specific if it's really a procurement department, which would fall underneath the the CFO's designation for budget?

But if the terminology was changed to procurement, then it would for me offer a ton of clarity here.

And it wouldn't be about the citywide, it'd be about procurement department initiates this contract.

Is that accurate?

Within the procurement initiate all the contracts, but not their manage the go to attorney Barcliff first.

My suggestion is that we have a brief conversation away from the table with with procurement, and then we can do um and maybe bring this back at the the our next formal.

I mean, at least for this particular issue to make a determination how it should be worded on the the um in the in the rules.

So I we I have an understanding of of what your body desires.

I just want to make sure that we word the word it correctly in the rules, so we can kind of we could just have a further conversation with them to properly designate or identify what those contracts are.

Okay so that we can just put it in the rules.

I think that's fair.

There I thought I heard uh as we began the public hearing that there was possibly going to be a request for a bring back uh next week to allow for some of that conversation to take place anyway.

So I think that is very appropriate.

Uh member Durha, you still have the floor, so thank you, Mr.

President.

Finally, what I would say through you to member Benson, uh just for further clarity, when those contracts come before us and BFNA, um it is under the con the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Uh so when you see the title and which department it falls under those citywide contracts, as a clerk would read it from the Office of Contracting and Procurement, they fall under the Office of Contract and Procurement.

The the point of my uh recommendation to amend that and include that in the council rules was because we've got an incoming, a new council will have a new uh uh president uh of the council.

Uh and that question has been asked before based off of referrals of why is this in budgets committee and this is not in PHS or this is not in another committee IOS.

Um, because it it would be better if it's defined in those council rules for more clarity so folks know that citywide contracts that fall under the office of contract and procurement are under the purview of the uh BFNA committee.

Discussion member Benson?

All right, and so that would be if it gets there in amendment on 9.2 under budget finance and all the standing committee.

Is that where that clarification will come?

Correct through you uh Mr.

President to Member Benson, correct?

Okay.

Uh and that will uh you know align with the responsibilities of that particular committee uh and what they take up.

Okay, and that level of clarity offers a lot of support, member Benson, to my question regarding how do we clarify that.

And so that's very helpful to me.

Thank you.

All right.

Again, we're gonna have more conversation and bring this back next week.

Uh member young.

I have to do that.

It is just a question.

Uh uh.

Was it on that?

No, I'll just really quick.

I just want to know.

Well, Tim, we should have been having this discussions all year.

We've been we're at this for four years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, ma'am.

I I just want to know just for clarification.

We're not voting this out today, right?

We're gonna like make changes and then bring this back correctly.

It's a lot of changes.

Yeah, big thing to vote out like on today.

We're gonna like go through the process, bring it back.

This will make sure.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, member Waters.

Yes, I am to vote in here.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

So I'm looking at section two point zero.

I just don't like the way this language reads.

It says there shall be seven non-at-large districts and one at large district established in the city.

I don't like that.

I mean, I I don't know why that is necessary, that particular lane language for this one.

Why do we have to say at least one at large district?

I somebody needs to explain it to me because I just think it's unnecessary language and it confuses people.

I want to start with that one.

Um Attorney Burkliffe.

Because that's how it's identified in the charter.

Because that's how it's identified in the charter.

What?

It's charter language.

That's how it's identified in the charter.

Yeah, but you don't have you have two at-large members.

I don't know.

Okay, but it's only one at large district.

But it's just one at large district.

So I think that's the I understand why you're why you're indicating that it's it creates some confusion.

There are uh seven districts and one at large district who the seven districts has one member and the at-large district has two.

Okay, okay.

Well, uh, did it say that?

That it has two?

Yes, ma'am.

None at large district and two members shall be elected from okay.

All right, I I I couldn't, I didn't get to that one.

All right.

So, all right, let's go to uh four dot two dot one.

It says the property um assessment board of review consists of nine members with at least seven members appointed by each of the non-at large district uh appointments, each council shall uh recommend a position on the board, the city council shall appoint at least seven members, one each from the non-at-large districts.

So that one too is is a bit confusing.

Where's the at large representation in that?

I am I missing something Barclay Wellington.

When it comes to the boards and commissions, the at large district is is really just everyone in this in the city.

Oh, I know they so within the rules, there's really never a designation for the the um the at large district.

Well what we usually what they usually do is indicate that um there has to be membership within the districts because I think the the the point of it really was to make sure that each district is representative, represented, and then although there are additional ones, it's indicating that the other two members cannot be from basically the same district.

So although there are the nine members, the at large district really is just kind of any resident within the city.

Yes, ma'am, member one.

I I just want to make sure um that the art at-large members are not excluded from any of this.

So I needed to clarify the language and make sure that that we are not excluded.

Well, well, there really isn't any exclusion.

I think one of the things that there's there's kind of customary practice, and then there's kind of what the rules are.

In terms of customary practice with appointing members to um the the various boards and commissions, it is your it is your your your practice to allow each individual person from a district to appoint person uh a person um for that particular position to represent that district.

But that is a courtesy that you all extend to each other.

Um and with that, what you've would what you've done is indicate that you know each person gets to pick someone, and as a courtesy you all um agree to do that, but that's not really what the law is.

What the law says is that um each each district must be represented.

And the reason that is important is because there have been times where we haven't gotten nominations because I've been doing the boards and commissions for quite some time, and there have been times where you don't get nominations for really extended long um periods of time for boards, and then the body does have to appoint someone, or if there's a vacancy or any number of things, and that's why it's important to kind of uh distinguish between what's the customary practice and what the rules actually entail.

And with this, I think it's um your practice to allow even with the city planning commission for each member to appoint someone, and I think that that the way it's written is a reflection of that.

Okay, I may I'm member water.

All right, so remains yours.

Okay, I mean I I get it.

Okay, so I get the law says one person should be elected from selected from each district.

But then you says, in order for the at large uh members to receive appointments, it is a courtesy of this body to extend that.

Is that what you say?

The courtesy is extended to everyone, it is even within the districts.

So it's you all have what I would consider Let me say it this way.

Mr.

Wittaker.

I may there are times where the where the courtesy is not picked up by the district.

In other words, the district person, the person representing the district just simply fails to designate anybody.

Therefore, the body has to designate someone.

That's not what I'm talking about from that district.

And it was the same thing would be true for the at-large person.

If the at-large person fails to nominate someone, then the body has a responsibility of filling that position in spite of the fact that no nomination has come from that individual council member.

And and Mr.

Whitaker, we can just also add that there's been times where we unfortunately have not had a council member in that position, which led to the body having to take that initiative as opposed to leaving it open.

Okay, but you know, you're talking that's not what I'm even asking.

I understand that.

What I'm saying is that the two at-large members should have the the same right of there should be rights of the two at-large members, just like it is of the seven district.

Not not based on that scenario, but I'm just talking about to make appointments to all the various bodies, uh uh committees, boards, rather.

That's that's that's all I am saying, and the language was confusing.

I that is the case.

That's why it's nine members.

So each member gets the ability to make an appointment for that body.

Um by district, and in those instances there is an opportunity for each council member to make an appointment.

Discussion.

I will uh so before we go to the least at least nominate someone for the appointment.

I I guess is a better word.

I I would just say now is the time that we can make any suggestions for any language that you believe would satisfy your concern, Member Waters.

Uh okay, all right.

Well, then I'll I'll make sure that I have it ready by next week.

Okay.

Um did you have a I I think I think Member Waters has taken my my statement was going to be around we proactively identify the districts, but we don't proactively identify the at-large.

So I believe language that proactively identifies at-large in that section would address the concern that's being raised to table.

And I believe that's what's been stated by member waters now.

We can we can do that.

Hello, somebody.

Discussion.

All right.

Now I'm gonna go to a final section here.

Question on question on that particular item.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, just the thoughts.

Um, because it it I hear member waters is saying, and I understand where it's coming from.

My only thought is if we have representation and I guess if the request is to be clear that any district member or at-large member can nominate for whatever boards and commissions understood, because we can do that anyways, we can have that clear in the language.

Will it make any changes to the nine member bodies or the seven for the seven, or is yep, the seven for the seven district?

If we're adding two, will that change the body?

Because if it does, then my only concern would be then it wouldn't actually be equal representation.

You would have two or more in a district, and no longer is it representate the representation of one district member per district.

Now you have two potentially for an additional two districts, and that is my only current concern that I'm asking, or that I bring up, which is why I understand why we do it this way where we nominate because we still vote together as a board.

We still have a process to to bring on who we want.

But that's my only concern that I bring up if we're gonna change the language, make it very clear that we're not making it an equit inequitable now for district representation.

The language would not really change what is what is happening correctly.

I mean, right now, because uh there are already dime members on the board.

I think what if if I can speak for member waters, I think what she's indicating is just she wants it to proactively indicate that there's represent representation for the at-large districts.

Um I correct?

Um absolutely that we also have the same rights and privileges as the others.

And what the rule further was indicating is that um one uh there can only at max be two members from a particular district.

So the you so that it removes the possibility that one district can have three representatives.

Whether they're by so what the reason it will be a possibility is that um there's the seven at there's the seven districts and the the two um say at at large districts I mean at large members could could not both live in the same district sure understood and I I understand what we're all saying I think we're just saying a few different things and and in similar ways we just want to define the things um but um I if we need to make it clear that every member of this body has the privilege to nominate to bring forward greats um I just want to also just the at districts is district every district so it's also just confusing to say we're gonna get at-large district representation when we already have that because it's the city um so just want to throw that out there as well we are we're kind of saying the same thing but it I know it's different but it ends up being whites so those are my thoughts and my comments thank you.

So so correct me if I'm I'm wrong but my understanding is that each we've again courtesy versus the rule these individuals are not our end of these appointments are not our individual appointments district one through seven or at large these are the appointments of the body members have the ability to uh to nominate whether you're in the district or you're at large but all we're really talking about is where they're they must come from essentially they must come from these seven districts but these are not our individual appointees these are the appointees of the body as a whole am I correct or incorrect with that that's the perfect way to say that that they're they're not they're all appointees of the body got further for clarification because I want to make sure we are extending the I believe it's clarification.

Clarification member Benson I I am going to disagree that if we extend the courtesy to all seven district members typically you will appoint someone from your district typically you don't have to based on this rule you could have a situation where there are three members of the board of review in one district Scott Benson Councilman Benson could appoint someone from Regent Park Board of Review Third District.

Member Waters could appoint somebody from Crams Woods third district at large as two members from the third district now member young could then say my person is going to come from Bangletown that's now three people who have come from the third district and then you could have each other individual member who we extend that typical courtesy that they appoint somebody from their district so you could have a situation where there are three members from one district and I don't think that's wrong.

I don't think it's bad I don't think it's inequitable I believe that if we extend the courtesy that members from at large could say hey I want to get somebody from there they may want to have different balance but you are going to always have at least two people from one district there's no way around it because the at-large is citywide there is no one exclusion exclusive at-large area of the city someone there will always be two people from one district if we extend the courtesy the way it is here on paper I don't see how we get around that and I don't also want to see it as a negative either and it could be three from one district just based on how the math would work.

I just want to say that geographically living there I think we just put the the rules says there can no there can be no more than two right so I don't know how we could get three if the rule actually says no more than two if you got one from one district I didn't see the part where it says no more than two yeah no more than two members shall be appointed from any one district that's in the second to uh well the third uh to last line and four point four at large member already know that there are two already over there then I need you can appoint from somewhere else correct okay based on the language that we have here and where is that in the what was section well again I'm on I'm saying we're gonna make sure I go to the right one but it I I recall that in the past with what's four point four point four point one four point this is just I'm gonna declare it just for clarity that's already in your rules that's not a change.4 point one right Dr.

So my 4.4.1 reads appointment.

The nine member city count city planning commission shall be appointed by and serve with the pleasure of city council.

Yeah.

I I don't know.

You have some adaptive.

Keep going now.

This is for the planning commission, though.

We were initially talking about 4.1.

We are now that is the board of review.

We are now in a whole separate body.

So I'm still talking about what the original conversation was, which was four point four point two, the board of review.

That was the original conversation.

We've now skipped over to the planning commission.

No, may I provide some clarity?

The conversation was actually never about the board of review.

It was only ever about the city planning commission.

I think that because of of how the changes are, the 4.2 is some changes to the the board of review.

And the only changes that are really being identified with the board of review is to indicate this is the property assessment board of review so that it can be um distinguished from the income tax board of review.

So is that that's that's the only thing that's happening with the board of review.

If you kind of turn to the next page, the 4.4.1, we're only talking about the city planning commission.

So although there maybe have been some confusion, um the conversation has always been about the city planning commission.

I then I'm gonna disagree again, and I can be wrong, but what I heard was about the board of review, and specifically what was stated was 4.2.1, and that's where we were talking about the board of review consists of nine members with at least seven, and that was the concern that we were talking about, the language not being proactive to include at-large members versus being proactive to discuss the district members.

So that's where I stayed.

I hadn't gone over to the planning commission, and maybe I'm incorrect because we were speaking on the conversation that was stopped that was started by an at-large member, and what I'm hearing from my colleague is that I am correct here.

The issue and concern was around that committee, which is where I've stayed in this conversation.

Okay, well, maybe I'm maybe I'm confused then.

So but but everything I've said applies exactly the same, actually.

Discussion um well, with the exception of the exception of the part of there being the possibility of of three members from each district, even when we um submitted the boards of um commission's um report for the the board of review, it is identified who has nominated the individual.

So the the it is identifies the seven districts and then it identifies the two at-large members.

Um so that I think it provides clarity in who has nominated them.

So the language about the I mean, so my comments about that there being a possibility of three of them, three one individual um I mean three individuals coming from one district is correct with regard to the um the board of review.

That is not correct with regard to the city planning commission.

To just to provide clarity.

And so that clarity has been, and I and I appreciate that level clarity.

I'm gonna go back to the original conversation because we had not moved there based on the conversation and the discussion on the floor from my colleague.

We were in the board of review, and the board of review does not provide that level of clarity, which is provided in the planning commission.

So then here comes the conversation.

We can have three members of the board of review based on the language in the rules.

We cannot have that based on the language in the rules for the planning commission.

So therefore, should we extend this same language from the planning commission to the board of review because that protection is not there?

That's my point.

And I and I and I get it, I see it in the planning commission.

We do have that protection.

It's not been extended to the board of review, though, based on the language from which we're reviewing today.

I mean, it it to be honest that that's um within the purview of your body.

I right no one has thus far identified that as being an issue.

Well, I just did um so no, I mean, but what I think what you've identified as being an issue is it not being indicated that you have the the uh the ability to nominate um council members.

I mean, not council members, board um board members, and I think that that's a a different issue than there being a possibility of three coming from the same district.

But so it sounds like colleagues have additional language they want to provide because we have we we're not gonna get it all solved right here.

Uh raise the issue but provide the information because it again it's going to be coming back to this body for to allow us to have additional deliberation.

We're gonna have at least some clarification on that.

And it sounds like there's just one issue that you you you have that we want to do.

Before you complete, we got Mr.

Whitaker here.

Mr.

Whittaker.

Mr.

President, if if it is the council's desire that we draft language that harmonizes the selection of at-large members with this with the information that Mr.

Benson just raised from the board of that's that's make makes it consistent with what we have in city planning commission and carry that language over to the board of review.

We would be happy to do that.

We haven't been instructed to do that, but if you make a motion to do that, we will gladly provide that language for your review and consideration uh next week for your vote.

All right, motion discussion.

There's a motion uh to move the item as described by Mr.

Whittaker.

Uh discussion on that motion, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, do we just want to make it across the board for all boards where there are nine members that not more than two members can be from any particular district?

So move discussion amendment to the motion uh that member waters made by member Johnson a disc um discussion on the amended motion by Member Johnson, member Young.

Uh I I have no problem because I just want to say I support I support it.

I just want to say i i it it forgive me if I didn't hear this part of the conversation.

But I just want to know what is the emphasis on the limit in terms of how many can be for one area.

Why is that?

Well Madam Mr.

President, Mr.

Rudaker.

Yeah.

Uh if you just think about it, if you have more than one in the district, you may get more emphasis applied to one area of the city.

That's true, because you've got three coming in, and their focus may be concentrated in the area that they live in.

So you want to you want to make sure you don't get that level of concentration.

You really want every part of the city to get the same love.

And yeah.

And you know you're you're absolutely right if you're being fair-minded.

I I I I'm just the type of person, I just believe a winner takes all.

You know what I'm saying?

And uh, you know, being the most well, wait, Millie Baker, being the second most largest vote getter in the city of Detroit.

Uh I just feel like if you win, you should be able to pick, you know, as long as it's legal and everything's cop aesthetic, you should be able to pick who you want to pick.

I'm not gonna fight this, I'm not this is not a hill I want to die on.

But I just want to kind of make that kind of clear.

If that's who I want to pick, and that's the best person, and they just so happen to be from the third district or the second district or the first or whoever, as the at-large person, I should be able to do that, and that should be accepted.

I I don't even like the word courtesy.

I think the word should be prerogative.

You know what I'm saying?

Just because of the work that we did, you know, the Bobby Brown song, in my opinion.

But um, I I you know I I guess I'm just venting here.

I just want to get it off my chest.

I'm gonna vote for this, but I just want to make that clear.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh that gives us an opportunity once again, once the language is provided to LPD, gives us an opportunity to have this discussion when it comes back.

Right.

All right.

So uh any other changes that you would like to see, Member Waters.

The floor remains yours.

I um I just want to clarify um 4.6, the the Board of Ethics.

And so hold on one second.

Hold on, one second, I'm sorry.

Um Mr.

Chair, you have two open motions you can vote.

And you have an amendment.

You really should vote on the amendment.

Um and if if that's then the um yes, ma'am, member waters.

Okay.

There's a motion again in uh an amended motion by Member Johnson to member waters' original motion.

Is there any objection?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

All right.

Now, Member Waters, my apologies.

Okay, all right.

Now excuse me.

I guess I'm wrong.

Oh Dr.

Powers.

I'm sorry, but now you need to vote on Member Waters and uh to add the language consistent with uh CPC's language because Member Johnson's motion was just to extend it, and maybe Member Waters didn't want it extended, so she could have voted no for that amendment.

So I'm just saying now is the the time to vote on the main motion, which was what oh you to add language consistent with what is in CPC.

vote on member waters and uh to add the language consistent with uh cpc's language because member johnson's motion was just to extend it and maybe member waters didn't want it extended so she could have voted no for that amendment so I'm just saying now is the the time to vote on the main motion which was what oh you to to add language consistent with what is in CPC that that's what the amendment was I'll just go ahead and move it just for that's the way to do it so there's a motion to uh have the language with that is currently in CPC also uh appear for the BZA thought that was my board of review excuse as amended for all as amended for all yes appointments boards and commissions appropriate that have nine members is that the motion discussion I first before before we go discussion I want to make sure we're gonna yes sir I got you got you okay all three four times we said it I got you nine nine nine nine don't break that up just want to make sure we're clear on the motion that we're going to be discussing yes nine members that are appointed pursuant to their district ma'am say one more time please it has to be the the the the the appointments that have nine members that are appointed by district see because not everything is appointed by districts there's only maybe it two or three board maybe three boards that are appointed pursuant to the districts that's the board of review city planning commission and the board of zoning appeals and HDAP I think it's those four and we have none of no other boards are appointed pursuant to dist I mean by their district representation so here's here's why I asked the question and and I'm trying to get us through this agenda the question I have is if we just made a motion there is an opportunity for members to submit language to you that clarifies that motion that will be voted on us by next on next week not today anyway so there was a commitment to send as we've indicated our language to LPD I'm hopeful that we'll still have the conversation with LPD because that language will come back to this body and we will have another discussion whether we support it or not or maybe even adjust it but Mr President yes ma'am can I say this ma'am LPD committed to adding the language Mr Whitaker did you know he said they would go back and do that themselves so when he said that there was no need for me to submit it because he agreed to do it.

But she's just she she just said that she was that's part of the motion though that was what was requested okay to ask the LPD uh add the language then I mean I I I mean we can send something but he said he'd do it but he still has to get the language that you want yeah I I want what he said that's good what we've been discussing I think perhaps um um everyone's getting a little confused um oh no not everybody I I absolutely don't okay in the original motion if I may oh lord well this is what started it in the original motion okay you wanted language um consistent with CPC relative to the number of members and so forth that is okay and you you wanted LPD to do that yes yes so the assignment within that was being sent to LPD Mr.

Whitaker said sure we'll do that yes but nonetheless it needed to be in the form of a motion followed by a memo that's the way the assignments are done that's that's all I want to make clear so that no one is confused all right that's the tape translator so I need to make make another motion yes ma'am all right motion just asking uh for LPD you to submit the the language in accordance with the the planning commission which was part of the original motion and and then member Johnson made an amendment to your motion it was accepted so now the motion is to approve it as amended all right motion to to adopt the amendment as a mended yes there's a motion on the floor colleagues any objection seeing none that action shall be taken and again there will be some conversation uh and language that we provide to LPD to ensure that we're all on the same page point of information member Bent could you just repeat the motion so that we're clear because as amended without the repeating the entire motion we had a number of conversations typically that comes from the person who's making the motion yeah so so the motion was to adopt to have um uh LPD to draft language for all boards and commissions to um I'm losing track now that's why inception to make sure that the language for all boards and commission is consistent with the planning commission's language across all of it that that are district specific yes that are district specific yes and and that's the other problem that I have around here

That's why the matrix to make sure that the language for all boards and commission is consistent with the planning commission's language.

Across all of it.

That that are district specific.

Yes, that are district specific.

Yes.

And and that's the other problem that I have around here.

I think we need a another word to use with at large other than district, because that's that's what makes it so confusing.

I don't know what word you guys would choose, but I just got to tell you it it does uh cause a problem because at large is not a district.

It's it does the way we don't have to get into charter language.

I well, yeah, they did it wrong too.

So we're gonna move forward.

All right, so again, there was a motion.

Any objection, seeing none, that action shall be taken, but language again shall be provided to make sure that they understand.

Member Waters, the floor remains yours.

Oh, thank you.

I just have one other quick question.

This is getting to be a bit much.

Um just on 4.6.

I just want to make sure that I clarify that all the board of ethics uh members can be chosen by any council member.

Um district at or at large.

Is that correct?

Motion?

Yes.

That's 4.6.

It's not in the summary.

You have to go to the um just um it could be nominated by any any any council member.

Yeah, yeah.

If you want to be more specific, look at 4.61.

So any council member okay.

I just want to make sure I clarify.

In this instance, council only has three three appointments and one joint appointment with the mayor's office.

So any council member um can nominate um members to those boards.

We encourage all nominations because sometimes it's difficult to get nominations for the boards and commissions.

So we we encourage all nominations.

Okay, all right.

Discussion discussion on that point on not that point, but that section.

We can come back if you want me to, but since we're already here, member Benson will give an opportunity to just motion to request a definition for cause only under 4.6.1.

The member shall serve without compensation and may be removed for cause only.

There's a national debate now about cause only.

If we could please get a definition of cause so that it does not play out here, and it may already be there.

I just didn't see it.

This rule was not under consideration for amendment.

And so that we did did not provide a notice to amendments for rule 4.6.

Okay.

I mean, it's it's easier to make changes to the other ones because we had already put um amendments into consideration.

And I would also like to note that if there's anyone who would like to provide, because we're not even there yet, uh, public con general public comment.

If there's anyone who would like to provide general public comment, please raise your hand now in attendance and someone will make sure they get a uh document, uh a card for you.

But this is not for general public comment online, online is only right now for the public hearing.

We will open up in a few minutes once we wrap up this public hearing for general public comment.

But if you are indeed have not had an opportunity to sign on a card, uh and you're in the committee of the whole, and you're called and you're uh coming down for general public comment, you can also raise your hand right now, and someone will get a card to you.

Uh who was next?

Uh Mr.

Whitaker.

I was just gonna say uh Mr.

President, to Mr.

Benson's comments.

If you want us to to draft uh a memo regarding four calls only, we'd be happy to do so, although I agree with what what uh my colleague here said that you really can't really deal with it in this um this attempt to amend now because it it seeds what you've put notice on, but we'd be happy to give thing I I I agree with you they need to be a definition, and we'd be happy to undertake that you should also give that request to law as well.

Well then my question discussion would be would an opinion from the law department serve the same purpose.

We wouldn't have to amend the rules if we have a legal definition of four cause from the law department.

Would that serve as the same purpose without having to go through the rules?

I I think that would be superior.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll take care of it that way.

Thank you.

All right, member waters, you said you had a few more.

Oh no, I'm gonna ask my last one.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh the question is that was that a motion.

No, I think you oh no, but I think you want to give it to the law for for that six.

LPD's assignment.

I'm good.

They clear it.

Oh, you mean for Benson?

Benson.

Uh a motion for an assignment.

Motion for an assignment, and it will be followed by a memo requesting an opinion from the law department on cause definition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any objection to that motion for assignment?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Colleagues, any additional questions, comments, concerns regarding the items that we have before us in this public hearing.

And again, that's city council rules.

See none.

We shall now go to public comment.

As I mentioned earlier, we did have an opportunity for those who wanted to speak on the and we don't close uh public comment uh for those who are seeking to comment on the public hearing.

And we have two individuals.

Okay, I missed it.

Are we now still having discussion on these?

Uh no, we're in public comment now.

I asked for any op any additional public any additional comments from colleagues.

And no, I'm apologizing because I was getting my memo prepared for the opinion, and I did miss that request.

And I do have a question regarding this writing.

Okay.

So before we open up public comment, member Benson, the floor is yours.

Uh and it sounds like everybody else at this moment is satisfied to move forward with member Benson.

Any additional questions, comments, concerns, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

And that would come from so for on section, this is on page 45 of the November 7th.

This would be section 22.0 procedures for persons wishing to address counsel.

And it doesn't have a number, but it would be the one, two, three, four, five, six paragraph.

And uh so after requests has been processed by the clerk's office, it shall appear as a line item on the formal session agenda.

The request shall then be voted upon by the whole body, a majority of the body must approve the request for the petitioner to present to the whole body at formal session.

Got that point.

The next sentence, approval by the whole body is also required for a presentation at a standing committee meeting.

And so my concern there is why would the whole an entire body need to approve what could be a line item by a committee chair.

Committee chairs are given the authority to create their own agenda.

Why in this situation could a chair's prerogative to allow someone to speak there be removed and authority only given to the full body?

My suggestion would be to strike that sentence as this the committee chair should have the authority to allow whomever they want to speak in their committee within the confines of the rules and Roberts Rules of Order I I would say for for me, if this is something that the the body has voted on.

I mean, we have the ability to change it.

I would still prefer that we keep the language as is, which would allow for a much more thorough discussion at the full body table.

Um I I don't want for me personally the chair to be bogged down with saying yes or no once the body has already said yes, uh, and then basically moved it to the committee.

Um that's just my opinion personally.

So discussion.

So for me, that this would be the prerogative of the chair to say I will I'm more than happy to line item this as a chair can do now with any situation without approval from this body, the chair of a committee gets to set their agenda in this situation.

That authority has been removed and placed in the hands of the full body.

Why can a chair not have the authority to allow someone to come and speak and say, hey, in committee, we'll allow this person to speak.

They can't make that, they cannot make that for the full body.

But what we're saying now is the full body has to agree to allow the chair of a committee to authorize somebody to speak.

The full body shouldn't have to weigh in on that.

That to me is just we're bogging the full body down with a committee chair's prerogative.

That can be handled in committee.

And I'm a full believer that we should allow committee chairs to handle committee business at that level.

Just like we cannot as a body demand that a chair authorize a line item, but we can, but the committee shares have the authority to determine their own agenda is my point.

And not be bogged down at the formal session level to do that.

So my motion is going to be to remove that sentence.

And this and just to be clear, this is for the request to speak to the full body.

The full body.

Yes.

But in this section, it now speaks to the chair's ability to allow that person to speak in their committee.

That's not the full body.

Right.

Discussion.

Right.

The full body then has.

I think that's why it's so important to have the full conversation when it's before the full body, understanding the ramifications of it.

Discussion.

Further discussion on that.

This uh thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

There's an example of this right now on our agenda.

Um, and this is why I I'm in agreement of scratching the language, which is being very clear.

It's a request to speak before the full body, and what we're doing is we're putting it on committee members, and when we've done that, when I've offered that to the public, they don't want to speak to three members.

They want to speak to the full body.

So I think we need to be very clear.

If it's a full body request that they speak in front of formal session, that we limit to five times, 15 minutes, whatever the case may be, that we that we say that you know we're adding these additional questions about what the issue is, because really what I think what happens is that some of these requests are constituent cases that we can then figure out which district member can help them with and address the issues.

We've done that, but the the public still wants to come and talk to us about the issue with the process of the city department in front of the full body.

So would it make sense to just speak in front of my my committee, which is going to be what I bring up later today when we come uh across that request?

But if this is gonna be if if the public is asking to speak before all of council, all of council should listen.

We shouldn't be putting it on to a committee.

We should go through a process, even if if it's a constituent case an issue, let's work on it.

But when the public wants to speak before the full body and putting it into a different committee, it's not uh meeting their their desires at all, and it is adding more um more to to our committees.

Thank you.

Discussion further discussion, member Bence.

And and so that speaks directly to the point, it just does in a different way.

What the focus should be if they want to come and speak before the formal body, then that's the deliberation.

The deliberation shouldn't be you can't also now go speak, or we force you to go speak at the committee level.

That's the committee chair's prerogative.

You could alleviate that request to go to the formal body by saying, Hey, we can go speak at the committee level.

You want that?

They say no, then fine, it's still a decision by the body, but if that does eliminate the need to speak before the body, allow the committee chair to say, I'm more than happy to line item that.

So my motion is and will be remove the last two sentences of that paragraph.

Allow the committee chairs to make the to make their own agenda, but this keeps the decision to speak before the formal body at the formal committee, and it doesn't take away the right of a of a committee chair to make that decision.

And so it doesn't change what we're trying to do, it just removes the ability to dictate to the committee chair what their agenda should look like.

Before we go forward, right?

Sounds like that was a motion.

It is a motion.

That's a motion.

It's a motion on the floor, colleagues.

I saw some hands down here first.

Uh member Johnson, then followed by member young, then member Callaway.

Discussion.

Not for me, I just did it for the record.

Discussion on the motion.

That's what I did.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, so can we speak to the process to speak before council?

Because I think that's part of the challenge.

What has happened is it gets put on the formal agenda, and somehow we got to a point where we took it up as a formal item and then decided whether or not it was a discussion before formal or to a committee.

And we just sort of changed what we did in midstream.

So I know we're trying to figure out now what we do, but what's the process that goes through the clerk's office and then comes to this body?

I think that may be the part that is a little confusing.

I mean, beginning with the clerk's office, though, um, so the request goes to the clerk's office, it gets put on the formal agenda.

Is the request specifically identifying whether or not they want to speak to the full body before council to a committee, or who is deciding that?

Dr.

Powers wanted to respond to that.

Perhaps perhaps it would be helpful if I if I read the beginning part of this section because that answers your question.

Um the language that is currently in the rules reads a brief written notice of the request to address the city council shall be filed with the city clerk not later than 2 p.m.

of the business day immediately preceding the date of the scheduled meeting to which the request pertains.

The clerk shall provide reasonable assistance in the preparation of such requests to any person requesting assistance.

A written notice of a request to address city council shall identify the person making the request.

Identification shall include full name, address, phone number, and what was stricken, other words, and shall state the subject matter on which such person wishes to address city council.

That was stricken because the next paragraph expands on it.

The petitioner shall include a paragraph stating their standing in or interest in the subject matter, the relief expected, what they want, and the number of times they have previously petitioned to speak before council and the issue associated with each request.

What was stricken was language that we thought made it confusing as to what to do with the request.

So what was stricken was upon approval of the request by the body, the chair of the standing committee or committee of the whole shall have the discretion as to when during the meeting the person shall be heard and shall also have the discretion to impose a reasonable time limitation on the time allotted to hear the person.

Now, continuing answering your question, Member Johnson, after the request has been processed by the city clerk's office, it shall appear as a line item on the formal session agenda.

The request shall then be voted upon by the whole body, a majority of the body must approve the request for the petitioner to present to the whole body at a formal session.

Mr.

Benson is suggesting that approval by the whole body is also required for a presentation at a standing committee meeting.

If the body approves the standing committee presentation, the petitioner shall be referred to the appropriate standing committee.

Mr.

Benson believes that those two sentences should be stricken.

Thank you for reviewing that.

So through the president to anyone, um I I think still what I'm not hearing, even if we strike what Member Benson has requested, when the request comes to the full body, where does it go?

It's it's who makes the determination on where it goes, because if the full body is voting on it or giving the committee chair the ability to say, okay, we'll hear them, um what's that that's the part that's convoluted.

Uh Mr.

Whitaker, followed by um Dr.

Powers.

The thought here in this rule is that when the when the petition goes before the council at formal session, the whole council will vote whether to allow the petitioner to speak.

If it is a denial, then it is a blanket denial.

They just denied.

If you don't have a place to go after the denial to a committee, um then the person simply denied an opportunity to address the council based on the vote taken by counsel at formal session.

So it so the petition goes nowhere.

The person simply is denied an opportunity to address counsel uh consistent with their request to speak.

So certainly they could go to a committee as Mr.

Benson's saying, they could go to a committee chair, and the committee chair can determine whether or not they will allow them to address.

But but this would conclude the matter.

The council will simply vote to have the person here address the the council, the full council, or simply deny that request.

So taking out the last two sentences doesn't stop the committee chair from allowing the person to speak.

This by leaving this in your sort of instructing the petitioner, you you're denied here, you denied at the at that city council from addressing the entire council, but you're free to go to committee A.

You what council would be doing would be directing it to a specific committee.

It would be like a committee assignment of the matter.

That's how I interpret this.

Thank you, Mr.

Whitaker.

So it does help, but I think the petitioner wouldn't know any of that.

So if they if it comes too formal and it gets denied, then there has to be another process that takes place that says to the petitioner, you may have an opportunity to come to this committee or that committee to present your grievance or whatever it is that you wanted to speak about.

But that's what the last two sentences that it's designed to be strict.

It's designed to tell the petitioner.

Look, you you struck out with the council, the full body, the full body.

We we don't think we need to take to take our time to hear you based on what you're saying.

But we hear that you want an opportunity to speak to somebody about you want your issue addressed.

So we're directing you to the count to the committee that handles most appropriately what you're asking for.

Thank you.

And so it sounds to me like the suggestion that allows for what member Benson presented is leaving that language there.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

President.

Discussion.

Before we go to you, Member Benson, we got Dr.

Powers.

I was just going to add that um, even if the language stays, it is up to the chair of the standing committee as to when it appears, if it ever appears, and how much time the individual would have.

It because it says the chair of the formal session or the standing committee may determine when the petitioner may be heard, and may also have the discretion to impose a reasonable time limit.

But the point is, the point is that um the the individual petitioner may not know what committee that would be appropriate, whereas the body as a whole would know the appropriate place.

And that's just so we're gonna have to land this plane real soon because we again just in the public hearing.

Member Benson.

Thank you.

And so I'm gonna go back.

The approval by the so if you're denied the formal session, that is a time for the chair for the council to roger up and say, You have now been denied here.

You can take this up with the committee chair.

The council formal body should not be the one imposing that on the committee chair.

The committee chair working for whomever is coming before the body should then say, I'm more than happy to take this in.

Or the committee chair can say, I don't want to take that up.

We this is not something that needs to be taken from my committee, whomever committee.

The committee chair should still have the authority, and they do to set their own agenda.

It should not be pushed to them by the full body.

The full body doesn't want to hear it, then allow the committee chair to step up and say, You can come back to my committee, or that person could petition directly to the committee chair to ask for the ability to be heard in committee.

And so for me, we should not be as a whole body telling the committee chair what should be heard in their committee when it comes to a petition that was denied at the formal council table.

Okay.

So that was a motion.

And there's a motion.

There's a motion.

There was discussion.

Is there it sounds like this further discussion?

Member Young.

Thank you.

Um, I just wanted to I just wanted to ask however we do that.

I personally like you before it goes for the body because some of these topics are really serious, particularly the issues when they were talking about elections.

I think that's something that the whole body should be able to discuss and be able to determine.

But if we're gonna make these changes where it goes to the committee, do we have like limits per topic?

Because there's some guys that like want to just keep bringing this up before the body, like four or five.

I mean, understand if it's one topic, one time, but if it was like four or five times, you want to tell me about something that's been debunked four or five times.

You know, we need to have some sort of limits per term in terms of what these topics are.

Does this discuss that at all?

Colleagues, I I'm I'm I'm just asking.

So we gotta keep in mind that we've got one, we got a motion on the floor.

But two, we're now talking about items that are outside of what is before us in this public hearing.

So I would ask if there's any items that are outside of what we're dealing with in the public hearing.

Let's deal with them outside of the public hearing.

Right now, we're strictly we have a list of items that have been uh uh submitted to East Ride that are in front of us.

Again, asking if we could first deal with the items that are in this document on East Cry before we start pulling out any other items.

We'll continue this line of questioning now.

And anyone have a response to member young.

I I was just going to say once you finish the motion about strike and approval by the whole body to go to a committee.

Um I can point member Young to where it talks about the number of times a petitioner has attempted to, and it it it that's covered in the I thought it was germane, what we're talking about in terms of committees and well uh before the body, sir if it's germane.

I thought it was germane.

All right.

I was just talking about the items that were before.

Oh, okay.

That's all not about the rules and but if you say there's already a rule that deals with that, then my question is answered anyway.

So that was all I was saying.

Yeah, it's it was added, sir.

It was added.

Do we know what that number is?

It's right above um where you're reading for the language to be stricken.

It's two, it's two twenty-two point zero, and it's one to it's the third paragraph from the top on the last page where it includes um it's new language, and it tells you what the petitioner has to include on their petition.

Okay, thank you.

I'm done.

Okay.

Uh again, there is a motion on the floor, colleagues.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

My last item.

Member Benz, Mr.

Chair, is on section 15 5 3.

Excuse me.

Section 15 tech five, tac three point one.

Oh, wrong one.

Wrong one, Mr.

Chair.

I apologize.

It is section eighteen point six, legislative agenda.

Just point of clarification here.

What is a legislative agenda?

And we talked about the subsequent year, and this came up earlier.

And then do we need a definition for a legislative agenda since this is new.

So we did talk about it in uh committee, madam chair.

Do you want to?

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair, and to Councilmember Benson's um question, I'll defer to um LPD or to Dr.

Powers.

We um discussed this at Great Land.

Thank you.

Whoever uh are you indicating that you want a definition for what a legislative agenda is?

Yes, and then if we just explain to the public what is a legislative agenda since this is brand new.

I know we talked about this in committee.

Yeah, so we talked about it and we essentially it was the priorities of council.

Okay.

Uh items that councils sought to accomplish within the time frame that's indicated in the document.

And it would be built by council within this time frame.

Okay.

So then so then my motion will be can we include a definition then of what a legislative agenda is.

There's a motion to include a definition of legislative agenda into the rules.

Any objection?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Any additional questions, comments, concerns about the amendments before us, colleagues.

And then one last item, Mr.

Chair, if in that agenda now follows up with the writing with 18.6.

If we can have the process to achieve the legislative agenda doesn't say where it happened, should it happen in the community whole, should it happen um during a formal session, should it happen in the committee?

If we could just put some parameters around how we get to that and where it's debated and when it's approved, anything of that nature.

And I'll add that in my in the uh memo.

This FYI.

Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you.

Okay.

Um member Callaway.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Um, I don't know if this will help, but it does say in 18.5.

Uh I'm sorry, in 18.6 relative to the um legislative agenda that in the first year of a new four-year term, the preliminary legislative agenda shall be completed by the end of the third quarter of the first year.

So that does set the parameters for the time frame that we are supposed to create, establish, agree to, discuss a um legislative agenda.

But I think we had talked about this and we put this time frame in place.

I hope that helps.

It does help, but then where is it debated?

Uh is it a public hearing?

I mean, so just some other parameters, more specificity is what I'm looking for there.

Okay.

Um, you're gonna submit some.

I am gonna submit the language so that we can go here and land this plan.

Because we yep, it's gonna be landed on this one.

Plain landed.

Plain landed.

All right.

Okay, with that being said, uh, again, there are some uh outstanding items that we need to get to LPD uh to come back to this uh body for uh discussion next week.

Uh but before we go there, we will now open up to public comment.

Uh, for those individuals who are in the committee of the whole, I see two gentlemen, we know them very well.

Thank you for being here.

Uh, we also have individuals who are online.

How many individuals do we have online?

We have one.

Afternoon, Mr.

Chair.

There are 19 hand raised online.

Okay.

Again, for the folks who are raising their hand online, just making sure this is solely for the public hearing on city council rules.

This is not for general public comment that will happen uh immediately after this point, after the public hearing.

So wanna give you an opportunity to lower your hand if you're not calling specifically about the public hearing concerning rules.

If you're talking about anything outside of that, we will have to cut you off.

Give me an opportunity to lower your hands now as desired.

Once, twice, three times.

Okay.

Are you any hands lower?

Uh yes, three hands were lowered, so we're down to 16.

Okay.

We're gonna give everyone a minute regarding uh comment public comments on the public hearing regarding city council rules, and we're gonna start here in the committee of the whole.

Uh start with to my left and move on over.

So that means uh Mr.

Uh Brother Cunningham, the floor is yours first.

313-444-9114, 313-444-9114.

Um, that's my cash up and hotline number.

Um, somebody texted me and said that the uh evening meetings it will they be reducing the call in before the four minutes to three minutes.

I didn't see that.

And that's what I texted back.

I didn't see that, so that's not the case.

I see him shaking down.

That's not it, it's still gonna be four minutes.

Um also uh I was hoping over the years that uh they could validate parking or give people like a bus pass bus when they come down and um uh give testimony or come and they may not have the income like everyone else.

Um like it's ten dollars for me to park.

So people don't have that.

Um, but I thought during these meetings it would be nice if they get the bus pass or a ticket or get their park invalidated when they come and give testimony or just come down to council.

I think everybody ain't got it like that.

Um that's about it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, yes, sir.

Um good afternoon to the council president, just real quick one of the rules.

Uh when you guys use Robin rules, um, can you make the minutes accessible to the public?

Secondly, last year, January 12th, attorney Whitaker submitted a memo as it pertains to section 2-106.5 post-employment prohibition, which I think is relevant now.

Thirdly, when it comes down to rules, ordinances, or policies, all ordinances, rules, and policies must be in compliance with Title 18 USC 241 and 242, which means federally applicable.

Um you cannot make any laws or rules that go against the constitution or go against itself.

And so I asked them for those things.

And thirdly, when people are addressing this legislative body, they're not just addressing you guys for you guys to listen to them.

So if you guys don't listen to them, I think it'd be beneficial that you direct them to the grievance process that is outlined in this charter with district managers and not just push them on to continue to be heard.

Thank you so much.

All right, we shall now transition to our online callers.

Good afternoon, Mr.

President.

The first caller is don't violate 6-205.

Okay, call it the floor is yours.

Caller the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, almost three hours later.

May I be heard?

Uh yes.

Okay.

First of all, talking about not all of us are represented by a district member.

Duly noted Member Sheffield isn't there unless she just popped in.

But um you shouldn't be like it's just the way you did this today is so resident disrespectful.

A bunch of people feel so disrespected.

Um, you um you you said committee chairs have the prerogative to create their own agenda.

You shouldn't pack jam pack an agenda like you do all the time, Mr.

Tate, and then you shorten people's public comment to 30 seconds.

And you really, when somebody brings you should put in there that when somebody brings up a potential charter violation like I did with Charter 6-205, that you should not be able to ignore it.

That that the residents should be able to request that charter violations be looked into because unfortunately, corporation council is not doing its job to uh uphold the charter, and that you don't want to listen to people when they ask to speak before council, even thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller, please, Ari.

The next caller is owner papa.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have one minute regarding the public hearing.

Good afternoon.

Through the chair, may I be heard?

Yes.

Oh, thank you.

I thought this meeting was about um these charter or these rule revisions that you have incorporated or you think you want to incorporate.

I think the public has a right because the business that you do is the business of the people, and any rules that you incorporate or change, you should probably put them before the people.

And it doesn't sound like even after four years, Miss Callaway.

It doesn't appear like this is understandable or even present it presentable as yet, as there are multiple questions.

And Mr.

Tate, uh, 4.6.8 was not part of the uh, and also to the parliamentarian, it was not part of this agenda nor this hearing, and to take it up or to make a motion on it is definitely out of order.

Um, this is the committee that's supposed to uphold rules, and you break the rules all the time.

So why are you changing rules when you don't keep the rules that we already have?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

The next caller, Stephen Boyle.

Stephen Boyle, the floor is yours regarding the public hearing.

Hello.

I understand this is the lame duck session.

Uh legislation happening.

Our election's been completed.

It's kind of sad, but I know that this bill will actually fall and die if uh the legislative session does not complete it.

Uh, I want to bring your point uh attention to 15.5.3.1.

The record of actions taken by city council will be impacted.

The public needs the granularity safeguarded.

And if the language was to add the council designation, that would assist in tracking legislative activity by member and as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I did not cut off the collection of public comments for uh the public hearing, which I am going to do right now.

So we did have one speaker who uh noted that that was the case.

We're gonna give them a chance uh after we complete the online public commenters.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is not that error.

All right, the floor is yours, ma'am.

One minute regarding city council rules, Ms.

Winston, are you there?

All right, we're gonna put her at the end of the QR and go to the next caller, please.

The next caller is William M.

Davis.

William M.

Davis, the floor is yours regarding the uh good afternoon.

Can I be heard?

Yes.

I think it should be a rule that the public should be able to find out how each city council member has voted and has voted in the past.

I'm not like looking at what happens in Lancing.

I can find out who voted for what easily.

You know, the whole process that the city does needs to be updated.

Um, we need to know who's voting for what.

Uh, we need to know if there's any conflict of interest.

Um, we need to be able to be able to sustain the fact that if there's a non-resident voting on to be on a commission or a board, then who voted for that person?

We need to know have a better tracking system for what's going on and who's doing what.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know the clerk's office at one point was working on that.

Um, not sure what the status is of that particular project.

But also want to let colleagues know that I see Member Benson with a little few uh things, trinkets with him.

Uh we have uh work to um order some food for uh staff and members.

Unfortunately, because I didn't know this hearing was going to go as long as it did, it won't be here until 2 p.m.

So just letting you know if you can hold on to two, we have food for uh council members and staff.

All right, next caller, please.

Next caller is Tyson Gersh.

Tyson Gersh, the floor is yours regarding city council rules.

Thanks.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great, thank you.

Um regarding the proposed changes to Rule 22.

Um, I mean, the Michigan Constitution Article 1, Section 3 says the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I don't see a specific charter section dedicated to that form of petition, but if that is a right conferred to us by the Michigan Constitution, I'm I'm not sure council has the authority to deny anyone seeking to petition uh the government for the redress of grievances.

Um I, you know, also under the promulgation of rules, city charter uh process.

Um when rules governing hearing procedures for resolving matters in dispute are adopted, those rules shall be consistent with due process of law.

Again, I don't think council has the authority to deny this, uh to deny.

Next caller, please.

The next caller is Cindy Dara.

Cindy Dara, the floor is yours regarding city council rules.

Yes, uh I I think it's ridiculous that you let these contractors take your money and they come and sit at your table and they can talk as long as they want.

And then you try and tell us that the ones that are living the experience and can give you some feedback about what your contractors or your services are doing or not doing.

You you know uh you're not responding to us when we give the uh information to you, and you're not uh you should not limit us and cut us off in the middle of a sentence.

It's it's disrespectful.

I don't know where else they're doing this, but I doubt if they do it in a small town, people wouldn't put up with it.

They couldn't speak to their neighbors if they did that.

Anyway, it's ridiculous.

We can just barely get anything, and then you what if you got money, you can come and be heard.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Apologies, I was muted.

The next caller is Jim Brunel.

Caller, the floor is yours regarding city council rules.

Uh good afternoon through the chair.

Miss Santiago Romero.

There are two uh questions that I had.

One's uh regarding the microphone.

Your audio is going real.

Pause pause this time.

Uh your audio is going really low, so you may want to get a little closer to your microphone.

Okay, can you hear me now?

Much better.

We'll uh allow us time to continue.

Okay, this is in relation to the electronic meeting.

So I number one, I would uh five the space order and keep it in tax because I believe in the future you'll need it again.

Um the second the second one is the electronic comments.

I appreciate the amendment limiting it to the impacted area, sir.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, I don't know if you're moving back away from your microphone or not, but when you first start speaking, we can hear you, and then you start to get much lower and muffled.

Okay, I'll try once again.

I would urge, okay.

I would urge you to defy the state order ending the electronic meeting.

Um may need it again in the future.

Uh the second one is uh I appreciate the amendment limiting the uh comments to the impact of the uh residences in the real name of the vote.

Okay.

We did have some trouble hearing your comments.

If you would like to provide them to the clerk's office, they will be placed onto public record.

Uh we will now go to our next public commenter.

The next caller is Charlotte.

Charlotte, the floor is yours regarding city council rules.

Charlotte.

Hello, am I unmuted?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

So I was I just wanted to confirm that the getting rid of the electronic thing won't have any effect on people's rights to participate electronically and notice with the agenda.

And then I had a couple other maybe more substantial questions.

One is um regarding the new procedures for persons wishing to address city council uh 22.0.

It says that they need to include um their standing interest in the subject or entry and or interest in the subject matter relief respect that re expected what they want, the number of times they previously petitioned and the issue associated with each petition request.

I guess I wanted to know if this is adding a standing requirement or any other requirements that would constitute um uh substantive changes, changes substance in nature and would need to be done through an ordinance via uh or uh pursuant to section 2.11 or 2-111 subsection six of the Detroit Municipal Code, and then just see who the thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is Anthony's Z fold four.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute regarding city council rules.

Caller, are you there?

Caller, are you there?

All right, let's put that caller at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

The next caller is Sam Thung SM 721 U.

Caller, the floor is yours regarding general, excuse me, regarding city council rules.

Caller, are you there?

All right, I let's put that caller at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Okay.

The next caller is Sam Thung SM A366U.

Caller, the floor is yours.

You have one minute regarding city council rules.

Caller, are you there?

Are you there, caller?

Okay.

All right, let's put that caller at the end of the queue and go to the next.

Hello?

Oh, there you go.

There you go.

Good afternoon.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Emmanuel Durham.

I'm with uh um Teamsters local 214.

And I was wondering, so we just voted in a contract and you guys ratified it.

So we were wondering when would it be going into effect?

Yes, sir.

Unfortunately, the rules.

Sir, at this moment we can only speak on the city council rules because we're in the city council rules.

With the rules, we're in the public hearing right now.

So if you would like to call back, we're gonna open it up for general public comment.

We can provide you with that information.

Um as of right now, if you have any questions or concerns about city council rules that we just discussed, the floor is yours.

I understand that.

I understand that part.

But what we actually trying to find out is what is the rule for the city council to actually speak and rule on our contract.

Um I'm not understanding because none of the that was not on the agenda today.

We could only speak on the item that is brought before us.

So on the opportunity's business is not on the agenda today.

Correct, correct, sir.

I I'm not sure if you've been here at City Council before, but that is how our public hearings must be maintained.

We have to stay germane to the item that is before us.

All right.

You always have an opportunity again as I open up for general public comment.

Let's go to the next caller.

The next caller is Stephen Horing.

Stephen Holly.

I was at all I was actually calling about the soccer stadium, so I can mute me.

Yep.

All right.

So we'll uh we're gonna be opening up general public comment very shortly.

Next caller.

The next caller is Frank Hammer.

Frank Hammer, the floor is yours.

You have a minute regarding city council rules.

Frank Hammer, are you there?

Frank Hammer.

I only want to do general public comment.

I'm sorry for the error.

No problem.

All right.

Next caller, please.

Okay, we are back to not that Karen.

All right.

Caller, the floor is yours.

We have one minute regarding city council rules.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Okay, great.

Thank you for taking my call.

Um I'm excited to see that you guys are making some changes to the rules.

Um I only regret that it hasn't been sooner, you know, earlier in your tenure.

Um, but it's a good thing that you are making an attempt to clarify uh because the meeting itself was totally confusing.

Now, if if we had had those documents um that you were following, we would have been just as confused as you were.

So I think we should make sure that we have the proper documents before we go on to a hearing that confuses everybody, and now you know I I couldn't keep up once you know it was going back and forth between you and um um the um person that uh sets out the rules for you admin out public there.

But thank you for taking my call.

Thank you for your punctuality.

I'll speak again during general public comment.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

That was the last caller for the public hearing.

Okay.

Were there any numbers?

I thought we had some Samsung's that we had to return back to.

My apologies.

There was one more uh Samsung SM S 721U.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute regarding city council rules.

Are you there, caller?

Going once, going twice, going three times.

Unfortunately, we're gonna have to move on, caller.

If you would like to provide your comments to the clerk's office, they will be placed on to public record.

All right, and so we have one last uh public commenter on the public hearing, and that gentleman is before us today.

You have one minute.

Good afternoon.

Floor is yours.

Well, my name is Jadante Smith for the record.

I know you know me very well, Councilman Tate.

I want to say um there should be a rule that states the amount of time that a chairperson of a specific committee has to cut off public comment because you guys seem to make it up as you go.

Um also this level of incoherence and uh inconsistency amongst the council members does not represent four years of working on this specific uh set of rules.

Also, uh habitual complainers of as we have been called, uh, come down here very often and you know talk about the same types of things, and we don't get heard by the same boards.

Uh all not same board, some people come to the body of the whole, so we don't come to the actual um subcommittee meetings, and I think that if you have an issue that is not heard, you should be able to come multiple times to talk about the same issue, depending on the issue.

I don't think that should be um uh hurtful thing to the residents.

Also, I agree with the the objections that council member waters has made just because it seems like this is trying to be pushed through and you guys are not having adequate discussion, and you guys have not apparently worked together on these rules as a body as a whole.

Thank you so much.

All right, so that takes us to the end of our public commenters regarding the public hearing.

Dr.

Powers, uh, or Mr.

Whitaker, just want to just touch on just a handful of things here in terms of due process.

Uh if we we kind of talked about speaking before the the body, uh those who want to submit above and beyond public comment.

Does public comment satisfy that requirement of speaking to the body?

Or is there some special additional section of language that uh provides for any and everyone to have a right to speak beyond public comment?

Um so everyone can hear you, please.

No, sir, there isn't.

Um, the opportunity to speak before the body is in public comment.

There's nothing that says you must also provide additional time for anyone who wants it.

Okay.

And then every and at every meeting, city council does provide that time for public comment, correct?

For public comment.

It's yes, public comment is a necessary part of every one of the public meetings.

Um you have um in some of the meetings.

Um they can hear you.

You have uh at some of like at some of the meetings, you provide uh special presentations.

Um, and there's a process to go through for a special presentation, but it's a limited number of presentations per meeting, and it's a limited number of time.

So there is an opportunity to go beyond public comment if that particular process is followed.

Okay, but public comment by itself fulfills the uh the legal obligation.

Okay, thank you.

And then the other question I wanted to ask is in terms of the time frame.

Uh I know that we our rules allow uh chairs to set the time that they allow for the public to speak.

Um, whether that's two minutes, four minutes, eight minutes, thirty seconds.

Is there any prohibition whether we're talking about charter or we're talking about state law or federal law that prohibits council members from designating or setting the time?

Just to make it very plain for folks, because I know we get accused of that.

Um, but I want that uh, if you will, uh, our experts to say on the record uh what your thoughts and opinions are.

Mr.

President, yes, sir.

There is no legal requirement that you give a certain amount of time.

Certainly, you want to record uh the members of the public enough time to address counsel in the sufficient, but that's under the circumstances that presented.

If you have an elongated agenda like today, um you should appropriate time to allow to allow um the public to address counsel, but there is no designated amount of time that you get.

Certainly, it should be uniform.

You should not give you know people who whose opinion you like a preference and cut the mic off on somebody who who's saying things you don't really like.

The same amount of time, but there is no no law that specifies how much time that should be.

You should grant them enough time, dependent upon the circumstances that you presented with.

Gotcha.

Another question is that in terms of the hybrid meeting.

Uh, this body has elected to continue hybrid meetings uh through uh post uh the COVID shutdown.

Uh many municipalities have eliminated uh the option for hybrid.

I know we have had that conversation with this body.

I just want you if you can provide just a little information about what you uh and LPD identified from other municipalities in terms of hybrid uh continuing the hybrid uh model.

Uh council Mr.

President, council has elected to to continue the hybrid meeting because it allows for people who are not able to come down, particularly during the cold weather months, but year-round, an opportunity to address council who would may have difficulty coming down to an actual council meeting.

We were talking in your rules about the elimination of electronic meetings.

Electronic meetings were designed to allow for council to have session when everyone was locked down, and and the council itself was not able to come down.

Certainly the law prohibits council from from having electronic meeting because that would allow for council to conduct a meeting away from city hall or an assemblage such as this.

So you have to be in person to have a meeting.

That is council must be in person.

Nothing says that the public addressing council has to be in public, and a hybrid meeting allows for that to happen, but there's no requirement under law that that continue.

But council has elected to allow council to allow uh citizens to address counsel electronically because it it allows for council to hear more of the public's comment.

Okay.

So I want to make sure the folks heard it just in the midst of the comments.

There is no law that mandates that this city council or any city council must have hybrid meetings, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And this body has elected to do so on behalf of engagement with our citizens.

Final question that I have is in terms of the uh any mandate or law that members must or shall respond to uh commenters who um provide comment to this body.

Is there any law that mandates that council members uh shall or must respond?

No, there isn't a law that requires you to in to have a back and forth discussion with, and I assume that's what you meant.

Yeah, because we respond in different ways, so I'm glad you're not sure.

But you you should obviously respond to a constituent that has a concern that's bringing before the body, but nothing requires you to instantaneously provide a response to a citizen.

Oftentimes it takes time to prepare response because it would require as you know, sometimes you address LPD with a question, it is necessary for us to go back in order to give you accurate information, is it is necessary for us to go back and do study before we give you in the same thing would apply to council.

Sometimes you need to consult with uh a department and the administration to to adequately respond.

So nothing requires you to instantaneously respond.

Certainly the courtesy that you uh provide the the citizen with a response, whether it's later or through a staff member, certainly you ought to respond to your constituents, but nothing requires you to do it instantaneously during a council meeting.

Thank you so much.

Uh member Young.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just want to ask you what about like hate speech?

Particularly when we're talking about cutting people off.

What if somebody's saying something that's threatening or something that's saying something that's dehumanizing?

Well, they're saying something that's pro-white supremacy or pro-Jim Crow or pro-eugenics or anti-Semitic or Islamophobic.

Can we then or anti-immigrant?

Can we then cut that person off?

Not just necessarily because we find it offensive, but also because someone else could pick up on that threat and act upon that.

We are living in a time where you are having local elected officials whose lives are being threatened, some whose lives have been taken.

So, you know, is are is that a way in which you I know that's an extraordinary circumstance, but if we are hearing that, do we have the authority then to cut that person off just to preserve the safety of the community and also to have a responsibility to try to prevent hate crimes, which is on the rise around the country?

Mr.

President, Mr.

Whitaker?

Your your rules require the council president to control the quorum during a meeting.

Okay.

So to make a blanket statement as to when you cut a constituent off for making a response that may be offensive.

That's a uh often a judgment call, but certainly the the president has the control of this body in during a meeting.

But that's in their purview, the president's curve, correct?

Should exercise uh control over the meeting.

If someone's addressing counsel in a in a in a derogatory manner or an offensive manner to the council members or to other people in the public, you should maintain this is a dignified uh uh meeting, and it should be conducted as such, and that means people who are calling in should also conduct themselves as such.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be aggressive with counsel because you represent them, they ought to have an opportunity to say things, but they should understand what they're doing when they when they do that and recognize that they must be respectful in the way in which they address council or their fellow citizens.

But if they're saying something that's like obviously like a slur, obviously, do we have to do we have to let them continue to keep talking to their finished, or does the president have the purview to be able to cut that person off and move to a next person?

Certainly, as I indicated, is not it's not because they have free speech rights.

So we have to be careful about making a general statement.

It's sort of like they say you'll know it when you hear it.

If you go too far with it, the council president has the ability to terminate that conversation.

Okay, so it's like I think it was like all of our window homes.

You're talking about pornography.

I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.

Right.

Is that basically what you're telling me?

When you hear it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Um, those were my questions, but there was one last uh housekeeping item.

Colleagues, there was a request for a date of effective, an effective date for this um public uh for the uh changes to the amendment to the amendments to the council rules of order.

And I know that the request would be for January 1st.

Uh member Callaway, what is your desire, ma'am?

As the chair of the rules committee.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and that is my um desire.

Their motion now.

Motion, sir.

All right, there's a motion to uh set the effective date for the amendments to the rules of order for the Detroit City Council for January 1st.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

All right, colleagues, uh, as I mentioned before, we do have a number of items that it sounds like uh we're looking to provide to LPD.

Let's make sure we get that information to them uh within the week so that we can all come back next week and deliberate on this particular item.

So we're going to I'm gonna ask for us, so I'm gonna close this out and bring back as a line item.

Dr.

Powers?

Um I think it can come back as a line item, uh, but I would rather I I I think it should be the public hearing should be adjourned till next week, and then the um amendments be added, but I defer to Mr.

Whitaker because it's better to just simply close it out.

Whitaker.

So, Mr.

President, when you say next week, you mean Tuesday?

Uh yes, I'm sorry.

Yeah, yes.

Okay.

That's your prerogative.

We could certainly have college work done by then.

Will we be able to have all the information to LPD by Tuesday?

Those who had outstanding requests and motions.

I have a question.

Member Calloway.

I have a question, Mr.

Chair, to LPD.

So since we are making changes to what's before us, would it not also then require us to have a public hearing on the changes that are being made before we vote on it?

Mr.

Whitaker.

In my estimation, based on Mr.

Whitaker, you might want to hit that mic.

In my estimation, based on the issues raised today, I don't think it's necessary to have a public hearing.

Certainly it's your prerogative.

You can continue as has been discussed, but I don't think it's necessary because the it the issues raised today fall within the confines of what's what has been published.

Okay.

And I think is I I don't think you're radically changing the matters before council.

So I think it would be appropriate to line item, we will bring it back for your consideration.

Council will know very well, and the public will know what changes will it will have occurred before you vote, which is the critical thing.

You need to vote just like the issue that you raised earlier about words being changed.

That should be solid when you vote, so that there can be no subsequent change, and the public knows what the council has acted on, and you know.

So but based on what you've indicated today, I don't I don't see the need for a continued public hearing.

I law may have a different thought.

Before we go to law, I want to uh note that if there's anyone who would like to speak online who are at home because I did not open it up.

If you'd like to speak on general public comment, you I may raise your hand now at this moment uh to the attorney graham through the chair Graham Anderson Law Department.

I'm in agreement with um uh director Whitaker.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Uh did we move to the did we move and approve January 1st?

Yes.

All right.

Okay.

So we're going to I would like to now close out this public hearing.

Colleagues, is there a motion to bring back the this public hearing as a line item uh for the next formal session?

Motion.

There's a motion to bring back this line this public hearing back as a line item uh in the next formal session.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

All right.

All right, we shall now open up for general public comment.

I see I have a number of cards before me right now.

Uh general public comment.

Uh those who are looking to provide general public comment at home, raise your hand now.

Going once, going twice, going three times.

We shall now close the collection of public comments all together in person as well as online.

I saw the clerk raise their hand.

Yeah, Mr.

President, before you get to public comment, and you did not go through voting action items.

You know, voting action matters first, which will be before public comment.

We stopped at the referrals.

It is okay.

So but we did we did referrals.

What are we talking about here?

That's not on there.

No, that's not annotated.

Someone just give me the words, and I'll just say it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Under government of a government under what's before that.

All right.

Because we did that already.

We will now move to voting action matters under other matters.

There are no items, Mr.

President.

Under communications from the mayor and other governmental agencies.

There are no items, Mr.

President.

We shall now call for public comment.

All right.

So we have first up in the committee of the whole, we have 18 individuals.

How many do we have online, Ari?

Mr.

President, there are 22 hands raised online.

Okay.

We're going to give everyone uh a minute.

A minute and a half.

Minute and a half for general public comment.

If you don't need the minute and a half, it's okay.

So we'll first start out with uh Mr.

Cunningham.

Then we have Troy Ginyard, then we have Tim Edwards, and then Tracy Rubin.

Let's get the clock up.

Floor is yours, Mr.

Cunningham.

313, 444, 9114, 313, 444, 9114.

And on Pigspoke put in not enemy.

I need hats, gloves.

Thank you, everybody for those hand warmers.

They gave you some hand warmers.

I'll stay out a little bit later where it's chilly or in the morning.

Because on my energy level, what I'm feeling, I'm disabled myself.

So people are really appreciative because it's been chilly.

So the pe if you could get their smiles or look at my Facebook page and see the smiles on people.

Uh you're giving vicariously through me or do it yourself.

For security purposes, I'm not gonna say whom and when, but today with a high-ranking uh elected official and a leader, uh, we're having a bus ride along.

Um, and so that should hopefully go well.

That folks are frank and not shy.

Um so Father God, Lord, I come to you right now, repenting of sins of co-mission and omission, sins known and unknowns.

This prayer not be blocked nor hindered.

I thank you for your forgiveness, Father.

I think pray over the the bus, the driver, the everything involved today that is productive, uh, that it will enlighten uh open the eyes on what's going on with our Detroit Department of Transportation.

And we might even take SMART.

So, Father, just be with traveling mercies, uh Holy Spirit.

Uh you are our comforter and a guider.

It says the Holy Spirit brings all things to our remembrance, even things we do not even know.

We thank you with hallelujah in Jesus' name by the blood of Jesus.

Yahweh Yeshua, Hallelujah.

Amen.

Mr.

Ginyard, floor's yours, sir.

Good morning to us, honorable body.

My name is Troy Ginyard, President of Troy's Toyme.

But today I'm here on behalf of another hat that I wear.

My family foundation, the Guinear Foundation.

Uh I would like to first congratulate the incoming Madame Mayor Sheffield, and even though she's not present today, and to all the returning city uh city council members.

Amazing ran campaigns.

I am here to inform the public that the Guinyard Foundation in partnership with Meyer and Forgotten Harvest will be doing the annual, doing our annual community turkey and food giveaway tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Uh this is for the city of Detroit and Highland Park residents.

You will need ID to receive food.

Uh this event will be held at 14510 2nd Avenue.

This is uh the George Washington Carver School.

I have broader food flyers in hand with me today, but everyone can go to our website, the Ginyar Foundation.org and our Facebook page as well for more information on this event and other events uh that uh for our our community outreach that will be held uh going forward.

I would like to thank you for this time.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the community and get this word out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Tim Edwards.

Thank you.

My name is Tim Edwards.

Um a resident of Jeff Serv Jefferson Chalmers, and I'm here on behalf of item number 21.13, uh contract number 6007 five one nine.

I and many of the residents uh of Jefferson Chalmers share a concern that this contract could result in the proposed stop log dams that have been brought before us, and I think in October 11th of 2021, we uh the residents made their point very clear that any kind of dams and the canals would be uh a detriment to our neighborhood.

I want to thank very much uh councilwoman Johnson uh she's here today for listening to the community and negotiating on our behalf.

Uh she was here today for listening to the community and negotiating on our behalf.

Uh your efforts are very much appreciated.

And I want to thank the city for putting attention to the matter of bringing Jefferson Chalmers up out of the floodplain and exploring uh ways that that could be done.

Uh I'd like to support express my support for any and all measures that would result in shoreline rehabilitation and shoreline resilience along our canals and would not result in damming of the canals in any sort of way.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Tracy Rubin.

Hi, I'm Tracy Rubin from Jefferson Chalmers and part of the um flood mitigation team.

Everything he said, I agree with.

And also congratulations on everybody who's gonna still be here, and thank you for all who have been here and helped us.

My question is along with some of the money that's already been um given to the DBA to do work on the flood um canals and the uh seawalls over there.

I know they're asking for more money.

My question is with the million they've already been given, and they've only spent 300,000, and there were conditions that they were supposed to fulfill to spend more of the money.

What have they done with that money?

How can we get to see what they've done?

And why is that other 700,000 still sitting there and they're asking for another two to three million dollars?

We haven't seen anything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I know that member Johnson would like to provide some uh clarification.

Hey, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you for um coming here to speak in regards to the dams and the DBA.

We have not um identified a specific contract that the DBA has received and utilized $300,000.

I've received that question via email.

Um a couple times we've reached out to several departments within the city, um, and we have not been able to locate a contract that was approved and um where the DBA actually utilized any funds.

We'll continue to search and certainly we'll follow up with you if we identify something just to make sure that we're not duplicating efforts and using money um multiple times for the same situation, but thank you for raising that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Member Young.

This might be a long shot, but do we have anybody uh from the DBA that could answer these questions at all that's available to us?

We'll give them an opportunity after public comment.

Okay, I just want to make sure.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Um for uh Mr.

Washington or whoever from the administration, please note that after public comment, we will ask someone from DBA or uh the most appropriate entity that could respond to these particular questions.

Um question that was brought up by the member of the public.

Mr.

Sean White.

No, I'm sorry.

Jonzale Howerton, my apologies.

Hello, my name is Kwanzaa Howerton.

I am the director and founder of Chosen Kingdom Builders.

We are a nonprofit social service agency.

Um a couple of years ago, we got a contract with the Detroit Land Bank Authority to get houses through their ODP project.

So we immediately started collecting houses.

We were doing really well, but in the state of Michigan to manage properties, you have to go through a brokerage.

The brokerage firm we consulted and went through at first with Salves Management.

We had to fire them because one of their buildings got condemned after we placed voucher placements from Wayne Metro.

So we fired them and immediately hired a contract called C Red.

C-Red Um came on as consultant and as the brokerage to help us with the clients you see behind us.

Um I am a product of the system, have gone through some stuff myself.

So I started this nonprofit called Chosen Kingdom Builders at 18 years old.

I have 33 adopted sons between guardianship and adoption, one biological and two stepsons.

This work means something to me.

Um I am here today because we have another building that was condemned.

My name is being smeared all over Detroit.

I'm from Pontiac, so McHal Goodman told me to actually reach out to Miss Romero.

Um, but he saw some of what was going on, and I have very little power in Detroit.

They're exploiting that, they're exploiting our tenants, our clients, they're putting them out of their houses illegally.

I have proof of payments, everything, but the issues that I've been running into as a nonprofit, you have to be represented by a lawyer in court.

All my funds are tied up with our tenants relocating them.

So we are here, they're gonna share their story, but I ask you desperately, please look deeper into this.

We need you guys to help.

Thank you so much.

Speaker is Sean White.

Hi, yes.

My name is Sean White.

Um, I am uh the I'm the owner of a nonprofit called Mast Anxiety, which is a partner organization, two chosen kingdom builders.

Um, and I while their their agency focuses on the placement and everything, we uh I focus on the mental health aspect.

Um, and some of these situations that I have witnessed over the past few years working with C Red as a company have been absolutely heartbreaking.

Um the conditions of these houses are absolutely like they're unlivable.

I wouldn't, like no disrespect, but I wouldn't even allow my pet to live within these houses.

Um, there are walls caving in, there's mold on the walls, there's um uh feces coming through uh the ceilings and different things like that.

And I have to see brown water.

Never seen anything like this in my life.

Um, and this these conditions aren't just physical, um, they do something to a person's mental health.

I I was homeless three years ago.

Um, and just that decision, like that that position of being uh a vulnerable like that.

I can't, I I can't even imagine how these clients are um able to sustain themselves mentally.

Um and so I just this is just a call to action um that somebody does something about this because these people are being not only affected physically but mentally.

There's adults, uh the elderly, there's young adults, and there are children being affected as well.

So yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

McCalkey as well.

Next speaker is Paul Beal.

Um, hi, my name is Paul Beal.

Um, I'm actually one of the tenants for Mr.

Mr.

Howerton.

Um so piggybacking off what Sean said, I'm pretty sure there is there's a lot going on in these houses that are not supposed to be, like it's illegal almost, I'm pretty sure.

We like they literally just got supposedly they just got a new contractor or whatever, and they're supposed to be fixing stuff up, but they're not really fixing up what they need to be fixing up in there.

Like they they're trying to paint outside and put in new walls like a couple weeks ago.

I mean, we didn't have no heat for like a good week or so.

My hot my hot water not working.

Um it's uncovered, uncovered pipes, uncovered uh wires in there, like half the closet doors not even on right.

Like it's been like that for a minute, but you know, I'm a foster kid myself, so I never really had no home to begin with.

So when you get put in some some type of situation like this, you kind of just take it for what it is, not knowing that it's not right or nothing like that.

So you feel me?

But I just want to say that Kron has been helping me and helping me through throughout throughout my past year of being here.

He's been trying to help me relocate and it's it's just getting worse, and you guys do need to look into it because I'm pretty sure this isn't on this is not legal to have somebody living like this, especially if you under a contract and you're getting paid from somebody who you know what I'm saying.

But that's about all I got to say about the situation for thank you.

Um Mr.

Paul Beal.

Oh no, just Mr.

Bill, Mr.

Ronald Foster.

All right, good afternoon.

Just very quickly.

Um, in the last message, um, rules and things, section 19.0 is very important.

It outlines executive protection details.

It outlines what must occur in the breach of peace after a warning and commits um a breach of peace, and it's up to the police or the president here.

The police have limited detail here.

Their only job here is to provide security.

And so the idea that some of our legislators don't want to be held accountable and think that they put police in harm's way with their behavior, is not gonna be accepted or tolerated as well.

Um, in our communion societies, we have pastors that have violated, we have doctors that are violated, we have nurses that are violated, and in that state, any human being that violates will probably be looking for something to come to them, whether you legislator, whether you're a doctor, whether you're a nurse.

If you conduct yourself properly, I know pastors don't have issues.

I know doctors that don't have issues, they don't need security.

And so police is not going to be there to protect your bad decisions and misbehaving and lack of accountability.

Um, and so I ask you all to go over section 19.0.

Understand that they can't come up here and infringe upon anything based upon anybody's personal feelings.

They can't compel nobody to sit down, they can't do all that.

So we have to curtail all of these things in accordance with the rules and regulations.

Thank you so much, sir.

Next speaker is Denzel Williams.

Uh how y'all doing?

I'm a community activist, so I make social media content platforms.

I actually build them, give them the formula form.

But usually I spread good, right?

That reason being that a lot of people be in unfortunate situations and they have no voice.

So what I do is I give them a voice.

So a couple of the brothers you just heard speaking from the uh kingdom builders.

I was the one that exposed them on my platform just so that they can tell their truth.

I actually did walkthroughs through these buildings and these houses that's not livable or suitable for anybody.

So I just came, you know, down here for real, have a one-on-one conversation and just see, you know, who's behind these type of things and who's, you know, supposed to be a voice for our community.

Because I'm out here frontline every day without a dollar on my own dollar from the business that I created, giving back to the community and just trying to help spread love and joy the best way I can.

But being a frontliner and out here on these streets and having no help, I feel like, you know, but seeing that it is people like y'all who's really standing up for us now.

Uh I just really wanted to come speak on the behalf of these people and saying that it's real people out here that's really suffering from things that they don't know how to explain.

They don't know how to get out the situation because they're just you know unfortunate and don't know how to use their resources.

So I just wanted to come down here and share that story with y'all.

We appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

And uh, I just want to if you can pass on uh phone numbers as well.

You don't want folks to think that the only time you can communicate with your council members if you have to come down here.

Yes, sir.

Uh call us.

We all have uh satellite hours, coffee hours, where we can actually touch each other and agree, right?

One-on-one.

Um, but we I'll give you my information, right?

And I'm also gonna have someone from my team connect with you as well.

Thank you so much.

313 224 1027.

And I would just personal cell phone number.

Negative, sir.

I I never give out my personal cell phone number.

Yeah, for sure.

All right, let's be real.

I wouldn't ask you for yours either.

All right, yes, sir.

All right, let's keep it.

Keep it funky now.

So I got somebody from my team who's gonna also get your information.

He's right behind you there.

Okay, then we're gonna connect with you.

And I want to hear about mine just all right.

So uh I'm Member Waters, and um, I certainly want to know more about a lot, a lot more about what's going on.

So if you could call us, ask uh for Jason, have him set it up so that we can have a conversation.

313 628, 2363.

313, 628, 2363.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you for coming down again.

Next speaker is Marquez Jacobs.

Hello, I'm Marquez Jacobs.

Um, I'm currently um a part of voiceless faces, my brother's keeper and integrate 313.

We all have different lanes that we're doing, but we're working together collaboratively.

Um right now, I'm looking for all the demons, the shooters, one the guys that have potential to be gangsters.

I'm looking for I'm looking for the downtrodden teens, youth.

We're out here in the stores and the parking lots and the alleys, we grabbing them up, they got on shisty masks.

A lot of you all are scared of those things because of what they emulate.

We not.

We frontline, we front and center, but we need some help.

We need some help dealing with these boys because they have made their own rules.

They're playing real life black ops, in case some of y'all don't know.

They are playing real life black ops to the point that they have told me we just trying to see who died first, OG.

So at the end of the day, the mentality has went way beyond YBIR, Pony Down Air, uh BKs, Earl Flynn's is no is Crips, it ain't even Crimson Blood's thought process.

And if we are really concerned about the shootings and the killings, I know the uh the uh the police uh chief uh Todd Bettison has been working very hard with trying to solve these situations, but we have to be a little bit more hands-on as a community and as community activists.

Um I'm an individual that is not scared to stand up, but I just need some help, and we need all the help that we can get.

Next speaker is Jadante Smith.

So uh I just want to say, remember a long time member of Island View, 64 years, my family's been in the house.

I'm about to be the president of the Helen Street Block Club, legacy block clubs.

It's gonna be legacy.

Um, any development that happens to Island View is gonna have to come through us too, not just the three churches that we have Church and Messiah and Mac Church and uh Genesis Hope, with their all development corporations that you guys are sneaking things through, like selling a part of Buxa Family Center parking lot off to do a private development and taking away some of our land that was uh that was that had houses raised down uh to do to even do the park.

Uh also I want to say thank you to Tissa Johnson, Councilmember Johnson.

Sorry to address you that for the conversation we had.

Also, always excellent work, uh, member Waters.

Um also want to say in District 3 if any resident can't breathe in any district anywhere across this city, nobody can breathe anywhere.

Also, uh Councilmember uh Angela Wilfell Callaway, I'm a member of CPTA and I've done excellent work in helping with that body cam ordinance, and I would say that I'm getting positive progress done.

I don't think that I'm a habitual complainer.

I think that we have to address issues in order to get resolution.

So that ordinance was a win, and I'm gonna get plenty more.

Also, Councilmember Waters or Councilmember Yunnan, he's not here.

We need a down zone of the Cronos Country facility, and it's gonna have to come through city council.

So I'm gonna bring residents from all seven districts of the city.

Every district, I'm gonna have people come talk about that.

Um, when it comes to when it comes to getting clean air and getting Chronos down zone, I don't care who's taking money from them.

I need that five votes, and I need that down zoning from you guys.

If people can if one resident can't breathe in the city, nobody can leave.

Next speaker is Gabe Bassett.

What's going on?

Um I'm here on behalf of Chosen Kingdom Builders and Kwanzell Howarton.

Um I just want to speak a little bit about their relocations.

He he talked about how um they were having some issues with Cred and being able to place their clients in habitable housing.

Um I've represented buying group and we were already in real estate in the city, so we asked for our help, and we have been able to relocate um four families uh that were in that inhabitable housing, and they'll speak to that here.

They've been able to relocate them to Safe and obviously we we consider it some of the safest housing in the city um that you can get in Detroit neighborhoods.

So um, yeah, I'm just I want to speak on behalf that uh that they they are capable of uh relocating people from um tough situations and and tough spots that they're put in.

So I don't want it to seem like they were um doing anything nefarious to uh get into those positions and that they are capable of relocating their their people and and Bobby and Sharice will speak to that that we have been able to place them and their family members and other family members in safe and habitable housing.

Um, and it is has gone well so far, and they are taken care of.

So I just want to speak to them and and and show that they are capable of relocating their their tenants and their and their clients, and that they are um a great social service agency at providing housing.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Sharice Lewis.

Hi, my name is Sharice Lewis, and um I'm a tenant of Chosen King.

Um I'm disabled, and um the house that we were put in.

I haven't met the landlord or talked to the landlord.

But um we haven't we didn't have any gas for almost a month.

He called down the DTE and said that we were squatting.

He wasn't fixing up anything, and uh the front porch relling, I did, which I didn't know until I failed down the stairs, and um I talked to Kwan and them, and he was saying that um they would call him the like call the the owner of the house to get all that fixed, but it's still not fixed.

The basement is leaking, and it has black mold going up the walls, and I do have asthma, and um I'm on a like machine, asthma machine.

So I'm asking you uh, can you please help with that situation?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We're gonna work with a gentleman uh from my team's gonna get you information as well.

Right behind you.

Next speaker is Bobby Oliver.

How are you doing?

Good day.

I'm um I stayed on my Garrigo with my fiance right here.

We have a lot of problems we had there.

One one thing about me and my baby right here.

We take care of business, we'll call the landlord and let them know that come and get your rent money and everything.

To be fair with us, be fair, just be uh excuse me.

Just be uh real with us.

Like we are, like I said, we are called attendant, lady know we I don't know who Hobby Tommy is.

I don't even know who we never met him and all that.

But every time we call him and uh me and my fiancee will let you know that we uh got the money, we got the rent money for you.

We call and lady know is there.

We never were late on the rent and nothing.

I don't know why you saying we be squatting because that's a lie.

But that's all I gotta say, though.

But yeah, just take care of that.

We appreciate it.

We in a better location now.

Thank thank the Lord Pellette.

Thank you, Mr.

Oliver.

Our last in-person speaker we have is Miss Alicia, I believe, Pringle.

Hello.

Hello.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Tate, Miss Waters, Miss Johnson.

How y'all doing?

Um, okay.

I am uh tenant of Mr.

Tommy as well.

My address is 2022 Pelkey.

Okay, just a quick small little backstory.

Before I moved into this property, I've been homeless for the last three and a half years.

And one of those years I was pregnant.

So it's very hard to get into a shelter with children.

It's very hard.

So when I got the opportunity to get into this housing program, I jumped.

I jumped real quick.

Take real quick.

So this joining so far has taught me a lot about myself too as well.

Um, I stay in, it used to be a two-family flat, but it got converted into a single home.

I'm a mother of six, single mother of six.

Um the landlord, Mr.

Tommy never converted the systems over.

So when I say I have two of everything, I have two of everything.

I have two hot water tanks.

I have two meters, I have two furnaces.

When I moved into the house, they would not let me turn the light and gas on for about two and a half weeks because the system hasn't been converted to one.

So luckily, by the grace of God, I called one day to DTE and got a lady on the phone, and she was like, Listen, I'm gonna go ahead and convert this for you so you can have hidden gas for your home and your children.

So I said, okay, no problem.

Springer, I apologize.

So we're gonna have to, we gotta give everyone the same amount of time.

Uh okay, I just want to say this one quick, Mr.

Mr.

T.

I just want to say one thing, though, Mr.

Speaker.

Unfortunately, we can't.

I'm paying two different DTs.

I'm paying two different DTE bills on top of rent.

Miss Pringle, what we're gonna do is you see that gentleman right there.

He represents the area that uh your home is located in.

He's gonna give you that assistance.

So you have one-on-one concierge service right there with the council member, council member Benson.

Okay, all right.

All right, good.

Thank you for being down here.

Thank you for making us aware of it and uh wish you all the best, but we don't just wish we're gonna work to try to get your situation.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we take care.

Thank you for coming down.

All right, so we shall now trans uh we should now go on to public comment for the folks who have called in.

Those who uh I'm sorry, uh member before you all leave.

No, it's okay.

It's not okay it's it's for us.

Thank you, Mr.

Sancho Remiro.

Just for us, I saw your staff go and ask for questions.

Want to make sure this is covered.

We at least are collecting information correct.

Let us know however we can help.

Oh, we're gonna give it to you.

That was okay.

Just want to confirm we're getting their information.

We're going to distribute as needed.

Just want to be able to help as well.

Um, however, we can.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, because I'm sure they're spanned throughout the city, not just in one area.

So thank you for that.

All right, so look, we'll now like to go to our online comments.

All right, who's our first caller?

The first caller is phone number ending in one two four.

Caller ending in one, two, four.

The floor is yours.

General public comment.

Caller, are you there?

All right, we're gonna put that caller at the end of the queue and go to the next.

So they just dropped off, but I believe the next caller is the same person.

Uh, don't violate 6-205.

Yeah, sounds like the same person.

Caller.

Floor's yours, minute 30.

General public comment.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, first of all, you're addressing other people's questions, so please address mine.

Uh uh, Chair Tate, or otherwise you're violating the constitution.

Um, I think you should look into the legality of passing legislation, the massive zoning changes, items 21.1 and 21.2.

When in the public hearings, Charter Section 6-205 was violated.

People who were living in the areas likely to be impacted were not allowed to present their full arguments.

So you can't limit people to a limited like 30-second public comment.

Like you shouldn't be jam-packing the agenda so people can barely speak.

Um, so please look into that as you're like looking into other people's stuff.

So otherwise, you're showing your just blatant disparate treatment of some residents.

Also, item number 19.7.

Zhausmer law firm.

Shame on member Sheffield or whoever wrote this agenda to not say what this really is.

It is a contract for eminent domain services for a very resident disrespectful law firm in Farmington Hills.

They're getting paid about $300 an hour to basically black bottom Detroiters taking their property, and there's no right to counsel for the people being rolled over on the regular without the resources to even understand what these proceedings are.

Yet you got this report about a reparations task force.

This is so shameful.

You should talk you should really learn about how awful these attorneys are.

And shame on you for not coming up with a better.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is Frank Hammer.

Frank Hammer, the floor is yours.

Minute 30, General Public Comment.

Frank Hans.

Yes.

Hello.

As you can hear, there are a lot of problems with housing, affordable housing.

The shortage is due to stagnating wages, not earning a livable wage, rising market prices affecting both home buying and renting.

Part of which is unscrupulous renting raised by both Detroit-based and non-Detroy-based landlords, which the right to counsel, free legal to renters, can and does make a difference.

The causes overassessing property taxes, both citywide and specifically to the lowest valued properties, the lowest third in Detroit, the lack of or poor process for low-income residents to become exempt from property taxes more than a year at a time.

And this last thing is the Wayne County Treasurer transfers properties to the land bank that are still occupied, still in litigation, and or uninformed of their property rights.

And properties truly vacant and abandoned are not done equitably by the land bank.

Decades of economic decline, predatory practices by Duggan, and neglect also by Duggan have fed this.

You can address it.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is Motorola Moto G Power.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

You have a minute 30.

General public comment.

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm calling in regards to uh the Teamsters local 214.

My question is was our contract ratified?

If so, can you please tell me why we have not received the two percent raise that we voted on?

And when will we be getting the retro pay that we was promised?

And um, I'm calling in regards to the Teamsters Local 214 Journal Services Department.

This contract covers the vehicle operator one, vehicle operated operator three, and CEO positions.

And again, we have not any information on whether or not are we gonna get the raise?

Did we get the raise?

When are we gonna get the back pay?

We're still waiting on the back pay.

We've been waiting for over a month, and we have not heard or seen anything in regards to this.

So I'm here today, counsel that we're here to begin for these questions, and um hopefully uh you can prov you can provide me with some okay.

Uh before you leave the keep your ears open, we've got uh member Johnson wants to provide some uh response to you, sir.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, so the agreement that you're referring to was approved in the Internal Operations Committee meeting on October 1st.

It was further approved by the committee of the whole on October 7th.

Um, my understanding is that it is it has been submitted and is going through the final administrative steps that your union leadership can advise you further as to when it will go into effect.

But everything that you mentioned was included in the agreement that has already been approved by this body on October 7th, which includes the retroactive um increase uh as well as the two percent increase that you referred to.

So your union leadership should be able to give you additional information.

Thank you, Mr.