Call to order the City Council regular public meeting for October 2nd, 2025.

Let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God.

Indivisible.

Approval of minutes for September 4th, 2025.

Move for approval.

Second.

It's been motion by Councilmember Kazimczek, seconded by Councilmember Russell.

All those in favor.

Motion carries three zero.

We have one appointment tonight.

Approval of the appointment of Kevin Meyer as trustee for the city's pension and opid trust funds as a replacement for Joe Hare.

Is there a motion?

Move for approval.

Second.

The motion by Councilmember Kazemchak, seconded by Councilmember Russell.

All those in favor.

Motion carries three zero.

Council comments.

Councilmember Russell.

I do have a comment.

I was excited to find out today from our director of parks and recreation that they request for proposals.

So this will be for uh demolition and rebuild of the skate park as a new uh remade amenity with public art space and all kinds of exciting uh things.

So it's been a project that we've been trying to shepherd through for almost four years now, and it's exciting to see with community uh engagement that we're moving forward.

Exciting news.

Councilmember Kazemchak.

Thank you.

No comments from here.

This is an opportunity public comments.

This is an opportunity for members of the public to address this council regarding items that may or may not appear on the agenda.

Please note speakers to give their name and general address for the record.

You're reminded that these proceedings are broadcast on live TV.

And you should speak clearly and directly into the microphone.

All comments are limited to a total of three minutes per individual.

If you wish to ask a question and want to be response, that would become a part of the three-minute limit.

And if each speaker, when it's your turn to speak, please be oh, we stated that.

To ensure your uninterrupted opportunity to speak, this will be your time so that members meetings, members of the council will not be answering any questions nor engaged in discussions.gov MD.gov.

Also, if you have written materials to accompany your remarks, we encourage you to email those as well.

Those who signed up will speak first, and depending on our agenda, we may pause and resume general public comment at the end of the agenda.

Pursuant to our rules of procedure, conduct of disrupt the meeting or that interferes with the rights of members to the public to attend and observe the meeting is not acceptable.

We have also posted our code of civility in this boardroom, which is located to my left and your right.

Please take note of the exits for your safety and silence all electronic devices, please.

Thank you for taking the time to engage with us and let us begin.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you, Miss Phyllis.

Ben Maston, Frederick.

Well, um, I have a document to serve here in a minute.

It's a Maryland public information request, but before I do that, I must say I think if I know the city legal department, like I think I know them, I think they're in a celebratory mood today.

Uh because the Public Information Act compliance board recently came down with an October 1st, 2025 decision as it relates to a public information request that I filed back in February, ruling that it was something we already all knew, and that was hysterical.

That was their ruling.

Hysterical.

But the bottom line is the legal department was trying to stop me and other individuals from being able to access records that whereas the content of the record, if it had words that they didn't like, what they were trying to do was get the Public Information Act compliance board to give them sort of a legal predisposition to not produce those records.

They did not get that.

So they think they won, but they lost.

Specifically, the ruling cited that Maryland law has absolutely no way to prevent individuals from filing public information requests with words that they disagree with, and that it would have to be on a case-by-case basis.

So they think that it is a legal victory, but it is certainly not because all the relief that they got from this opinion was stating that the record that I already have, that they are do not have to produce it a second time.

So they went through this whole process, hundreds of pages of documents, probably spent tons of city resources and taxpayers' money to try to prove to themselves something that we already knew, which was that it was hysterical, it was comedy, and they didn't win anything because of the fact that it's on a case-by-case basis, and the Public Information Act compliance board does not, they're not the arbiters of the First Amendment.

They don't decide what is political redress or not.

They found that as it relates to this specific circumstance, they found that okay, maybe it's vexatious, but the bottom line is it's on a case-by-case basis.

Absolutely no relief was granted to the city attorney's office.