Oh, I don't know about it.

I'm going to debate.

Good morning, everyone.

I'll call this meeting of the um of the uh council policy and procedures committee uh meeting uh meeting order, it's uh 904 a.m.

And we have uh this meeting is being conducted with a virtual component, so anyone wishing to address the committee virtually may join the meeting um via the zoom link or by dialing 669-9009128 and entering the webinar being listed on the agenda.

When the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, uh click the raise hand feature and zoom or dial star nine on your phone.

When the chair calls your name, provide uh public comment if you're participating by phone, press star six to unmute yourself.

Any emails received by 5 p.m.

yesterday were forwarded to the to the committee.

Uh emails received after 5 p.m.

were will not be read during the meeting but will be entered in the record for the for the meeting.

Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjected to disrupted racial verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comment.

This amount of usefully committed to racial, religious and cultural equity and justice, and we've strived to create a welcoming and safe and inclusive community for all.

Um for uh for roll call.

It looks like all committee members are present as a minor 5 a.m.

Um and the first item that we'll move to was the minutes' approval for the CPPC meeting minutes back in March 5th, uh back on March 5th of 2025.

Um I think you've all received copies.

Are there any questions or comments on the minutes?

And then from you, Lucas.

I didn't have any minutes.

I don't know if I don't know how much.

I don't see any public comment uh on the minutes, uh, either in person or virtual.

So uh motions in order to approve the minutes.

So move and I'll second that.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

I'll abstain.

And I'll vote aye as well.

So maybe this votes aye on Kirk Parker, and Number McAllister abstains from the minutes.

Move on to oral communications from the public on non-agenda items, non-agendized items.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during the section.

Stay well approved as the CPPC from acting on non-agendized items.

Would any member of the public like to provide comment on an item that is not on today's agenda?

I don't see anyone in person or virtually.

So we'll close oral communications and move on to item 5.1 council policy A13.

This is in regards to um council policies and procedures for motion to reconsider for reconsideration.

Um do we have uh assistant city attorney um Diana?

Good morning, I'm Diana Fazelli, assistant city attorney.

Um, this item is being brought to you this morning.

Um, it's specifically section 11 of council policy A13.

Um motions for reconsideration, and it's been being brought to the CPPC to discuss and provide direction.

Our amendments to section 11.

Um at council member clerk's request at the April 22nd, 2025 council meeting.

Okay.

Um so I think just as a reminder, um, we had uh the council referred this uh at the request to the committee.

Um, and really the goal there was you know there are pathways for reconsideration that's in the standard course of um whether it's Robert's rules or um or or just standard procedure, but what I was hoping to do is just have a discussion around what parameters we might um we might put in our policies and procedures to guide future um future councils or if this were to come up again.

So for example, um right now, you know, anyone can bring anything back for reconsideration within you know certain certain parameters.

But what um, I think what we talked about the meeting was maybe adding adding a few examples or other uh other boundaries, such as you know demonstrating that something significant had changed, you know, so you know maybe maybe a situation had changed as opposed to someone just simply changing their mind, you know, four weeks later or whatever it happens to be.

Um so I I sent, or I thought I sent uh uh some proposed language, but I need to uh pull it back up, I guess.

What was the time frame from the time the original vote was to the time that it was reconsidered?

Does anybody remember?

That one was longer than I think that was longer than the the immediate meeting after, maybe because there was a special meeting.

I feel like it happened probably, it felt like it was maybe roughly a month, so maybe one or two regular meetings after.

So it was not the next regular or January meeting.

No, not that I recall.

So just as a comparison, so for example, um let's say that the deadline is after reconsideration is passed.

Um so you're beyond your your normal timeline.

Let's say that you've you've you've passed that timeline.

Um, you know, it currently says that it shouldn't be placed on for reconsideration within one year.

Um but we could add language that say, for example, unless the facts or circumstances that were relied upon during the prior discussion have particularly changed.

Um and then we could provide some examples.

So for example, if council or staff has received new information that had we known at the time might have impacted others' decisions, or if there were errors in the original meeting materials, substantially newer updated information, um, material changes in the state federal, like those are those are things where you we might provide leave to bring something back after the the right, you know, after the the regular meeting prior.

So it's just adding some language to provide some examples.

I'm sorry, this didn't go out before the meeting.

Well, is it possible to display the language you're suggesting?

I can try it and send it to Michael.

Could you can you can send it to me or you can plug into the HDMI core behind you?

I also want the language second.

Oh, what would you like to do?

Change the second time.

I think I'll send it to where is it best to send it to?

Um Michael Schultz.

My email, Michael Schultz.

I just sent one, I just said that.

Okay, yes.

Oh, thank you.

You had it.

I didn't have it, but uh sorry.

Uh I am I gotta prove I may before I can log into my email.

So if you have a copy of it, um, it's really focusing on on section D.

So I think A, B, and C are pretty clear.

So I think and E and F as well.

So it's really just beefing up section D to add a few different.

Basically saying if we're if we're gonna reconsider something after that normal time frame that we have um, again, take it.

Is that big enough?

Yeah, that's it.

Yes, okay.

Okay.

So is it the highlighted part?

Yeah.

I didn't red line it.

Um, but I but I think uh you got stuff in a tell.

So yeah.

I have some questions.

Yeah, sure.

Um is there other presentation?

Do we do public funding?

But so uh this week.

Yeah, so it's really focused on section D and just providing some some examples of situations where the council might find it acceptable to review something after the deadlines passed.

Okay, and that because that was the case that we dealt with.

It was there wasn't really a there wasn't really a reason provided for bringing it back.

And I think that's what I sense people wanting to avoid.

But uh just if you have questions about it, we ask questions about that.

I guess it was the motion speed.

I have um, no, I I did not move to reconsider, but I supported the the motion to reconsider.

Um so the uh first question is I know that there are some um practical limitations or constraints on the council's ability to tie its own hands.

So if we amended the policy um to prohibit um I guess uh an untimely motion to reconsider, right?

So it's different from what is currently stipulated in the policy.

You can do it if you have a council member uh and and basically a second, right?

Uh at least one of whom voted on the prevailing side.

Um would that policy actually be enforced?

Yes.

It would be so the council could say we're we're not going to allow something to be placed back on an agenda within a year.

That's true across councils too.

Right.

So at the end, uh an item is dispensed with in uh December after an election, a new council comes in, that council doesn't like that um consideration.

So they're prohibited for a year from reconsidering that, or they can amend this policy, change the policy and then bring it back within a year.

I view this as like all of our other policies and procedures.

If there are four people who want to do something different, they can do something different, but there are we we create these standards and and try and say here's what we want to generally adhere to.

And there should be if we're going to go outside these boundaries, like change in the mayor rotation to do something else, which we have the authority to do, there should be a good reason for it.

And so what I've tried to do here was just suggest some examples of when we might allow an untimely motion to reconsider.

So it's that's something in between I'm just going to offer it an untimely motion without any real uh or you know, any demonstrable reason of how the facts change or what's changed, something between what exists today and not but also not completely finding our hands.

I I understand what you're trying to achieve.

Um, and I I have some thoughts about it, but before just to make sure I I have all of the facts and understanding.

Um, so would this also I'm thinking about after the 2014 election, the previous council had uh adopted the North Bay Shore Precise Plan, didn't allow housing.

The newly elected council wanted to amend it, and I think the city administration, the city manager, uh proactively brought forward basically kind of a motion to reconsider.

Do you want to add housing?

The council said yes.

Would this prohibit the administration itself from bringing back an item that had been dispensed by a council within a year?

Or does it only apply in the narrow context of a council recon motion to reconsider?

So I will I'm gonna I'm gonna give you a little bit of backdrop just to let you so that you one understand what you can do here.

Robert's rules, if you were going with Robert's rules or Rosenberg's rules, they don't allow for this.

It's untimely if the motion for reconsideration is not made at the meeting.

So you have adopted rules, which you can do that expand on Robert's rules of order and Rosenberg's rules of order, and you are giving way more flexibility and allowing council members to make motions to reconsideration almost at any time right now with support of two council members, right?

Under this proposed with new facts and circumstances.

So you're perfectly well within your right to modify your rules and to modify Robert's rules and Rosenberg's rules.

But just for clarification, to Robert's rules, you wouldn't be allowed to do that.

It would be untimely and would not be able to go forward.

That does not, I don't think, ever prohibit an entire item from coming back being brought back to be, and I guess reconsidered, but you're almost starting over.

So I would say if say a resolution was adopted, right?

And you wanted to reconsider that resolution that was adopted, you're bringing that back to either amend it, you're bringing it back to repeal and replace it, you're bringing it back to do many things.

So it sort of depends on the action that was initially taken, but I don't think that this would ever for prevent council from reconsidering an entire item.

It just sort of I can think of many, many items, right, across the spectrum of things that you've done.

You might amend an ordinance, but you might want to amend it again.

This won't prohibit you from amending that ordinance again.

Whatever the vote was to amend that ordinance on September 1st meeting, doesn't mean that you're not going to amend it a second time on September 15th because something new has come up, or October or November 15th, right?

Less than a year later.

So when you ask that question, I think it really depends on what you're talking about.

And in the situation where this came up, we were talking about study session direction, right?

And a change in study session direction.

So I think you should talk as you're talking about this.

You should be thinking about the context in which you may want to limit motions for reconsideration.

Certainly you don't want to limit yourself in being able to amend an ordinance multiple times.

It might come up multiple times, something new might change, but in providing direction in study session, right?

In the context of study session, staff is going off to do something that council has directed us to do, and and we're working on it to bring back maybe some final document resolution ordinance amendment or some new motion that you're gonna make.

And so that's where these motion for reconsiderations can be can potentially create um difficulty where there is no change in facts and circumstances, right?

It's just literally a change in mind.

But once you give direction in study session and we go off a staff and we go off and do what council is directed, and maybe that's bringing back an ordinance with potential amendments.

You can still change your mind then.

Right?

The ordinance is now before council.

You are looking at the amendments that we've drafted based on the direction provided in study session, and you can still not vote for that and change it at that time because it's now the actual action that's before council, right?

So I don't know if you want to change motions consideration in general, if you want to change them in the context of study sessions, but you're never bound in the context of a study session, because we're always bringing something back to you later that's gonna require final action.

Well, I can I can give you two examples.

One that I was on the prevailing side for, one that I wasn't.

The North Bay Shore change.

That wasn't a motion to reconsider.

That was a new council has been seated and they chose to revisit prior decisions.

It wasn't a motion to reconsider.

Um, because you had new council members, people who voted before weren't there anymore.

That to me is a material change in the legislative landscape that would if you were to do a motion to reconsider in that case, then you would have a valid reason to, but that probably wouldn't be the people that you would use, and it's not the vehicle that was used for the North Bay Shore change.

The one that I was on the other side on uh and didn't agree with, but the council moved forward anyway, was um shaped candidate.

No, it was kind of oh that's right.

At an election that was the council members were seated, but it wasn't a motion to reconsider, it was a second reading of an ordinance that went down.

So the first reading was approved in December, January, reverse force.

Um, so I don't think any, I don't think there have been any major changes where the motion to reconsider has been a vehicle after a council is changed, and so I'm trying to find this balance between just not allowing untimely motions to reconsider, which we currently allow them, but also not to also having some parameters around it, so that if you're offering an untimely motion reconsider, one you've talked to the city manager and the city attorney or whomever first, and two, you're explaining your reasoning at the day.

Sorry, it's your hand.

Oh no, no, thank you, Chair.

So I would just offer this too.

There's something to be said for technically, you know, what the city attorney said, all that is very true, accurate, but there's something to be said for how you make good public policy, and if if me and prior city managers or even those of you who talk to community members after a vote is taken taken, if I could tell you the number of times of conversations where people might feel feel differently or think differently, uh there would probably be a lot of times, it would be constant where we would be just revisiting policy issues.

Um those are two good examples, and I think there's other examples.

So I think to some extent, the purpose of this is to also think about how the body makes good policy, and you wouldn't want to be in a situation where it's so easy to do and so freely done that it's it's really constraining staff's ability to you know get the work done or it's hampering workload.

And to your point, if staff's spending months doing something and they come back and you can choose to go a different route in that way, but then the clock starts all over again with getting the work done, and then we get backed up by okay, things aren't aren't possibly being done at times.

So I'll just offer that for you.

That this to me seems about getting at how you make good policy and how you kind of give yourself a little bit of parameters as a body, how you want to act.

Yes, you can go outside of these policies as as was stated, because all it takes is four members.

But I mean, these are kind of guardrails for yourselves, so that's the way I look at it.

I have a lot of thoughts, but I want to hear your thoughts.

Okay, please.

Um thank you, uh, so a few things.

I think the part of the part of why I ask is we may understand what the policy means and is intended to achieve, but the organization will change, right?

Or the ship of these.

So I want to make sure that whatever policy is in place after we're gone, presuming it doesn't get changed, is understood in the same manner that we're intending.

Um, and I I it it it is it was not immediately obvious, and I think it was clarified in the city attorney's remarks that um this would not be interpreted by a future staff as meaning, oh wow, the council does not want to reconsider something, even if there is a change in council, for instance, right?

Which is the North Bay Shore example.

Um, so so as long as this isn't if if it's very clear that this doesn't preclude staff from coming back to council within a year on a matter dispensed with.

Then I may I speak to that, Lucas?

Or council member.

Um Lucas is fine.

I always, it's like, are we formal or more informal in these?

Um so to you, you asked, you know, if there was something that the city manager or staff would change, or the example was done previously.

If there was something material by staff or you or even something that would change the way that council voted that was brought to either the city attorney or myself, I don't think this would preclude us coming to you or me coming to the body saying, hey, you all took a vote, but there's something, you know, significant that changed, or something that we forgot to put in there, like housing or whatever.

We need to bring this back to council.

I don't see this precluding something that you know administratively from, you know, staff or your appointees for us to be able to say that this is something that council would need to uh bring back.

And and if you feel like it should be written in, maybe it's just making that addition in there, you know, to say that give that uh ability to the city manager, you know, if something has changed that the city manager may raise an issue.

However, we word it.

Um but you if you're concerned about that, you can put it in.

A shared understanding is helpful, yeah.

Right.

Can I step in here?

Sorry.

I think we're getting too far afield of what a motion for reconsideration is versus bringing an item back for further consideration or further amendment or modification.

I think you need to a motion for reconsideration is you're trying, this is really designed to address the finality of vote on any particular item at a given time.

And in the event that you want to change it, you need to go through a different process.

It's it's intended to not make it easy to just willy-nilly change your mind on one day you voted yes in favor of the ordinance amendments, you slept on it, and three days later you decided you wanted to change your vote to no, and nothing has changed, you just have a crisis of conscious and you and you want to change your vote.

That is the kind of thing that you don't want happening, because that is just you will never have finality in vote.

There is there's and in Robert's rules, it's it's it's decorum, it's conduct, it's these legislative bodies.

You're supposed to have this quorum and conduct you're supposed to be making decisions, and people are supposed to rely on decisions as final decisions when you make them and you make the vote.

And you shouldn't be able to just change your mind in any given day.

One day you have a crisis of conscience and you want to do no, and then you sleep on it again and you want to vote yes.

And it's it's to stop that kind of flip-flop.

This is not intended to stop you from bringing a major item back for um, like that's a conversation, for instance, with the city manager saying we need another study session on the biodiversity plan.

We voted on this, but this other issue has come up.

Uh, constituent in the community raise this particular issue.

We didn't even talk about this.

We didn't consider this isn't a crisis of conscious thing.

This is a major change in what you want to do, or some new aspect of that plan.

You just bring that plan back again.

It doesn't mean that it even undoes what was done.

You just bring it back, you bring the plan back again for further consideration.

That's not motion for reconsideration.

The mayor, the vice mayor, the consultation with staff have agenda study.

Yeah, that always remains.

What we're addressing here is a very specific, we have taken a final vote on something very specific, whether it's a policy, topic or ordinance or whatever, or residents are and someone wants to revisit them particularly.

And all what I'm trying to say here is okay, you can do that in a timely manner already if you're gonna do it two, three, four weeks later, there has to be a good reason.

And here are some examples of good reasons.

Um and oh and by the way, in addition to having a reason you need to towel staff that you're gonna do it, so that no one's surprised.

I appreciate the discussion.

Um, I I feel um like I'm uh a lousy communicator.

Um so maybe I'll I'll put aside the questions and just share what I think.

Um I think the context is important, right?

Where where this has been a problem to the extent it's a problem, it's been in study sessions where there was not always a shared understanding of what we're doing.

Um, this is part of the reason why I hate study sessions.

I think a question of definitive direction is ambiguous in the context of a study session or it's not in the context of new business.

Um that's where I to the extent there's a problem.

I'm not sure I would agree that there's a problem to begin with, but to the extent there's a problem, it's been in the context of study sessions.

I want to make sure that uh I while I agree with what you're saying, the when I'm long gone and dead, a couple of years, right?

When there are different people here, they say the same things that you're saying, right?

So there isn't a situation where, for instance, there's a change in council, that new council, you know, let's say council member McAllister gets a lot of friends, right?

And you disagree with some of the things that we've done in the past, right?

You and your new colleagues aren't subject to a rigid application of this new rule.

A matter acted upon by the body shall not be placed on the agenda again for consideration within one year.

That's already a rule, by the way.

Right, right.

That's so yes, so I'm I don't I don't think there's a problem, right?

But to the extent there is, a different city attorney, a different city manager may look at that and say, that's pretty clear cut.

It means if you've voted on something or you've dispensed with it, then you shall not consider it again within a year, right?

So I I think you know, I'm not opposed to some tactical modifications to the language.

I just want to make sure everyone moving forward has a shared understanding of what the applicability and and you know what of the interpretation of that language uh really means.

The last thing is I think I have I have some trouble with unless facts or circumstances relied upon during the prior decision that material change, but there's I that there's there's a sub subjectivity in that, right?

So one council member may say, I simply didn't understand what I was voting on, right?

Which I don't want to like I think that was a material consideration in one of the more recent motions to reconsider.

I didn't understand that this would affect it would have a concrete impact on the sequel analysis and deprive me of the ability to consider different changes in density.

Would that would that pass muster here?

And who gets to decide, right?

Does the burden fall on staff to determine if the facts or the circumstances have material materially changed, or is that the council?

And if it's the council, then how is this different from the current current policy?

Who gets to decide what a material change is?

The council does.

So the way that this would play out is let's take the scenario that happened previously, instead of instead of it, instead of just making a motion to reconsider when you're making that, you would have to identify for your colleagues why you know it fits within our policies and procedures to do this in an untimely manner, and cite one of these, and the council can decide that sounds like it's within policy, and that's that's an acceptable that's an acceptable reason or not.

I think what's what would be different under something like this is that you have a few more parameters.

You've also given the mayor, vice mayor, staff a heads up.

There's just a little bit, it's just it feels more like a it's a bigger deal to bring an untimely motion or reconsider it under this framework than it would be before.

And it's really just making that very clear to whoever's going to make that motion that they need to have a really good reason for it.

In my opinion, I didn't understand what I was voting on, is probably if that's happened to me before, but it's never been.

You just you move on.

Um I guess if it were really a policy questions, but you can explain it.

All right.

Can I add one more piece of information?

Don't forget you always have a motion to amend, which is a completely different type of motion that can always be made.

So a motion for reconsideration is one method to change something, and typically has very short parameters and time frames around it.

And then there's the other process for a motion to amend, which is a little bit more of a complicated process, which again it's about process.

It's about how easy is it to flip the script, right?

Um I agree that I think study sessions are the big problem.

And the reason why study sessions were the big problem, and and I will refresh everyone's recollection because you weren't here, but the study sessions were a problem is because council cannot take final action in study sessions and motions for reconsideration apply to final action.

But you wanted an ability to reconsider study session direction, even though it is not final action.

And so we got into this weird place where you're having these study sessions, you're providing direction, staff is going off, complying with the direction that was provided to bring back the item.

The item again still coming back for final action, at which time you are free to amend that final action, but you have council members that did not want to do it in that process, which would have been the proper place to amend it, not a reconsideration, sort of in the middle when we're just working off a direction and not final action.

In that one case, so I think that this is why I think this is like this is an extremely rare event, right?

In that case, it was de facto final direction because the next step was after the CEPA process, right?

And if that the direction is final, insofar as we provided like the maximum development capacity to be studied.

So after the sequel is done, you can't go back and say, actually, I wanted greater development capacity or greater intensity in this area.

So that that's why, you know, I I hate study sessions, and I hope a future council gets rid of them permanently because I think that's where the problem is.

But in that case, what what choice was there other than a motion to reconsider?

So, I mean, I understand what you're saying, and I do think that the problem in that circumstances was the nature of study sessions.

Right.

Which I mean, I hear what you're saying.

I I you gave direction that was going to result in final action because action was going to be taken prior to that item coming.

A limiting action, right?

Like the staff was directed to begin the CEQA analysis.

Anything that's where the council member had some questions or confusion, yeah.

There would not be a chance to revisit this direction on what should the maximum envelope in the seat what be.

Yeah, right.

Without spending another year doing it all.

Exactly.

Right.

And that would be another 400,000.

Yeah.

So I I think, you know, um, I don't, I'm gonna vote yes just because I'm um I'm ending my time on council and nothing matters anymore.

But I think this issue has honestly been addressed in the context of the study session.

Like we we explicitly added, you know, the procedure for reconsideration where there was an ambiguity, and if there was a three-four vote and one member of the council changed their mind, you know, after that three, four vote in a study session, there was ambiguity about what staff should do, knowing that it was going to come back and there was going to be a different majority at that time, right?

Um, but I'll vote yes because I am persuaded that the council, the staff are not going to see this as limiting their ability to do work.

If it's a three, four vote, which is the only time this really matters, and I'm, you know, part of the minority, doesn't matter what evidence that council members seeking to change their mind provides.

I'm an ideological zealot, so I'm going to support their motion to reconsider, right?

It doesn't change anything.

Um, but a good soldier.

I got my vote.

I'm sorry.

No, I I really want policies to be good, and I I know I'm stepping on my own foot here and you're voting yes, but I want you to think of something else.

I'm sorry, because I I just don't want to be in a place where you're unclear about your policies.

I'm not quite sure why the sentence in there about a matter acted upon shall not be placed on the agenda again for consideration within one year.

That's not in Robert's rules.

Right.

You could leave.

You've got to make facts and you've got to make a showing for reconsideration.

And you can scratch that you can't come back within one year.

You could make an appropriate motion for reconsideration, however many times you want, as long as you make the showing.

Yeah, I first I didn't I didn't mean for this to be final language.

This was just because we can we can add things like you we're not going to preclude a newly seated council, or anything or this isn't all the things that you mentioned.

This shouldn't be part of the to the the one year thing.

I actually that that's in the policy today.

It is, but we don't adhere to it, Richard's like well.

And I made a really big fuss when we didn't adhere to it, because I think personally, I think good governance, one of the key things about good governance is that you don't turn into Wisconsin and every every two years the party the majority flips and they just undo each other's work and you spend 10 years doing and undoing people's work.

Well, and it has an effect on staff.

I mean, because then that's I mean I would want to work there.

So thank you.

Also, anything does that that's why like that that line is most because a majority can always change the policy, right?

That line is really only impactful for staff.

Oh no, it's norm setting for the council.

It says just like the mayor, vice mayor rotation, all that stuff.

It is, this is what we have agreed should be the norms, and you can go outside the norms, but you should be very aware that you are you should make sure that in that case the public knows that you are going outside the norms, your staff, everyone knows that there's an aberration occurring.

Well, so you and I both actually the three of us voted the same way at the cannabis side.

Right.

I wasn't really interested in revisiting it either, right?

But a majority wanted to, you know, sure, did not care that and I accepted that because the council would change.

So that in my mind was a little different, right?

But I think it's generally good practice once you've taken a final vote on something, especially if it's truly final, like an ordinance or a resolution, that you're not just gonna go mess with it within three or six months.

Fortunately, that's very rare.

Yeah, this organization.

Which is why I'm drawing.

Sorry, I didn't interrupt.

No, it's okay, I and the last point.

You know, I I uh I would uh support personally the um suggestion from the city attorney.

I think a matter acted upon by the body shall not be placed.

So if if we clarify that that's intended to apply only for the council's reconsideration of an item rather than, you know, for staff to share some modifications either at anticipating a change in the council.

I mean, that should be this city manager's you know discretion, right?

I'm anticipating that this is gonna come up, so I'm going to prepare in a way that makes sense.

I don't want that to apply to staff, and I think my my narrowly focused challenge is I think a rigid it there's an ambiguity, right?

And and there could be a circle where you know a different city manager or different city attorney can look at that and say you can't bring it back, it's not within the year, right?

Even if that's staff initiated as opposed to, you know, a motion to reconsider.

Okay, that wasn't the intent.

I I don't know.

I think we're making a lot of something not um first clarity for the city attorney.

You keep saying Robert's rules of order.

This says Rosenberg, so it is a combination of Robert's words and Rosenbergs.

You can create your own um policies and procedures for the conduct of your council meetings.

Some cities just use Robert's rules, we'll some cities just use Rose.

Use a combination of both.

But you've adopted on your own, which you are allowed to do.

That's where Luffy should get in and get that in.

That was a change, by the way, 10 years ago.

Oh, really?

I don't know.

I I think, you know, let me re go back when this occurred.

When I heard it was we had to, you know, they were allowed to do it.

We voted for it.

If I had an opportunity, I would have voted no, even though you said we had to do it.

I was one uh a thing where I changed my mind on a final vote, but I did it that night.

I mean, immediately I contacted the city mayor, I mean the city manager, and I said, No, I just don't feel and they're right to have a change of conscience, but it was it was immediate, and uh some guy held it against me eight years later.

Um, so this one I just I was um dubious of the person's motive.

I really didn't, you know, when I heard what was going on, I felt this doesn't sound right, and when it came back, that person didn't even vote the way she wanted, you know, to reconsider.

She voted the other way and it came out.

So I like study sessions, I don't want to get rid of them because it gives staff some direction, gives us input before it comes back and we're reinventing the wheel too many times, and so to the city attorney's point, I totally agree that we need to make it for staff, they get their on a track and they got so many ways they're going right now, and we have to respect their time.

And if a council member who has been briefed on something and had the opportunity to talk to people, can't make up their mind.

TS, it's on the council to know their stuff when they get there and ask the simple questions afterwards.

So I see, but you say some I just see people aren't doing their job and reading the material and taking every opportunity to get briefed on something if they're not aware of it.

So we have too much to be returning churning things over and over.

And um, I don't particularly, I mean, all this wording, I would have just said three votes or more, and that gave it a better chance if something's gonna happen with two people, you go boom.

You know, I've been on council so far and was a well, I'll just vote for it so we can have a discussion, and it doesn't go anywhere.

I'd say just make it to three or four votes or three votes, and then you got at least the majority of people, or you got a solid basis for okay, people are concerned about it.

All this other stuff, you know, the way the legislate legislature is changing their mind and passing stuff on housing, you know.

That's the first line is a matter of act of punishment so you know, unless new something new happens.

Well, the state comes along and changes the law, so then we have to comply with it.

So there's a lot of that going on all the time.

So, um those are my thoughts.

I just changed it to three, the prevailing.

I mean, I've been doing this for nine years, you too, Chris.

This was the first time it ever came up like this.

Um, and I thought that's you know, I'd be happy to just leave and see and forget D altogether, and just say, hey, if you can't figure it out within a you know, the next within a month, move on.

You know, we've learned what's really good about Mountain View Council.

We take a vote, we move on, don't sit there and no belly ache about oh, we should do we move on, and with all the things that are on our plates and all the things that are changing.

I just say go to C and go from there, and then you know, the laws changes, just like the uh building code, staff came out, say, we gotta change this, we gotta jump on it right now.

And I've never seen an example where staff said, Hey, something changed, you gotta just update it.

So that's my thought.

Uh what was three?

You said for C.

I didn't know I heard C, but it's just if you can't figure it out in a month, always yes.

It just says yes.

You have to make the motion at the same meeting or the next regular adjourned meeting and then a motion for reconsideration after that time would be untimely.

Oh, right.

It's just cuts it off.

It cuts it off.

But it doesn't, as council member.

No, as council member McAllister says, that does not prevent a motion to amend staff bringing it back because there's been a change in the law or some other major faction or circumstances.

Um it also still wouldn't prevent a new body.

Yeah, seeking to amend a prior decision that was made by the council, the prior council.

You could you could bring back an entire ordinance, right?

You in January you've got three new members or whatever, and they say we want to amend they bring it up under item eight.

I want this ordinance to come back and I want to talk about amendment of these provisions.

It doesn't stop that.

I mean that is the other way to do is just simplify all this and say we're just not gonna unless someone wants to change the rules we're just not going to allow untimely motions to reconsider.

And if you want to reconsider some you just have to do it through this other process.

I think that's okay.

So it so it would be like like Councilmember McAllister was suggesting here's the deadline right it's uh where the matter was first voted or at the next regular adjourned regular meeting.

So it gives you a very narrow yeah period of time and then after the dead so D could simply be after the deadline has passed a motion for reconsideration is considered untimely at the end.

No just why does D even have to be there?

A motion for it reconsiders me ladder is untimely and that's rare anyway right like there have to be maybe was D inserted some of this is my language but but some of it even is too was it added because of the study session this that was a the study session was a new um entirely different sector stage.

So I I actually would be comfortable with this like as much as I want to give people the chance to reconsider if they really need to there are clearly our complexities you know there's consternation you know it's politically fraught and maybe we just emphasize and and especially in study sessions where I think this is the only place this is going to be actually a problem you know here is where uh the action is de facto definitive right there will not be a chance to provide input on the scope of the EIR or something right so everyone and that's like we sometimes you have to beat council members over the head with that but if it's if it's still not clear to you you know with it you've got the narrow time frame you could say shoot I just realized that you told me that was definitive whatever but after that point it's no longer timely and you can't make a promoted reconsider.

Yeah you talk timing here so for C, it's that it can also be brought up at the next regular meeting.

Sometimes that's three weeks later sometimes it's four weeks later so it could happen more frequently because D attempts to put teeth on it.

I just want to make sure you all I think C puts that they can't come up move on.

And and the I think the requirement to work with the city manager and city I think that's one and dead so maybe um yeah I mean the the additional language is really meant to think about untimely motions reconsider but I'm I'm personally fine simplifying it I didn't I wasn't quite sure where it came from to begin with so I was hesitant to just rip it out but you know that makes sense because there are other mechanisms to address things beyond the next regular meeting whether it's through amendment or getting so a couple other colleagues.

So maybe we do that but we also keep in the if you're gonna do this tell someone don't just surprise right or or this is not within the scope of this meeting but like I think clarity in the study sessions is important right if it's a new business item and you screw it up that's on you.

Yeah you know but if if we're doing stuff you know a series of straw polls and on one straw poll you didn't understand or whatever right like I think I think clarity at the conclusion like here's the definitive direction the council is taking you know is that really the right thing you want to go if we have study sessions I disagree.

I have heard over the years study sessions are bad and never good.

Um, and and in the case that that you brought up, council member McAllister, I think that's important because under this rule set you would not have been able to make that decision, right?

Regardless of timeliness, right?

It wasn't a motion to reconsider.

And there's a public policy element in that the public was denied the opportunity to.

Well, that's another thing.

That's not good government if all of a sudden we're discussing something we did six months later, and the kind of the public doesn't have a right.

Uh I'd like to just see D disappear, and if you wanted to touch a little thing on C, but that just too much.

The last sentence maybe that they have to talk to the city manager and city.

That's fine.

Yeah, add that to C and pass it and we recommend it.

I think that's fine.

So we make a motion, yeah.

Okay.

Well, not except for the last line.

And then it wouldn't say untimely motion, it would just say for prior to offering a motion to reconsider.

No, thing be going, so it's the last sentence.

Right, but we have to change the last sentence.

Okay.

Yeah.

I would I would like to keep I would like to not remove anything that's there.

Sorry.

Yeah.

I like the one-year thing, but that's just me.

Um, so I guess the question is.

Because you know, we can work with staff to figure out to capture kind of what we just talked about.

It's really just focusing on the motions to reconsider should be timely, and you should tell someone about it.

Right.

And maybe we just don't master any of the deadline, they're they're untimely.

Right.

You can't do it.

And to have a motion to reconsider, you have to confer with the city management city trade.

Right.

Those are the two elements, right?

Can I throw out something else out there for you all to just think about?

Um, and this this can work where you all are headed.

You could also think about putting in parameters on the number of times that someone could do this, um, because with eliminating this, then it's basically you can change your mind.

You can go talk to people after you take a vote.

You can go talk to community members, you can even talk to your colleagues, you can come back at a regular meeting and change your mind.

And what if you have a colleague now or in the future that does this very frequently and is still adhering to all the rules, and maybe they have a second vote, but it's a constant kind of whip signs.

I'm thinking from a staff perspective.

Do you want to put parameters around it or not?

Like no single council member shall change in their mind, you know, in a year, more than two times or one time.

I don't know.

I'm just throwing it out there for the possibilities.

Here's why I would respectfully disagree.

I think keep in mind that any motion to recon consider still requires a majority of the city council, right?

So it's not like a you one person unilaterally can shift the organizational workload, right?

I changed my mind.

Even like I was not even close, right?

I was the the one vote and a six to one vote.

My changing my mind means nothing, right?

But also a council member who does that, I think risks losing a lot of credibility, right?

So if they're constantly seeking a motion to reconsider, yeah, I mean they still has to be voted.

We just say right now, yeah.

The other thing is, you know, if if I were that council member and I felt strongly enough about my third time, I'm just gonna go tap someone else on the shoulder and have them offer them.

Well, they have to be a member of the prevailing side too, right?

So like like that's that's the other thing, right?

That person, it would be a strange circumstance for that person is constantly on the prevailing side of the votes and always wanting to it's changed.

It's a good point though.

I feel like we probably don't need to go.

Yeah, and I suppose if it ever got to that point, that's a bigger conversation.

That's a that's a retreat kind of conversation.

That's a one-on-one conversation that that's getting into probably not so good governance.

Right.

So but I just wanted to throw it out.

Did I make a motion?

Did you second it?

Yes.

So can I clarify the motion?

So you're you're keeping C, a motion made for reconsideration made later.

It's untimely needed, it's not in order, it cannot be taken.

Okay.

So maybe we need clarity around what untimely means.

Untimely motions are not to be considered allowed, not allowed.

Okay.

Yeah, it's it's after the it's whatever's in the Rosenberg's rules, it's after the the next regular meeting.

Right.

Yeah, it's untimely.

Okay.

And then um you're adding the language about referring with the city manager.

The last sense.

Or city attorney.

Okay.

And hopefully they'll do their jobs and talk loud.

But it but I think it does need I think under current rules, it does need to be sponsored by two or more council members, right?

Well, at least one of them is one who is because I don't want to make I don't want to change what we already have there.

If you lose you can't reconsider.

Yeah it says a matter acted upon um maybe reconsiderate reconsidered by motion of the person who voted on the prevailing side and then B says any member of the body may second the motion has to be seconded and then the rules require majority of council members present to actually carry that motion.

That works for me.

Are you okay with that secondary sponsoring I just want to make sure we don't have any members of the public that we can want to talk about somebody named staff.

Staff is me.

I saw that's this um Heather has been on but oh that's that's it public comment and I don't see anyone else in the room so um so there's no public comment on this item and wait one last question sorry the the recommendation said this goes straight to council or do you want to see the red lines back to you before it goes to council sorry we need direction on that because the that the memo left that open you want to see it or do you want it going straight to council with these amendments and red line for the full body to consider on consent.

Do you care if I review it to trust the chair okay I mean it'll probably end up on consent anyway and I can pull it and talk to or talk about it.

Okay.

So with direction to provide it to the chair for review that it aligns with the motion and then straight to council after after that not back to CPC.

So if we make the motion can the chair change it okay no I mean the intent is clear and it's recorded so yes if I try and mess with it.

Well we'll say no sounds like you know I'm going to smack my hand and then you'll smack my hand I'm going down all these little side roads and it just drives me nuts.

So it's okay.

I apologize we needed clarification on that.

All in favor?

I think opposed is that carried unanimously 5.2 um c agenda topics update completely just very brief because you just took care of the items uh today the one item that was remaining on our agenda so far for this fiscal year um and so right now there is nothing that is pending but as items come in we'll make sure and sure we have data the only item I would say that's possible and I need to double check on whether this has to come to CTC or the finance committee and I think it's the finance committee but um we will probably have some updates to the employee home buyer systems program.

But I think it goes to CFC but just put in that on your radar I'm going to double check that okay I got a couple of this where I can add because last time I started talking I guess yeah so we'll move on from 5.2 to uh item six which is oh I have some questions on 5.2 oh sorry unless council no go ahead do you have questions on 5.2 out of roll a goal um uh thank you i appreciate it um i so um uh we have among our council work plan or strategic priorities the council policy slash template updates it says update city policies templates any documents that needed um i was curious whether um you know at the staff level or perhaps staff in coordination with the chair if there's if this is an opportunity to go through there are a lot of council policies that are uh outdated unenforceable you know uh duplicative to municipal code and boy be nice over time not tomorrow not next week but to to go through and just have sort of a work plan like over the next few years here are the top priority policies for uh either repeal because they're not for enforceable or clearly irrelevant or cleanup right um and then maybe to come back I would say work with the chair right and come back with some reasonable board cadence I guess, but I'd love to get a sense of how staff intends to operationalize that work line up.

Question for you.

Are those that have to go through the charter or things that we can do internally?

Council policies internally.

Okay.

So you're saying that if there's council policies, we might see us meeting cleanup.

Or or just repeal.

I've I've I've gone through them and I'm like, has anyone touched this since 1986?

You know, so there's charter cleanup, see you code cleanup, and now we're meeting up this is we approved it.

You guys voted it was a unanimous note.

I was trying to figure out how you sequence that because they're gonna reference each other.

But I get it.

And the next day it's looking a little bit.

I didn't realize that wasn't working.

Okay.

Did you um this is this?

Okay, I'm just time for uh stop.

There's a couple things that uh during the election that sort of would sort of interesting.

You can't take a donation one week before the end, but if you have a uh uh limit of how much you can get that law, that rule is not needed.

I don't know why you still can't click money if as long as you're below the this isn't the meme code, not council policy.

I know that's why I'm saying if it's something can is this where we discuss say we'd like to bring this forward review.

Um so I would like to see that change because the thousand why are you putting a you can't collect money in the last week?

You're big on this uh political thing.

Why does it matter if you have a cash limit?

If you get up to, you know, if you're still collecting money, you still haven't reached the limit.

Why is that one week so important?

I I'm true, because I actually agree with because I just went through that a year ago and it was really I found it to be really dumb.

Um I understood why it was there, but I think it's but I don't know if this body, so would that be like uh City Council item?

Yeah, we just said be a council item, and then who would review it?

Would it is there a body that would a council committee that's appropriate for that, or maybe not on election-related things as the full council, yeah, yeah, okay.

Just a full I think that's a full council item.

So is it something we could recommend?

Or is it just you just present it?

We have somebody has to bring it forward.

I I think it comes up under item eight.

Okay, and it adds to the work plan for the city attorney, city clerk, and the city manager's office.

So we'd have to look at timing for it and what your intent is.

My intent is to get rid of it.

That's legalized from him.

Why don't we you and I can talk okay about it?

So we'll have an idea.

Okay.

And the other one is um this is for the ballot measure, and I don't know if it needs to be recommended.

The council um change their pay and get more money.

The charter.

Oh, the charter cleaner.

Does that come up?

Because if we're going to the ballot measure, this is the time to do it.

Uh there's supposed to be a study session at some point.

So you can raise it.

I'd raise it there because well, two things.

First, so there'd be there's two separate ballot measures that were that are underway now that we're considering.

So the revenue measure ad hoc committee will really just be talking about the revenue measure piece.

The charter code cleanup, the city attorney's office and city manager's office are working together on that one, okay.

So not for the ad hoc committee.

What you're talking about would be the work that the city attorney's office and and my office are working on, and I think that would need to come up as an item that you all discuss when we bring the agenda item forward.

When you say we all we all or you as in council, once staff brings the item to you all to give feedback on it finalized.

But I would just say this: the intent for the charter cleanup for 2026 was supposed to be very simple cleanup items, changing language, referencing genders, things that are antiquated or outdated.

It was supposed to be a little simpler, and then the thought was to the direction from council was to bring another kind of phase two in 2028, which had a little more um probably teeth on the charter.

So bringing a pay increase is probably, I mean, you can do it, but it's probably a little more than the simple cleanup than what we had intended.

So just think about it.

I would say just think about that.

You can bring it up, you can add it, but I'm gonna be dogging on this.

It's gonna change the um, it's gonna change the simplicity of the 2026 measure.

So, yeah.

There's three things.

So what we could talk about the that I was talking about pay raise, there was something else that we went with the election that we went through that goes that didn't seem like the finance committee is gonna review the the travel stop because that got frozen during COVID and everything.

So that's so I don't know if that was it, the third one, but uh that's not like simple ones.

Sure.

Um what else that we want to change?

Well, how about dinner at every meal?

So, yeah.

Okay, so we've did you need directions.

I was going to just respond, and I could please committee member, council member, um, to your comment about the council work plan item.

We are underway on a preliminary action plan uh for that item and it will be worked on over the next two years, and you're right.

Staff is looking forward strategically at how many you know years it will take us to update the various policies.

But what we've done is we've begun cataloging all of that.

We also have a similar initiative underway, which is looking at all the contracts.

Our city attorney's office is ensuring that those are updated, and we have a contract work group that is also working through um, you know, some refinements um to existing policy there.

So we will have a work plan associated with that, it'll sub plan.

Um, and we are uh definitely making that a focus over the next two years.

Is that something that could be shared at least with um the the chair of the CPBC?

Uh sure.

As we as we develop that, maybe for one of our next meetings, we usually will meet um in the spring, or we could give you an offenda uh off agenda meta.

I either way, I mean, as in the next version of this, like here's because like this this is usually like this is literally the meeting that we had today, right?

There's not a lot of foresight into what we're gonna do.

So perhaps that work plan you know could could be incorporated into the uh agenda topics update moving forward, just so we have some line of sight on sense of it, you know.

What what are we gonna be doing, or will we ever meet again?

So I don't know.

So when you get re-elected, they'll have that available for you to take care of it.

I know you're I am termed out.

I said when you get re-elected, I'm ineligible for re-election.

I'll know you have two years, but hey, don't ever say never.

Um there's still no members of the public.

I think I know 5.2.

So we'll close that and move on to item six.

Are there any committee stuff on this question?

Oh, I think we covered most of everything just in the last item.

Okay, uh still no public on item six, so we'll close that and we will adjourn the meeting at 10 10 a.m.

Thank you, everyone.

So many minutes.

20 minutes, I think