So I'd call to order the committee of the whole.

Let's do our excusals first.

Alder Allen, I know that Alder Horton had reached out and asked to be excused.

Were there any additional uh members that asked to be excused for this evening?

All right, we will record those both as excused.

So with that, I would be looking for an approval or motion to approve the minutes for the May 11th, 2026 meeting.

All right, we have a motion from Walter Pabone, second from Alder Pete.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

So getting into the business for this evening, we're going to start out with uh item number zero two nine seven-two six.

I would ask the clerk to uh um please come up to the podium.

Um I just want to, as we're introducing this one, I just want to let everyone know an invitation was extended to the county clerk um to participate in this discussion.

Uh I did not hear back.

Um, I had checked it with the city clerk today.

She had not had heard back either.

We did send it through email as well as a certified mail for both.

So she should be aware.

Uh in uh because of that, I will try to uh let everyone know and keep on topic here.

Uh uh, the city clerk can answer any questions related to um anything that happened within her office or within city business.

Uh, it's really not a fair uh request to have her try to answer or speculate uh from the county clerk's perspective.

Uh, if there are any questions that come up in discussion tonight to stay on topic to the agenda item and who we have here tonight, uh, I would ask that we would um state what we have as well as anything can be sent to the county clerk afterwards if there's follow-up.

Um, maybe she would respond there.

Um, we will jump in uh if the clerk could introduce the item.

If you ought to push your button.

Uh with that, uh please take it away.

Hi, thank you.

So this item came to me through the request via email.

However, no specifics were requested.

So I'm just gonna kind of give a brief overview of timeline of things that happen, of statutory responsibilities, and then, like President Jorgensen said, happy to answer any questions after that.

Jerome passed out a packet, I believe, of backup information.

The first item was the press release.

So a little bit on the timeline.

The morning of March 25th, which is the same day that the press release went out.

Um we did become, I should even say morning, mid-afternoon.

We did become aware that the municipal judge race in its entirety was missing from the ballot.

At that point in time, we immediately got together with the comms director and worked through hey, we need to get this out there.

We also got in touch with the county clerk to say what happened, what do we need to do, how do we rectify this, as well as the Wisconsin election commission.

So the first two pages are just a copy of the press release what went out, and this was the beginning of when we found out that this had occurred.

The next page is it says 7.10 county clerk.

So this is the statutory responsibilities for the county clerk who is in charge of preparing the ballots.

So what happens is offices for the municipality come into the city clerk.

We then give all the information to the county clerk.

The county clerk is responsible for designing and printing all of the ballots within the municipalities.

So in this particular case, we'll go through all the paperwork that was submitted to the county in the rest of this packet, but it is the county clerk's responsibility to print and design those ballots.

We do not receive a PDF, and we are not given the opportunity to review those ballots prior to them being printed.

So we give our information to the county clerk, the county clerk then orders them, and the next thing we know they show up on our doorstep downstairs at City Hall Room 103, and that's the first opportunity we get to actually see a ballot.

The next page is a copy of our type A notice.

So the I believe it is the third Monday of November every year.

Municipal clerks are required to put out what offices are going to appear on the ballot the following April and February if there's a primary.

This is a copy of our original type A notice.

It did not change.

It does have the municipal judge race on it as well as Rob Weber's name being the incumbent.

The next two pages are copies of the emails where we went to the county clerk.

They requested a copy of our type A to start structuring their ballots that was received and it was received timely through the county.

The next page is uh has January 12th, 2026 written on the top of it.

This is the certification where we draw names for placement on the ballot.

So it is a notice public meeting, it is called the drawing for the ballot order, and this is a copy that was given to the county clerk after the type A, once we know who's going to be on the ballot.

As you can see from the page after that, district two had a primary, so there is no ballot order for the April election because we still have to have a February and see who's gonna be on the April.

And the page after that does include the municipal judge, Judge Weber, as being listed on the ballot order, having been to the county clerk as certified.

The last page is a copy of what we put into WIS vote.

So WISP vote is the state system.

We are required to put in every race and every person within that race into the WIS vote system.

This was done on time according to the Wisconsin Election Commission, and it met that deadline.

Don't quote me, I believe it was due on the 20th or so, so we did it a couple days early, but we do certify that Rob Weber is going to appear on the ballot under the Office of Municipal Judge.

I'd be happy to take any questions.

All right, it looks like we have Alder Mack.

You said on the afternoon of 325-26, you became aware that Rob Weber's name was omitted.

How did you become aware of that?

And I'd like to follow up.

Sure.

Um, I believe someone had called downstairs to the clerk's office, and I received notification from one of my staff members asking about it.

So prior to that, the ballots were not reviewed for accuracy.

No, so once ballots get here, we have a 24-hour deadline to ship out about 23, 2500 of them, and there are 57 different styles of ballots.

So, no, I wish we had.

I wish we had caught it sooner, but at that point in time we're trying to get that mail out the next day to meet the statutory deadline.

And what steps are being taken to ensure that this would not happen again.

Uh, I believe that would be a question for the county clerk.

I would hope that they would let us review our ballots prior to printing, but I do not have the authority to make that happen.

To follow up on that, when you do get the ballots, will you then be reviewing it just uh as a precaution from this point forward?

Yes.

So we're going to start making some cheat sheets into other offices, what is due for the county and the state.

Different clerks at different levels certify who is on the ballot for different races.

So we've started to collect that information to be able to hopefully see them and do a quick checklist when we come in.

You know, here's a hundred of ward one, check it real quick, pass it to a staff member to essentially get them out in time.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

All right, we have Alder DeMarc next.

So when everything was put into place, um when does it go on to my vote.wi.gov versus you all having the ballot to have to mail out to everyone else.

Great.

So thank you for the question.

So the state actually flips the switch.

Please do not quote me.

I believe they wait till the deadline when everything is required to be in the system to then publish it onto my vote.wi.gov.

So I believe the state does that.

We enter into the front end of the state system, and the state then publish it to the website for the my vote.

All right, thank you so much.

We have uh Alder Wagner next.

Thank you.

Uh Tara, when you get all the certification, the information of the registrations from all the applicants.

Does that information go into WISP votes?

Do you mean the certification from candidates?

So when you turn in your registration with all your signatures and all that.

Yeah, your certification to run for office.

Yeah.

So yeah, so those are collected here.

We do send copies, and typically we do uplay the upload them into the state system.

We keep a copy downstairs.

We're required to keep the original as well as scan them into our system.

We do sometimes upload them into WISP vote, depending on whether or not the active attachment, I don't even know what you would call that button would be, is available to attach things to candidates.

We do attach it there as well, but we do say, hey, we've received the signatures, this candidate is able to be on the ballot.

So it was certified timely that he was able to be there.

So that was all in WISP Volts.

Correct.

And then do you provide a copy of those registrations to the city?

Yeah, so copies do go to the county clerk as well as the ballot order.

So the ballot order is how it lists everything, and then copies are provided on whether or not there's certification.

Okay.

And then once the ballots are printed, are they printed by the state?

So the county clerk gives the information to the state.

I apologize, that's not under my jurisdiction.

So what date did the city clerk's office receive the ballots that were to be mailed out?

I'd have to go back and take a look at the state statute.

I believe they're typically due on a Monday and they have to be mailed out by the Tuesday.

I would have to go back and take a look.

So there is no gap in between where you can actually review the ballots before you mail them out.

No, they're they're due within our business hours and they're due out in the mail the next day.

And then you know which ballots are to be mailed to who to whomever.

If we run that list out of the state system.

Okay.

And then does the state system also provide you with the envelopes, or is that something that you have to print up yourself?

No, we have to print up the envelopes ahead of time, but it does not have the labels that are generated from the state system.

We just have a blank copy of the envelope.

So in this particular case, um, once we notify the county, it was going to take them almost a week to get ballots into us.

But luckily, in one of our contingency plans, we do have ballot paper on file as well as extra envelopes.

So we were very fortunate to have an extra about three days to get ballot B ballots out to people who voted rather than to wait for that to happen with the county.

So we did save ourselves some time on the correction by having those contingencies in place.

Okay, one of the concerns that I had was um after the ballot B was sent out in the notice to people that received a second ballot.

It didn't really explain to them that if they did not submit their ballot B that their ballot A would be used, but it would be opened by the clerk's office and the information transferred from ballot A to ballot B.

So hopefully this nothing like this will ever happen again.

But should it happen?

I think that information would have been helpful because a lot of people that I talked to during that time had said they had gotten ballot B, but they just threw it away because they knew they already submitted ballot A.

Yes, unfortunately, that exact verbiage came from the state.

That was not something that we created in-house.

So at that point it was state guidance with what to send out with the B ballots.

However, like you said, let's find some wood to knock on.

Hopefully it'll never happen again.

But I could definitely make that suggestion to the state if that happened.

Well, does the clerk have some discretion in the verbiage that goes out with a letter such as that?

I'm sure that we could have requested it.

However, this is a process and it's one of their contingency plans at the state because unfortunately it does happen.

So this is the standard letter that they asked me to use at that point.

Okay, when you say the state, who is it you're referring to?

Is that the Wisconsin Election Commission?

Yes.

So the staff there at the election commission.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

All right.

Uh there is no one else in the queue.

So I'd be looking for uh a motion potentially, receive and file, if nothing else.

We have a motion from Alder Pabone, a second from Alder Allen to receive and file.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

That brings us to item number 61-26.

If the clerk would please read the roll.

Communication sponsored by oh, sorry, excuse me.

Item 0061-26, communication sponsored by Alder Frazier requesting to discuss constituent outreach and what to do as it pertains to videos, texts, emails, etc.

Received from the public regarding licensed establishments.

Thank you very much.

And that the background on this one, the recommendation from the public safety and licensing committee on 12826 was to have this referred to the committee of the whole.

So we have uh attorney uh Pomplin here to give the presentation that he gave uh to the public safety and licensing committee.

You wouldn't mind pressing your button for me.

I'm just here yet.

Good evening, Assistant City Attorney Ian Pomplin.

I routinely advise the licensing committee.

Uh we had a very good discussion back in January of this year.

Many of you have been reached out to by constituents about behavior that occurs at bars, whether they have seen it in person, whether some of you have seen it in person, whether they have saw videos or photographs online and have taken screenshots and communicated with you.

And there was a lot of questions on what to do with that information.

Um we had a good discussion, uh, and it was thought that it may be shared with the rest of the alders because there were only five at public safety and licensing, and um almost all of you, if not all of you, have likely received this communication.

Um the gist of it is that we have a police department that is dedicated to investigating allegations of crimes and rule breaking and municipal violations.

Uh, four types of communication that are, you know, passing on this information to you.

If it is something that you see online or that a constituent has presented to you, you know, kind of asynchronously, you know, an email or something like that, and that it's not clear that it's happening right then and there, um, communicate that to the police department.

Oftentimes they've already been called out to the scene.

They can, if they don't already have that information or the video or the photograph, they can add it to the case file for any cases that they're building.

And um, if it's something that's happening in the moment, either you're seeing it or a constituents calling you and saying, hey, right now something is happening, please call the police department, whether it's the emergency line or the non-emergency line, depending on the severity of the allegations.

Um, what we what I would not recommend is doing investigation by yourself as an alder.

Um, a lot of the videos, or I shouldn't say a lot, some of the videos and photographs that circulate online may not have occurred recently.

They may already be being addressed by the licensing committee and the police department.

Um, so we want to make sure that we are consistent in how we approach uh licensed premises and to make sure that you know we're not having issues that occurred months ago come back up because something went viral again.

Uh there's you know a lot of concern about some of the license establishments.

Um the committee is keeping track of them with it's called the licensed premise report.

Every two weeks, uh the police department compiles a list of calls for service that went to every single licensed class B, so basically bar or restaurant that serves alcohol, and they have summaries of every single call that they present to the committee.

And the committee can then talk about any of those calls that are on that list.

Oftentimes, if you've received recent communication, if it's not already on that list, the police department, once they're aware of it, can put it on that list so that it can be brought appropriately to the committee's attention.

Um, with the way kind of agenda publishing works.

It's not something that is easy to just put on an agenda within you know 24-hour notice where the licensed premise report has that little bit more of responsiveness to it.

Um for a point of contact, we have Sergeant Enrique Cruz Ortiz, who is our public safety liaison.

He staffs the meetings with myself.

He should be your point of contact if it's something that's not an active emergency or something actively occurring that you could call a shift commander, the non-emergency line.

Um we also have the police department here about our evidence storage.

So any of the video or photograph that you receive, if you keep, we can upload to the city of Racine.

It's called Axon, it's an evidence storage platform, and it'll be preserved so that we know what you received.

Um as I said, you know, send it to the police department, don't investigate yourself.

Uh it's not something that all of you are trained to do, and we don't want to um you know, kind of prejudice yourself for some of you that are on the due process board or some of you that are on the licensing committee.

Um, you know, finding your own facts isn't isn't a a situation.

We we want the police department to do that because they can kind of sift and winnow through what's accurate and what's not.

Um, and is there any questions?

All right, if you have any questions, please push your button.

As of now, I am seeing no questions.

If there aren't any, uh was I actually there's I actually have something to say about this question and the city attorney.

I just wanted to add sort of a bigger picture um uh consideration to what attorney Pomplin is talking about, and he's absolutely right in the things that he said.

Um, as members of the common council, broadly, you have two responsibilities.

One is your legislative responsibility, deciding the policies of the city, should you approve a budget, you know, should there be an ordinance about something, whatever the case may be.

These are legislative responsibilities.

You also have what are known as quasi-judicial responsibilities.

So quasi-judicial, like a judge or like a juror.

And um there is a constitutional phrase, both in the in the United States and the in the state of Wisconsin constitution that says no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

So think about licensing issues.

Um liquor licensing issues, tobacco licensing, whatever the case may be.

Once a person has a license, they have a property interest in that license, a constitutional property interest in that license.

They may not be deprived of that property without due process of law.

This is where this quasi-judicial function comes in.

And I don't know if any of you have ever served as jurors or sat in a courtroom when a judge is talking.

The judge will tell you, and the judge tells himself do not consider any fact that you learn anywhere except what goes on in this courtroom.

So when you are considering a person's property interest, their license specifically, property interests, if people have conditional use permits, and there's a variety of other areas, you may not individually investigate anything.

If somebody tells you I saw so-and-so doing thus and such, and it relates to a piece of real property they own that they may come before the council or a license they have, you should not listen to that.

You should say thank you very much and go on.

But if there are issues about somebody's liquor license, let's say, only consider the things that you learn at properly noticed and held public meetings.

Do not consider the other things.

You shouldn't be driving around watching bars and seeing what's happening at places or testing properties as to whether or not they're violating a conditional use permit or any of those kinds of things that is not your responsibility.

That is the responsibility of those who prov present this evidence to you.

So I'm sorry to be pedantic about that, but it's very important.

This is the kind of thing that can get municipalities sued if in your quasi-judicial role you are not acting neutrally, fairly, impartially, without information that you've gained elsewhere.

So always think about is this my legislative role or is this my quasi-judicial role?

So that's it.

Thank you very much.

Otherwise, I'd be looking to entertain a motion.

Looks like Alder Land uh seconded it.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right, motion carries.

That brings us now to item number 0518-26.

Uh, and I'll have the clerk uh read the item, please.

Item 0518-26 communication sponsored by Alder Widener for referral to the committee of the whole discussion of banishment of cell phone usage during common counsel and standing committee meetings.

All right, and with that, Alder Weiden has her light on.

Thank you.

The reason I introduced this communication is several people had approached me with concerns about uh the behavior of some of the members of council and the use of their cell phones during both uh common council meetings, could be the whole meetings and standing committee meetings.

Um, I think this is the opportunity for us to either bring this to everyone's attention or if we want to codify something and have a rule regarding cell phone usage, um, texting messages, scrolling during meetings.

Um, I know it's gonna be difficult because there are members that use their cell phone to read the agendas and the attachments rather than the iPads, and there are other members of the council that use their cell phone for um for use for um understanding the the discussion that's taking place.

Um so I don't know that any formal action can really uh be taken except to say that um from my perspective, the public watches what we do and they want to believe that the council takes the business before us uh very seriously, and uh not meaning to admonish anyone, I'm not calling anybody out individually, but I also don't think we should have a rule that we can't use cell phones because there are instances when you have to use a cell phone, but it does need to be brought to our attention that the public notices all of our meetings are on video, and it's been uh brought up to me at least a dozen times that there are members that use and abuse their cell phones during discussions, and their perspective is it's not appropriate.

So I didn't know any other way to bring this to your attention.

Um, I don't expect any action.

Um, I would make a motion to receive and file this.

Um, the purpose of this was to bring to your to our attention that people do watch what we do here.

All right, we have a motion from Alder Widener, second from Alder Land.

There are a few more lights in the queue, however.

All right, Alder Pabone.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would just say if there are any uh constituents that are concerned about any one of us having any particular use of our phones during meetings or they're wondering where our concentration is at, I would um ask them to reach out to us directly as they're alder.

We cannot hear information sometimes that is said to a particular Alder because it's not always communicated depending on what's going on, it gets lost in translation, so on and so forth.

But if that is the issue, then all of our contact information is public, it's on the city's website.

You can reach out to us as your representative and and give us your perspective on that, just like a lot of people do on a number of issues.

So I just wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, we have Alder Weiss next.

Um, I just wanted to add that I totally agree that the public is watching.

Um, they're noticing how engaged or not engaged we are during meetings, and so I think this is a great start to a conversation, and I'd be happy at some point to have a bigger conversation just about behavior during meetings, um, and add things like getting up in the middle of a meeting and going to talk to people in the audience or going out in the hall to talk to people that were just participating in a meeting.

I think those are all things that matter because we're supposed to be here doing business, and if we just leave to go have conversations with people, I'd say that'd be in the same category as being on our cell phone.

Thank you.

And we have Alder Davis.

Thank you.

Therebone mentioned that if there are constituents whom have these concerns to reach out to their orders.

And I also agree with with Otter Weidner and Ottawe stated that people are watching.

Yes, they are watching.

We're happy you are watching.

But we also would like you to ask questions on why perhaps individuals are utilizing their cell phones instead of um possible assumptions.

There's multiple reasons why individual may, and I would speak for myself in case anyone's on the camera um watching.

I have an um I'm hard of hearing in one of my ears.

So I utilize my phone with closed caption.

Just to go back to what Arthur Bone stated, and I believe it's best for constituents and folks to reach out and ask these questions.

As a legislative body, yes, we create some different policies and whatnot, but as adults here, we should be able to um have our own body policy and um utilize our phones as we see just utilizing our phones, and if at some point in time it comes where it's a distraction and folks are not responding to the motion that's been called when it comes to a vote or something, then we should talk about the distractions there.

But if we've had folks that um are actually participating and engaged, that's that's a different subject.

So we should take a I'm I'm rambling now, but take a look at what is cell phone uses usage that should be banished or self-usage that should be advised and not do utilize that you know there may be some points, but it's it I think it's best for us to um not run with assumptions and the constituents to reach out to each and and or we reach out, or just as an order, we explain or just give a definition of uh description of why we utilize it, but know that to our to our constituents that who have put out a city's seats, we understand, I shouldn't say we I understand what my duties and responsibilities are, and I also know that the cell phone is a lifeline to questions that may not be put out on the floor or answers.

So as it was stated, some folks utilize their tablets, some use their phones, but there's times where we're in a discussion about an item, and we want to look up a map and pull up where actually is this street located, or what does the state statute say before we reach over to the city attorney?

But there are reasons in this new day and age with technology that folks um use their cell phone, and another piece is just emergency purposes.

Um saying all just be mindful.

Um, you know, while we have our cell phones, we understand that we're gonna use them, but constituents please reach out to us and um we're personable.

So it we could talk with you, and you can talk together about this here.

That's all I'm complete.

Thank you.

Uh we have Alder Pete next.

Thank you.

I'm kind of I'm listening to all the comments that have been said, uh made.

And I think what I'm hearing is is that we're all elected officials, and we should, because we have a responsibility to our constituents to hold ourselves at a higher standard, and that we simply act as responsible adults, and if we're doing that, I think all the comments fall in place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, and then we have Alder Harman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um my comment is that I receive quite a few calls from my constituents.

I received quite a few calls from people that are not in my district.

I even have people who hear me say something about slowing down for a police officer and make statements that I've gotten speed and tickets.

So there are constituents that want to believe what they want to believe.

There are constituents that watch to make up stuff.

There are people that do a lot of things.

No one has commented on me not paying attention.

No one has commented on something that small.

So I just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any other lights in the queue.

Looking for a last call.

Oh or Allen.

Oh, that was a mistake.

Okay.

So we we're still back to we have no one in the queue.

With that, uh, we have a motion on the floor before us.

So all those in favor of receiving and filing this item, please say aye.

Opposed?

The motion carries.

That brings us to our final item of item number 1265-25.

I'll have the clerk read the item, please.

Item 1265-25 communications sponsored.

Sorry, zero item 1265-25 communications sponsored by Alderman Widener presenting ordinance 0029-25 communications.

Thank you very much.

With that, do we have anyone who wishes to speak on this item?

Alder Widener.

Thank you.

And first of all, I'd like to thank the council president for scheduling this committee the whole with this item on it.

This item was first referred to the executive committee.

Um December.

It was in December 2025.

Um it again was referred to the committee the whole less than a month ago.

So it's been waiting a long time to have discussion by this body, so I'm very excited for that to happen.

There is a little bit of confusion regarding the staff recommendation.

Um I think we are conflating um ordinance zero zero three-25 with 0029-25.

So perhaps the city attorney first, before I get started, would be able to explain uh the difference.

Uh all right, the city attorney.

So 00 ordinance proposed ordinance 003-25 would change the process for proposing modifications to the code of ordinances.

So that's not the one that's before the common council today or the committee of the whole today.

One before the committee of the whole today is proposed ordinance 0029-25, uh, which would change the communications, the the path by which communications come to the common council and some other areas kind of around the margins there, which I can explain more deeply.

But they are different issues.

Thank you.

So I'd just to elaborate a little bit.

003-25 was referred back in May of 2025 to the executive committee.

It was taken up in executive committee in September of 2025.

That item was deferred, and it still is on the deferred the deferred list for the executive committee.

That communication was really in how we the council would amend or create a new ordinance.

That ordinance, uh what I was proposing in that ordinance was that rather than an individual alderman send a communication to the clerk and the city attorney that it have uh more full discussion with the committee, so that rather than an individual alderman, if that alderman chooses, they could recommend it goes to a standing committee to get the input from other members of the council on that.

That is the item that's been deferred.

What is in what is before us tonight is 0029, and if you'll all indulge me, I'd kind of like to go through this line by line and explain why the changes are being made.

Um, so that we have a better understanding of the communications that are being sent.

So I think you have on your iPad or you before you in hard copy, as I like to have the ordinance itself as was drafted.

There's it like a five-page ABM that goes with it that goes uh more deeply into the rationale for each of the changes in this uh ordinance.

Um, but once you hear what that change is, we can have a discussion on each of the items if that's what the council would like to do.

So if I may, the first uh part would be part one, chapter two, Article 2, Division 5, Section 2-1178 to amend it as follows.

It says the sentence, notwithstanding the foregoing communications from administration administrative managers, may be presented without endorsement by the mayor or an alder.

And and then there's the language that goes with that.

So to explain what this means is prior to 2019, communications did not require the sponsorship of an alderman for an administrative manager to submit a communication to the council to be referred to the committee.

So I'm suggesting in this ordinance change that we eliminate the need for the administrative manager to submit a communication to the common council agenda for referral.

Um something that happened just uh two weeks ago was um it was like 11 o'clock on a Thursday, and the public works staff had to get their communications in to the clerk to be put on the agenda because they have the 12 o'clock deadline, and they were having difficulty finding an alderman from the committee to sponsor that.

And they really shouldn't have to.

Uh the alderman shouldn't not have to sponsor that.

Um the administrative managers know better than we do what the business is that needs to be taken care of.

So this language, this sentence would change that and kind of expedite things for the administrative managers.

So I guess I would ask the city attorney do we take each one of these items and make motions and uh amend and discuss and vote on them, or do we have to do it all as a whole?

Well, I think personally the the way it's drafted, um, I think parts one, two, and generally four, um, are so um intricately intertwined, it would be difficult to take them separately because an action related to one would relate to the others.

Parts three, um five and six could be taken up individually, and if you'd like I can try to explain why all that is okay.

So generally, I mean, taken as a whole, what this ordinance would do is change the path create an additional way, additional path for communications to come to the common council.

So right now, and as Alder Winer said, and around 2019, what had existed before changed to require communications now only to come from elected officials.

So the judge obviously can't do it, but the members of the common council and the mayor can do it.

This uh ordinance would amend that to allow administrative managers to submit communications that would come to the council prospectively for referral to another body.

So, in the same way the communications come from elected officials now, they would be presented to the council at a council meeting, and the council would decide whether or not to refer it to a committee.

In addition, um, this ordinance would allow all communications not only from the administrative managers but elected officials to be referred to other bodies of the city of Rcene.

So right now, communications can only be referred by the common council to one of the five, or I suppose more than one of the five standing committees, committee, the whole executive committee, public work, public safety and finance personnel.

This would allow communications to be presented to the council and referred to any other authority, board, or commission that has responsibility relevant to the communication.

The City of Racine, I haven't counted in a long time, probably has 25 or 30 different bodies, and they're only called committees if they are a subunit of the common council.

So the five standing committees.

All the rest of them are boards, commissions, or authorities, which all have different, I'll use the word authority under the law.

Some of them are very independent.

The one I most commonly talk about, and that is the police and fire commission.

There is nothing the common council can do to require the police and fire commission to do anything.

And the police and fire commission does not report to the common council.

The Board of Harbor Commissioners is extremely independent.

There are some others that are that are independent, and some that have some interrelated responsibilities, and occasionally something will come to the common council, like the planning heritage design commission under some uh circumstances.

But in any event, this would allow communications prospectively to go to from the council to other bodies, um, could be referred to the other bodies, those other bodies presumably could act on it if it's not a committee of the common council.

If it's go if you send something to the police and fire commission, the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners can say thank you very much.

We're going to receive and file without even thinking about it, or they could think about it and do something with it, but there's nothing the common council could do.

But in any event, this would allow that to happen.

So very broadly, parts one, two, and four do that, and there is one uh particular distinction in number four.

So as with this communication, um, this had been on the executive committee agenda and deferred, and it was deferred for more than 90 days.

So Alder Widener asked for this communication to come back before the common council pursuant to the existing ordinance, and the common council then determined that it would be directed to the committee of the whole.

So that process still exists.

The difference is right now it requires uh 10 alders, so two-thirds of the entire membership to pull it from a committee where it's been deferred and send it somewhere else.

This change would require a majority of the common council members, and I just want to clarify not a majority of those present, a majority.

It would take eight members of the common council to take it from deferred by one committee and place it on another committee agenda.

So that broadly is what parts one, two, and four would do.

Part three um adds a new section to the existing section or subsection to the existing two-11, and that um in brief says that no communication that's on a standing committee agenda or other authority board or commission may be deferred for more than 90 days.

What would happen pursuant to this?

It would add subsection C, and it would require that if any communication is on a standing committee, has been deferred, or another authority, board or commission, and it's been deferred for 90 days.

At the end of those 90 days, it automatically is pulled to the next regular meeting of that committee authority, board or commission, pursuant to this change.

Um that's part three.

Um part five and six uh make a couple of changes.

Right now, uh there is a process, and this would be part five.

There is a process that would allow a petition from 250 or more city of Rosine electors to uh request that a communication be referred to a standing committee.

Um, and then there's a process if if people do that, and I Alder Weider can speak to the reasons why she would like that deleted, but it's never happened for what it's worth since this has been in place, and that as I recall that was created specifically the common council at the time the communications ordinance was changed all those years ago.

The common council said, hey, maybe there's a way that this citizens should be able to do this, and and my recollection is this was sort of a compromise from several elders, and that's why it's there.

But in any event, we've never seen a petition for a communication under these circumstances.

And then finally, uh part six would add a requirement that if any communications have been on a standing committee agenda, excuse me, have been submitted to the common council and not been acted on by the common council.

Um there is a process by which they're deemed to have been expired.

So if they haven't, if they're received, let me say it again, if they're received by December 31st and not acted upon by the third Monday in April, so by the end of the outgoing council.

If it hasn't been acted on, um they are deemed expired and they're just pulled out of the out of the uh the queue, and it's as if they never existed.

This would not change that, but it would require the clerk no later than January 15th to notify the common council of all communications that have been received by the clerk by December 31st, but not yet acted upon by the council.

So it would just provide a notification, which presumably would allow the council to decide what to do about it at that moment.

I think I fully explained this all reiner.

Excellent, excellent job.

Thank you.

Could have done it well that well myself.

So I don't know if the council wants me to go through each of the items and why I proposed it, or if there are specific items you have questions for that we could discuss.

If you want to just take it all as a whole, if you want to take different sections and discuss, debate, dissect, amend.

So I guess that would be the preference of the council.

Otherwise, I would make a motion to approve this ordinance as presented.

Motion has been made.

Is there a second?

Motion dies for a lack of second.

So there are other lights in the queue.

If you're looking for input from the council, there are others waiting to speak.

Have you concluded your comments?

I have.

Okay.

At this point, I have, yes, thank you.

All right, Alder Davis is next in the queue.

Thank you.

I just have a question.

I have a question for the city attorney more for clarification.

Um I believe it's part two.

How do I the authority um where we're talking about the words authority board or commission?

You had can you explain again how that disbursement could what that would look like again?

Could you just go over that?

Sure.

Well, as the ordinance currently exists, communications that are submitted by alders or the mayor are presented to the common council for referral to a standing committee.

Committee, the whole executive committee and the other three.

Um this proposed ordinance would allow communications to be referred to the Board of Park Recreational Cultural Services, or uh the community development block grant authority.

I'm just making these up as I go along here.

Uh the planning heritage and design or um the sister city planning committee, something like that.

I mean, in theory, um the common council could refer communications to those other bodies.

Now, what happens is if an alder or anybody else wants an item of business before one of those other commissions, you know, presumably the alder could get in touch with the president or the chair, depending on the bot on the actual office of that body, um, or there's usually a principal staff member that's staffed to that body, and say I would like the transit commission to talk about putting a bus stop somewhere.

I'm making this up.

But I mean, presumably that could happen now.

The proposed ordinance would allow that process to go through the common council, so the common council decides to refer it to one of those other bodies in addition to the committees.

Okay, thank you.

And once referred to that body, say it's one of those transit, since you said transit, it's whatever business was handled there, it'll come back before the common council for us to like say if it was something that needed to have a motion, not just a receive and file, it would come back to the common council for us to approve that recommendation or deny.

I think not necessarily because there are some, for instance, the planning heritage and design commission has independent authority to make decisions about zoning and properties, and I I don't want to say too much because I'll get it wrong, but I mean, has independent authority to take actions that don't have to come to the common council for approval.

Uh the the um uh community development block grant advisory board has some independent authority to make some loans and do a few things like that.

Those don't have to come back to common council.

So simply because it's referred by the common council to one of the bodies, um, it doesn't necessarily have to come back to common council, especially if they don't need the common council to approve whatever they've done.

You know, if they have the independent authority, there is nothing the common council could do save potentially a change in ordinances, but a change in state law to prevent them from acting upon their own authority.

Um I suppose the common council as part of the communication could ask that there be a report back identifying whatever it is that particular body has done with the communication, but they would in many many cases not have to see common council approval for what they've done.

Okay, okay, got it, thank you.

Thank you.

Um next we had Alder Allen.

Your uh your light got turned off again.

Based off of what you just said, and a little bit of what Alder Davis, I'm sorry, very important, uh, was mentioning.

So when we do that disbursement, the example that you gave was if it was referred to another committee, they could just receive and file it.

We don't necessarily have to know what the traction is on that, and as you said, it wouldn't come back.

We kind of lose a little bit of our purview and our control over any lines of communication, or if there was something this way, when it comes in comes in front of us, we have that loop around that we can do calling them into chambers, for instance, they're giving them some sort of direction, whereas if we weren't right to them, we wouldn't necessarily know that.

Am I on the right track of understanding that um I think I understand it and I and I apologize, I'm gonna be very specific.

A committee has a very specific meaning.

That word has a very specific meaning.

It's one of the standing committees.

But if it's one of the other bodies, you know, just because it's referred, doesn't mean the common council could um require that body.

And I'll just give you another example.

The police and fire commission, technically the board of police and fire commissioners approves promotions.

Um you could not create some kind of rule or create a communication that requires the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners to send a list of promotions to a particular rank to the common council for approval.

That would not be within the authority of the common council because specifically by state law, the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners approves promotions of police officers and firefighters.

That's just that's it.

Um I would say that beyond just asking, please, commission board authority.

Will you please report to us what you have done with this communication?

There's probably not a lot the common council can do.

Um and I don't want to quibble.

There's nothing the common council can do to require them to ask you for permission to do a thing that's already within their own authority.

Okay, and thank you for that.

And then you also made a statement that, or there was a statement presented that there are times when the clerk is not able to connect with someone to sponsor a communication.

Is there a way to mediate that by just saying the default would be to the chair of that committee?

Well, I I think that's possible.

I will say uh someone that that sometimes wants to get communications asked to get communications on the council to be presented to a commit uh committee.

We typically do ask the chair first, and sometimes if that's not possible, at least my practice is to go to the vice chair and then on down the line.

There may be times that it's for whatever reason it's not um possible or practicable to actually get a hold of an alder.

And when that happens, there can be a little bit of difficulty, and I will say uh appropriately, the ordinance is very specific.

A communication has to be presented by an alder or the mayor and must be to the clerk no later than 12 o'clock noon on Thursday before the common council meeting, and that's a hard deadline.

Um so while a case it may happen sometimes, it's hard to get of an hold of an alder, especially if there's something that for whatever reason we didn't know about until Wednesday night or Thursday morning or something like that.

Um, but I imagine the times those actually occur are relatively rare.

I mean, you all are very good at getting back to us when we have communications.

Thank you.

My last comment is going to be relating to section five, the uh portion that hasn't to date been used with the ability of 250 electors being able to make a request by petition for something to be preferred to a standing committee.

I just I don't think that should be eliminated.

It may never be used, but the idea that our constituency has that connection and that ability to do that.

Uh, I think we should leave that language there.

Thank you.

Uh, we now go to Alder Mack.

Thank you.

I think uh some of the proposed changes do have merit.

Um I am a bit concerned about the part where we can refer to the boards and commissions based on the overview given to us by the city attorney.

Um as for our standing committees, we always have the ability to request a joint referral to another standing committee on a particular item, especially if there's overlap.

So I probably would not be in favor of that section of it.

I do think it makes sense to allow administrative managers to submit communications directly, having served on the public works committee my first year of my first term of my second go-round.

Our committee chair ended up getting sick.

Nobody knew at the time how serious it was, or even um at least we were told uh we weren't told um why she was missing meetings, and I kind of by default um began chairing that meeting and these communications on things that are routine to public works, change order on this or submitting the lowest bid on this, they were all very routine, mundane things.

There is nothing that I ever had brought to me that I said nope, uh I don't want that on the agenda.

It's like so was this added step that the public works staff had to go through, and then if they couldn't get a hold of me or you know, then they started scrambling to find somebody else to sponsor that communication.

So on these very routine things, uh I don't have a problem with the administrative staff having the ability to submit the communication.

We as a council, when we're reviewing those communications, if we feel differently, could say something at that time, but um I don't think that that's rarely happened.

Most of the conflict that we've had has been uh a communication sent to one committee and an alderman believing that it shouldn't be sent to that committee, but maybe another committee, and usually the compromise is a joint referral at that time.

I also think occasionally it's a good idea to clean up our ordinances.

It doesn't make sense to have archaic ordinances on the books.

Um if we go back to the history of why some ordinances were included, and we realize that you know it was some aldermen maybe trying to appease the situation at the time, and if it hasn't been utilized, it doesn't make sense for me to keep that one on the on the book.

So I'd like to see parts of this move forward, and there's parts of it that um simply I'm just a little bit uncomfortable with making the changes today, but uh I think the the big change is allowing those administrative managers the ability to submit communications, and I'm not saying bypass aldermen, I think that should still be the route they take, but in the event that it's 1157 on Thursday, is it Thursday um morning that they have the latitude then to be able to submit it?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that would be Alder Weitner for a second time.

Thank you.

Just to clarify a couple things.

No individual administrative manager, no individual council member can refer anything.

The only thing they can do is submit a communication.

It's this body that does the referral.

So we don't really need to have uh an alderman or an elected official sponsor a communication coming from an administrative manager because ultimately it is this body that makes the referral to the appropriate committee.

So this is really just simplifying things, and I know there are several aldermen on the council now that served prior to 2019 when these changes were made.

At that time, all communications to all the committees, boards and commissions were read at the council meeting, not just the standing committee.

So if there was any items that were going to go to the parks board, any items that were going to go to CDBG, any items that went to any of our boards and commissions, those items were referred by the council.

So I'm trying to get that back again so that when you get an agenda from CDBG or an agenda from the parks board, those items were not referred by the council, those were referred by the staff.

And to me, there's no difference between that referral to a CDBG or the parks board than there is to a standing committee.

I think all communications should be referred by this body.

Is so that we are open and transparent.

So I know we get agenda, you know, that usually the Friday before it meets on the Monday or the Tuesday, but when the when the referrals communications are read at the council meeting, we all then have a notion of what items are being referred to the committees, and this would add the other committees so that we had a heads up that some item is going to be discussed at a committee other than a standing committee.

So I think it it does a lot for transparency as far as the business that's being taken place in those committees.

Another reason I brought it up is I was a member of the CDBG committee, and several of the members approached me and asked me if we could change the time that we met.

So I put in a communication to the CDBG committee, of which I was a member of, and I was told that I don't have the authority, even as a committee member, to put in a communication to a committee that I serve on, that my request was solely the whim of the chair, and that's really not how I would think that we would want to do our business.

I think every communication should be referred by this body, um, and it should not be uh just the chair that can make those decisions.

Um it should not be uh just the chair that can make those decisions.

This body should be doing that.

I want to go to the uh the 250 signatures that a constituent would need.

Any alderman, and you can see I just did it the other day, and I included all the aldermen.

A constituent asked to have uh a renaming of the Caesar Chavez Center, according to this ordinance for if that individual could not find an alderman to sponsor that communication, making that request for that name change, he would have to go out and get 250 signatures to have this body discuss it.

And when you think about it, we only need 20 signatures to get on a ballot, but uh constituent that we represent has to get more than 10 times as many signatures to have an item that they want this body to discuss on an agenda.

So that's the reason to eliminate that 250 signatures.

Any constituent should be able to present a communication to be discussed by any committee without having to get 250 signatures.

I remember when this was proposed adding the 250 signatures, I was stunned by it.

What does this mean?

That uh an individual could not get one of the 15 aldermen to sponsor their their request.

So that's the reason for eliminating that.

And I don't and like the city attorney said, never once has a constituent had to go out and get 250 signatures uh to have their voices uh heard or their item to be discussed by either this body or a committee.

So that's the reason for that.

Um I think the item on here regarding items that are deferred more than 90 days, and I'm gonna use a specific example.

Back in September of 2025, the Plan Commission deferred an item for the twins regarding pouring concrete for the parking lot that had been approved all the way up to the point where the concrete was going to get laid.

That item is still on the deferred agenda from September.

Here we are, nine months later.

This body should have some parameters as to how long any committee, board, commission, or standing committee has an item hanging out there deferred.

The other item is the the uh deferred it ordinance that was taken up in the executive committee that was deferred in September.

The mayor assured us that that would be taken up by October.

Here we are in June of 2026, nine months later, and that item still has not been taken up.

And according to the way this ordinance is, it should have been eliminated back when the the December 15th date came around.

So I think all of these changes are important, and I know it's a lot getting thrown at you in one meeting.

Um I think we need to move forward on this uh so that the council has more voice in how our business is being handled.

Thank you.

All right, we have uh Alder Pavone next.

Thank you, Chair.

So just a clarifying question for the city attorney when we are talking about uh enabling an alderman to be able to refer something not just to a standing committee, but to any commission committee that the city has.

So for instance, if I want to directly direct referral to the affirmative rights and human uh the affirmative action and human rights commission, right now I can't do that, but with this change, I could, but it would still be up to the affirmative uh action and human rights commission on whether or not they take it up or um how would that work?

So it pars it so right now, I mean you could go to the chair of the correct action commission and ask.

Right.

This would allow a communication to be referred to that body.

It would require it to be on the agenda of that body.

But it can't, I mean, you could never require that body to actually act in any particular way.

But this by my reading of well, and by my writing of this based on what Alder Wyner asked, this would require it to go on the next regular meeting of the affirmative action commission.

Okay.

And is it just the uh the communications or the referrals to standing committees that are subject to the 90-day rule?

Or is it everything?

All because you said it would require it to be on that.

So is this separate for the way it's written, every provision that would relate to a standing committee also would relate to boards, authorities, and commissions.

So the 90-day limit, everything.

So it would require it to be on their agenda, but they could then defer it, but then no item could be deferred more than 90 days.

Right.

So it would be recalled to their next immediate meeting after the 90 days.

Okay.

I think uh broadly I can support most of this that's in here.

Um and the reason being is I think it's important to have certain things in place so things don't fall through the cracks.

That's just what it is.

Um we have a something that's on this agenda today, that is from the recommendation from the public safety and licensing from January.

So I think that this does have merit.

I think that we can um help to solve a lot of of the issues here, and also be able to, if a constituent may possibly has a question or or something regarding commission or something that we're not on as an alder, then we're able to put that in what that what that committee does, or that commission if they have autonomy from the council, it doesn't take that away from them.

They can decide I don't care, I don't want to hear this anyway.

But at least we have that overview.

I'm not saying we could do much of the same with this when we have those on the on our committee agendas or the council agendas where we put it onto the consent agenda unless somebody wants it out for separate consideration.

So I don't have an issue with that.

I am not in favor of part five.

Um, because if I am correct, if we eliminate that, this is for the city attorney.

If we eliminate that, that would that allow any single constituent to then come in and refer uh or communicate, you know, in this way.

No, not by bi reading it would still require either elected official or an administrative manager to submit the communication.

So they would still have to consult with their alder or you know, an administrative manager if this were gone.

So this is just a way right now that we have that they could, if they had enough signatures, bring something to our attention that they couldn't get a hold of their Alder for.

Correct.

Eliminating that would not allow individual members of the public to put items on agendas.

So you're right.

That's what you said.

I mean, this is one of those things where it's on there, it's in our books, and no one's ever used it, but we still have ordinances about street oiling, too.

So in uh to Alder Mack's point about just kind of clearing up some archaic ordinances in this particular case.

No one's ever used it, and honestly, if they're having that much trouble just communicating with their aldermen, I think that's a broader problem that they need to address with their aldermen and uh reflect that issue at and at the ballot box if that's the case, because they're I have never not returned a constituent call or claim or whatever it is and had that discussion.

Uh so I don't really see the issue with the deletion.

I guess and um just talking it through.

I don't really see the the issue with the deletion um uh in part five, so I get I would be in favor of that.

I do think a lot of these here are going to enable us to s hold ourselves a little more accountable with and things could potentially slip through the cracks because although we are government, we we are run by people.

People make mistakes, people forget things.

Sometimes I forget I have my phone in my hand, depending on the day, right?

So I would be um in in support of of the majority of this.

Thank you.

All right, uh Alder Allen for second time.

Uh if I can with permission direct a question to Alder Weidner, I just want a clarification on the point made about the example, put a chair to or to be the uh sole person that has jurisdiction or can make the decision about the time of a meeting is is that what you said?

The question would be does Alder Weiner yield to a question all right.

Please restate your question, Alder Allen.

You'll have to push your button again.

The statement that you made about a chairperson for a committee, you gave an example of being on the C D B committee, and that you were not able to ask for an earlier time.

So what happened with the CDBG, I put in a communication, and I was told that the communication would not go on the council agenda because the CDBG committee is not a standing committee, so I had no authority to make the request to the CDBG committee, and I was speaking on behalf of several members that were asking to change the time.

What I was told is that the chair has the authority that I would have to ask the chair to put that item on the agenda.

The chair did not want to put the item on the agenda, so those CDBG committee members were not allowed to make their wishes known that they wanted to change the time that the CDBG meeting met.

Thank you, Alderweiner.

Okay.

There we go.

Alder Weiss is next, and I do just want to remind the council there still is no motion on the floor at all.

So far the discussion has been on the item as a whole, but there has been no motion made.

Um first, thank you for explaining everything.

I think there are a lot of really good things in here.

Um making sure that things don't live in deferral forever, making sure that there's a list provided of things that would fall off, um, letting city administrators and managers put things on agendas, the two things that um I might have more concern about would be what we just talked about.

Um, I think it's completely reasonable that the chair of those other commissions should be the one that decides if something's on the agenda, um, and that we shouldn't direct refer to those.

And then the other one is um part five, and I know we've talked about part five a little bit, but I I it's not that you have to get the 250 signatures, you can have an alder sponsor something on the agenda.

I just think it's a nice fail-safe in the event that some there's an issue that no alders are willing to listen to.

To your point, hasn't been used, but at least it it gives people uh some empowerment to think if this really was a big deal, I could go out and get these signatures and get it put on an agenda.

So I don't see the harm in having that stay.

So with that, there are no other lights in the queue, although I am looking to speak on this, so I'd ask for Vice President Allen uh to come up uh and take over.

Uh and I would as I would be next in the queue.

I think I okay.

Alder Georginson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My one of my major concerns on this one is it's written in a way that says we're trying to make sure things don't fall through the cracks, but it's opening a gaping hole to make things fall through the cracks.

To play the scenario out.

If an Alder proposed an ordinance and said, Hey, I I want to do, oh, I guess we'll something with public works.

Um, you know, want to do something with a street.

Theoretically, the alders on this board or on the on the council could instead send it to the parks board where we no longer really have that under our control to compel them to do things to make it move forward, it instead goes to the parks board where they could pick the item up and immediately um not do anything with it.

If it stays within the the standing committee, is as the attorney has laid out there is more direct control.

So at a bare minimum, if you want to send something to an outside board, there could be a recommendation attached with it, but to let it leave the standing committees entirely is really opening up a brand new hole.

They always talk about of you know, things were done with the best of intentions and there were unintended consequences.

This council is really responsible for the operations of the city, and so to allow the council to send things that potentially could be directly related to operations in the city to outside of what's in our legislative control is a dangerous uh way to move forward.

Uh, and so I I really would not be in favor of allowing that that giant hole to be created.

I mean, we've there have been a lot of ordinance changes uh to how the council operates.

In fact, we just got a request the other day of somebody missed a deadline, they were looking for an alder to sponsor something, but they weren't able to uh because of how this ordinance was written, and now it's ending up as a direct referral.

Uh and so I just want to caution everybody here before we move forward and say let's let's do this thing to not let things slip through the cracks, it may be opening the door to make that even worse, uh, because I know I would be uh devastated if there was something that as an alder I was looking for action on, and this body chose to send it somewhere where there was no control over making them compelling them to at least take action on it, other than receive and file immediately, and then it goes into the ether.

Uh so I I just I I feel like that's that's a major one.

Um there's been all sorts of petitions across the state.

There's if you haven't watched what's been going on with data centers, there's been things that have been put on a council agendas by doing that.

So I just want to caution before we say, hey, let's take it out there, no one's ever used it.

Really know what we're doing, we're we're removing an avenue for everyday citizens to get something on our agenda.

Uh and so if that's the intent of this body to remove that avenue, so be it.

Um, but I think there should probably be a little bit more of a reasoning behind it than nobody's ever done it before, so let's just take it out.

Um if we're going to to rip away that uh ability for everyday constituents to be able to do it, I think it needs a better answer.

Thank you, Vice President Allen.

Uh oh, I'll come back to a lot more lights now.

Uh so the next one in the queue would be uh uh Alder Davis.

Thank you, Chair.

Couple questions, and maybe um my first is for some clarity.

With the I don't even know which part it is, but the part where things could possibly items can be referred to the authority boards or commissions.

If an item was to be placed on transit, I'm gonna use transit again, commission, uh was referred at to, and they decided to not put it on their agenda.

Does that fall into part into one of those parts where it's still there?

What part is it?

It's all this dog opened.

And are you direct for the city attorney?

I'm assuming.

Yeah, this is for the city attorney.

Hmm 3C.

Okay, for 3C, so then if they don't defer, it we will still it'll come back around to the council, right?

So that we can know, do we lose it?

I'm I'm trying to get attorney just double checking on what happens if this gets referred to to the transit and they wish to not take it up.

Where does that item go?

That's communication.

So that would fall into well, what would be sub D of the new ordinance if approved as written that if it has not been placed on the agenda, if a referred item has not been placed on the agenda, either of a standing committee or an authority border commission, um then that goes into the process where an alder can ask the common council to direct a standing committee to um consider the communication.

So that communication won't I'm sorry, no, I'm sorry, and I and I misstated the it as with this particular item where the common council directly referred this or referred it to the committee of the whole, the common council could refer it um to order it to be placed on the next agenda of the relevant standing committee authority border commission.

So if it's not within 90 days, an alder can ask it to come back to council, and then it must go on the agenda of whatever that body is.

So that uh that item won't be just floating out in Neverland because we have that piece of that checks and balance, right?

From what I just heard from you, right?

Under those circumstances, it shall be placed on the agenda of the body.

Okay, I just wanted to speak one.

Thank you for speaking to that because uh Jurgison had said it would get lost, and with that clarity, it wouldn't um my next follow-up question.

Right, take it.

Um hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Just give me bear with me.

My mind moving fast than my mouth.

No, hold on.

And I just would note, although it would be required to go on the agenda of whatever that board commissioner authority is.

Again, the common council can't force that board authority or commission to take any particular action.

Right, not forcing to take an action, but it will be placed on the agenda.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh going back to the discussion of the 250.

Uh I'm lost of which order stated, but there was if we have a constituent that has something they will like, a communication.

We as auditors, elected officials, would feel part of our duties is to sit down with these individuals, and even if we disagree with them, we are to bring it forth and let the council decide from there.

If I know there's times where keeping things in for feel good is great.

But let's clean it up.

It's not about taking anything from our constituents.

We're actually empowering engagement between ourselves and the constituents.

So instead of saying, okay, person go out there and try to get to 50, we say because you elected us, we hear you, we will move forward, even if we don't disagree.

So I I state all this.

Thank you, um, city attorney for clearing up some of the questions and concerns I had regarding this proposed ordinance change.

Um I um another question.

When a motion fails, can that how does what happens?

Can that motion can someone else like yeah?

You know where I'm getting at you looking at me.

Thank you.

Can the same motion be made more than once?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So with that, um like to make a motion to approve this ordinance as presented.

Second, we have an a motion from Alder Davis, second from Alder Mack.

Uh, there are other lights in the queue.

There hasn't been a motion up until this point, so I'm guessing they're still talking about final passage of it, considering it's on there.

So uh Alder Davis, was that did you want to speak to your motion at all?

Um can maybe this might be out of time, but can I just call the question?

Uh so uh the question.

Yeah, question has been called.

Is there a second?

Okay, the motion it's been motioned and seconded.

It's a non-debatable motion.

The question has been called.

So first we would be deciding on whether or not to call the question.

So for those of you that are new, this is effectively ending debate.

There's other folks in the queue by calling the question, they would not be allowed to speak to that item.

We're going to then now vote on this of whether you think debate should be ended.

Thank you.

And the attorney was also reminding me it does require a two-thirds majority.

Um what's the number?

Because it's by who's here tonight.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven.

Uh it's gonna be uh eleven.

I used to have this stuff written down.

Well let uh try to let me do some math here quick.

Um doing the math by the way.

Um, but we would then go to uh the um the clerk is gonna be opening the roll.

I do see there's lights, and I see folks trying to flag me down.

It is a non-debatable motion, though, so we we can't talk about it goes right to to whether or not you want to end debate.

Uh and if it passes, I guess I should say what happens if passes.

Thank you.

The math has eight, eight to pass.

If this passes, um that would then mean that we would go to vote on the um the motion that was on the table immediately on the floor, um, right then and there with with no debate because debate had been ended.

Uh so with that, we would have the clerk open the roll.

Looks like overliner as a question.

Was there a question?

Are you making a point of information or are you calling a point of order?

I have a question.

Is this the if it's not debate if they can ask a question?

Yeah, so I guess I'm just trying to see all right.

Please state your question.

If we're ending discussion, does that mean we cannot make any amendments to the ordinance?

Correct.

Right.

Calling the question as the effect of ending the debate.

Which would mean we could make no amendments.

No more amendments and request to vote on the motion as made.

All right, are there any other I withdraw my second?

It belongs to the body of the money.

Right.

Oh.

We're already in the house of the voting.

We can't withdraw your question.

Yeah, if the attorney can weigh in on the right.

Once a motion's been made in second, it blocks to the body.

All right, so we are unable to withdraw the motion.

The motion still stands.

It have been made in second to call the question.

The clerk is opening the roll.

So if you once again, uh a yes vote means you're voting to end debate and immediately go to vote on the um the motion that's before us.

Uh a no vote uh would keep debate going.

So the clerk is opening the roll.

Please vote as you wish.

Uh if someone has not pushed their well, it has stepped out or left.

That changes the math, and we're still math was done that way already.

Five yes, five no.

The motion fails.

Uh I think I'm allowed to make or break a tie on that.

But you can make or break the two-thirds.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

We gotta get eight.

So we have motion fails.

Uh that means debate is open.

Uh we would then go to the uh the next person in the queue.

Uh that would be Alder Pabone.

Thank you.

Um, so to Alder Dorgenson's point, I understand his concerns.

But what I would say particularly about this, and it please correct me if I'm wrong, um attorney Lettney, that although a member can want to refer something to any standing committee or commission, it would act much in the same way as it does now, where the common council would still have to approve that referral, correct?

And would would those referrals, regardless if they're to a standing committee or not, come with staff recommendations if staff still chooses to put a recommendation on it.

There's nothing about the process that would change except that it would allow administrative managers and it would allow it to go authorities, boards and commissions.

So just to clarify out there, I understand the concern, but I would say that with this, this acts in the same way as if somebody puts a referral into a standing committee and they want it to be referred to public works, but the staff believes it belongs on finance and personnel, then they can still make that recommendation and it is up to the council to then decide.

Do they agree with staff recommendation or do they agree with the aldermanic recommendation?

So that's what I would say to that.

Um also I would like to um make a motion to um I'm gonna make just rely on uh attorney Letney here to help me here to approve this, but to strike part five, so that way we would still include the 250 um you know ability to do that if they so choose, just because you don't use it, doesn't mean you gotta lose it.

And I do uh share understand the concerns from Alder Dorgens and Alder Allen Alder Weiss about this, and there's no harm in leaving it on the books.

So I think for the majority of this I can get behind just from the discussion we've had the way that the attorney has explained it in the debate of my colleagues.

Um but for this particular one, I hear this is is hitting a lot of alders in a way that is not good and would not probably constitute an approval uh of it the way it is.

So I would motion to approve as amended or your motion is to amend the motion by striking part five of the proposed ordinance.

Okay, I would motion to amend the motion by striking part five of the proposed ordinance.

All right, there's been a motion from all the bone, second from Senator like Alder Widener.

Um there are folks in the queue, but we are now talking about the motion that's before us now, which would be striking part five.

Um so I'll give everyone a second to remove their lights if they don't want to talk about um the new motion before us.

Otherwise, we will jump to the next person in the queue.

Okay, all their ways.

I'm not sure if I'm gonna say something that's not directly connected.

This will just stop if I do.

Um I agree with the motion to strike part five.

The only concern I have is also around um having the authority to send things directly to boards and commissions outside of standing committees.

Procedurally for the question, and the attorney can keep me honest here.

We'd have to take up the motion to the amendment first.

Uh after that's been uh voted up or down, um, then we'd be back to the original amended or possibly amended motion, uh and we would be able to take more uh amendments uh if I perfect okay.

Uh that means we go to Alder Mack next.

Thank you.

I'm gonna speak against the motion during my tenure as a fifth district alderman.

I received a call from a constituent and he wanted something brought before the council, and I disagreed with what he wanted, but I felt it was my responsibility to bring it forward as a result.

I had people in the community send me some very vile um emails because it was a controversial issue, but I stood by the premise that my job is to represent the constituents, whether I agree with them or not, it didn't mean that I had to vote for what he wanted, but at least I was there to give him a voice.

If a constituent is forced to gather 250 signatures to put in a communication for referral, we have a much larger problem at hand, and therefore I'm not going to support striking the elimination of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have uh Alder Pown.

I don't want to hog up all the mic time here, but thank you.

Um so what I would say to Aldermack's point is if we eliminate this, that eliminates any way that they have besides the communication directly with their alder person to bring up concerns that they may have, whether or not the alder person agrees.

This allows them a different avenue uh to Alder Weiss's point to bring this up.

So I would I would respectfully disagree.

Um, also to kind of comment, and I if I'm explaining this wrong, either the author of the um ordinance change or the city attorney can correct me, but to Alderwise's point, if we decide to have that referred to whatever committee or commission what have you as a council, although it may require that to be on an agenda, that that particular commission or committee um does not necessarily have they could vote to receive and file it.

We can deal with that separately, but the motion right now is section five or it's to approve with the amendment of the striking of section five, not just to talk about section five.

So this is part of the amendment uh to approve it, which would be approving the way that this is referred if the chair could make a ruling on Alder Mac's point of order.

Yeah, I I hear Alder Mac's point of uh it's gotta stay on it.

I would uh I'd ask the the Alder from the 15th.

I I think you're he's trying to make a point of of how we're striking this section in interacts somewhere else.

So I I you can keep going on it.

I just make sure it loops back around, which I think it sounds like you're gonna be doing.

Correct.

Yeah, that was my my point was we would still have that autonomy, and then again, um, I think we've very heavily debated that the 251, and I think that has more broad support.

So that's what I would say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and that would be then Alder Allen.

Uh a question for uh part five, the 250.

Since there seems to be a little bit of confusion.

I'm just curious, do you know when this came to be?

And uh I'm working on memory, but did that provision came in at the same time the communication process was broadly changed.

Um, and my recollection right now, it was part of the debate.

Um, I don't remember if it was a committee of the whole, but it was it was it was the entire body that was debating the issue about how communications would get presented, and if there was a change that would only allow elected officials to present communications speculatively, what would happen if there were um citizens of the city that wanted communications in.

And I don't I mean, I don't specifically recall who suggested what, but this particular provision came to be as part of the debate on the floor that the body crafted.

I mean, I think I probably wrote the exact language, but the concept was crafted on the floor, I think at the committee of the whole, and then presented to the council.

And the 250, my recollection is there was some back and forth about what that number would be.

But that's where it happened.

It actually my recollection it came from the committee of the whole as part of the organic process of changing the communications ordinance.

When they when they were crafting this on the floor, and I'm gonna maybe uh if I'm given permission to ask if there's anyone on the council now that was on the council then.

The 250 elector number, do you know why they came up with 250 since we only need 20 as a for ourselves?

I honestly I don't specifically I recall that some numbers were bounced around, but that's what the committee of the whole came up with.

Okay.

Uh well, with that, there are no whoop, looks like there's one more Alder Wagner.

I I would just like to assist anyone that's interested in going back and listening and observing the discussion that took place in regards to all the changes that were made to how communications were submitted.

All that took place in two executive committee meetings in January of 2019, and then it came to council for final approval.

There was no committee of the whole, it came from executive committee directly to the committee of the whole or to the common council, and that was in April of 2019.

I think it was not the first meeting in April, I think it was the second meeting of April of 2019.

So you can go back into Legisstar and pull up that video of the discussion that took place.

I recall there was really very little discussion about the the 250, there was a lot of robust discussion about all the other changes that were made and how our communications handled.

And just so you know, prior to the changes that were made in how communications were handled, all communications for all committees, boards, and commissions were read at the common council meeting, and the council members then referred them to committee.

So we knew what went to CDA, we knew what was going to the uh CDBG.

We all the committees all the communications were read.

They did not require uh an elected official to sponsor those.

They just gave a heads up to the council members and to the public as to what kind of items were going to be discussed and what committee they would be discussed in.

So you can partake it or listen to all that discussion from that council meeting.

I remember it was a couple hours long, and there was a lot of debate because it was huge, huge changes in how this body did business.

All right.

Uh Alder Allen is in the queue again for a second time.

Well, thank you for that direction.

But um I'm going to just presume that during that discussion, they were the same procedures that we use now, being able to pull things for separate consideration and vote on them, they existed then too, right?

Am I presumed during that that discussion for the changes for this ordinance for the dealing with communication?

Were they able to pull things out?

So I'm still asking for separate considerations.

Sure.

They would have been able to pull that out and actually hone in on this particular number.

Yes, consideration has always been a privilege of the council.

Okay, because there may be many reasons why the electors may want to come together, may not just be because they can't connect with an alderman or anyone in the council at all.

We all were elected to districts, but we serve the entire city.

It may just be something that they want to as even part of a district, just make sure that numbers sometimes matter when they're trying to make make a point for for example, when the council was considering defunding the library.

We had an we had three hours, two and a half hours of public speaking that night.

Um they could have easily just done a 250 number elector petition, as opposed to spending two and a half hours and had one person speak to that motion if if I or speak to that petition if I'm following this track.

So it may not ever be used, but there's any number of reasons why it could be used.

All right, Alder Hodges.

Thank you.

Um so I agree that um it seems as if this section is like a placeholder, although it has not been used.

Um I think it should still exist.

Um just in case if there is an Alder who doesn't agree with whatever the constituent is um presenting, they will have an avenue to um support whichever uh or their claim.

Um but I'm wondering if we can you know, if we do keep this, can we lessen the count from 250 if we all don't agree on that number?

Um so I think procedurally we're at the an amendment uh to the motion, so we would still want to address the one before us.

I see the city attorney's put his light on, but I think where you're going is I think you should vote on this, and if there's a request for a desire for an additional amendment to modify that number, that could theoretically be done.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Uh we're we're synced up on that.

Uh with that, I don't have any more lights.

Uh so I had to ask the clerk to open the roll, please.

Uh and once again to be really clear, I know we're we're getting into amendment section here.

This one would be amending uh the main motion to strike um part five, thank you.

That was a have the effect of maintaining that provision.

Yes, yes.

Uh thank you.

Which to wrap your head around it by striking part five, it would maintain what was in the ordinance today, which would allow for the for a citizen to uh get a petition with 250 um uh 250 signatures to push an item on to the agenda.

Um so a yes vote keeps the provision as how it is today in the ordinance.

A no vote would keep the proposed language removing that.

Um so with that the clerk will open the roll.

Please vote how you wish it's seven eyes, three no's the question was why are we not seeing it on the board?

It looks like they're working to pull it up here.

There we are.

Okay.

So motion carries the we're back to the main motion now as amended.

Uh and so once again, same thing we've been talking about except for the section five has been struck, so it would be how it is today.

Uh it looks like Alder Pabone start us out.

I am a little confused.

My motion that I thought I made was to approve this, but with the amendment to strike part five.

That was my motion to approve the item.

But okay, so we've already amended it, so I would make a motion to approve, and I would call the question.

Okay.

Uh so with that, uh motion to approve.

All right, motion to approve and made by Alder Pabone, second by Alder Widener.

And then I would call a question.

All right.

To end debate, because since we've debated a bit thoroughly.

I'm looking for a were we looking for a second on that.

There was a second, I thought.

I'm sorry, you're gonna speak up.

Yeah, is it who is the second for that motion?

Well, the motion to was his original motion was to to approve it, and then he made one to call the question.

So were you seconding both?

Second.

Yeah.

Correct, but since it's my time.

Or regarding the first motion actually needed as amended, or is it assumed that it has on that?

So there was a motion to approve the ordinance, then Alder Pavone made a motion to amend by striking five.

So the motion to approve as amended is the current action before the before the body.

A new motion to approve the ordinance as amended was not needed.

Right.

So then all we're acting eyes or called the question at this time.

Right.

I I guess I went by with the motion the Alder made, which he got a second, so that would be starting down the each motion is a good question.

Okay, so we're just voting on question.

Yeah, I mean it sounds like that was your original intent.

Um we didn't need both, but we have both.

That's okay.

Um it is non-debatable.

Uh yes, and so the once again we're back to calling the question again, which needs eight.

Eight.

Uh eight.

And so if a yes vote uh would make it so that debate would be ended, and we would go right into voting on the the motion as amended.

A no vote would allow debate to continue and allow for other motions to be made still.

So I'd ask the clerk to open the roll, please.

If you haven't pushed your button yet, it doesn't have the button.

Some comebody from the clerk's office.

Um seeing on the screen, eight yeses, two no's.

Is that that carries okay?

So the the motion to uh call the question passes, we would now be going towards final passage with no additional amendments uh able to be taken.

Uh it is just a straight up or down on this.

So a yes vote moves or would approve it as amended or no vote uh would uh fail uh as that motion.

So the clerk's gonna open the roll uh and uh again please vote as you wish.

Oh, looks like there's a just for clarification if the city turning is this a simple majority or is this a simple majority?

See there's other lights we would only be taking questions not related to debate because debate has been ended.

So if there's a question on um like a point of order or a point of question Alder Widener, thank you.

I'd like clarification from the city attorney as to when we vote on this item.

This is simply a recommendation that will go to the full council for a final vote.

And at that time, if there are amendments that you wish to make to this ordinance, you get a second kick at the cat.

Is that correct?

That's that's correct.

All right, the clerk will open the roll.

Please vote as you wish.

That is nine yeses, one no.

Motion carries.

We've exhausted our agenda.

Be looking for a motion to adjourn.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

The motion carries, we are adjourned.