Oh, every planning parts.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks everybody for being here.

Um in the recently returned to cold weather.

Um I will go ahead and call the meeting to order.

All right.

First item is to approve the minutes from January 15.

Does anybody have any comments or changes during claiming uh related to the meeting minutes?

Can I make a motion to approve?

Okay, I'll second.

Please.

All right.

Uh was approving the minutes.

Great.

Okay.

Um I think you can all see, I don't know if we can scroll down to see this the agenda, but um does anybody have any changes they'd like to make to the order for today?

I'm just wondering about this for member whose terms expired on April 30th, 2025.

Oh, yeah, it should be 2026.

Oh, okay.

So that's yeah, perfect deal.

Yeah, I will I will update about 2026.

Not 2025.

All right.

Um okay.

Well, then in that case we can move on to reports or inquiries from the city attorney.

Thank you, Mr.

Jarrett.

Um nothing specific that has come my direction.

Um I would maybe just talk with you briefly about um something that came before the city council last night.

It was um mildly interesting to me, um, partly from an ethics perspective and um in case anybody was watching uh last night, didn't have anything better to do.

Um just wanted to give you a little um review of of that topic that came up.

There was in open comment on the first speaker, and you can watch it yourself if you care to um who um is on a city board or commission, um, though she did not identify herself that way.

Um, but she was referencing um the mayor's recent training of board and commission members.

And the topic that she was addressing with the council was um in their last business meeting, they had taken a vote on um supporting some legal action um related to ongoing ongoing immigration enforcement.

It was a split vote that got a fair amount of attention and um and agree or disagree with the substance, and obviously the the speaker disagreed with what the council um approved.

Um the main reason I'm I'm just bringing it up for you is that the suggestion by the speaker was that um based on the mayor's comments during the board and commission training, um she believed that the council members had violated their oath of office and um may have not maybe suggesting that they committed ethics violations in supporting legal action in supporting what they did through this particular action.

Um so I think just at a minimum, I I would just comment to you that if if you happen to be watching or this otherwise comes to your attention.

My take of that situation is that it certainly doesn't raise a question of ethics again, agree or disagree with what the council did.

Um it doesn't create an ethics question um that needs to be um addressed or for that matter an oath of office, but those things are side issues, I guess.

Um I'm still maybe thinking a little bit about how to how to have a conversation with um this individual to either as we often do um offer up the link, the form if somebody wants to make it ethics um charge against somebody.

Of course, I have the right to do that if she really believes that there is an ethics violation that should be considered by this body, then formalize it and we'll sort through it.

Um it was also a little bit troubling to me that it um attempted to reference the mayor's training and really misquoted, misunderstood some comments um by the mayor, and then sort of made a leap to to be then sort of making uh a charge of impropriety or um an ethics violation by the city council members.

So um just wanted to share that piece with you.

I think part of this report process is for me to just kind of talk through with you situations where claims, suggestions, allegations of unethical conduct gets sort of thrown around, and how um I in my position might deal with that, including the option of formalizing it and bringing it to this body, and happy to take any questions or comments or conversations.

Did she think that the council had violated?

It it was it was not that specific.

It was more of kind of yeah, as as you probably know when people kind of get on a roll of the allegations, right?

Impropriety violating oath of office, ethics, like sort of all gets lumped together, okay.

But some of those kinds of allegations, particularly in public matter more to us, right?

Um not that we respond to all of them, of course, but any time that I hear from people um in a some level of a position of authority, um, and sometimes just the public.

When I hear them using the term ethics violation, I pay closer attention to those things and try to figure out how to follow up and whether to make sure somebody understands that there's a formal way of exploring that, bringing that claim and having a real body address that topic instead of just throwing it out into the public sphere.

You know, I uh find that interesting because I remember that meeting that we had, and you know, what and you know what we're supposed to do and not do and whatnot.

And I I did find it interesting that I don't know if it was that night or it was earlier that day, I did not know it.

That in my opinion, the mayor had kind of taken a position with regard to that issue.

I I may not have this correct, I would stand to be corrected, but you know, and and clearly did it as the mayor.

I'm not sure what restrictions she has on her, but having just sat through this ethics training, um clearly one listening to her would think that that was the city of Rochester's position, and then I think that segued into her um the mayor going out to um Washington DC to espouse, and that's still unclear to me whether it's her position or the city of Rochester's position.

But I I remember just having just sat through that and then hearing this right after that.

I it was either that evening or it was the next morning, and I I sent the mayor a note, right?

I was gonna file an ethical complaint about it, but I did send the mayor a note um about you know that issue, and I don't think I heard that, but so uh what you know whether this is an ethical issue or not, I I find it interesting because I was thinking, you know, maybe a little different line, but about what the mayor did um in light of that, like I say, I'm not saying that those rules necessarily apply to her, but it certainly appeared to me that she was taking a position, and I wasn't and it appeared to be for the city of Rochester, and I I think that blurred a little bit in my mind.

So that's okay.

Um the council as recently as last week, Monday, um, when they were discussing their um their council rules and code of conduct.

The council as recently as last week, Monday, when they were discussing their um their council rules and code of conduct, um, that's a topic that is always a bit of a sticky one for them is how to delineate um the mayor's as an individual as an office holder, a citywide office holder, how she um speaks for her office versus situations where is she speaking for the city.

Um I'm not sure that we've exactly figured out the perfect way to always do it.

We try to be pretty intentional, and that um if she is um stating a public position, and it is only hers that she make that clear.

Um if it's a topic where the count where the council has discussed it and indicated some concurrence by a majority, then there is more leeway for her to be referencing um the city as a whole, supporting a particular position.

Um you can imagine that there's maybe a variety of scenarios that play out where it makes it sometimes a little bit harder to exactly delineate, um, or for her to be perfectly clear when she's speaking as the mayor of the city when she's speaking sort of on behalf of the city council as the legislative body.

Um so certainly an interesting topic, then I would say I think it's one that really bears, you know.

I'm glad to hear that it's at least a topic that is being discussed, because I I know in this is different situation, but if I send out something, and I usually don't do it on letterhead, but let's say I do, I will always make it clear.

Last sentence that this is me speaking on my behalf, not the firm.

Um, and I think that's important to do.

Now, the easy way around that is I try not to use letterhead.

But if I do, I do try to do that.

And it would seem to me that you know, if uh if somebody in office, um in this case citywide office, is going to be making certain statements, especially about a hot button issue like that, which it is, um that clarity um is important.

Yes, and what makes it what makes it extra tricky, and in some respects is it almost more of a charter commission conversation, and the charter commission actively grapples with this power sharing concept as well, delineating the different roles of the sit of the mayor, city administrator, city council.

Um yes, the mayor, but most people, probably the public doesn't necessarily appreciate that power sharing dynamic between the mayor as an elected office citywide versus the legislative body of the city council.

And certainly the discussion between those entities has been that they don't want to provide mixed messaging to the community with the mayor taking one side on a position, but the city council taking the other, right?

Um, particularly on certain topics, right?

So legislative priorities or lobbying is an example where there's a recognition that those bodies need to be on the same page, right?

Um but there can be some others where the mayor may take her own position on a particular topic, and that may not align with the city council, and um and that could create confusion.

Um it could create a little bit of conflict or disconnect, um, but there's not necessarily anything inappropriate about it either, as long as in her stating her opinion as the office of the mayor, she's not otherwise suggesting that the city council is the legislative body um supports the same thing.

Why why should why is there an expectation of the necessarily that the city council and the office of the mayor have the same views on things or independently elected.

Well, you're that is a that's a fair point.

I mean, that's kind of the other side of this conversation is recognizing where there where there should be space for there to be different views.

And I think what you're saying, like if I think this makes sense, is let's say the city is asking for money from the state legislature.

Yeah, that's probably something where you would want to be for sure, I would think consistency between a legislative body, our elected representatives.

I mean, I see how you'd be more likely to get that outcome.

Well, but uh other than that, I don't actually see why there's want to be and there's have to be, right?

Yeah, like is this yeah.

Yes, it I mean it's supposed to represent well the people of Rochester.

So most of the people in Rochester want us to be able to get more money from the state, probably yes.

So it would make my expertise with the council and the mayor to see the same thing.

But if the public is literally split, I mean it's not shocking that you know those both offices would also be split or who's Sean Palmer and see my representative.

Yeah, and if I may, Mr.

Chair, just to um bring it back to that topic last night.

Um, this is an interesting discussion and a very relevant discussion of something that the council grapples with, charter commission grapples with those points of appropriate tension that like that's how the system is supposed to work, and we're kind of figuring out over time.

The thing about the comments last night was it was sort of a kind of reflected maybe some level of misunderstanding of the general concept that Nick doesn't get to leave this meeting today and go and give a media interview where he says he's speaking on behalf of the ethical practices board, right?

So that was I think the underlying concept of of that board and commission training and concept, and um I think the speaker last night was sort of translating that to individual council members.

Um can't speak on behalf of the whole community, and that their action on that particular item seemed to do that, and that was upsetting to the speaker because she disagreed with the decision that they made.

Um, which was maybe a fine misunderstanding in and of itself, but then to make the leap to suggest that it was unethical, um, was I think the particular point of it being problematic.

I think we should make it clearer issues in toward the table.

The mayor doesn't vote on that vote or vote veto if she cares to get rid of it.

So I guess universally she's accepting by not denying from a particular issue for what the council has chosen vote whether it's four or five, five, five, whatever, three, five.

Yeah, yeah.

The mayor wasn't the mayor wasn't there last night, and and uh the speaker wasn't really chastising the mayor.

The speaker was chastising sort of the body or their vote, but um what otherwise is sort of a legislative decision that government bodies make all the time and agree or disagree.

Um they just try to do what they they think is right, right?

And it doesn't reflect them trying to on any individual vote speak for the entire community, or that that is somehow an ethics violation.

Well, thanks for bringing it up.

Yeah, that's definitely an interesting topic, and I think good to clarify that it didn't seem to raise any kind of ethics issue because as we know, in addition to the written complaint, we also have a duty to kind of launch a complaint process if any of us hears of something that we think rises to the level of the complaint.

So um be interested to go back and watch the video just to kind of hear that section, but I appreciate the perspective and can have analysis on it.

Feels like I'll have to tune in every week now, just in case you never know what's going to come from.

If you're really bored or go to a charter commission because I'm buying me a fine little phone, and I was on that board for tenure, nine or ten years.

How long were those meetings?

Really?

No, everybody is good.

Commission members would set the tone, and this is what we did, and end of meeting.

This is recommend to the council, whoever the cases might be.

And uh let the ships fall as really me.

Um they're usually 45 minutes.

You ever take 15 or so.

So all right.

Um while moving on, we don't have anybody from open comments unless we have ghosts in the room.

So I think we can move ahead from that one.

Um so the next item is an item of unfinished business.

Um you all might be a little bit surprised to see it here since we kind of finished this last week.

So I have to apologize for the fact that it's on the agenda again.

Um this kind of comes from misunderstanding on my part.

So last week we reviewed some language, we decided to adopt language that um was presented as being from the state of Minnesota, and went with that to forward along with a few other changes to the council.

Um after trying to, we were getting that ready to forward to council and doing some double checking.

Um it dawned on me that it's not actually from the state of Minnesota.

So that was a misunderstanding on my part.

Um it's uh from the state of Massachusetts.

So I had had some communication and thought it was from the state and pulled it up on the web to kind of get the full language without realizing where I was pulling it from.

So um I bring it up again, not because there's anything wrong with the language itself, but um because it you know, I don't want to accept something on the false premise that it's from the state.

Um so I think maybe it makes sense to start with.

We again have the two options that you check what the actual Minnesota definition is.

Oh, yeah, as far as I could find, there's not a Minnesota definition.

So that's the yeah, if I had one, I would I would have presented, but um yeah.

So we have these two.

I mentioned one of the emails I sent to you, yeah, the statute reference in the state statute.

Yeah, I understand that, but I could not find that anywhere other than the language that you sent me was very close to what I found from Massachusetts.

Well, you had to go to three different steps in the state thing, and if you miss it, the bull and what you don't go to get to the end of it.

Yeah, I mean I I rather funky and how it's I looked as much as I could to try to find it, but I could not find anything from the state.

Um so those of that don't remember that term was repeating in the in our ordinances that what it is, but it's confusing they didn't define what that word meant.

Yes, you know, what is the word references?

Yeah, and it goes way back to the era of the charter commission used to be basically the rule of law for the in the council just kind of showed up and met a rubber stamp type of thing.

Um and then also the part of going through looking through it isn't just public entities that are related to operations.

You can be a private entity that does business on a regular and full-time basis.

A good example would be the transit system right now.

The transit system is a private entity, but the city has a certain control of that particular process, and it relates to ethics.

So if you get an employee of the transit company that's abusing patron or whatever type of situation, there's a process in place to deal with that, either the company or the words it toy that situation.

Um the city continues to expand, whether some people like it or not, and these issues will come up.

And I think if you're better prepared, that situation you can position the city in the best possible recommendation.

But in the end, it it will be up to them to decide if that's going to be a good relationship.

Yeah, I think that's we we generally all agree that it would be good to have a definition of that in the code, which there's not currently.

Um, so we're just trying to settle on which language we want.

Um, so if I can bring it to what we have again, this is the language that we approved last week that is actually from um a municipality in Massachusetts, and I think it's you know it's perfectly reasonable.

And then we also had the two versions that were drafted by um member Nedland, kind of based off of that as a baseline, but um as I recall my position on saying that the initial one that you showed up that wasn't ready is because it was from Minnesota.

Yes, I believe that was kind of the uh assistency made sense for purposes of going to be argued.

That was a fair point, and I think that's why we we went with that and then just uh learning that that's not actually the the provenance of it makes it worth having the discussion again.

So um I will step back and open it up to any any other thoughts on this.

Um I think the goal is just to choose one of these three um and then we'll send it out to the council as we mentioned last month.

Is that quite another thing?

Yeah, I think we need a motion to select one of the three, basically.

And and Nick, I don't know if you want to kind of give your primary get on how you came up with these two versions.

Um was a little longer, it looks a little shorter, but um yeah, I that's that's the I'm gonna say the gist of it if uh one is just a little more specific than the other.

Sure.

Um I think that uh um I don't want to be official, but um I think if we gotta be official if I want to make a motion, right?

And vote or uh ask my opinion, right?

Sure.

Um if you have one that you prefer to do.

No, I mean that yeah, I would honestly make a motion to just accept the original one of the definition of city agency.

Oh Massachusetts one yeah that we agreed on last time.

Okay.

I was second, okay.

Right, any discussion of that?

Didn't somebody second it?

I guess that's what I've got.

You're so quiet there.

Oh any other discussion.

So for Dr.

Spring these two well, what's the one that we're voting on though?

Yeah, Jody can you split back to the other one?

Yeah, so this we have a motion to accept this one, which is the one that we accepted last week.

And that's the one where we thought it was the state.

Correct.

It is state was just another different state.

Well, it's it's actually not from the state of Massachusetts, it's from Oranxville, Massachusetts, I believe, or a municipality there, but yeah.

Call for a vote.

Yeah, I hear no discussion, so I think we could go ahead and call for a vote.

All those in favor of including this definition in our recommendations for changes to the city council.

All right, something that passes beyond.

Thank you, Dingo for uh running out for it.

I know it's kind of awkward, but yeah, sure.

Hey, I'm actually they're kind of holding that.

No, for sure.

I mean, mostly just you know didn't want to present it as something it wasn't, and wanted to make sure that that wasn't the key ingredient for anybody.

So yeah, great.

All right.

Um well, thanking everybody for that.

We have no items of new business.

So the only other business that we have is just uh an update on on board members whose terms are expiring.

Um so there's two of us whose terms will expire at the end of April.

Um that would be myself, and I'm actually at the end of my two terms, so I will be off for some period of time at least.

Um, and then um Gloria also I think is at the end of her term, but is eligible to reapply um if she wishes, which is so um I don't know that we need any major discussion of that.

It sounds like we'll kind of do the same um typical outreach that we do next month and put something in in the uh on the city website and social media seeking applicants.

Um I don't know if any of the new members can maybe talk about how they heard about the board.

I think I read about it in the newspaper when I was first founded, right?

Um I saw it on um it was just on the city website.

Okay.

Uh so I've been keeping an eye out for a while and so that I thought would piqued my interest.

Sure, sure.

Um, and with uh HR background and compliance and investigations being kind of something that yeah, I enjoy passionate about uh like it was in my wheelhouse.

Okay, well, yeah, I think if anybody has any ideas for changing that, then we're certainly welcome to think about that next meeting, but otherwise it seems to be yeah, we'll see them on social media where they they'll pump it out on Facebook too.

Uh huh.

And it's not one specific one, it's just we have board openings.

Yeah, sure.

And then you can kind of troll the different one.

Yeah, but there's no yeah, yeah.

Yeah, great to have community members involved.

Yes.

This doesn't really lead to the legislative process, but it deals with the the meter outside by the flagpole.

Oh, yeah.

My tips is that you should get a little one pager or half a paper step to how to use that cotton pick and thing.

It is not intuitive.

Sure.

And this add on a four or six-digit number is an afterthought type of thing.

Yeah.

And uh Gal from the city clerk's office came down the hall and everything.

If you it's when it went out, she walked right through the steps up.

And they said somebody can sit down and type that thing out and hand out when people become on boards and whatever that's during the day type activity and that type of thing.

I mean, once you type it out and you can make more replicas of just user-friendly for people.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that's not a bad idea.

I mean, it's you have to go through almost to the payment point before you see the option to put in your code.

So what that's mean.

I know.

I'm sorry.

All good things must come to an end.

I have my wife driven me off.

That's an option too.

So if you stand there by the meter with this look on your face, type your thing.

Yeah, we were sending my wife.

Yeah, they're trying to figure that out.

I'll follow up with the clerk's office and get those instructions.

So the coupon code information that we received is not enough.

Yeah, I mean I figured it out, but you do have to make a couple inductive leaps just to figure out where it because it's not like you walk up to it and put your code in right away.

No, but you have to put your space in and then choose your time as if you were gonna pay.

And only then it comes up and says press the pound symbol to enter a coupon code.

So even just a couple lines of instruction telling people how to get to that stage could potentially be helpful, I think.

I think it'd be very user-friendly.

Yeah, yeah.

Although I did get a receipt this time.

That's good.

I don't know if I brought it up or if it was adjusted.

Awesome.

Great.

Well, thanks everybody.

Uh, I think that's it for this meeting.

So our next meeting will be third Thursday times, March 19th, also.

And uh we can serve the cancel if there's no agenda items, but otherwise have a pleasant February 19th.

And the annual report will go on the March 7th helpful meeting, I believe.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Great.

Well, thanks, everybody.

And we're gonna check the equivalent results and see if our scene they had about two shots left when the meeting started.