Present Phyllis President Michael President.

Hey, John?

President.

Marshall.

Astan is absent.

Mal Academy.

Present.

Roll me.

Here.

Fred?

Here.

John?

Here.

And CD.

Absence.

We have three uh excused absents, or they let us know about that.

So we do have a quorum.

We will continue.

First up, we have approval of the minutes from the March 10th meeting.

Mode for motion and second.

Any discussion.

Rachel, okay, thank you.

All in favor, then say aye.

All right.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

This is the opportunity for open comment period.

If there's anyone from the audience that would care to speak, preferably on any topic uh not on the agenda, but uh anyone care to speak.

Mayor, anyone you say not on the agenda.

I assuming this is on the agenda.

Your topic is on the agenda.

Rather probably take comments then.

I'm guessing it would be interaction.

That would be fine.

All right.

Then we will move on.

Um we have one unfinished business item, which is the review of the home rule charter.

This is in reference to some um comments that the mayor has forwarded.

Um on various sections of the charter looking for response from the commission.

The document that you should have received, um, you'll remember last time.

Uh apology that you did not have the document in front of you.

Um I did, but you you had not, so it wasn't fair to really get into much discussion.

You should have that document now, and you'll see the comments, the ones that are noted with Jody's um initial.

Um, that those are a result of a conversation she had with the mayor and trying to capture the the thoughts and document them and uh so those are brought forward for our consideration.

And then the other comments are from Michael and his um comments on each of the those.

So we can proceed any way you like here.

My suggestion is we can start at the top and work through.

If it looks like it's something really simple, like a grammatical thing, I mean we can decide and move on.

Um if there's one that takes a little discussion, that's fine.

If it looks like something that's really gonna run us down a rabbit hole, we may choose to in the interest of time.

All right, let's set that one aside and move on and then uh address those uh those later.

Does anyone else have a different preference for how we move through the document?

Yes, but their question is the mayor have any uh are you okay with following that and commenting as we go, or do you have something of it ahead of the time you want to talk about?

Well, I think I mean I can just state generally that uh this did stem from some work I had uh been doing going through the charter, you know, it comes out periodically.

Oh, go look in the chart about that time you do, and I found some dramatic layers, some of them are technical.

Um that we can talk about later.

I is a is an issue for me personally, and then there are some that were more like you might want to think about this because it's a little confusing.

Um so I'm happy to just sit and listen to the discussion and give input as we move along if that's okay with you.

But this was really just a finding errors that were some of them very technical that I was hoping you just get next.

All right.

Uh question.

Uh is JH3 is that a different person than J H1.

Um I'm sorry, where are you looking?

I'm just looking at the comments in paint.

Somebody, somebody explain that to me too.

I I got lost here.

Who are these people who are identified by initial age of Jody?

Um so she had a couple, and each time she submits a new comment and gets that just again as two numbers.

So comment I want, I guess I have one square up to the rest of that.

I went through them all, but I guess who is who is J H1 and who is uh M S A R one and who are that means maybe I'm the only one in the room that couldn't figure that out.

I figured out so I think the only comments in the document are either Jody capturing the mayor's comment or Michael.

I don't believe anyone else added any comments.

So if it's helpful, Fred Pink is Jody, pink is Jody, the blue is me.

Okay, well, I unfortunately when I printed this out, it didn't print it out as any color.

Well, the first two letters really are the indicator, J H for Jody and MS for Michael.

Oh okay.

All right.

It looks like if there was more than one comment, like from Jody on some subject, you might have a sub-number.

Right.

All right.

In this we have no Jody's comments are really based on the conversation she had with the mayor, and then she tried to capture them and put them in this document.

Okay.

And I believe the mayor had a chance to see the whole sort of respond and say, no, that's not what I meant at all.

Or make a correct thing.

Well, I just actually just seen them recently, and I have noticed on my paper, which I will just touch on.

All right.

So I would suggest we move in numerical fashion.

So I'm starting with chapter one, right?

Which are general provisions, corporate powers and boundaries.

All right.

And we have looks like just some comments on section one dot zero one.

Um Randy, is there any reason why we wouldn't proceed in the order that this came to us?

We can go anywhere you like.

I just went numerical order.

So what do you think if we just go start our way through, right?

That makes sense.

So just tell me what what chapter you're looking at, and when I just I just printed it as it came, but uh chapter 15 was the first thing that came up.

Is that what you would expect when it's agree?

That's that's uh presented to me.

Oh well, that's weird.

Okay, I was with Randy, I'm on the same page.

Never mind.

All right, then I just gotta find it.

I mean, there's not that many, there's maybe eight or nine sections that we'll go through.

So are we actually able to project this on that screen?

That's the magic of Jodi.

Or Michael, did you want to log on?

Um I can it can be too.

Okay, that's right.

Jody's laptop is tied up, I would guess.

Okay.

All right.

What's happening sorry?

I'm sorry.

Oh, I don't know.

What were we waiting for?

Michael said, go ahead.

You can go out.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No, no worries.

I'm not we're gonna project something.

So uh the first item.

Um again, both of these go to section 1.01 corporate boundaries, and the first comment is valid.

There's no longer a Rochester Umstead consolidated planning department that should be amended.

We did dissolve that uh that department.

Um that drug department.

You can see that Michael's comment is that it does state for such other department, so we can clean that up if you like, or um what's your pleasure?

Do people understand why there's a reason for the change?

Probably planning no longer exists.

So um well, so unless it's one of those changes where we would sit there and say, Well, okay, the cost of changing this publishing of the paper and everything else may be more than uh maybe a waste of public funds.

But you know, but then we would have to discuss that beforehand and not look at this if that was a good case based on well, no, I'm just saying, I'm just saying this is uh some total of John, as far as I can tell, at least in this, yes, truly there is no more consolidated planning department, but truly, as Michael I think points out, it's such other agency or body or whatever the council designates.

Well, no, I'm just saying, I'm just saying that this is uh some total of John, as far as I can tell, at least in this, yes, truly there is no more consolidated planning department, but truly, as Michael, I think points out, it's such other agency or body or whatever the council designates.

Then the issue is okay.

Do we want to clean this up with a point where we're gonna go through a process of holding public hearings, publishing a notice of public hearings, reprinting the whole thing?

I mean, I actually some of this stuff is just you know, if it's a perfect world, we'd uh we wouldn't bother with it.

Uh we wouldn't, you know, we we do it, but is it necessary to go through all this process in that sense?

I uh let's let the mayor speak.

So um, as I mentioned before, I did a review of um some parts of the charter.

I found technical errors, I found spelling errors, I found things like this, but it's no longer an apartment.

I would not have come forward.

This had been the only change we made, but if we're going to make those other changes, it makes sense to me to do them all at once, because it might be here since I've been here.

Well, I take that back.

I think one time when it first, when you were a chair, chair scaler, um, we made one change, but nothing's changed on the charter since that time that the council has voted on it.

So I was just bringing a list of changes again with the problem, just this one.

Yeah, I agree.

There we I guess my thought is that actually my from my perspective, the only change that somebody thinks we not shouldn't make is when we should.

And that's later on here where we get into this term with the thing, where for many years a number of people have ignored the fact the charter is out of phase with what the courts say.

But uh that would be and and the recommendations I understand it on that section is leave it the way it is.

I would think we would not want to do that, but that's you know, another discussion, Michael.

Yeah, no, I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, I'll uh just uh I guess a question of clarification kind of to Fred and then the mayor's question and then comment.

Does each individual change have to be presented separately, or can we present the changes as a whole for consideration?

Yeah, I I was gonna comment on that, and Michael, you can correct me uh if you're wrong.

Whatever changes we decide to make will come forward kind of in block.

Um, and the council in terms of publishing and council consideration, they can look at all of the changes that we're bringing forward, each one individually doesn't need to be published and debated and voted on.

Uh the council can choose whatever direction they want, but in terms of procedurally, I think it can all go forward in block.

Is that correct, Michael?

I think that's accurate.

Yeah.

They can move forward if you want, but I think we have to describe them individually and whatever notice we give the public.

But that's you know so we ask the question of a follow-up question to that.

To those things that are purely just correction, do those really have to go through that process.

If you were just doing a cleanup and all it was was correcting uh and not adding any new policy, change any policy.

Yeah, you're referencing essentially a scrivener's error or some true um simple correction that could be done without I don't can we do the gender updates based on the prior authorization that I think this committee gave at one time catch those up under that.

Yeah, I would say question for the record.

Yeah, so we well that's what's my question.

I know that something like this happened about the gender change.

This should happen already.

So I I think we can change those based on the I do think that's fair, and if that's like the city attorney, I think that's like we have to talk excuse me, or just for uh information, why is that not an issue and a what bigger issue?

Is it because it's spelling or grammatical or his he, she those seem like easy things, or what is that?

What is that test for the ones that can be changed and those that um need to go in to the council?

Yeah, maybe simple explanation.

I I think um the commissioner was referencing um earlier um prior comment by the council on gender neutral language.

Um so I think that authority um gives us clear clear direction on for that correction again.

Um anything you never I don't know if there's much else that really is described as just a spelling error.

Um we'll go through one by one, but um we'll need to make that judgment call and potentially discuss that if we think that something can be corrected um without full um council authorization.

Okay.

To just follow up then so the consolidated planning department one does not exist.

The council has acted in a way that has directed that sort of by a new model.

So could would that also be non-controversial to scratch consolidated planning department when we don't have that?

Well, I mean, I'm just trying to figure out what the test, how far that test goes.

Sure.

You're probably not gonna get a black and white answer from me.

Well, I think check section 202 of the charter says what we can do without having going through that process.

Thank you.

So with that in mind, do we set this one aside for now?

No change.

Well, just Mr.

I would conclude that that is really just a technical, and we may have a whole collection of things that are technical and fall into that category that they can be, they don't even require any approvement, it's just following uh correction language.

Uh we may have a few though that are not just technical, and that might be done separately to the question of what you would bring to the uh city council.

Uh the second part would be those things that you believe have a reason to be brought to them because they may be policy changes or new policies.

So I would suggest if you just want to substitute language, take out the branches or all set consolidated and just replace it with whatever the nomenclature is today, community development planning department, and that's all we'll do.

Just substitute that and be done.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, did you get your answer to it?

Because I didn't I didn't dig into that one.

Darn it, I did the research too.

All right, then for those of you that might not remember or from the last meeting or weren't here, manuntable boundary adjustment unit.

That is a legitimate state office under the office of administrative hearings.

Um but they don't get involved in internal boundaries of a city, they get more involved in districts and uh legislative districts and boundaries of that nature, but internally they don't they don't get involved.

All right, I'm moving on to chapter two penalties uh instruction.

Anyone seeing two versions of section two for documents?

There's one in comments, and then there's one without five media page three, yeah.

So is there uh that's like double written compared to so I'm not understanding the question that those are the only comments I had for see more comments?

Oh there are two section two.

I'm seeing both of them on the document provided to me with the page and yeah, but there was no comments on two address.

Right, so I'm gonna clarify that there's no right.

That's it.

That's all I have for chapter one.

Oh, we we just have chapter two at the bottom of the page, the second page.

Chapter two penalties construct no comments, no comments, yeah, no comments.

If there's no comment, and there is another page.

I don't need comments.

So this should be chapter two on the page two or four.

So yeah, okay.

Go to the next stage number.

Yeah, the only version I have is the one with comments.

There's a comment from Jodi or some end, and then the comment from Michael.

That's what I have.

So that's the one you should be referencing.

Yeah, let's just stick to the comments.

We're gonna be here all night if we start wandering off in this place.

Okay, that one there's uh comment about uh handling of revisions.

Uh, should also consider updating reflect electronic version and update this paragraph so that it actually accurately reflects the process.

Michael says, Yes, this could be added if we thought that was important as part of other cleanup work.

So as you read those uh that sentence.

Is this as simple as adding one word between additional and pages to say electronic?

I mean, is that all we're talking about on the second line?

Uh two words after the I was gonna suggest modifying the first sentence.

This code is printed in loosely form and also available electronically.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, sure.

And then the rest will all the six of one half does the other words grade.

Where is the loosely form code exist?

Where is it like where does it make this a paper copy?

Well, I'm just saying, like it's 2026, is there really going to have it by ordinary loosely?

Oh yeah, I think Jody noted that I think the public library, they may you know printing it.

They maintain it.

And the clerk's office, our office.

Is it worth the overhead as opposed to just the electronic part of the question?

Because I think, especially in this day and age with ADA compliance, I think you have to have some hard copy version.

I believe.

I don't know.

And I know there are a couple of official copies in hard copy.

This would be inclusive and not exclusive.

We say that as we all print it off hard copyers for the meetings.

So if we make that modest change, then we can move on from that comment.

That'd be just another technical collection.

Agree about that.

Yeah.

All right.

I'm up to chapter three.

We have a few comments on that chapter.

First one is it's section 3.01.

Is there a Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise?

Um does this need to be updated.

The previous mayor exceeded 12 years.

Um Michael's comment was case law references precludes any term limits.

I remember having this conversation many years ago when Mr.

Atkins was still city attorney.

And I objected to that one.

I said, it says free term limit.

Why do we not do otherwise?

And his response was we can't overrule the will of the voters.

Correct.

If the voters want someone, an individual for a fourth term, fifth term, whatever.

And he further went on, I remember saying in normal practice, it just doesn't happen.

It's really rare that anybody wants to serve more than three terms.

Um, so I asked, well, then why don't we remove it?

And he said, um, well, just in case it might be needed in the future.

Well, that's that was the end of that.

That particular phrase has caused confusion periodically for years.

I mean, I've been on this body for years.

Every once in a while, somebody comes up and says, Well, it says return limit.

And then we say, Yeah, but the city attorney's office says they can't enforce it, or there's a court of field decision that says it's unconstitutional, but it's a political issue, basically.

And yeah, you hit the somebody get the nail on the head.

Somebody apparently lacks the courage to sit there and basically say we we're gonna remove something that can't be enforced.

Actually, we do enforce that term women.

I think on appointed officials doing that, Michael.

I my understanding was that uh everybody was gonna be terming, and of course, since elected officials have a special place in the constitution, I can't enforce that against them.

But I I guess I I just like having something in this charter, which everybody says doesn't mean anything.

But it but then somebody comes up and says, Well, yeah, but it's here.

Oh, how can that mean nothing?

Yeah.

We'll try to answer a couple of those questions.

Um, yes, most boards and commissions effectively have term limits, sort of, we don't really call them that maximum period of time that they could serve, and then they take a year off, and then they can come back and genus.

Um there is reference um within within the online charter materials to the Minnesota Supreme Court case that negated term limits, it's under the state constitution that it is precluded.

So if somebody's reading the document in theory, they could also see the specific reference.

Um, but certainly we could clean it up.

I'm not sure if it's been a lack of courage in the past.

Um, but regardless, it could be cleaned up.

I suppose that just in case um could contemplate a change in the Minnesota constitution, and then we are back to couldn't could charter regulate it.

But do you have options?

Like I said, I forgot every two or three years, somebody shows up at the Charter Commission and wonders why this language is ignored, and we always say, well, because we choose to.

I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

If if this issue is so politically radioactive that the council would be afraid to remove that because it's unconstitutional, I I guess I don't know why uh you know that makes sense.

We just have some truth in government for a change.

I mean, yeah, thank you.

Um, this did come up early.

Um, this discussion has come up when our Delta Brady was running for his fourth term or whatever.

So it's come up year after year, and there is confusion.

And so my thinking was I was going through looking for all these things, other changes, maybe it's time, and I you'll see it in a couple places, and Michael's right.

Yeah, you can leave it in there and explain it to everybody over and over and over again, or you can just make the change and make this make sense as to the practice that we actually do here again.

So days gone by, terms were two years.

Um contemplate that all right, if you've undone 12 years, that's that's a lot.

It's time for a change, but now we have four year terms.

I don't know if that's a rationale or not, but I do know that you know, in years gone by, maybe when this language was created, um, terms were much shorter.

So I mean we could edit it, the order, and what if the editor's note first?

Because it says that historically, yes, Rochester in 1998 passed this referendum, and again in 1994.

But that would just elevate the editor's note saying that this is factively blatant and all, because make it more obvious to encapsulate the terms.

That's that's a question I had for Michael.

The editor's note is that actually in the charter, or is that truly something that perhaps you added for someone else?

I did not add it.

Um I think it was Mr.

Atkins' uh um effort to try to explain to people why he was he was telling them that they didn't they couldn't believe what they read.

Yeah, I think um and I would guess the same.

I don't think it was an actual charter change to include that editor's note.

Uh if go ahead, other comments.

I like the editor note, Rap better if we can amend it to include the Supreme Court decision.

That way we have a thorough context of what we could do.

Is there perhaps this is a question for Michael?

Is there perhaps a more formal way to do that in a legal document when you're referencing case law or something of that nature, typically, you know, in the footnotes, uh, or that area is where you can find that link or that reference.

Is there you know, as opposed to calling the editor's notes, is there some other way to phrase that that it would perhaps um uh be a bit more appealing?

I don't know.

Not that comes to mind for me.

I guess what I'm hearing in the discussion is that if you want to give rid of any confusion, remove the entire provision, remove 3.011 in its entirety, you don't address the topic at all.

Oh, I think it's certainly part of the substantive of the part of the charter.

I mean, I it's it's to me uh the the problem I have is that it's language that exists that's part of the charter, it should theoretically be obeyed, and we're just telling people that since 1995 or thereabouts, uh, the various city attorneys and others in the system have just said it doesn't mean anything.

Just that's just silly.

Well, but but if I could just correct that point, it's it's nobody's local opinion.

It was a Minnesota Supreme Court.

Well, well, then why even put the note in there?

We can just pretend that the since the Supreme Court wasn't looking at our charter provision that it the holding in that case doesn't apply.

Michael, I think you know you know what I'm saying.

I mean going back to Mr.

Adkins and subsequent attorneys in that office, and I agree with them actually.

People said you can enforce it.

So we're just not gonna, we're just gonna pretend it isn't there, but it is there because every time anybody reads it, they say, Oh, there's term limits.

How Darville Brady served all those years, and we go through this discussion again, you know.

Let's get rid of it.

Let's get rid of it.

Well, can I just beat the devil's advocate here?

And if this is going to go to council, right?

It's just gonna pause because it's gonna look bad because to the public, it would look like we're trying to remove terms limits instead of adding the language that would explain why we're trying to add the historical aspect to us.

Instead of like removing the term limits.

But then adding the language explaining the Supreme Court also be a substantive change that would have to go to council because you are you you are at that point, you're not making a technical or a grammatical change, you're making a substantive change to the document and essentially policy.

100%.

I think maybe not creating a policy, but you certainly have the perception that they're trying to remove terms limits, which don't exist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever state statutes are revised, even they have they told the placeholder, correct?

And they say removed or revised or whatever in premises at this time because of some rulings.

Yeah, we'll just put removed removed on this date.

Yeah, but leave the note in there on the decision, and um that still need to rant that well.

I I had personally reached the conclusion that removing the section period is really a technical change because that brings us back to the reality of where we really are.

This is a fancy way of saying that in here, which I think Fred points out why the contradiction.

Um I guess placing all the placeholders, I don't know.

Uh statutorily, you always have the revision pages and things like that, but I haven't seen any of that here.

Do we maintain that kind of record when things are removed?

Section that could be a little unusual, it seems I'm sure that we do maintain a record somewhere.

Yeah, that of the various revisions.

Yeah, yeah.

You'd have the previous versions, but you wouldn't see that necessarily if you were looking at the most current version of the charter.

No, you you would see kind of in the references above that in section 3.01 or the where it says in parentheses amended by ordinance, and presumably you could go to that ordinance and see either what the language was and what it is now, and that's the that's the reference I would look for.

Yeah.

Well, I'm finding myself wondering uh if you did what I just said, which is to limit it that was suggested, I think I hope the section period is that a technical change that isn't really controversial because it isn't any policy.

Um I would not view it as a technical change.

I think you're removing uh parent ground and charter would not agree as a I guess as a courtesy, it would be more important to have that discussion to underscore my point.

If you go to page five of this section, the one that we're going to be considering, there's a section 3.10 where it says repealed by ordinance, the number and the date.

So presumably, if you were going to remove that section that's in the entirety, that's the comment that would show up uh for the council approval that it's repealed.

Simple as that.

Um thing, just uh a comment, just fast forward with me a little a little bit here.

In this day and age, we hear a lot of chatter, probably more so at the federal level than any about term limits.

And I'm not gonna go there on that topic, but someone could argue, oh, wait a minute, so you guys want to pull this out so that we can have lifelong whatever council members, mayor, whatever.

Well, to that point, I think the counter that would be is no, we're not changing it because it's not allowed now.

Right.

If someone initiated something, that would be a constitutional change.

And there is a process to do that, right?

It could be I'm just uh anticipating what a question might be.

I don't comment.

We can't assume to know what council will or won't do.

Our job is to do our best to recommend these changes forward, right?

Again, if they don't take it, that's all.

We are not the final authority.

I do agree with Fred's earlier comment, though, which stays in whatever fashion, um, then should be enforced.

I mean actually, I was around the city attorney when this originally was put in.

And my one of the odd things about this provision, if my recollection is is correct, is that this is one of those few areas where the voters basically came to the council and said we want to initiate this.

The council didn't come up with this idea.

This is back in the you know when I was still city attorney.

I think the only people in the room who didn't agree with that were Frank Michaels and I.

Frank was uh you know kind of a gadfly, but this was all this was the result of all this people thinking, well, we had too many people.

And and frankly, the the the part of it that's interesting to me is that when people were upset about the city uh officials, more often than not, they were upset about the fact that certain appointed officials had been there for a hundred years, like the like the president of the park board, Dave Hoffman served for God knows how long.

And so that's one of the reasons why this whole groundswell occurred is people said we got to get rid of all these old people are sitting around taking up space and get some new blood in here.

Well, the thing is if that was the intent of the voters, they would have said or appointed, and they just said elect elected, right?

Well, the the council could create term limits internally for their appointees.

So it isn't it wasn't necessary to have it in the charter.

But I think if you go back and do a little history, you're gonna find out this charter provision was initiated by the public, not by the charter.

Yes, but could be, but they worded it corporate.

It was elected.

It is written explicitly referring to elected officials, not appointed officials.

Yeah, but it wasn't it would well that's true, but like I said, you didn't have to create the charter provision to deal with the appointed officials.

Mr.

Chair would have helped have a motion on what to do with this just to kind of reach a decision.

Let's yeah, I'd like some sort of form.

I would closure.

Well, I'll just make a motion, you can vote it down if you want, but I just say we strike that section and leave that placeholder, like you did reference in another section there.

Yeah, the section titling, yeah.

Um number of titling would remain, and then yes, it would be repealed, assuming that and we send it to council because I I hate to disagree with Fran, but this just feels like a torture, torture, brutalized definition of the technical.

Actually, I wasn't stating my position.

I was asking a question.

I think I think we're gonna make a charter change substantive.

We one of the one of the ways we do it is we pass it is we recommend the council adopt an ordinance.

Right.

There's a four or five other ways the charter can be changed, but that's our involvement directly uh in sending them an ordinance which they can adopt unanimously.

So I mean, that's some of these we've agreed are just incidental.

We just make them things such as this one, we'll package these together and they'll go forward to the council.

Right.

Uh they choose to do what you wish.

So we'll uh we'll accept that uh Malachi's second second for that action in further discussion.

All in favor that say aye.

Any opposed moving on, thank you.

Section 3.02 residency requires um comment uh basically is asking does anyone check the qualifications?

I mean this can has come up a couple of times, I know in recent years, as far as did people reside in the district they intended to serve and for the uh appropriate period of time, you have to be there for X amount of days, months, whatever.

Um, and the question is kind of does anybody check that?

Um Mayor, you have a proof of comment?

Yeah, I'll just say this has come up a number of times, and in fact, I right now have more files coming in um about this very issue.

So my question was would there be a way because of what happened in the last election and the questions that were raised?

Would there be a way?

Should there be a way to certify that 30 days prior to that somebody that the city court would check that 30 days prior to that person actually hooked in the district?

That was my simple question about it, so that we didn't get to the point that we got to last time and it was continuing on.

Um, and do they sign an affidavit saying as much?

Um, and do they need to the other question that came up and I didn't see it, Michael?

And you might absolutely know the answer right off the top of your head, which is and do they need to remain in it the entire time they serve?

I couldn't find that in a quick review.

I would think the answer would be yes, and I know it isn't in the county because G.

Michaels got to move as a county commissioner, and right now that whatever writes.

Um, so uh I was looking for clarification on that too.

But this issue of residency and and how do we define that when you own multiple properties?

Can you just say yes?

Because I own a bunch of properties of town, so they're a resident, or is there really a way you can find out the person?

Because I own a bunch of properties or town, so they're a resident, or is there really a way you can find out in the person that they're and should the click city collectively that was the question I raised?

I can't.

Mayor, do you know what kind of form somebody fills out when you I've never run for office here, so I don't in the east of the city, but when you file for office, do you have to say something on the form or you know the information I've given you a penalty to producer, correct?

Or yeah, since I did it, but you do file an address that you you live.

I was that's why I didn't know if that was enough of an academy of the recipe.

He reads it large.

30 days prior.

It is an attestation form.

Okay, well, all right.

I guess if we're gonna have one, so with the app castation form, what does that mean?

It means that I swear in other we have some similar like that for motor registration.

I I used to take mail at some place other than where I lived and I voted in a wrong precinct for a long time.

And if I Mr.

Chair, just to answer the other question, um, I do understand from the clerk's office that there is no process to attempt to verify.

Um, to my knowledge, there has never been um you can imagine some of the challenges of the process like that, but of course that couldn't be a good discussion.

I mean you want to create by an ordinance rather than a charter permission.

I mean, why why should we go through and put it in the charter?

That to me is sort of a ministerial kind of uh if we're gonna create an office of person who makes sure that everybody isn't lying on their forms, then we got to figure out a way to uh allow an appeal from that and some other things.

But what do we agree?

Yeah, but do we just tell them here?

Do we need to specify?

Should it specify who is responsible?

Not saying the specific like I understand I agree with not prescribing the administrative pathway of enforcing it.

But who I don't see who's actually responsible for enforcing this, yeah.

Well, I'm this this thing that somebody referred to about this last booha about the fourth board or whatever.

I was I was amazed in that whole process that the people who are complaining about it never followed through with the court case.

It wasn't when you rubber meant the road, they didn't do anything.

There was some issue, but they didn't go to court, but it was under the wrong law and it got thrown out and on and on and on.

But I'm just saying that the issue here was 30 days prior, and can that be showing an ID or a home?

You know, is there any way that you check it?

And that is the question that was brought to me on this is just someone saying.

I mean, typically if you apply for a driver's license, something like that, they ask you to show a utility bill.

I can speak to that because that is my job.

Okay in Minnesota, there are three types of ID.

You don't have a star on it, you have a standard ID, and you are who you say you are, you live where you say you live.

Your driving privileges if you have any work in all 50 states, but it is not a federal ID.

We don't check it.

You can say you live under the bridge.

We don't care because it is a state level ID.

You could amend the charter to say that we require all candidates for office to have a real and or an enhanced ID.

You are who say you are, you live where you say you live.

It's something that's federally verified, and that way that is I don't actually live here domiciled by what they mean as I actually sleep in this house, which is what they use for determining census and other things like that.

Then you're messing with the fence.

You're not messing with the state, the county, the city, you're messing with the fed.

Brandon, you have a comment.

Yeah, I I just would say uh I I don't think the charter commission can get into business of enforcement.

If you would fall through all this, all kinds of other things in here that you could question where the enforcement's a legitimate question.

I don't mean that, it is, but I don't think it's an appropriate of the charter to identify who enforcement.

And I wonder too, we have to be a little careful.

We're not bringing a sledgehammer to something that needs a very nuts.

So generally it takes care of itself because if there's an opponent or somebody they check.

They bring it and then the post bulletin checks.

Fair to know it.

Mr.

Chair, is there some is there some merit to just adding a stipulation that they remain in the resident, or is that just implied by if you live there when you filed, don't have to remain there.

Is there any value to I think that would be and I have a you can't move to Florida?

You can't I've thought about this because like in my situation, I live in an apartment, right?

I don't I don't know if I'm gonna be in this apartment next year, right?

But if I run for office, like it would affect me if my apartment now is in a different board.

And what I'm saying by the it wouldn't be a technical change, but I think it'd be something we'd have to take to council uh to get that approved, but there would be challenges as more and more people are renters, and it's not necessarily within their purview to live that's so this is a bull change, but that's where I would annotate.

If it applies to a homeowner, it should apply to a renter.

You don't treat them differently.

Well, I but it's not in your power.

That's fairly happening where you run.

I mean if somebody ceased to satisfy the requirement that they would be there would be ground for removing them, right?

I can't imagine a court would say, Well, it only applies within the first day you're in office.

The rest of the time you're gonna store a go or something.

There's no need to no the language just says to hold the office, it doesn't say to get in the office.

So like I would be the interpreter comment.

Uh yes, I I do believe this is covered in section 3.08 and change of residents and really it lessens the scenarios of somebody who didn't have side of the regular side of the super and sets a timeline for okay correction and sorry just took me up good enough to I read it before I think it's fully covered in that question.

But I would cite with this one with Brett, and I would think that we should not touch it to the charter commission.

I think it should be in the ordinance.

Oh, I so leave this one alone.

This would be my recommendation.

I'll second that further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed that we will leave that one alone.

Moving down the page, section 3.03.

That's an easy one.

That's just a gender change.

Agreed.

So just for my clarity, what would you change that word to change it to bear of the APIR?

Yes.

All right.

Moving on, section 3.06, vacancy and elective office.

Um this one has confused me as well in the past when I was council chair.

It's pretty clear that in uh when the mayor is absent, the council president assumes the duties of the mayor, um, with the exception of the power to veto.

And you know, normally that's just not an issue.

The mayor's out of town, no big deal.

But what happens in a situation where it's an extended situation?

Um, God forbid the the mayor passes away, or is uh maybe live can't do perform their duties for months.

Um what happens to that authority?

So um anyway, those are some of my thoughts as I as I read through this.

I think it was a kind of a fair fair question, Mayor.

This came up because when I come out of town, it is very clear in here that when you're absent from town that the acting for chair, yeah, would act as mayor with the exception of a veto.

They do not have and it's very specific in there.

So he was clear about that.

But as we looked over this, and it's like, well, what if I die tomorrow and get hit by a car?

Does he have the authority or not?

And but we didn't have an answer, so it's I don't think anybody preference necessarily, just that is unclear.

Yeah, you know, I and I'm I'm gonna take back my previous comment a little bit.

It is more clear if if the elected official passes away, but we have had that council president and certain council members.

Um the law is clear there, it depends on how many months, years remain in their office, and then the special election process or interim appointment, whatever takes over.

Uh, I think what we're talking about now is more of a an extended absence, you know, where uh the the elected person can't serve uh during the time between when I want us to cease and about it's that too that month or two, right?

Uh so we are done last time.

So whenever we pass forward to actually section 404 and 405, it actually says during the absence of the mayor or council member due to this ability.

It says that council member at large or selected council member serving as the acting mayor shall not possess the power of the veto.

I said the section and 4.03.

So this is just sort of ties with this section.

This is a few pages farther.

And it says due to disability that even though the mayor is incapacitated in any sorry, I'm mayor, I was much more prepared that you're saying that you want the lottery now coming back to work in the right.

But you know, that that's the moment whenever you know that still council member at large do not does not possess the power to live because in my mind that targeting is very good stuff here, but I would still prefer obviously to the city attorney.

Uh Mr.

Chair, quick, yeah, quick, unless you want to go first.

Good question.

I would I would really oppose any change here because I don't like setting up a situation where the council president lost a vote and then turned around and vetoed what it passed and essentially changed the math on getting that passed.

I think we just live with no veto for six months, whatever time it takes to get the new person through.

That's a that that's kind of a double, not that a jeopardy, but that's kind of a two bites of the apple for the city council presbyter.

If he's on the short end, or if they are on the short end of it.

I mean, right, math gets convoluted if the chairperson wants to veto uh to attain the vote, but then you need a supermajority to overrule.

I mean, it gets really messy in a hurry.

Uh Mike, would you have a comment?

I don't have anything that went to the discussion so far.

So, Randy, I I would if you don't mind, I'll just add that.

I think that's a good point that was just made.

And in talking with other mayors from around the country, there are mayors who have both tiebreaker and veto.

So it is something that happens.

I don't necessarily think that's necessary to the point that was just made, but that is a thing, and it happens in many cities.

Which I was surprised to find out because I've been clear.

So okay, so following up on that, the the tiebreaker or veto authority, but then what happens if that mayor is gone for some extended period?

Who does anyone have veto authority?

No.

According to the charter, no, right?

Correct.

I'm I'm wondering what the mayor's these mayors all have votes on most mayors have votes on the council.

We are going to listen to okay.

Well, the other question that raises in my mind is uh should the acting mayor have the ability to cast a vote.

I mean, either your the acting mayor or your council member um can they pick and choose for a particular meeting?

Well, if they don't vote, then you could end up with um a bunch of tie votes.

Yeah.

Uh my personal preferences, I would leave this alone, but that's just my one opinion.

I agree.

Me too, and maybe I just be educated on it.

Because 306 and 405 seem redundant, like did one come after the other three out there, and then four after five.

I mean, they both talk about not being able to do the G.

What is what is the new one?

You mean the one that I just said about the long-term company?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But there, but the thing is this one talks about mayor, just specific chapter four talks about mayor.

This one here says about the vacancy in the office.

So where which one?

3.6 or 3.5 council member 306 talks about vacancy in the office, and it talks about specifically subdivision one mayor, subdivision two council member at large.

So, yes, but they repeat you right about the redundancy.

But I think whenever you go to four, it just starts directly about mayor only mayor.

Right, but just is it exactly the redundant but that's right, but that's what repeats basically.

And I just don't, I don't have the historical contacts to tell you like all the four came after three or anything like that.

So I'm curious if there were other ones.

I agree.

They are specific, but this seems suddenly to have a material report.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion we leave the language alone for the section.

All right, so we have a motion and a second to just leave this section as is for the discussion.

Call the question.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Section 3.1.

Um just a general comment.

Does this repeal language need to be there?

Um my opinion is yes, just because it gives you a referential tie to some previous action that uh address that topic.

And obviously, in that case, they decided to repeal it.

I don't know what said one.

I think it helps your vote in the treatment reform context.

It's just continuity for recording.

I suppose we could just um renumber 3.11 is 3.10 and move it up.

I think it'd be Michael could I guess I think that creates a lot of messiness if other people are referencing it.

And we can see that our agenda is for some reason somebody thought we get we had explained why I think the goals for 309 to 31.

Well, I think there's the at least one historical precedent years ago where the charter and the uh code of ordinances became so convoluted they did a major housekeeping and remembered everything and got rid of the the old stuff.

You could you could suggest that uh someday in the future we'll get to that point and then yeah, just go through and meetings and remember and move on.

All right.

Um I think you can just decide to do that through if I there might be one or two others that are not highlighted on I didn't highlight all of them, but it's just a question about okay, and it sounds like we'll just leave it that it maintains continuity record, um, but if in the future, if they choose to re-number resequence the document, that's when they can address that housekeeping task.

That's what they did with the commission.

I'm sorry, what they did with the preservation.

Okay, let's go to chapter five, common council, and we have uh section five.

The regular meeting are you skip?

We skip a board.

You skipped a big chapter there, Brandy.

I can make make it 4.000 that I had, and Michael's given some response to them.

So the first one is the typo.

They thought it should be the day.

That should be not a big deal.

Yeah.

Um, the rest of the context on there, um shows clarity method officers were that exclamation explanation is helpful.

So I don't think you necessarily need to address that.

The one question that has come up multiple times, and I'm going to have to leave because I'm posting an event to see name or do you want to show?

Um that's why moving things along.

Um, it has to do with um what does it describes the mayor's the CEO of this of the city, the chief magistrate or executive officer, but and it says you can look at the books and papers, and that has come under a lot of and this is a bigger question, and I'm not gonna stick around for it, but that has been challenged a lot.

The mayor can't go talk to any of the other administrators, or the mayor can.

It says the mayor can, but it says books and papers.

Does that mean in the old days that was that their finances?

Is this a historical document and books and papers met finances?

Or does the mayor in your mind have the right to talk with administrators about what they're doing in their jobs?

And right now it's being interpreted that no, the mayor is not allowed to go talk with anyone.

The mayor can't look at books and papers unless it's maybe not going to ask for their financial ones, but lead to a budget every year, and they manage the budget.

There's no reason for me to look at the books and papers.

What I would ask is what's your body work?

What are you doing?

How do you feel about this project?

And I'd be told that's off limits.

So the books and papers thing was really kind of a philosophical question.

What does this charter mean?

In this era, what does what do you expect if you're main mayor?

What is books and papers mean?

So that that's the bigger question that's left on that one.

Um if I could just mind if I just hit a couple other script before I leave or I will just say uh maybe say you could remove under absence from the city that first thread line because that's been addressed through your past conversations, which is under 4.05.

Um we've discussed that, and you're just gonna leave it as is.

So I think you could remove that first one.

Again, the next one isn't the gender update.

And I don't want that page as it's in the site, which I will just have to continue or not as you have time.

Um defining annual meeting, and Michael provide say at the annual meeting, we never we never talk about what's the annual meeting.

Um the attorney has suggested that that's the first meeting of the year, and I just think that should be clarified that the annual meeting is the first meeting of the year.

Um because it's it could be anything.

Um I think um I guess the only other one I would uh is under the common council, which has to do with this is actually one of the written ones recently.

I sent these to you has to do with uh five business days.

Well, some of the ones that I actually brought this to you are later on the document that I can't stay for, which is the five business days rather than five days because we have holidays that pop in, we have Saturdays and Sundays where not in the office or whatever.

And I just asked that that maybe that's five business days is not that significant of a change.

And the question about can they get it to you?

I would argue back that we now get things like within a few hours of the end of the meetings because of the technology and how fast we now we get stuff.

The city clerk gets it to me the next day.

It is very rare that anything takes longer than the day to get to me.

But the reason I need five days sometimes it's a if I'm not there, it's a conference they'll subject.

I need to talk to staff, sometimes they're not around, they don't have freedom, and I would like five business days to be able to reach them before I consider whether I'm signing it on the factory.

Um and if I don't do it in the five days that they get signed electronically anyway.

Um, but it gives me that five true working days to be able to iron out any of my questions answered.

So I'm sorry I have to leave.

Yeah, but I've got people.

The irony there is that you know, increased technology and how fast things are, and yet we maybe want to move it from three to five days, and it just seems a little counterintuitive.

But we missed five days and we want to keep it five days.

Right.

I just don't want Saturday right now.

It says except Sunday, and I want you to take out Saturday and Sunday, you know, holidays at five working days.

Got it.

And a bit more, and I'm sorry, I can't stay.

Thank you.

And in 4.0, I don't know if it was mentioned or not, but you do see a gender situation in that second part.

Yes.

I don't know if that was mentioned or not where and 4.0, 4.0.

The second section where it says the mayor may or the mayor shall deem necessary require all the cities and exhibit of his books and mayor papers.

So that one would be there.

So on that one, um, I understand the mayor's comments.

I I took uh Michael's comments.

He's so those tend to be a bit more generic terms, books and papers.

And that's fine because it's fairly broad papers would be for actual documents and emails and whatever else.

Um but the more generic uh or more general comment, I think that the mayor is making is taking that sentence that the mayor may, whenever they wish, require many city officer basically show their books and papers.

I don't see a problem with that.

And then again, this is just my one opinion.

The mayor, if it's it's stated in the charter that the mayor may look at that information.

I don't know why we would prohibit the mayor from doing that, especially when you have a data practice act.

But I can think of one particular document that might be out of bounds for the mayor, and that might be uh communication from the city attorney to some other city officer.

But I but I but I guess no, you you really don't represent the officer, you represent the city, so it wouldn't be a privilege if you're there, I guess.

I'm just astounded that the mayor is telling us that she is I'm not allowed to talk.

And I uh I wish that she were still here because I wanted to talk to her, ask her about that.

That's just something that strikes me as very odd that the city administrator would tell city officials that they can't talk to the mayor.

That's a problem that's not my character.

We can't micromanage that though.

That's not the well, I know we can't manage it, but but where is it?

The charter that says the mayor is not allowed to talk to the finance director.

Is it talk or sign work?

Uh sign work is not what she's complaining about, from what I understand about Malka.

I I've heard her say that she's not allowed to talk to certain people without which is where talking to the administrator.

But maybe that's the problem is maybe this is where the confusion potentially can happen, right?

That if you go to employee and you're saying, hey, can you know, I don't know, XYZ, and employee thinks that this is assigning work.

This is where the confusion potentially can happen.

Well, I I would agree that the city administrator is responsible in the chain of command, you know, to the other city to work.

So the mayor shouldn't be walking in and saying I don't care what the finance director vote here.

This is what I want you to do.

That's the administrator's job to manage that.

But it can happen as a confusion, right?

And again, I'm not saying this is 100% happening in this situation, but I don't want to go into details.

But we know there is there was a council member potential, there were issues, right?

About directing potentially staff to do things, staff was complaining that was getting work from the council member.

So again, I'm not saying that it's what's happening to the mayor, but I can see how confusion can happen.

And we'll have that for the section specifically after officers, it's just a fine goddess say that, right?

So the head of a department is my assumption here.

Without, I mean, I I think that's a different part right.

Well, there's a couple of questions embedded here, and we're kind of taking a second one first, which is the whether the mayor has the authority to look at those things.

Um I mean, the the language states that the mayor does have that authority to examine books and papers.

I don't see a problem with that.

If now if there's a um day-to-day issue of you know the mayor and any other person disagreeing on that, that's not uh an issue for the charter commission to legislate.

Well I can walk into a city into a governmental office and demand to see books and papers under the data practices act.

Sure.

So I don't know why we have to worry about whether the mayor has that right under the charter, but uh I yeah, I think the mayor does have that authority um today.

Any one of us can walk in and do a data practices request and say, I want to see everything.

And it is a discussion for not this body about what exactly that means.

But I think the issue is the general supervision and control of all the officers and departments of the city government.

That's the question.

Because anybody can walk in and say, I want to know all of this under Capricorn.

Fair Mr.

Chair, my motion that we uh uh not take any action except for the gender correction in 4.0 second.

All right, we have a motion could clarify just for my benefit, would show what we're 4.0.

Yeah, what we're changing or not there just the gender correction where it says the his subdivision two, yeah, yeah, subdivision two and and the typo um the yes.

I'm sorry, there's also a typo.

Michael can do the table.

I think Michael can probably do the gender.

I think so.

All right, we have a motion and second final comment.

Mr.

Johnson regards to the comments made by the mayor or anything leaving subs subsection two alone, just leaving it as is so 4.00.

So we're not gonna address the post papers, correct?

I thought it was uh yeah, we're we're we're we're asserting it's well explained in that.

I think it might still understand that information.

She said she understood that correctly.

That's an information question.

Is there a problem with uh the chain of command to do with those departments that have their own board directors like parks and library and I'm not looking for trouble if that's a problem area, maybe we ought to think about it.

I've been in the middle of that one.

Well, I know that one somewhat decided uh a year or so ago.

Um the independence and reporting authority.

Um it's not embedded here.

Okay, okay.

All right, all in favor of that, say aye.

All right, opposed.

That motion carries.

Um there was the absence from cities, section 4.05.

Uh basically, I think based on the mayor's comments, we've decided to leave that alone.

Yeah, uh, make the gender change in subdivision one.

In subdivision five, would it be appropriate to just say at its first meeting of a new calendar year or something that are in fact as opposed to say actually it's the first meeting after the election, isn't it?

To where no the first meeting when the new the elected officials take their oath.

That's sort of that's the way we're thinking of, right?

Well, it's the first meeting where those individuals take office, they take the oath and take office, and then you need to do these tasks.

That'd be better than a holiday.

Well, it's it's a its first regular meeting of the of the new year is when this this happens to be in January now because that's the way we schedule our terms law, right?

Yeah.

Michael.

Mr.

Chair, um, if if I may have to make it more complicated, but what that subdivision five is really referencing is something that is laid out in the council rules um and code of conduct, which is not reviewed in January, typically, and um there's a I think we would have a bit of reluctance to open up that topic with people who have just been sworn into office at their first meeting.

Um, so I'm just telling you that in part that specific issue of an order of succession um has been part of the council rules discussion that typically has been closer to the spring time or as prompted by the body.

So that would beg the question just strike the words at its annual meeting, and then just say the common council shall establish order of succession, blah blah blah.

I would say from my perspective, that that is probably a good suggestion.

We have the council rules that are in place until they change.

Um, so they they would be ongoing and be in place and set the order of succession.

I mean, it still states that the council sets that order of succession, but just not putting up specific time element to it.

Agreed, Mr.

Chair.

Do you feel that'd be a technical change that or is that substantive that we could just make or um I'll uh I'll look to Michael does this uh above the bar or I would say it's probably slightly above the bar, and if we're taking other things to the body, I would probably just include that one for their approval.

Yes, this will turn into a motion, amend section 4.5, 175 to read.

Council members at large absence or disability and adopt it as part of their council rules and procedures.

We want to make sure that if they have it, the there should put it in, putting it pen to paper, publish it.

Well, I see a real problem with not defining when the annual meeting is because what happens if uh somebody gets sworn in and uh two weeks later we have a vacancy, and now we've got this problem with the order of succession, and uh I I'm not saying Michael that the what the council does now is wrong.

I'm just saying that if you if you don't create a definite date in here somewhere along the way, you're you're leaving a gap.

My thought was the annual meeting was the first one they had after the election, or where were the people who are born in character there is not a gap because the council rules and code of conduct remain in place for the new council unless and until they're changed.

So they've already established uh an order of succession previously, so we don't even need to have one.

Well, I think the order of succession, um that that's pretty well encapsulated.

So let's say we have um a vacancy on the council, president council member.

Um it's already established how that succession works.

In other words, if it's the council president, then the council needs to uh determine an interim individual and then other rules kick in as far as special election.

Um I'm just talking about how they how the language reads it says at its annual meeting at the end at its annual meeting, the council should do something.

Well, if they're not doing it at the annual meeting, should we have a language that says when they do it, or should we just ignore it in the sense that we don't have to have that language at all?

Since the council always has its rules that it establish an order of succession all the time.

Where you could add on to that, you know, per the council's rules of operation or whatever that official title is that just references that document after you can read does the city attorney does the attorney have some specific language on how we'd word that trailing language at the end?

Probably it would read something along the lines of part of the for the newly adopted city council rules and code of conduct.

I will make sure that I have that exact title.

Yeah, whatever the official currency is.

Because it that has changed over time too.

Um, in the in the case of uh an absent this council president is absent.

That has changed it now.

It's based on I don't even know what's based on now.

It's based on whoever the ward is and it's and the number of the month, you know, January March.

So it's kind of convoluted now.

I think is it close enough to make a motion to strike the first four words and add the language that city attorney is comfortable with at the very end?

Yeah, and said this.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't know.

I'd like to make that motion then.

All right, motion and a second vote in further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed that motion carried.

Okay, Mr.

Chair, I'll just Mr.

Chair.

Before you move on to the next section, I don't think we need to deal with this today, but there is actually floating point zero five a substantive question that has been causing some challenges for us.

Again, I think we don't need to address it today.

Um, and it may be at 227 question.

Um defining the absence of the mayor um has actually been a point of interpretation and at times confusion.

Um so just signaling to you that probably next year makes more sense to address the topic, but I think we could use some additional guidance.

Are you talking about somebody trying to appear by Zoom or something like that or what?

Yeah, well, the the plain language really suggests that if the mayor is literally out of the city limits, they are not available and you need to accommodate succession and the council president.

But yeah, but I mean nowadays so many people do things by remote, right?

That's why we sure it's exactly, but where that line is how what we consider to be unavailable, um, has been a point of some disagreement.

Okay, and I would say the importance of us creating the record and a process to make that decision so that we know um who we are going to in the event that the mayor is not available or are we trying to assess that on the fly?

Is the mayor actually unavailable and we should be going to the balance of the president.

Recollection when I was city attorney for a couple couple of places is that there's a process under the law where a city council member can participate in a meeting electronically without being physically present in the room, is there or not?

Yeah, if there's notice given and uh this person is present at a certain place, uh yes, I would suggest a very different topic.

Okay, but yes, okay.

Well, that's all right.

Um, I want to do a quick time check here because we've got five more sections to go through and we're coming up to six o'clock.

Um how much further do you want to go?

And I mean, I don't know that any of these are so urgent that they have to we have to go through all of them today.

And that was my ask.

I I know yeah I have we have to go well.

I have to go and pick up my child.

I have to go to the mayor's meeting down at the Heinz Center.

I'll continue this market.

Thank you.

Okay, now I can second this vermologist.

Yes, on the previous one.

Yes, yes.

Yep.

Okay, and so now we have a motion to continue until our next meeting.

Uh this discussion.

So well, that that begs the question.

Are we going traditionally we've not met on July?

Um, that's the call of the commission.

If you want to meet, we can.

If not, we won't see each other until the fall.

I don't I don't think this is pressing at all.

Yeah, call's fine.

Everyone's busy in July.

Yeah, I'm not in September.

We had agreed, that's when Walt's topic of boundaries then we'll bring that up.

So we can start it then.

Sure.

So we'll uh continue this item uh until September meeting.

Um with starting chapter five, and um and then also are we agreeing that we will cancel the July meeting you got World Cup coming.

We have to uh give ourselves a little bit.

Okay, if that's it, do we need a motion to adjourn then?

Well we gotta motion floor.

Sorry.

There's uh there's a motion to continue this item until September.

Is there a second?

Second or with the second.

Uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

That motion carry.

Now I move that we cancel our meeting in July.

Second.

I think we already have second.

All right, we have that motion and second.

Any discussion on that?

All in favor, say aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Now we're back to, I don't know that there's any other business for today.

So now we would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I'll move to adjourn.

Motion the second to adjourn.

All in favor.

Thank you.