Music

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, if you can please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Treat?

Here.

Commissioner Snell?

Here.

Commissioner Abouche is absent.

Commissioner Middleton?

Here.

Commissioner Hayes?

Here.

Commissioner Bell?

Here.

Commissioner Mouses?

Here.

Commissioner Bagley is currently absent.

Commissioner Christie?

Present.

Commissioner Few?

Present.

Vice Chair Morris?

Here.

Commissioner Garcia?

Here.

And Chair Hefner?

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Excellent.

So all members of the public are welcome to address the commission as we're here to provide

a public forum.

However, public comment made during this meeting must be specifically addressed the agendized

item of discussion.

Off-topic public comment or comment beyond the jurisdiction of this commission will be ruled

out of order and speakers will be asked to return to the topic at hand or yield the floor to the

next speaker.

I would ask members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda

item, please turn in a speaker slip no later than when the item begins.

You'll have two minutes to speak once you're called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We'll now proceed with today's agenda starting with a land acknowledgement and pledge led

by Commissioner Garcia.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands.

To the original people of the land, the Nisan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains,

Miwok, Puntun, Wintun peoples, and the peoples of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only

federally recognized tribe, may we acknowledge and honor the native people who come before us.

and still walk beside us today in these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active

practice of acknowledgement, appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' histories,

contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which

it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Excellent.

So we will start with, as the custom of this commission is, when we have a new member, we

introduce the new member.

We welcome Julia Hayes to the commission.

Julie, you want to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what prompted you to join us?

Yes.

Hi, everybody.

I'm very happy to be joining you all today and on this commission.

I was born and raised in Sacramento.

Currently work in the state legislature.

But I feel like my main passion lies with animals and animal welfare.

And that's what prompted me to run growing up in Sacramento.

You know, being very passionate about our city's ability to be able to provide for our shelter,

be able to provide the best outcomes and circumstances for our pets and our ability to care for them.

And I'm very happy and honored and privileged to be on this commission.

And, yeah, very happy to be here.

Excellent.

Excellent.

Well, welcome.

Welcome.

And I will say that many people have worked in the legislature and gone on to live normal lives afterwards.

Yeah.

So just, you know.

Not everybody.

Not all of us.

Not all of us.

So our first order of business today is approval of the consent calendar.

Do we have any public speakers on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

We have no public speakers for the consent.

Excellent.

Are there members who want to be heard on the consent calendar items?

Yes.

Seeing and hearing none.

Commissioner will take a motion on the consent calendar if somebody likes to move to the consent calendar.

So vote.

Motion by Member Treat.

Second.

Second by Member Garcia.

Voice vote on the consent calendar.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Hearing none.

Aye's have it.

And we will move on.

We will now move on to the discussion calendar.

Item number three, which would be the rules and procedures overview.

I believe Mr. Vanderlinden is going to help us with this.

I will say when I started this group with this group a year ago, we had seven members, I believe.

We were, we operated under an entirely different name and an entirely different ordinance.

And now we're, as of tonight, we're 13, I believe.

I may have to take off my shoes to count everybody.

But I think we're 13 and operating under different circumstances.

I am reminded of having once attended a session about group dynamics.

And the instructor told us that whenever the membership of a group changes, you go through a three-step process, which the instructor described as storming, norming, and performing.

So in the interest of helping us move forward on that process, I did have a discussion with Mr. Vanderlinden of the city attorney's office, who graciously offered to present an overview of the commission's rules and procedures.

So I'm hopeful that this presentation will prove helpful as we continue to work together.

Mr. Vanderlinden, I believe you have a PowerPoint.

Oh, boy.

Okay, there we go.

Excellent.

All right.

Hello, everybody.

So for those of you who don't know me or we haven't been formally introduced, my name is Carson Vanderlinden.

I'm with the, I'm a deputy city attorney for the city of Sacramento.

And among other things, I serve as general counsel for animal care services.

And I sit on the animal well-being commission in order to provide the commission with legal advice when and where necessary.

I wanted to start off first by thanking each of you for your time and your commitment to doing the work on this commission.

Your involvement and your engagement helps to make the important work of the animal well-being commission possible.

And it just couldn't get done without you.

So thank you sincerely.

Because of the recent influx of new commission members and increased attendance of audience members to these meetings,

I thought it might be prudent to do a quick training presentation where we could together review some of the important law surrounding commission meetings,

their conduct, expectations, and different tools that are at our disposal.

So hopefully you find it helpful.

All right.

So topics we're going to cover, and I'm going to go as quickly as possible because I know we're super busy.

It's designed to provide a very general overview of these few topics for the conduct of commission meetings.

First, we're going to go over the scope of the commission and its subject matter jurisdiction.

Then we're going to go over a little bit of the basics of the Brown Act because this is a Brown Act body.

Then we're going to move on to public comment rules and procedures, different aspects of parliamentary procedure, the council rules of procedure, and then a little bit on the Political Reform Act.

So what is this thing that we call the Animal Well-Being Commission?

Talking about what exactly the commission is designed to do or its subject matter jurisdiction is a great place for us to kind of start off,

just so we're all kind of on the same page, both members and the public.

So what is the subject matter jurisdiction?

What is the scope of the AWC?

So let's run through it together, and I'll do a quick review of this in a bit also when we cover public comment.

For those of you that are curious, the commission's purpose is laid out in great detail in Sacramento City Code Section 2.86,

.030.

Okay.

So scope of the Animal Well-Being Commission.

First we have this.

The commission is established for the purpose of providing advice and recommendations to the city council on strategies, policies,

and programs designed to ensure and enhance animal care services provided by the city of Sacramento.

That includes assisting people and their pets staying together, caring for animals held in city facilities,

providing low-cost spay and neuter services,

helping front street shelter meet or exceed industry standards.

The commission should also promote the awareness of programs at the city's Animal Care Services Center,

animals available for adoption, the importance of spay and neuter,

the importance of pet medical care, vaccines, et cetera, and the volunteer program.

And then lastly, the commission is to serve as community liaisons and as a public forum.

We are to advise the city council on ordinances and state legislation and make reports and recommendations to the city council

regarding animal well-being strategies, programs, and services.

So now that we have an idea of subject matter, jurisdiction, and scope in mind, let's go on to the Brown Act.

So the most important piece of legislation controlling the work that you do as a commission,

and every city commission does, is called the Brown Act.

This is a state law that dictates how public meetings are supposed to be run.

So here's the kind of the quick history of how public meetings in California kind of became what they are today.

So Michael Harris, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle,

learned that local public agencies were routinely barring reporters and citizens from supposedly open meetings.

And this was occurring in city and county governments, on school boards, and even irrigation districts.

And this was a problem that was sort of popping up everywhere.

So in 1952, Harris wrote an award-winning 10-part series entitled Your Secret Government,

which caught the attention of the legislature.

And the result was that we got an open meetings law in 1953, authored by Assemblyman Ralph Brown,

hence the name we give it today, the Brown Act.

So a little bit of history there for you.

The Brown Act states that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business

and should be conducted and have deliberation that happens publicly.

So all meetings of legislative bodies shall be open in public.

All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body.

And the basic idea behind the Brown Act is that the public's business should be conducted in public, right?

The right to access is broad, with information and processes being available, open, and transparent.

The act emphasizes the importance of the people and their role in validating the government

rather than the government's role in having kind of power over people.

So the act applies to all meetings, regardless of whether any official action is even taken there.

And that includes this commission.

So a quick review of legislative bodies.

So what is a legislative body?

Well, that includes the council, it includes their subcommittees,

and any bodies created by the city council, such as this commission.

It also includes, you know, appointed bodies, like the Animal Wellbeing Commission,

in addition to all city boards, commissions, committees, et cetera.

Standing committees count as well, but note that ad hoc committees do not technically count as Brown Act bodies.

And then we have a quick aside on ad hoc committees.

So these are formed by the chair during a public meeting, who will also appoint its members.

Can't have more than a quorum of the commission as members for an ad hoc committee.

Must have a limited purpose, focusing on a specific task or a specific issue.

They can't exist for more than a year.

And they can't have a meeting schedule that's fixed by the commission.

Members cannot discuss ad hoc business with commission members who are not on the ad hoc,

except at a public meeting.

The ad hoc cannot speak for the commission.

They are only permitted to advise the commission.

And when the ad hoc's business is concluded or when it expires,

it has to provide a summary and a report to the commission,

basically describing what it did and what it accomplished.

And then we also have an administrative policy for ad hoc committees that you can see for more details.

If you have trouble finding it, I can definitely provide that for you.

Okay.

Okay.

So meetings of legislative bodies.

2008 legislation kind of gave it a pretty broad definition.

So the prior definition focused on a collective concurrence.

And that was a court decision that appeared to allow any and all serial deliberations among a majority of members,

so long as no decision is actually reached.

So council members could argue, oh, no, you know, we didn't have a collective concurrence.

See next week's meeting where we take the vote, right?

But that's clearly not adhering to the spirit of the Brown Act.

Thus, now it's important to know that a meeting can take many forms.

It can be by email.

It can be by text.

So also, for example, retreats, workshops, team building activities,

those can all count as meetings depending on the context.

And we'll go into a little bit of an example here.

So lots of activities could constitute an improper meeting.

A quorum of the legislative body shall not, outside a meeting,

pursue a series of communications of any kind directly or through intermediaries

to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the agency's jurisdiction.

A serial meeting is a series of communications,

each of which involves less than a quorum,

but when you take it as a whole, involves a majority of the members.

The problem with serial meetings is the process,

which deprives the public of an opportunity for meaningful participation

in legislative body decision-making.

So again, we're trying to stay with the spirit of the Brown Act there.

So one way, for example, you can see on your screen is the daisy chain.

That's when one member communicates to another member regarding the business of the legislative body,

and then that second member expresses to another member,

who in turn expresses such to another member,

until eventually a majority of members have discussed

and possibly established a preferred course of action regarding the business.

So you see that example there in the yellow.

Green Lantern talks to Batman.

Batman talks to Superman.

Superman talks to Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman talks to the Flash.

Eventually, they have sort of a majority of them making a decision outside of the public eye,

and that is not okay.

A second way is a spoke and hub,

and is when one member or staff, person, or intermediary

shares information to individual members by expressing preferences to a majority of members.

So again, this can be done in person, virtually, by text, or email.

So it's important to keep in mind that if we're doing commission business,

we should make sure that it is open and public.

Okay.

There are also exceptions to the meeting rule.

A purely social or ceremonial occasion,

it's okay as long as agency business isn't being discussed.

A conference, that's fine as long as the conference is open to the public,

it involves issues of interest to the agency,

and members of the body don't discuss among themselves issues within the agency's subject matter jurisdiction.

Community meeting, also fine, so long as it's open and publicized,

and there's no discussion of issues not on the agenda,

like candidate meetings, meetings of environmental groups, etc.

Meetings of other legislative bodies,

so for example, if members of the commission were to go to a city council meeting,

again, that's going to be fine,

as long as there's no discussion out.

Meeting is open and noticed,

and there's no discussion of issues not on the agenda.

So remember, when it comes to wondering, you know,

is this meeting going to be okay, is it not?

Remember, perception is reality.

If you saw the whole city council going out to dinner together,

and they're talking quietly at a back table,

you know, would you assume that they were talking about city business?

Probably.

So in those kinds of situations, we may have a Brown Act problem.

So just good to keep in mind.

Okay.

Notices and agendas.

So for a regular meeting,

annually, commission calendars are adopted

that state the time and place for holding regular meetings.

Regular meeting agendas, per the Brown Act,

are posted 72 hours in advance,

but the city has a sunshine ordinance

that requires additional transparency,

so we actually have to post our agendas 120 hours in advance.

Special meetings can always be called when they're necessary

for the conduct of the city's business,

but notice has to be given at least 24 hours

before the time of the special meeting.

Anything other than a regular meeting

is considered a special meeting.

Agendas must state the location of the meeting

and a brief description of each item,

and the commission can't discuss or take action

on any item that is not on the agenda.

Okay.

And then just a note for everybody,

upcoming and archived past meeting agendas and videos

are all going to be online for the benefit of the public as well.

Okay.

So now before we have a short discussion on public comment,

we have some Parks and Rec wisdom from Leslie Knope.

Animal well-being commissions typically don't,

meetings typically don't involve problems with extreme yelling or shouting,

unlike city council meetings, unfortunately.

But maybe this quote will resonate with some commission members nonetheless.

Hopefully the public and the commission can benefit from the reminder

that everyone here on either side of the dais

is present because of their commitment to and love for animals.

People care.

Sometimes people care loudly, and that's okay.

And in the following slides,

I hope to explain some ways that we can keep energetic public participation

in these commission meetings productive, useful, and in line with the rules.

All right.

So discussing the public's place on the agenda.

One of the most important jobs of the Brown Act

is to protect the public's right to attend, observe,

and to participate in public meetings like this.

So every agenda must allow for public comment on every agenda item

and on non-agenda items.

Members of the public must have the opportunity to speak on an item

before it is voted on, and the body can set time limits for speakers,

and the chair has the authority to limit or extend time limits

if those time limits are consistently applied.

And this is among several other important requirements

that I have listed in my notes here.

The public cannot be required to identify themselves

when they're making public comment.

A meeting must be held in an accessible location like this.

No actions by secret ballot are allowed, so that has to be public.

The public has a right to review agendas

and other documents distributed to a majority of the body.

The public can record the meeting,

although we have it recorded as well.

The meeting cannot be held in a facility

that prohibits attendance based on race, religion, nationality,

age, sex, or disability.

That's not a problem here.

And members of the public cannot be required

to pay or register their names or other information

to attend a meeting.

However, the Brown Act also makes clear

that the legislative body may remove persons from a meeting

who willfully interrupt the proceedings.

Okay.

Now on to public comment on matters not on the agenda.

The council rules of procedure,

which are the rules that we have to abide by here,

state that each speaker gets two minutes per item

and the consent calendar is considered one item

and may speak on a total of four items per meeting.

So that amounts to eight minutes.

Time can be extended or limited

as long as that is consistently applied to all public comment.

So for example, when the city council was discussing the budget,

there were over a hundred speakers

that all wanted to address the city council.

The mayor had to limit the speakers to one minute each

and that was okay because it was consistently applied.

During the redistricting discussion though,

commission only had 10 speakers

and the topic was super duper complex.

And so the chair extended the time to five minutes

for each person to give them enough time.

So that kind of illustrates the principle.

It can be expanded or restricted

depending on the situation if it's applied evenly.

Quick note, non-English speakers get twice the time

in order to allow for their comment to be translated.

Okay.

So quickly, I'll just re-go over kind of the scope of the AWC

as it relates to the appropriate scope of public comment.

So public comment is permitted to discuss topics

that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the AWC

so long as it actually addresses the agendized item.

At the end of the agenda,

there's always going to be an opportunity

for the discussion of items not on the agenda.

And at that point, any public comment can address any item

still related to the subject matter jurisdiction

of the Animal Wellbeing Commission.

So what exactly is the subject matter of the jurisdiction?

What is the scope?

We saw previously, we had our city council,

my apologies, our city code providing us

with the powers and duties of the commission.

And just a quick note here on public comment.

So as you'll recall from a previous slide,

the public's permitted to make comment

during commission meetings on all the topics

that I've stated because they are part

of the AWC's subject matter jurisdiction

or the things that the commission is designed to discuss.

However, in the interests of efficiency and of fairness,

the chair is required to keep any public comment

to those topics specifically and to redirect

or even stop any public comment that is either,

A, outside of the commission's subject matter jurisdiction,

or B, not discussing the agendized item

that is being considered, right?

So this helps to ensure that the meetings here

are a productive use of time and taxpayer resources.

It also helps to make clear for the general public

which legislative bodies are actually responsible

for various city policy decisions.

So these rules kind of help to make sure

that the wires of accountability aren't getting crossed.

So for example, the Animal Wellbeing Commission

has no legal authority to determine ACS's staffing

or to advise the city council

on specific staffing or hiring decisions.

So this means that public comment

about specific ACS staffing decisions

or about individual ACS staff members

unrelated to their job performance

regarding a specific item up for discussion

are inappropriate topics for public comment

in the context of these commission meetings.

City council meetings would be a more appropriate forum

for those comments because unlike the AWC,

they actually have the power to address

those kinds of concerns.

All this to say, public participation

and public comment is totally fantastic

and should be encouraged so long as it's actually

addressing the item on the agenda up for discussion

and is within the subject matter jurisdiction

and scope of the commission.

Public comment that might not be appropriate

for this setting because it's off topic

might be perfectly acceptable

and welcome in a more appropriate forum.

Okay.

Moving on.

For parliamentary rules of order,

the City of Sacramento commissions

follow Rosenberg's rules of order

and that can be found online as well.

The city council has officially adopted

these rules as a format that they

and all city boards and commissions have to use.

So here we have the basics of quorum,

the role of the chair,

and the three big motions.

So a quorum.

The minimum number of members required

to be present to legally hold a meeting is a quorum.

That's typically a majority of the members.

A majority is going to be more than half

or 50% rounded up to the next whole number.

The role of the chair is to lead and conduct the meeting,

ensure that all voices are heard.

The chair is to announce the agenda item,

number and title,

and invite the appropriate person

to report on the item.

They are to invite commission members

to ask technical questions and clarifications.

The chair will call on appointees to speak,

which is established by queuing up

the speaker button on the dais

or by raising one's hand in Zoom,

and in this case, we are in person.

Invite public comment.

Invite a motion and second from the appointees.

Clarify the motion

and invite discussion on the motion.

When discussion is complete,

ask for a vote

and then announce the results of the vote.

So in general,

motions are the method

for commissions to be making decisions.

A motion shall always be supported

by two appointees,

one who first moves the motion,

I move to,

and another who seconds the motion.

So to move and to second

is simply a verbal statement

to officially support the idea of a motion

so that it may be discussed.

There's also a motion to amend,

aka a friendly amendment.

That's offered by an appointee

to amend a basic motion.

So this would be for the purpose

of clarifying or enhancing the first motion.

So if the appointees who moved

and seconded the first motion

agree to the amendment,

then that new language

becomes a part of that first motion.

And then finally,

we have a substitute motion.

That's a completely different motion.

So the ideas in a substitute motion

are not similar to the previous motions

in its potential course of action.

So the intent of a substitute motion

is to completely do away with prior motions

and present something new.

So you can have up to three motions on the table

and then you vote on the most recent.

Okay.

So let's look at how many affirmative votes

are needed to pass an item.

Very few commissions require

just a simple majority of affirmative votes.

This is the base standard for passing an item.

As provided in formal parliamentary procedures,

a simple majority is either

more than half of the membership

or the members present at the meeting.

This is presented for information only

as it does not apply

to most of the city's commissions.

So some commissions require

a set number of affirmative votes.

This number is a majority

of the total number of seats of the commission.

This set number guarantees

that a majority of the commission

is always required to approve an item.

It's important that a commission

has a sufficient number of seats filled

to ensure that an affirmative vote is possible.

And we don't have a problem

with that right now here.

And a set number of votes

is common for quasi-judicial commissions,

which is not the case here.

So we need a majority of members

present in voting.

So this applies to the city's

remaining commissions.

As long as a quorum is maintained,

majority of the members present

and eligible or qualified to vote

is needed to affirmatively pass an item.

So the number of votes needed for passage

can change depending on the number

of members present.

So for example, commission of seven

has a quorum of four.

If seven members are present,

the votes needed for passage would be four.

If four members are present,

which would still be a quorum,

the votes needed for passage would be three.

It's important to recognize

the number needed for passage can change,

right, depending on the amount of people

who show up to a meeting.

The departmental staff coordinator and chair

are responsible to ensure a proper vote count,

yes or no.

Simply stated,

yes is a vote in the affirmative

and no is a vote in the negative.

An abstention is a no position vote

used when an appointee has an unwavering bias

with an issue.

Appointees have the right to abstain

in place of a yes or no vote.

However, in its abstention,

could very likely hinder the passage of an item.

The city, as a matter of policy,

usually discourages appointees from abstaining

as a method of voting,

as it's the city's expectation

that appointees commit to making decisions

for the greater good,

even when personally difficult for the appointee.

And then recusal.

So recusal is required

when an appointee has an actual

personal financial conflict

with an agendized issue.

A recusal is stated openly

to the public

at the start of the item

or at the beginning of the meeting,

depending,

with a general description

of the financial conflict.

This information is recorded

in the meeting minutes.

The appointee then completely exits

the hearing room

for the duration of the item.

A recusal is going to be treated

as an absence.

A quorum of the remaining appointees

has to be maintained,

though,

in order to hear an item.

And we'll talk a little bit more

at the end of the presentation

about conflicts.

And then a tie vote

renders a motion denied.

No pass.

So I'm going to cover

courtesy and decorum.

So it's up for the chair

to ensure that all voices,

appointees,

staff,

members of the public,

are heard.

It's always best

for only one person at a time

to have the floor.

And it's always best

for every speaker

to first be recognized

by the chair

before continuing to speak.

The chair should always ensure

that debate and discussion

of an item

focus on the item

and the policy in question.

Debate on policy is healthy.

Debate on personalities is not.

The chair has the right

to cut off discussion

that is not appropriate

or related to the agendized

item of discussion.

In the interest of time,

but not at the expense

of open and free discussion,

the chair is allowed

to limit the time

allotted to speakers.

And we've already gone

over those rules previously.

Okay.

So now we'll move

into discussing decorum

and proper etiquette

in chambers

with a bit more detail.

So these rules come

from the council rules

of procedure,

which I stated before

are required to be followed.

Everyone involved

in these meetings,

members,

the chair,

staff,

audience members

are all required

to abide by these rules.

And they can always

be referenced online

if there's ever a question

about which rules apply.

So the CRP rules

currently on screen,

specifically outline

some of the relevant rules

for members,

and I can go over those now,

making sure to treat each other,

staff,

and members of the public

with dignity,

courtesy,

and respect,

being attentive to others,

limiting interruptions

and distractions,

encouraging dissent

and debate

while being mindful

not to prolong discourse

or block consensus,

present problems

in a way

that promote discussion

and resolution,

and work to build trust

with one another.

Then we have some specific rules

relating to member conduct

on the commission,

remembering to treat each other

and everyone

with courtesy

and refrain

from inappropriate behavior

or any derogatory comments,

and also to preserve

general order

and decorum,

which includes

not delaying,

interrupting,

disturbing members

while they're speaking,

things like that.

And then finally,

we have rules

for member-staff interactions.

So members are required

to treat staff professionally

and to refrain

from publicly criticizing

individual employees.

And pursuant to this requirement,

members are asked

to discuss directly

with the city attorney,

city auditor,

city clerk,

city manager,

city treasurer,

or director of the office

a public safety accountability

as appropriate

any displeasure

with their department

or staff.

So for example,

just using myself,

if a member of this commission

were to take issue

with my job performance

as a staff member

sitting on the commission meetings

and one of the members

didn't think

that I was doing my job correctly

of providing legal advice

to the commission,

the appropriate action

per the council rules

or procedure

would be to bring that up

with my boss,

Susanna,

the city attorney.

It would not be

the correct move

to air those same criticisms

during a public meeting.

So this ties in nicely

with my point earlier

about making sure

that the wires

of accountability

don't end up getting crossed

and that any criticisms

we have of staff

are aired at the appropriate

place and time

where they will be effective.

Okay.

Decorum and chambers

regarding disruptions.

The purpose of the legislative

body meeting

is to conduct

the city's business.

If there are disruptions

or interruptions

that prevent the body

from conducting its business

in an orderly

and efficient fashion,

the council rules

of procedure address

how that situation

is going to be handled.

So it says above here

government code

and the council rules

of procedures

kind of address these.

members of the body

conducting the meeting

are allowed to clear the room

to continue the meeting

if discussions

hinder the body

in conducting the business.

However,

members of the media

who were not part

of the disruption

must be allowed

to return to the meeting.

This is if there's

a significant disruption

for members of the audience.

Okay.

An important overarching principle

to remember here,

it's not personal,

it's just business.

We're all required

to uphold the rules,

both chair and members

and the audience,

so we can get

the city's business done.

So it is the affirmative duty

of the presiding officer

of the Animal Wellbeing Commission

to maintain order

by enforcing the rules

contained in the CRP

and Rosenberg's

rules of order.

All AWC members

are required

to both follow

and actively uphold

these rules

in cases of non-compliant

behavior

by either members

or the public.

Okay.

So,

a CRP rule

has been

or is being violated.

What do I do?

So,

let's say

a meeting

of this commission

is taking place.

You have a strong suspicion

that another member,

an audience member,

is speaking in a way

that you feel

is violating a CRP rule.

What do you do next?

What steps can you take

in order to bring

the commission

back into compliance

with the rules

so it can fulfill

its mission?

So,

what you would do

is you would make

a point of order.

It's a procedural tool

that is a helpful

and polite way

of requesting

that the chair

and the commission

take action

to bring the proceedings

back on track.

Oh,

sorry.

There you go.

So,

for those of you

that need a refresher,

I'll go over the procedure.

Okay.

So,

any member

may politely

and calmly say

point of order

as an interruption.

So,

at that point,

the chair

would say,

state your point,

member blank.

Then the member

would go ahead

and state their reasoning.

So,

an appropriate

point of order

is typically

going to relate

to anything

that would not

be considered

an appropriate

conduct of the meeting

and it's usually

bolstered significantly

when you actually

accompany it

by a citation

to a specific

council rule

of procedure.

Right?

Then the chair

will make a ruling

on whether

it's well taken

or not

and then

the member

or the audience member

that was the subject

of the motion

is bound by it

and must correct

non-compliant

conduct accordingly.

However,

if that member

disagrees

with the ruling

of the chair,

they are allowed

to appeal

that ruling

and if that motion

is seconded

and after debate

it passes

by a simple

majority vote,

then the ruling

of the chair

is deemed reverse

and is no longer

binding.

Okay.

So,

here I have

a slide

for some

common points

of order

that you might

reference.

Very non-exhaustive

list.

So,

for example,

a member

is interrupting

another member,

staff,

or a public

commenter

without being

duly recognized

by the chair,

members violating

a CRP decorum

rule,

members acting

outside of

proper procedure,

maybe a public

commenter is discussing

an individual staff

member outside

the scope

of their job

performance,

maybe a public

commenter is off

topic from

the agendized

item,

or maybe an

audience member

is speaking

out of turn

and disrupting

the meeting

or engaging

in other sorts

of inappropriate

behavior,

et cetera,

et cetera.

I think you guys

get the idea.

Okay.

So,

just as a reminder,

utilizing these

procedural tools

is a helpful

and respectful

way to ensure

that the commission

can conduct

its business

in an orderly

and efficient

fashion.

It also helps

keep these

animal well-being

commissions

in compliance

with the law

because the CRP

rules are

mandatory.

All right.

Excellent.

Okay.

So,

Political Reform Act.

This is an effort

towards transparency

of information

in the political

process.

So,

this initiative

was spearheaded

in response

to the fallout

from Watergate

and Nixon's

resignation

and all

of the problems

that were recognized

as a result

of that

and wanting

to bring

more transparency

into government.

The law,

among other reforms,

requires public

officials who

routinely participate

in decision-making

to disclose

personal financial

holdings.

The purpose

of disclosure

allows the public

to monitor

the actions

of officials

in comparison

to their financial

holdings

to ensure

that the official

has no financial

benefit

in the decision-making

process.

Okay.

So,

conflict of interest

statements

are required

30 days

after appointment

and leaving

and annually

on April 30th

and you should

have received

a link to Netfile

which is our

online filing system

and then these

are posted online

so that anyone

can review them.

An official

may not influence

or participate

in a decision

when there is

a financial

or strong

personal interest

in a particular

issue.

Public officials

must disclose

their relevant

personal financial

interests.

You may not

receive

or agree

to receive

anything of value

or advantage

in exchange

for a decision

that you make.

It's reportable

once you hit

the $50 mark.

So,

that would be

like getting coffee

10 times,

right?

And then at,

yes,

and then there,

when it comes

to receiving gifts,

there's a $520

gift limit.

So,

think like,

I don't know,

Box King tickets,

something like that.

Recusal from

participation is

required if there's

a material

financial interest.

Violations include

invalidating any

action taken,

getting a

misdemeanor,

civil penalties,

fines of $5,000,

all nasty stuff.

You don't want

to do that.

So,

what do you do

if you think

you might have

a conflict?

Just call me

or email me.

I'm available

and we can figure

it out,

right?

We can get to

the bottom of it.

Commission meetings

in progress

are usually not

appropriate times

to bring up

these issues

for the first time.

So,

you should all

have my email

and office phone

information already.

If you don't,

I can provide that

to you.

And if you think

that there may be

a conflict,

let's chat about it.

So,

if a conflict

to a particular

issue is confirmed

by me

after you've asked,

then at that point,

you are required

to disqualify yourself,

aka a recusal,

from participating

with a specific item.

You are required

to state your conflict

openly for the record.

And then you are required

to physically exit

the meeting room

until the item

is concluded,

at which point

you can return.

So,

if a conflict

is perceived only,

which means,

you know,

your participation

is legal,

but maybe you

don't find it

like personally ethical,

you're having a problem

with it,

that's known

as a personal bias.

And in those circumstances,

you're at liberty

to personally

excuse yourself

or to abstain.

However,

you're not required

to leave

in that instance.

So,

as stated above,

contact me

before the meeting

if you have questions

or want to discuss

a potential conflict.

My door is always

open to you guys.

Okay.

There are additional

resources included

in the staff report.

So,

those should be

available to you.

There's also

some helpful resources

with the League of Cities.

One of them

is Open in Public,

which is a guide

to the Ralph Brown Act.

That's a helpful resource

just for learning

about the operation

of public bodies generally.

And then,

the City of Sacramento

Council Rules of Procedure

are also always

a good thing

to check as well.

Thank you for your time.

I'm available

for any questions

regarding the Brown Act

or anything else

if you are interested.

Thank you.

Do we have any

public speakers

on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we do have

one speaker.

Julie?

So, I'm not sure

if this is appropriate

or not.

Can I ask

just for a little

clarification

on a few of the points

you raised?

Is that...

I'm not a member

of the Commission.

I'm sorry.

I can't respond.

Okay.

Okay.

So,

there was just

a couple...

I guess I'll just

have to contact you.

I just had a couple

questions of clarification

just how things

are supposed to go.

But if I can't ask

a question,

I can't ask...

Maybe I can ask Paul?

I don't know.

I'm just wondering,

you know,

just some of the decorum

that he spoke about.

For instance,

one of the things

I would love to be able

to do with some

of the new members

is reach out

to you individually

to have meetings

with you.

We represent

an advocacy group

in Sacramento

that has been

following Front Street

and cares deeply

about animals.

And we welcome you,

new members,

to the board.

Thank you so much

for being here.

I know it's a big

commitment of time

and energy.

But I guess

my question was,

and maybe I can call

the attorney and ask him,

is if it's okay

if we reach out to you

and say,

hey,

would you be willing

to meet with us

for coffee

and just to talk

about animals?

So anyhow,

that was my question,

but I can't really

ask them of the attorney.

But thank you so much

for the presentation.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair,

we have no more speakers.

Okay.

Questions from members?

Member Treat.

Not so much a question,

but just to reiterate,

we have a commission of 13,

which means no more

than seven of us

can meet

or be on the same email

at the same time.

if that helps anybody

in the audience.

Anybody?

Anyone else

with comments

or questions?

Can she repeat that?

I did not hear that clearly.

I'm sorry.

Oh.

Member Treat,

would you?

No,

I was just saying

that you can't have

more than a,

you can't have

more than a quorum

or more

for conversations

back and forth,

but to meet

or have coffee

or something,

it just has to be

less than seven.

Correct.

The seven is a quorum.

Correct.

So you could have

six people for coffee

or you could,

you know,

jog with six people,

but for appearances sake

and brown rules,

I recall,

is that you can't have seven,

and that includes

on an email string,

unless it's a message

from the chair

on something to do

with our meetings.

I believe there is

an exemption

with regard to scheduling

items and things like that.

I remember having

to sit through those

for,

in other places.

Anyway,

other questions?

Member Christie.

Thank you.

Yeah,

thanks for that presentation.

Super helpful

for us new folks.

So,

a question,

and I'll give you

an example

about an email.

So,

for example,

when the audit report

came out,

and a few of us

didn't feel like

we had a lot of time

to review it,

but it could,

could it have been emailed,

like,

commissioner to commissioner?

Is that appropriate,

as long as there's

no opinion attached to it,

and it's just informational?

So,

my understanding

is that

we want to try

to avoid a situation

in which we're,

like,

daisy-channing

as far as

things that are going

to be considered

before the commission.

My understanding

is that the audit report

was publicly available

ahead of time

on,

like,

public channels,

so I don't necessarily

see why it would have

been necessary

to email

the audit report

between commission members.

That being said,

it is sort of a

kind of perception

is key thing,

you know,

as long as

there's always going

to be a concern

that if there's

email going

from commissioner

to commissioner

to commissioner,

and we're getting

more than a quorum

that we could

have a Brown Act issue,

so it's always safer

if,

like,

information is available

in a public forum,

as in the case

that you brought up,

like the audit report,

that we just kind of

use those publicly

available methods

for accessing information

rather than kind of

having those outside

of the legislative meeting

contacts.

And just for

context,

when that report

was available,

I actually went

back and looked

at the Attorney General's

guide regarding

the Brown Act,

and it actually

talks about

that

the sharing

of information

in and of itself

to more than

a quorum could be,

a quorum or more

could be considered

a violation,

so.

Hence,

I would have

certainly shared it

with everybody

if it had said

differently,

and it does seem

a little strange,

but that's where

we're at.

Other questions?

Okay.

Moving on then

now to item

number four,

I believe,

regarding the follow-up

on the performance

audits.

So,

just as we get

started here,

I think important

to remember that

what's before us

tonight is not

the audit itself,

but instead

this item relates

to the request

that we received

from the City Council

and specifically

by

Councilmember Guerra.

and

so,

and

thank you

to

Councilmember Guerra

for including

us in that discussion.

It doesn't always

happen,

and we're happy

when it does.

There are,

as I said,

two issues

that he raised

at the City Council

meeting

that he wanted

us to look at,

and the first one

being,

I think the item

is related

to the finding

number eight

in terms of

Friends of Front Street

and the finding

in the audit

relative to

the advisability

of an MOU.

I believe

that that's sort

of stated

pretty straightforwardly

in the recommended

motion,

so we can talk

about that

as we go forward.

With respect

to the second,

the other thing

that the Council

member asked for

was that

we would

advise them

about how

the commission

itself might be

involved in

tracking implementation

of the audit

and furthering

its purposes.

And so,

and I thank

the clerk's office

for their help

in amending

the agenda

so we could

fit all of this

together

in one process.

But I did,

and I hope

everyone got a hold

of a copy

of the memo

that I prepared.

I did not

distribute it

in advance

to a quorum

or more

of the members.

but I did

want to lay

out sort

of some options

about how

the commission

might consider

participating

in the implementation

of the audit.

So you have

that there.

Just to briefly

go over that,

what I tried

to look at

was,

and sort

of the first

question that I

had was,

you know,

how deeply

do we as a

commission

want to be

involved in

the audit

and the follow-up

to it?

And I think

that is very much

an open question.

So what I tried

to do was

produce a little

bit of a menu

of options

and sort of

with a sort

of deeper layer

of involvement

at each step.

doesn't mean

we can't do

all of them.

I'm not necessarily

saying that we

should do all of

them,

but I think

they're not

mutually exclusive

and perhaps

you all have

some ideas

about how

we might be

involved as

well.

I did try

to,

as I outlined

in the memo,

try to stick

to things

that at least

based on my

reading are

within the scope

of the work

that we are

asked to do

in our ordinance.

And so it

sort of starts

with what might

be considered

sort of a light

touch,

which would be

just to review

and comment

as the

implementation

process as

given by the

auditor herself

moves forward.

I believe that

there's a sort

of a quarterly

process that they

go through

and examine

how the findings

are being implemented

and that sort

of thing.

So that'd be a,

to have that

information come

back before this

commission would

certainly be one

way in which

we would have

some ability

to take a look

at how the audit

is being implemented.

In addition,

and based on

some of the

comments that

members had

when we reviewed

the audit itself,

I propose

that perhaps

we might give

individually

or perhaps

in small groups

less than a quorum,

not necessarily

as an ad hoc

committee or

anything like that,

but that individually

folks might want

to provide

some assistance

to the animal

care services

division

on specific issues.

Some folks

talked about

procedures,

other folks

talked about

employee engagement

and some other

issues,

and to the degree

that folks

want to work

collaboratively

with employees

of the division

in carrying

that work out,

that would be

something that

we might examine.

Third was,

and this arose

basically out of

a lot of the

public comment

that we heard

in response

to the audit

was that

some of the,

and the audit

does itself

call out

specific areas

in animal welfare

policy that

are the subject

of some controversy

and debate,

and that perhaps

this commission

could provide

some benefit

both to the public

and conversely

to the council

by engaging

in a review

and review

of some

of those issues.

I thought they were

sort of fairly well

presented in the audit

themselves,

but I think there's

some more information

to consider

as we think about that

and provide some sort

of public dialogue

specifically relating

to community sheltering,

managed intake,

the feline neuter

and release practices,

and the no barrier

adoption narratives

that you'll find

in the audit

and also,

excuse me,

in the response

to the audit.

I would think

that that discussion

would also perhaps

allow us

to consider alternatives

to approaches

that the Animal Care

Services Division

has taken

or perhaps things,

additional steps

that they might take

as they examine

the implementation

of these policies.

And then the last thing

that I put on the table

was what I call

a mismatch

between policy

and practice.

And because I got

a copy of the audit,

the audit talked

about a number

of different jurisdictions

and the approaches

that they are taking

specifically with regard

to animal intake.

And there's quite a range,

quite frankly,

about how different

agencies are approaching

this topic.

And then I sort of

looked for,

you know,

what's there

in our own city code

regarding some

of these issues.

And unfortunately,

all I could find

was really essentially

one line

that talks about

really a mandated duty

to impound

a whole long list

of stray animals.

animals.

And, you know,

it's clear that

based on what's

available in the audit,

that isn't the present

course of action here.

Right?

And so,

and I,

you know,

based on my own time

at the shelter

and based on the needs

assessment

and other things

I'm familiar with,

I'm not sure

that that's an actual

achievable objective

at this moment.

And so,

it seems to me

that we ought to

at least discuss it

and talk about

what the other options are

because it is simply

unfair to put

the good people

who work

at the animal shelter

and in the animal care

services division

in a position

where the code says

that you're supposed

to accomplish

a certain objective

and yet,

if we all sitting here

know that that objective

is not actually attainable,

that perhaps we need

to make some adjustments

as opposed to simply

expecting folks

to do something

that we know

is not possible.

So,

that is sort of

the reasoning

behind the memo

that you all,

I think,

hopefully have now

had a chance to see.

But I don't know,

Phil,

whether you have any

addition you wanted

to add

before we begin

taking public comment

and other member comment.

Excuse me.

The only comment I have

is I did check again

with the auditor's office

today in the month.

It's a six-month reporting.

Six-month, okay.

From the auditor's office

on all open audits

that they report out

to the full city council.

Okay.

Okay.

Do we have speakers

on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we have seven speakers.

Our first speaker

is Hopped,

followed by Susan.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Jim Hopped.

I'm the former president

of Friends of Front Street Shelter.

And as I said to you last month,

I am deeply concerned

with the recommendations

that were included

in the audit.

And the reason

why I'm speaking

to you tonight

when I no longer

represent Friends

is that I was the person

who primarily communicated

with the auditors

while they were preparing

the audit.

I think the recommendations

that they have given

to the city

are deeply flawed.

They're based on a failure

to understand

the relationship

between Friends of Front Street

Shelter

and the shelter itself.

And they're based

on a misunderstanding

of the law.

Frankly,

the contract auditors

are not attorneys.

They are not now

and never have been

members of the bar.

And I'm not even sure

that it was appropriate

for them to be expounding

on what the law should be.

I believe that the audit

in that respect

is so deeply flawed

that if it's within

your power to do so,

that you recommend

to the city council

that they simply reject

the audit

as it pertains

to Friends of Front Street

Shelter

other than

the recommendation

that the city

and Friends

enter into a memorandum

of understanding.

I believe a memorandum

of understanding

is a very useful tool

to explain to both parties

what they should

and should not be doing.

But at least

at a minimum,

I would suggest

to the city attorney's office

that if they are involved

in drafting

the memorandum

of understanding

that they do so

operating from a clean slate

rather than considering

the flawed recommendations

from the auditors themselves.

Thanks very much

for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker

is Susan

followed by Julie.

Good evening.

The city's

independent audit

of Front Street

found serious concern

about its relationship

with the nonprofit

Friends of Front Street.

The audit called out

a lack of transparency.

No formal agreement

and blurred lines

between shelter leadership

and the nonprofit.

Under President Jim Hubb,

Friends of Front Street

violated basic nonprofit principles.

They allowed Director Zimmerman

to run the show.

They backed illegal community

sheltering policies

that the courts have found

have said are unlawful.

And worst of all,

they forced rescues

to sign a do not

criticize contract.

If they wanted

to receive any funding

for saving death row animals,

effectively silencing

any criticism.

Many rescues walked away

rather than stay silent

about the shelter's mismanagement.

This is a part

of Zimmerman's pattern,

silencing critics,

whether volunteers,

staff, or rescue groups.

I'm sorry,

I'm going to have

to interrupt you.

Your comments are

outside the scope

of the commission's mission.

And I'm going to ask you-

Because I named him?

I'm going to ask you

to return to the agenda item

or please yield

to the next speaker.

Yield to the next agenda item?

Okay.

Do I understand-

Can I understand

what I violated?

You violated Chapter 5,

Section B

of the council's

rules of procedure.

And which is?

I missed it,

so I'm sorry

if I did not gather

it all in one meeting.

If you can just share

with me what it is

so I don't do this again.

No?

You're just going

to look at me like that?

I'm not here

to advise you.

I'm sorry.

Wow.

Okay.

Well, I guess I will-

Thank you for your time.

Yeah, sure.

May I have the next speaker?

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Julie.

Julie?

I would disagree

with that assessment.

She was addressing

the agenda item

regarding the MOU.

But anyhow,

good evening, commissioners.

The independent performance audit

of Front Street confirmed

what many of us

have been saying for years.

The shelter is in serious crisis.

Even so,

the audit did not address

many ongoing serious concerns

and left several issues unresolved.

It flagged problems

with the community cat program,

practices that violate

or potentially,

per the audit,

violate Hayden's law

and have already been ruled

illegal by the courts.

Yet cats are still being turned away,

released unaltered

and denied protection.

I'm wondering

if the city attorney's office

can be asked to weigh in.

There are relevant court rulings

that maybe they are missing.

We now have an experienced attorney

on this commission

in Ms. Bagley-Franzoya

who has written extensively

on Hayden's law,

community sheltering

and legal compliance

and did prosecution

in the district attorney's office

of animal abusers.

Please utilize her experience.

What other jurisdictions

may be doing

does not mean

that they are legal.

In fact,

we've just been addressing

these issues

in the state legislature.

So,

to just presume

because a lot of different shelters

are,

for instance,

practicing managed intake

does not make those

policies

or practices

legal.

Couple questions.

What exactly

is the

Kitten Connection Program

at Front Street?

It's a mystery.

It would appear

that Commissioner

Denise Bell

runs it.

I know it helps

cats and kittens

but my understanding

is that she's deciding

whether or not

cats or kittens

are going to be admitted.

Please ask more questions

and please don't let this

audit be swept under the rug.

There's a lot of issues here

that need to be addressed.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker

is Elise.

Hello.

So,

you mentioned

the city ordinances.

I would also mention

that

even though you think

the city ordinances

could be changed,

the city ordinance

is backed up

by the state law

of Hayden Act.

So,

even if you change

the city ordinance,

there's definitely

the state law

that backs it up

in regards to

intaking of stray dogs

especially.

I would just like

the commission

to hold the audit

and leadership

at the shelter

to account.

So,

once you've decided

if this is something

that you're going to pursue

and you're going to accept

what the audit states,

hold the shelter

leadership to account.

Since the audit

has come out,

there's been additional

things that have come up.

It speaks to judgment

of shelter leadership.

That needs to be

taken into account

as well.

As well as

I just think

that a lot of things

have been let go

throughout the commission.

So,

please,

please,

with this audit,

do your job

this time

and hold

shelter leadership

accountable

for the actions

and the issues

that are going on

with not just

the animals

but the public

safety violations

that are happening

on a daily basis.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker

is Estela

followed by

Daniel

and then Charlie.

Thank you.

Good evening,

commissioners.

Friends of Front Street

has done a real good job

for animals

in our community.

Their fundraising

has helped save lives

and we recognize

their contributions.

But even strong

organizations

need clear boundaries

and that's why

a formal MOU

is essential.

It protects

the public interest,

ensures transparency,

and clarifies

what is

and is not

acceptable

in public-private

relationships.

The city's agenda

today acknowledges

that Friends of

Board members

have a First Amendment

right to speak

about animal welfare.

But here's the problem.

Friends revised

their rescue partner

contracts

to strip others

of that same right.

Rescue groups,

many of whom

save animals

from euthanasia,

were told

they would lose

funding

if they spoke out

to criticize Front Street.

They were forced

to sign a

do not disparage clause

or walk away.

That's not transparency.

It's control.

And unfortunately,

it mirrors

the authoritarian culture

that's taken hold

under the current

shelter leadership.

We've seen

fosters, volunteers,

and even staff

pushed out

just for mentioning

euthanasia

or disagreeing

with management policy.

Friends was created

to be independent

from the city.

Right, everyone?

Not an enforcer

of silence.

Individual opinions

are one thing.

But a nonprofit

cannot act

as a tool

for suppressing dissent.

This commission

must insist

on an MOU

that restores balance.

no more

gag clauses

for rescues.

No shelter

management control

over spending.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is complete.

Our next speaker

is Daniel

followed by Charlie.

Thank you for your time.

I just wanted to express

that I think

the memorandum

of understanding

is very important.

I am glad

it's on there.

I think clear communication

between both parties

is very important.

I think a lot

of these comments

tend to not really

be about the memorandum

and I apologize

for that of understanding

but I do hope

that you guys

see the importance

of that

and that we have

because I would love

for our nonprofit

to be

have a city attorney

as a part of that

with the MOU.

So thank you so much

for your guys' time.

Thank you for your comments.

Our last speaker

is Charlie.

Good afternoon.

I was here last month

and I'm not sure

if anything got done

in that time frame

and hopefully

I stay within the scope

of what this particular

subject is about

but I urge you

to follow through

with your recommendations

as the city council

has asked you to do.

I mean there's some

really critical things

happening here

and there's some redundancy

and nothing seems

to get done.

I think that

Einstein said it best.

You know

if you do the same thing

over and over again

expecting different results

and getting the same results

that's insanity.

So something needs

to be done.

I think it's clear

with the audit states

there's some deficiencies there

both in the shelter itself

and the management

and I think those

need to be looked at

and you have a duty

to go to the council

and say hey

this is our recommendations

not just sit on this thing

and have little meetings

on the side

or whatever is being done.

I thank you

for explaining

the rules of Roberts

and the Brown Act.

I would think

that everybody

in the council

would really know that

but I appreciate that

and I just ask you to

and I urge you

to do your duty

and follow through

and make your recommendations

to the city council

as they've asked you to do

and I think that

that's all you can do

so I appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments

Chair.

We have no more speakers.

Comments from members

of the commission.

Member Treat.

Yes Mr. Chair

and members of the commission

so as I had requested

the last two meetings

last two meetings

maybe last meeting

I'm not sure

that I needed more time

to look into

what was being proposed

both in the audit

and how things actually worked

to make the system better

and I've come to the conclusion

that an MOU suggestion

to the council

would be fine

that if the city attorney

believes they need

to have one

I think that we support

that message.

I actually would support

them doing an MOU

with any outside

fundraising group

to the city

so that they keep consistent

with what they're asking.

It's probably not

the only group

that has an outside

fundraising arms links

but I now am okay

with us saying

an MOU makes sense.

Commissioner Snell.

Thank you Chair

and members

what I'm concerned

I think most with

is sort of establishing

a policy or framework

for how MOUs

can be established

what can and cannot

be in those MOUs

and then moving forward

with a MOU beyond that

so establish a policy

on how all of these

organizations

including friends

on how they can pursue

an MOU

with the shelter

or with really

anybody

in any organization

across the city

and then we move forward

with a recommendation

for a specific MOU.

I think

if that makes sense.

Comments from other members?

Commissioner Bagley.

Hi.

Good afternoon

or good evening

Chair.

I had a question

regarding your

animal care services

performance audit response

and I am wondering

how you

or how we

would go about

discussing these

recommendations with you.

I'm looking at number four

addressing policy

practice mismatch

and if we wanted

to have further

discussion with you

because I do believe

that public safety

is integral

in this particular paragraph

and various aspects

of state law

that are not mentioned

in conjunction

with that city ordinance.

So how would you like us

to further discussion

on that with you

because I think

the idea of a list

or an outline

of how we would go

about

discussing things

or presenting things

to council

is important

and you did a great job

with this

but I still would like

input

and to address

that particular paragraph

with you

or with whomever

you choose

to work on this issue.

Council member

Commissioner Morris?

Thank you.

I was just trying

to clarify

my understanding

of the process

and the moment.

We're on item four

but item four

is two pieces.

Yes.

So is it all right

if we first talk

about Friends of Front Street

and close that discussion

and then move

to the second item

or do we take them all?

It's fine with me

to discuss them

however you would like.

I actually sought advice