Okay.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the City of Sacramento personnel and public employee committee meeting.

This meeting is taking place today, Thursday, October the 7th at 11 a.m.

Would the clerk please take roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Member Telamantes.

Vice Chair Kaplan.

Member Vang.

Here.

And Chair Jennings.

Here.

All right.

I'm going to ask everyone to stand as we take the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance.

And Councilmember Karina Telemantes will lead us in that.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous People and Tribal Lands.

It's original people of this land, the Disamour people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Mewak, Patwin Winto people, and the people of the Willow Ranger, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us as they walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today on the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and life.

Thank you.

Salute pledge.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Thank you to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I should have said if you're able to stand, would you please stand?

But it looks like everyone was able.

So thank you very much.

Okay, we will continue to move forward with our agenda.

Our consent agenda is next.

All items are under the consent calendar and considered and acted upon by one motion.

Is there a motion on the consent calendar?

I'll move as long as there's no public comment.

I can confirm there's no public comments for the consent calendar.

I'll second it.

It's been moved and second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed or abstain.

Let the record show we are unanimous.

Okay.

So that's item one and two under consent calendar.

Item three is the review of applicants.

For the Ethel McLaud Heart Trust Fund Advisory Committee.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh the seats needing recommendation today for the Ethel McCloud Heart Trust Fund Advisory Committee are seats B, D, and F.

Requirements for these seats are identical and as follows.

A member representing the population at large and reflective of the socioeconomic makeup of the older adult population who is at least 60 years of age.

Several stated that they would not be present for this meeting.

I will read their names now.

Carol Davidova, Nancy De Herrera, Pamela Hunter, Joel Long, Martha Patterson Cohen, and Phyllis Streeter.

And then we did receive uh five uh notices that five applicants would be present today.

So I'll start with our first Diane Gregory.

They do not appear to be in the audience.

Valerie Lee Weinberg.

Also do not appear to be in the audience.

Susanna Liston, not in the audience as well.

Amanda Martin, not in the audience.

Uh Lydia Mesalides.

Please uh come forward to the uh to the lectern.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me here.

I was my honor to apply for this volunteer position.

Um why I applied.

I recently retired actually at the beginning of the year as the longtime executive director for the California Association for Adult Day Services, which represents adult day programs like Triple R across the state as well as adult day health care programs who are served by um who are um part of the Medical program.

So I'm very familiar with the Triple R program.

I've been a 40-year resident of Sacramento.

I live in East Sacramento District 4.

And I have always been very proud of Sacramento that it is one of the few cities in the state of California that offers a licensed adult day program.

So that is something you all should be very very proud of that you support that and you support our residents who are older adults and their caregivers who are in my experience often overlooked when it comes to public funding and so it's really fantastic that you have this endowment on which this committee has some responsibility for which this committee has some responsibility so my experience I've had a long career in disability and older adult policy working with providers government leaders and others and I've served on a number of state committees so I have sort of a broad picture view of older adult services and services for people with disabilities so it honestly will be a welcome change to help out at the local level at the grassroots level and serve on this committee.

Some of my experience relevant to the work would be my grant writing experience I've raised over four million dollars in grants over my career the largest of which was a two million dollar grant and that supported an innovative program that I helped design with other thought leaders also my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and my sisters and my mom and I supported him through the end of his life and now I'm helping a friend who's a hundred years old who has a hundred year old mom navigate all of these confusing health and social systems so that's my experience and my reasons thank you.

Thank you our next applicant is Catherine O'Brien they do not appear to be in the audience today.

Susan Poggy Poji also not in the audience today.

Thank you thank you lady and gentlemen thank you both for the opportunities that I wanted to serve in this committee because I just retired this April and for retirement and become a senior is not easy to navigate I bump into a lot of walls for example Medicare finances and insurance all that I do get a lot of information from Social Security for social media which is I consider not a hundred percent trusted I wish that I would get more trusted source information for example from the senior center for my community center which I think is lacking in educational program.

We are doing good in recreational program but how about education program help the senior to navigate this so I'm here to be an advocate for that I hope I can make a difference in my life I like to make changes help others so that's the reason why I want to be in the committee.

Now the second question is describe about my experience I am a 20 year stay worker.

I know how to deal with the government system and I also a professional project manager.

So I am good at organizing stuff, planning stuff, implement stuff.

In my work life I manage large IT projects and they involve millions of dollars I know that the trust fund doesn't include multi-million dollar but here I am I want to help and I have the willingness to work on that.

Thank you for being here today.

Your two minutes is complete.

Chair, I have no more applicants for review today.

I'm available for any questions.

Well, I uh I'm up, but it's a I'm just one.

Council member Captain.

I'm two.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I really want to thank everyone who took the time to apply.

We have three seats and seeing approximately, I think it was close to uh 15 applicants really shows the power of the community and our seniors wanting to be involved and a time to give back.

Uh I understand the difficulty of getting down here to present to us, but I've gone through and read through all the applicants and uh dug a little further, and I always believe in diversity of representation.

So uh I'd like to suggest uh the three names for the seats, and if somebody's willing to second, I'm but I'm also open for other discussions.

Seat B, Joel Lyon, seat D is in dog, Pam Hunter, and seat F, Eliza Yam.

I'll second.

I'll second.

Okay.

Further discussion on this matter?

Councilmember Cowan's face.

She's two.

Okay.

So it has been moved in second for seat B, Joel Leon.

Seat C, Pam Hunter.

D, I'm sorry.

And seat F.

Eliza Yen.

Correct.

Okay.

Any further questions of the candidates?

Any further questions on the process?

All in favor of those three candidates for seat B, D, and F.

Indicate by saying yes.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstain.

We are unanimous in those three seats.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Okay.

We will now move to the next item on the discussion list.

Discussion of the number of seats and voting requirements for our planning and design commission.

Chair Jennings.

Council members, I'm Stacia Cosgrove with your community development department.

And this item is a follow-up to a recommendation made by the Planning and Design Commission as part of its 2024 annual report.

The current planning and design commission was established in 2012.

It consists of 13 members, nine of which are recommended for appointment by each member of the council, including the mayor, and four recommended for appointment by PMPE.

Of those four PMPE seats, one is an at-large seat where you have to have a demonstrated interest in urban planning.

And the three other seats are uh what we call licensed professional seats.

So in order to qualify for them, you have to be a licensed architect, engineer, contractor, or landscape architect.

And the reason why those seats are on the commission is because part of the commission's goal is to or its responsibility is to further the maintenance of the city's urban design program.

So as with all planning, all uh commissions and boards each year, the planning and design commission does an annual report and makes some recommendations for consideration by yourselves and by city council.

And as part of its 2024 report, it made these two recommendations.

First, that the number of seats on the commission be reduced from 13 to some lesser number.

And second, uh that there be consideration and changing the method of counting votes needed to pass a motion.

Currently, Title II requires seven votes to affirmatively uh pass any motion, and that's a majority of the number of seats on the commission.

The commissioners were interested in seeing if there was uh the ability to change that so that it was a majority of the number of seated uh members or the number of members present.

The annual report came before PMPE as it would normally do in February of this year, and the committee's comments at that time are summarized in the staff report.

But at that time, the committee said it would be interested in learning more and considering the number of seats on the commission, which is why I am back here today with this item.

It was my impression that the committee did not seem to express an appetite for changing the method of counting votes.

So if there was more feedback on that, we would be open to hearing that.

The item was also taken by planning staff back to the planning and design commission on April 10th this year as they requested so they could have further conversation about it.

And I have included their notes as attachment four of your report.

But I did want to go over the arguments in favor and against reducing the number that the commission discussed that evening.

That evening they settled on reducing the number of seats to 11 as their recommendation.

And the arguments in favor include that a reduction aligns with streamlined processing goals, that a diversity of representation and opinion can still be achieved with 11 members, that a level of design professional expertise can still be maintained with 11 seats, that despite vacancies, the commission has still been able to operate effectively.

And what that means is that in the past there have we've gone long stretches where not every seat has been filled, and the commission has been able to operate effectively as a 10, 11, or 12 member body, demonstrating that not 13 seats are not necessary for them to do their work, and that staff planning staff has sufficient design expertise such that substantive design comments at the commission level are less critical.

The arguments against included that it's not clear how reducing the number of seats would actually streamline the project review process, that there's not a clear problem that needs to be solved, that the issue of attendance is not improved by reducing the number of commission seats.

There was concern that fewer voices will impact the quality and diversity of conversation had by the commission, and that the recent difficulty that the commission had in passing a motion, which was related to a particular project that ended up getting continued several times, wasn't caused by the number of seats on the commission, but rather by the difficulty of the issue, and also by shifting attendance.

There weren't any members of the public that were present to speak that evening in April, but there were a number of e-comments.

So I've included those as attachment five in your staff report, and all of the commenters expressed a concern that the city should not lessen representation by reducing the number of seats.

So in conclusion, this is a review and comment item on your agenda today, and so we'd like your feedback as to whether the city council should recommend to amend Title II to reduce the number of planning and design commission seats from 13 to 11.

And if you do feel that a reduction in the number of seats is warranted, then planning staff would recommend amending Title II to reduce the number of votes that it's that are would be required to affirmatively pass a motion so that it still represents the majority of the seats, which if it was 11, that would be six.

And that concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any uh questions before she leaves?

I have no public comments on this item.

Okay.

Love to hear your thoughts on this proposal.

And I'm not able to see that.

That's okay.

Okay, I am now, good.

Okay.

Um Stasia, I just want to say thank you for the follow-up and the follow through and going back to the commission and having everything here, especially the data of what other cities have.

And so I do recognize the thought process of potentially reducing from 13 to 11.

However, you know, those even on the commission, it seems that more are potentially against, because it doesn't truly address the problems.

Because I always go, what problem are we trying to solve?

And is this solution by reducing the numbers going to solve the problem?

And from what I get, unless I'm seeing it differently, the commission members didn't see reducing the amount of seats would really solve anything.

Is that true?

I think that some of the members expressed that they didn't understand what particularly the problem was, that the experience that they had just had concerning a project that they had difficulty with, it was really perhaps more related to attendance.

Certain members would be there one night, they couldn't get a motion passed, they'd continue it, there would be different members there the next night.

So not really about the number of seats so much as the difficulty of the issue in attendance.

So with that, was it a quorum issue or just members from one night to the other were missing?

And so if they were missing, they couldn't participate in the final vote.

It was uh it was mostly this the latter, but um also getting a quorum.

There was one night where we only had seven, and when you need seven votes for a quorum and seven votes to pass any motion, it causes things to come to a halt.

Um is it, you know, and this might be part of clerk's question with planning and design commission?

Cause it's it's a little different and the rules of being at quasi quote unquote judicial to a certain extent.

Um, is there an extra feature of training of when items are continued?

Like who gets to stay and voting if you weren't there one night?

Are you legally allowed to if you're there if it gets continued to vote on the next night?

You know, is that uh, you know, trained or is it described so that the planning and design commission members understand this?

Yes, we do advise them as to if they're absent, they need to review, they need to watch the tape, they need to read the staff report, and including watching all the public presentations so they can be able to participate in part two of that continued item.

Do you guys who who help staff PDC feel that we need to reduce the number of members?

I mean, I'm looking at you guys as staff.

I mean, your opinion does matter.

Uh I think that the commission could operate effectively with fewer members.

I think they've done a wonderful job of operating with the 13, but I think it could be fewer.

Um, and the evidence from the other um top 20 cities by population as well as the other cities that I didn't include on the list do demonstrate that that you can't effectively operate.

One thing that I did find was interesting about our commission is we were the only planning and design commission that I came across in my research.

Um, and so that's where the licensed seats come in.

A lot of other cities will have historic commissions or landmark commissions or cultural resource commissions that do have those seats, just as our historic preservation uh does, but that was the only unusual piece.

So I think it it could operate with fewer members.

So um I'm curious to listening to my colleagues.

Uh I'm not swayed really one way or another of keeping it at 13 or moving to 11.

Um, I am pretty certain that I do not want to change any type of voting method.

It's majority of whatever number we choose uh of seats, but um, whether it's 13 or 11, um, I'm open and want to listen to my colleagues.

Councilmember Tilamontis.

Um, I to piggyback off of Councilmember Kaplan's questions.

Um, in other large cities, after doing your research, do they have the streamline process that we have?

Like we've delegated a lot of our CUP processes and just different projects where they go to staff level review or to the planning commission, and then we never actually get a vote up on it up here unless it gets a you know appealed.

Um, so what do other jurisdictions did you do any comparisons on that?

The question I didn't look into it in depth.

Do you have an impression?

No, I uh Greg Sandlin planning director.

Um I think we are unique in in how we do push down a lot of decisions to staff level and and director level.

Um, so this larger body does look at some CUPs often land use is is that issue of uh off-site alcohol sales or drive-throughs.

And the intention of pushing staff's decisions down is that this commission would be more like Portland's planning commission where they're deliberating on policies and new development standards and regulations.

So I think I don't know if that answers your question.

Yeah a little bit I guess um for me keeping it at 13 presents leadership opportunities to people that are interested in local government and it's also a stepping stone into other you know forms of government service and it's probably one of our most popular commissions to be on and I know that we did a lot of work last year to also say hey if you're not attending you miss more than two meetings and you get you know kicked off the commission I think that's gonna help because if attendance is an issue for any of the commissioners I mean that's problematic for us because this is the most popular uh commission to be on and because we have delegated a lot of the responsibilities from the city council to the planning commission I see the diversity of opinions and voices uh just as a benefit to us and in terms of voting I mean majority is fine and so I guess I'm gonna keep it with the what the process as is um but making sure that we're really strict on the attendance requirements.

So tell me more about the attendance policy and how long it's been in place and how it was it has it been affected.

They okay Jacob's gonna have to help me with this I think they are allowed to miss um three meetings in a calendar year.

I'll go ahead and jump in here.

Jacob Redberg office of the city clerk so uh city code section 2.40 was updated around this time last year um and um the attendance policy changed uh so three absences from regular meetings in a talent in a calendar year is deemed good cause for removal um after the third absence the city clerk sends written communication uh to the um to the person in violation to the member in violation um and is then referred to the uh council member office or if it's a PNP appointment to the chair of the PNP committee uh to um uh basically tell the clerk whether or not they wish to move proceed with uh the the removal okay so are there any warnings given before the three before you get to the point where removal you're at removal uh yes sir the uh our office sends uh warnings um after after uh two absences stating that the third will be cause for removal okay so I think um I heard you say what problem are we trying to solve and I'm still trying to understand that question the problem that we're trying to solve.

Yes.

The commissioners who were advocating for a reduction in the number um cited um operational efficiencies as being one of the main reasons why um 13 members is a pretty large body um so it reduces the amount of having to fill seats um reduces the amount of stipend that's paid um everybody fits better on the dias so you're not sharing monitors and um microphones so the meetings run a little bit more efficiently those were the primary reasons behind um behind that initiative.

That's interesting to the council member telamonte says that this gives more opportunity for those who want to move into this line of work and work you know for the government work in government and so to me, I'm trying to weigh whether or not 13 is too many, or 13 is enough in order to be able to move people, give people an opportunity to be able to stair step their way into government.

So the attendant tenants policy doesn't seem to be what we're trying to solve.

It doesn't seem to be that way.

So and from a historical standpoint, I think you went through the time where it was at one point in time, nine to eleven members, and then it went up to 13 where we are right now.

And so we've been at 13 since 2012.

Yes.

And is this the first time that this has come to the table as far as the desire to remove to reduce?

There was an interest in exploring a reduction in 2020 when the commission at the same time was also pushing forward an ordinance to reduce remove the thresholds for site plan and design review and push more projects down to the staff and director level.

At the same time, I think it was part of put forward as part of that type of streamlining effort to also reduce the commission at that time.

So the proposal if we were to decide to move to 11.

It's a proposed number from 13 to 11.

What is the thought as far as taking members off of the commission?

Is that through natural attrition?

Or is that through deciding last in, first out?

Probably have to consult with the clerk's office to find out what the best practice would be in that case.

Okay.

So I don't know that I understand what that process would be.

So hopefully I have someone in here that could tell us what that would be as far as removing two of the 13.

Sure, I think it we've done this before in reallocation.

It's it's would be the two P and PE appointees, and it would probably be though the first two to term out, those seats just wouldn't be filled.

So it's natural attrition.

It would just be natural attrition.

Okay.

Am I wrong, Clerk?

We can co-present.

I'm Mindy Cuppy City Clerk.

In the past, it has been this commission committee's direction, and we did do it by attrition and the last time we waited until those seats um the people termed out.

However, it was your direction to remove someone, we could proceed that way.

Oh, go ahead.

Vice Mayor Tolamontes.

I have a quick question.

Um you said in other jurisdictions, there's other commissions are responsible for more like policy.

So it's like I'm looking at the prior, I'm looking at a few meetings from the planning commission, and they do both.

They do like the actual ministerial process of project development and approving projects here, and they also vote on policy.

Um and the city's Sacramento's, I mean, any policy ordinances relating to to planning.

So I mean, something for us to think about if we want to continue.

You know, again, it goes back to the problem we're trying to solve.

So, like if we want to continue to give people more opportunities, maybe it is split into two, where there's certain commissioners that are voting specific on projects, and then there's like more the policy wonky aspect of it, um, where they're voting on more policies and ordinances related to planning because is and you know, operations is what the commissioner cited for the reason for the reduction.

So I guess my question to you is um, do you think that their plates are too full every single planning commission meeting?

I'm looking at the minutes, and it's about five, four half an hour.

Um, are there plates too full?

I don't think so.

I think there's time on the agenda.

There is okay.

Then I'm supportive of just keeping the 13 for now.

I had a question about processes.

So on just this in particular, I know it's provide recommendations.

So does P and P uh get the ultimate direction, or is it just a forward to the full council for a conversation?

I only say this because um the planning commission did make that recommendation to us, and just curious to hear what my colleagues think about it in particular.

So just wanted to know in terms of processes, do we just if we say we're okay with it, then it doesn't go to the full council for conversation.

I just really want to honor the work of the commissioners, because it sounds like this is something that they want to push forward.

Um I would be okay if folks are at my commissioners are watching.

I'm okay with the 13th seat.

Um, but I do, you know, because it seems like it's something that's come up multiple times, multiple years for it to merit a conversation with the full council.

Um, but wanted to just understand processes for that.

Do we know or legal or I I feel like this is the committee where we should decide that.

Okay.

Like I don't think it should go to the full council.

This is personnel committee where we're deciding that.

I don't okay.

Um, but so the mandatory minimum requirement is seven members and quorum to pass votes, correct?

Okay, and we haven't had any issues with that, or we have.

Uh we've only had an issue when the difficult when a decision was very split and difficult, and maybe there weren't enough members.

There were too many absences that evening to have them land one way or the other.

I know that there's been a few votes where commissioners have to recuse themselves.

That number then seven becomes six, or does it stay seven?

It remains seven.

Then maybe we do some flexibility on that.

Because if they can't even vote on it, they have to recuse, then it decreases the number.

But but I but I think it goes back to um more voices.

It is a rare occasion that only seven show up, and there generally are not that many um controversial items.

There have been a couple lately, um, because I've been spending time watching it.

Um I'm okay keeping it as it is because I believe in the leadership opportunity, plus um, while we get to a point, I like that PPE also has certain requirements of professionals who can bring a professional lens to it, especially when some of these difficult items come, and also knowing that we're kind of combined, where some cities have two, um, and we're just one, and and it is a I know uh a one-off or two when there is a certain recusal, even though I might disagree with our city attorney occasionally on why they say people should be recused.

Um, that you know that it's it's more of an odd thing than a normal thing that we have to have to solve, then I'll make the mission to keep it as is all second.

So I just want to hit one piece of conversation before we take that matter to vote.

Um because it the majority right now is seven.

And if we were to change it to the majority of those that are present, so chair, can I interrupt you quick second?

Before you uh joined us this year's chair, conversation uh about two years going with the city uh our our city clerk of what should we do and what should voting look like because it did come from several different commissions of that structure.

Uh full robust conversation happened over multiple meetings that we were going to keep it the same as city council.

If they have to apply by the Brown Act, um our our number, if those of us who are missing does not switch, then boards and commissions should not switch.

Plus, it is harder for the operating and administration if one committee has to look at something different versus another, because if we open up this door on what constitutes a majority, we're going backwards and having that conversation again that we spent a good year and a half having uh and looking at.

Okay.

So we've taken the time to do that and get that look.

Um and understand that we want to keep it majority.

Are there other um are there other commissions or for committees that have 13 on them in the city?

Parks, yes, parks and what else?

Uh there are several chair.

Um youth has 19 members.

Um I'd have to go through each of our boards and commission pages, but um, it's not unusual.

We yes, it's not unusual.

Okay.

So we're not setting a precedent, but this being the only one that has 13.

Okay.

So I would be in favor of what's on the table now, which is to keep it at 13.

And no change of voting structure.

And no change in the voting structure because the majority would be seven.

Further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

We have a unanimous decision here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

City Clerk.

What's the next item?

Okay, good deal.

And okay.

This is item number five.

The city attorney recruitment process and next steps.

And so I just want to thank everybody for being here today.

We are small, but we are mighty.

I want to take the opportunity to update my colleagues on the city attorney recruitment that we have undertaken.

As you are aware, our current city attorney has taken a job in of city attorney in the city of San Jose.

And later today, we will be appointing an interim city attorney to take over on November the 2nd.

We have retained CPS HR to handle the recruitment as we did with our city manager.

They will be handling the recruitment also for our next city attorney.

All the pre-interviews for the recruitment of the city attorney, the pre-interviews with us as the city council with the mayor and the council have been done, and the interviews of the mayor and council will be used to bring forth the full council, the recruitment brochure, the candidate profile, the outreach plan, the timeline for the full city council on October the 21st.

And we will do that for discussion and authorization.

We anticipate this process will be much shorter than the process we recently used for the city manager search.

I am hopeful that we will have the I said hopeful that we will have the next city attorney identified and under contract by January or the beginning of February of 2026.

And with that, I look forward to answering any questions that you may have on what I have just said.

Go forward and conquer, Chair.

Oh, it's gonna be a great process, just like it was our city manager.

Thank you and your team for all your work on this and the city manager process.

You guys have done an excellent job.

So just kudos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

So these uh this is what be the time to for committee ideas, questions, chair this item, and also uh public comment.

Chair item five um was up for a vote to um uh or a motion to the item, all second, and the motion is to take it to the full city council, correct?

Uh motion recommending to city council that CPS proceed with the executive recruitment process, yes.

Perfect, perfect.

Okay, that's the motion on table.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye, opposed, abstain.

We are unanimous.

Thank you, Chair.

And I can confirm we had no uh public comments on item five.

Okay, no public comments.

All right, committee ideas, thoughts, questions, and meeting reports?

I do, I have one.

Okay, um, just wanted to flag this for the PMP committee.

I know this is my first time on the PMP uh committee this year.

Um, and I know that uh about two years ago uh the council voted to um assess the various boards and commission and to add a youth seat to um each of them if it was applicable, and I wanted just a status update on um the youth seats on the boards and commissions, which was actually supported by Vice Mayor Talamantes and Councilwoman Caplan.

And so just wanted to know what the status is.

How are we doing with recruitment?

Um are there any seats that are open right now that we can encourage young people?

I know that we just appointed um our new uh commissioner um for district eight, and we had several youth uh in district eight that wanted to sit on commission, and I had to share with them that um there were other um boards and commission open for youth to participate in.

So I think it'd be good for us to have an update on that status.

So wanted to make that request.

Okay, I think we agree totally on doing that.

So we will do that for our next meeting.

That sounds great, thank you.

Okay, any other reports or ideas, questions, thoughts?

Okay, with that said, uh there's no public comment, correct?

That is correct, Chair.

Okay.

That's it.

Our business has been done here today, and at uh 11 56, we are hereby adjourned.