The Supreme Court splitting the baby.

I think trying to conjecture on what a court may do is not a game that I will participate on.

So let me clarify, let me address the repeated use of the word implicit.

Once again, and perhaps what I said earlier was not heard completely.

Expressly forbids the act of implicitly assuming that a statue means something other than what is specifically in the statute.

Imagine the chaos if everyone interpreted the statute what they thought it implicitly said, not what it said.

That's why the plain language statute exists.

So we should uh dispose ourselves of that implicit assumption of what the statute means or what it says.

Thomas made the comment that there is express language in the bill that the legislature did not have time to take that explicitly prohibits ordinances trying to do.

It would be helpful if Attorney Thomas could provide that express language that was in the uh bill that the state legislature didn't have the time uh also in the municipal powers act, which attorney Thomas referred to, it explicitly grants the legislative body of the municipality to enact ordinances.

I believe if my memory serves me correctly is a numeral ten of the powers granted to the municipality, but I haven't had the time to bring the powers act on the computer, so I'm going by sheer memory.

But you can read the act, you can look at it at your leisure, and you see that the municipality is expressly empowered.

The legislature, not the mayor, the legislature.

For example, referring to the many ordinances that Representative Sherwood animals are zoning regulations themselves, have regulations that address animals and how much acreage and where they can be kept, etc.

etc.

etc.

So even our zoning regulations work in that field.

The appellate court, again, one can stop conjecturing at what a court might do, because it changes from level to level.

So I believe we have that we should have complete confidence, and if we get sued, and by the way, let me address the point that sensitive that Chair Burns broke, the politics of this matter.

Maybe the lawyer in this farm, whatever thing that Attorney Thomas spoke with feels one way, but when you consider the politics of this, the mayor, I mean the governor, the attorney general, finding themselves in a position to defend poppy mills, that is not going to happen.

And I believe our mayor will also see that defending poppy mills is probably not the proper politics or optics.

So I I'm quite confident that we can pursue this um prevail.

Uh thank you on our yield.

Okay, uh Representative Cloth Rally on the floor.

Thank you.

Um so earlier in the evening, Representative Sherwood alluded to um Hartford passing a tree ordinance and some sort of litigation ensuing after that, um, which then allowed us as a municipality pave the way for us to be able to also have a tree ordinance was making parallels between that and us paving the way when it came to puppy mills.

Can you clarify what you said?

Can you just restate that?

Because I just want to make sure I understand uh correctly um what the goals are with this, if you could, representative Sherwood, President Sherwood.

Uh sure.

So um the state of Connecticut has extensive state statutes that regulate trees um and regulate that municipalities have to have tree wardens, they have to have public hearings on public trees that get cut.

There are there is pages and pages of state statute um with how municipalities deal with trees.

And for a long time um municipalities in the state of Connecticut, going back 50, 60 years ago, wanted to further regulate trees, but the same arguments were being made that um oh, you know, uh the state has already uh put forward a bunch of regulations on trees and they don't allow uh municipalities to regulate trees.

And um I have to go back and look at what year the Hartford ordinance was enacted.

Uh I don't have that in front of me, but I can certainly get it.

But a number of decades ago, the city of Hartford said, you know what, we think that this is so important, we're gonna go ahead and regulate trees.

Um uh beyond what the state prescribes.

And if the state or any entity wants to sue us, they can.

And the Hartford Tree Ordinance has been held up in court over and over again, and it does not violate state statute, and it is because of their bravery that other municipalities in the state of Connecticut, including the city of Stanford, currently, are able to freely have the confidence to enact ordinance that ordinances that further regulate trees.

So, unless some brave municipality decides to move forward and regulate the sale of dogs and cats to find out if in fact the judge is going to say that this is legal or it's not legal, um, we're gonna be at a standstill.

And if Hartford didn't take that step some two, three decades ago, uh the city of Stanford wouldn't be we wouldn't have passed what we just passed tonight in this committee.

And so that is my point that no one's willing to do this, and it should be us because it's the right thing to do, because the state is not the state is not getting it done for whatever reason.

They have midnight deadlines and they pass it through committee, and somebody doesn't think it's important enough to put the bill at the head of the line so that it can pass.

And so that's that's why we need to do this, and that's why I'm I pushed to bring it up this evening.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and then my next question through you, Attorney Burns, uh, to Attorney Telma.

So previously, an attorney from the Department of Agriculture, if I'm understanding correctly, called up the legal department of the city of Stanford and basically said, if you pass this ordinance, we will sue you.

Is that the extent of it?

Yes.

Okay.

Now, the Department of Agriculture as an entity, are they more of an independent agency, or they more do they the way they operate, do they operate more independently, or do they operate more in a political manner under the direction of the governor?

I couldn't tell you.

I I don't know the internal behind the scenes workings of the uh state departments.

Um I'm sorry, I can't I can I can't give you any um elucidation on that question.

Okay, I guess I'm just trying to wonder.

Okay, I guess I'm just trying to wonder I I understand the politics of the situation that are being described that we want to make noise about this in order to promote Hartford to act, but the Department of Agriculture simply may be acting not so much in a political manner as a manner of uh procedural manner, and I guess I'm trying to understand if this is just gonna get shut down really fast procedurally.

If this attorney tell me if this is going to be kind of like an open shut case, um would that it sounds like there is a chance that this could just be an open shut case?

You pass this ordinance, you get sued, and um the judge rules Stanford over acceptance bounds, case closed, and then the legislature has to act if things are to be different when it comes to municipal powers.

In that case, um do you think that that is something that could be resolved rather quickly, or do you think that would just drag on and drag on for a number of years as um the lifetime fitness case, I think dragged on for something?

It was like seven years, an unbelievable amount of time.

Well, what if information today?

It's hard to predict.

Um you have to go ahead, Chair Burns.

Thank you.

Um, Chair Broker, I think the question is really would this be a summary judgment, or would it really go to court?

Thank you.

Sure.

If thank you, Attorney Burns.

If it is a summary judgment, then it seems like uh can you answer the way attorney Burns uh stated it is basically what I'm asking.

Sorry, representative representative coach, could we just refer to Chair Burns as Chair Burns?

He's not here giving us legal advice, and I don't want to get entangled up that manner.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um point of order, Mr.

Pierre, or point of information, I guess.

I'm happy to assist my colleagues to formulate questions that are more legal.

Um I I understand that, Chair.

I'm just trying to public is listening, and I don't want anybody to assume that you're part of corporation counsel.

We keep getting you referred to as attorney Burns, and that is not what you're here at in your capacity at.

So do not refer to me as attorney burns.

Got it.

Thank you.

I'm just trying to keep the record clear for those members of the public that are listening.

That's all.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Representative Crocodile, you have the floor.

So I'm gonna reiterate.

Um if a summary judgment were to be issued, how long does that typically take as opposed to going to court?

Probably one year, but even even with a summary judgment, parties have a right to appeal.

So if the losing party wishes to exercise its appeal rights, uh you're then uh adding on, you know, this significant additional time because you have to go through the appellate process.

And uh, like Representative Sherwood said earlier, um there is no court case uh in Connecticut that talks about this, so it would be um a matter of first impression, which uh those situations are such that um they often do end up in appellate court.

So got it, because then you're establishing go ahead.

Yeah, because when it's a matter of first impression, usually um it's the appellate courts that have to weigh in on things.

Um it's it's really difficult to predict how any case uh is gonna turn out and how long it's going to take.

So even though I feel it's you know, as I said earlier, it it's um very likely that uh the case turns out um adverse to to the city.

I I can't say that that's gonna be a quick process.

Um it it could end up taking a while.

Got it.

Okay.

Um and then when it comes to um animal rights organizations wanting to work uh to help us.

I I think you mentioned before that you would have to look into whether that presented ethical challenges.

Right.

Okay, because I I could see that presenting some issues, um, unless it's the friend of the court brief.

Um okay, thank you so much.

I find this issue to be really quite difficult to determine.

Um, but there is a part of me that just wants to take the risk and um say let's let's just make a statement on this.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for answering my questions for your time.

Thank you, Representative Cotrao.

Um, Representative Pierre Lee, you have the floor for the first time.

Thank you, Chair uh Bulger.

So you to uh attorney Toma.

Attorney Toma, I understand your logic, your your uh explanation also understand uh our bovado.

Okay.

My question to you is that if the promise of financial support fails, I mean from the department of agriculture fails, uh would we be personally held liable for the cost of this battle as individuals, yeah.

Uh I think that would be very unlikely.

Uh the reason I say that is your elected officials uh acting in a legislative capacity.

Um, and therefore you have wide discretion to take the actions that you do because you're a political body.

Um if your actions end up costing the city money, it would be a very high bar for somebody to meet um to uh argue that that you should be personally liable.

Um personal liability of of city employees, I'm gonna refer to employees because that's what I do on a day-to-day basis, uh is I defend employees, even with employees, um, in order for an employee to be personally liable, um, their actions have to be willful and intentional.

Uh they have to know that what they're doing is against the law, and they have to intend to break the law.

And I and that's uh that's a hard standard for anybody to meet.

And then I think in your case, as an elected official, uh it's even more difficult for someone to uh make that showing, establish that um you were intentionally and willfully breaking the law.

So I again in the law, um you you can never guarantee anything, and you can never say anything with a hundred percent certainty.

So I I you know I I can't guarantee that you would never um get sued individually or be found liable individually, but I think it would be very unlikely.

And this is uh even though the cities on record saying that uh we're gonna lose 80 80% chance that we're gonna lose well, I think um there have probably been times in the past when um elected officials have um acted in ways that are uh not in line with uh legal opinions that they've received, and and I don't believe that that results in individual liability.

I I can't I can't think of a time uh in my time with the city where um an individual member of the board of reps has been has been found liable for uh pursuing um a legislative action.

And um thank you.

I think you've I hear what you're saying.

I mean it's it it's conceivable based on the facts that you've presented that you you've received a certain opinion and um there could be uh uh somebody out there who challenges your actions because you acted uh contrary to legal advice and that costed the city money.

Um I just can't remember attorney commercial.

Yes, I'm I'm I'm sorry to cut you up.

I think what the representative is getting at is or does or does not it exist legislative immunity in the state for for legislators and municipalities in the state?

And the answer to that question is yes, we have legislative immunity as long as we're acting within the confines of our our duties.

If we step outside that grossly out of the norm, doing something capricious, malicious, something like that, then yes, you could probably space that.

But in reference to if we pass this particular ordinance, would we re would that immunity not protect us?

And the answer is no, that immunity would protect us for this particular exit.

We're we're going too broad, we're going too broad here, and I want to move the conversation along because I have two other representatives with their hands up in the air, and it's 10 30 at night.

Yeah, I I agree with what you've said, although I can't guarantee that uh somebody wouldn't say that uh you've gone far enough afield that the immunity should should not attach to this action.

I think you're right, uh Representative Bulger, but uh in this business, uh I can't give you any guarantees.

All right, thank you for answering my question.

I yield um representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

Thanks.

Is uh Ms.

Hornish still on with us?

Yes.

Is she available to answer questions?

I see her on the screen.

Um you can try.

Okay.

Uh before I go to her, let me start with uh attorney Thomas.

So did I I just want to verify some notes here that I understood you correctly.

So is it correct that the legal part the legal department is kind of out at this point if we pass this ordinance because we've gone against your advice.

So you wouldn't be in a position to defend the board of reps.

That is what uh our department has done in the past with similar situations when when we've given um a legal opinion and it and it has been um not followed, and we're publicly on record as taking a position.

Uh my um my recollection of past situations like that, or that we we bow out because we don't we we find an ethical problem with uh arguing the opposite of something that we've already taken a position on.

Got it.

Um so in that case, the board of representatives would have to retain outside counsel, correct?

Yes.

Which means we'd have to follow our very strict rules on following on hiring outside counsel.

We'd have to get it's a supermajority to do that.

Well, I think uh I don't know that you would be the the ones to hire the council.

I it may be that the corporation council um uh takes care of that.

Okay, so it would it would, or what I'm getting, what I'm trying to understand is do we have to go through the process to hire our own council, or is this gonna be something where just the law department can't handle it?

They would have to bring in an outside firm.

Yeah, I think it's I think that's the way it would go.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Hornish, um, if you're available, I have a follow-up question for you.

Uh yes, I'm here, representative.

Thank you.

So I just want to make sure that we all understood what your offer was because I your I wasn't quite sure if your offer of uh legal assistance was quite as broad as might have been implied.

I mean, it seems like our some of my colleagues heard that you were willing to fund this fight for us.

Uh it seems like our legal department has sort of said they're out.

Um it is it is it correct?

What is what does it mean in your I'm looking at your memo when you say humane world attorneys stand ready to assist the city in its legal defense?

Could you elaborate on what that means?

Sure, I'd be happy to um we do have lawyers at Humane World, a legal team.

Um, and what they would do is provide valuable legal arguments and assistance to whoever whoever the city hires uh to represent them on this case, and that would certainly um decrease substantially the city's legal fees.

But I'm sorry, go ahead.

I apologize.

Oh, yeah, we'll work to help the city attorneys, whoever they may be, uh, if this case is challenged, if this ordinance is challenged.

What does help mean?

We can pay our bills.

We can provide the legal arguments that we feel make a very strong case for maintaining this ordinance.

Will you will you pro will you pay our legal bills?

We I don't know if if that if we can do that, if that's legal even to do that.

I'm I'm not sure we can.

I think the city attorney is responsible for that.

We will assist and do a lot of the advice and counsel.

I mean, you're cheering us on, but you're not opening your checkbook, is kind of what I hear you saying.

Is that a fair representation?

The the services we would provide is saving the city attorney substantial time because we would be pretty much uh providing advice on the legal argument to defend this.

So they would be getting, and we've provided that years ago, uh, back in 2019.

We we submitted um to the city our arguments, which we which still hold.

Okay.

Um attorney Tomas, you know, what it what is what is going to be acceptable.

I mean, Ms.

Hornish's organization has made a very generous, but it doesn't sound like necessarily an open-ended um offer of aid.

I mean, does that materially, based on your experience, is that gonna materially move the needle on our legal expenses?

Um representative Goldberg, I'm gonna step in here.

The the the subject at hand is is with regard to the ordinance.

I do get the nexus of you in the future on the floor uh be making your decision based off of whether or not um this legal process mess out, but we are we are starting to get wider and wider on the spectrum of here, and we're and we're speculating about something that may or may not even happen.

So I get that, but um I I'm not sure.

So the reason I believe this is germane is that we are relying on the representations that were made in an email, and the and President Sherwood has said this is a fight we should take on, and we've got these people that are willing to help us.

I'm trying to understand how much help that's gonna be, and I believe that's directly for me.

So that's so the answer to the.

If you wish to overrule me, please go ahead.

No, what I wish to do is what I wish to do is speak.

What I'm telling you is the answer that's been given by Ms.

Hornish is not is that they're it doesn't mean that they're going to pay our legal fees, they would be willing to help crack the argument.

That was the answer that she supplied to your question.

Okay.

Um I I let me just say that we are here in the in the final 30 days of this board.

I don't think that it's prudent for the 31st board of representatives to start a fight at the end of its term that the subsequent board is gonna have to deal with, and that I have no idea if there's any support for.

So I think that to back the incoming board into a corner is just inappropriate and borderline rude.

Um, I just don't think that we should do that to our to the 32nd board, considering that the overwhelming majority of us are not going to be on the next board.

So I think the prudent thing to do and the fair thing to do to the 32nd board is to is to forward is to hold this item and to let the 32nd board, who's gonna be the one that's gonna end up paying the legal bills if we kick off this fight.

We need to let them make that decision.

It's it's unbelievable hubris for us to thrust this upon them.

And I well, we're not gonna get into commenting on on I've yielded.

That's fine.

And I'm telling you, as a person that's chairing this, is that we're not going to get into commentary labeling um the actions in in that manner.

I'm asking to respect that.

Um representative Bella Cruz, you have the floor followed by Chair Burns, followed by President Sherwood.

Thank you.

First, let me uh address some of the scrolling for that representative Goldberg had.

Uh the fact that this organization is willing to do the research and provide any lawyer that the city may hire with the necessary materials to present the case.

It is a substantial contribution that would reduce the legal costs of the actual lawyer representing us.

I think that should be patently clear.

Now, let me address the concern about litigation.

The lawyer from the farm department, whatever it was.

Representative Delacruz, I'm I'm going to say this one more time to you and the rest of the members that are in attendance tonight.

We are delving off into an area of whataboutisms that we don't even know will come to fruition.

I think what it's important to focus on as members of this committee go to make their vote tonight is that there is a risk of potential litigation.

Period.

Getting into the minutia of what exactly will happen and what this department will do and what that department will do, in which process an attorney will be appointed, is not, I don't think is beneficial right now, and is prolonging this discussion when the when the substance of the matter is whether or not we are going to vote to full to forward this to the full board for for uh for publication.

I I completely understand the concern with regard to litigation, but I think that the that the summation of that concept is what serves us best.

Is there a risk of potential litigation?

The answer to that is yes.

Should we spend the next two hours discussing this in detail?

No, we should not.

I'm just trying to, I'm trying to corral this conversation because we're going in circles, and representative after representative is repeating the same concerns and rebuts back and forth.

May I address the risk for potential litigation in 10 seconds or less?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

The risk of potential litigation is minimal because the lawyer from the farm department, whatever that is, comes to the attorney general and says, hey, we want to sue the city of Stanford because we want to protect puppy meals.

And the Attorney General goes to the governor and says, hey, are you crazy?

You want me and the state to come on the side of protecting puppy meals?

That ain't going to happen.

The risk for potential litigation is zero.

Okay, Chair Burns, you have the floor again.

Uh thank you.

I'm going to try to be very brief and to the point.

Attorney Toma, you very kindly early gave us through you, Mr.

Chair, to the to the corporation council.

Uh Trinity Told me very kindly earlier, uh, provided us with odds, because that's what we have to consider here.

And you said, you know, there it's about a one in five chance of winning, about a four or five chance of losing.

And then um Representative Pierre Louis said, Oh my gosh, what happens if we personally get sued?

Would you lay the odds on that as one out of a hundred, one out of a thousand, or one out of ten thousand?

Uh I would say it's it's remote.

Um, it's more on the order of uh one out of a hundred than you know, it's something like that.

I think it's very remote that uh you would you would lose your uh protection as a legislator.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, through you to um to the law department to uh attorney Toma.

Um would it be possible for you to prepare a memo for us between now and Monday, and if not from now until Monday from now, until Wednesday next week, Monday next week we have another meeting of this committee that addresses uh whether uh the city could accept free legal services from elsewhere.

And I should have actually prefaced that by through you, Mr.

Chair, to uh Ms.

Hornish.

Ms.

Hornish, I suspect that it might be possible to recruit some on a top-tier law firm that might just say, hey, this is a this is great publicity for us.

We'll do it for free.

Um do you think you might you and your contacts might be able to try to feel some of these top turn top tier forms out between now and Monday and now and Wednesday?

Um may I speak, Mr.

Chair?

That's you may, but again, we're getting into where we are getting into something that potentially might not even come to fruition.

But I'm looking for the briefest possible answers.

I'm sorry, yes, I will look into that.

Thank you.

And if you could get back to us by Monday, that would be tremendous help.

And uh, so now I think my question to the law department through you, Mr.

Chair, makes more sense if they were to recruit a top-tier law firm.

That as a pro bono matter said, we like this issue, gonna make us look real good, gonna do good in the world as well.

Uh can you can you research the ethics and the morality and and all the rest of that and get us some sort of answer by Monday?

Uh I will look into it and let you know.

Thank you very much.

I rest, Mr.

Chair.

Please.

Okay.

The President Sherry would you have the floor again.

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask the the chair not cut me off because I have some pertinent information that I would like to share.

So I want to say Humane World for Animals has already been exceedingly generous with their legal uh department.

The ordinance that is before us that this committee uh is considering and that we already put through a public hearing, was written by Humane World for Animals Law Department, it was written by them, and we put this language forward.

I was a part of putting this language forward because their lawyers had vetted it.

Their lawyers spent hours looking at state statutes, looking at uh ways to do this that and they felt that this language had the strongest chance of standing up in court, and we passed that language for public hearing and had a public hearing about it.

And tonight I'm urging all of you to pass the language.

So the lane humane world for animals has already incurred legal fees on their own to produce this ordinance that is before us this evening.

It is their language that we are voting on this evening.

And I I was extensively obviously involved in the lifetime fitness case.

Um, if there was any way that the developer in that case could have found me uh personally liable, they would have gone after it.

But we have legislative immunity.

So this idea or this concern that someone's gonna come after us, per this not happening.

That's number one.

Number two.

I I think that some members of this board have um I'm not even gonna say, I'm not even finish that sentence.

I'm just gonna say that the board of representatives, the 31st Board of Representatives and the committee have every right to pass this legislation tonight.

And it has nothing to do with the 32nd Board of Representatives or who is and isn't gonna be on it, because the reality is that this is an ordinance.

You know what happens to ordinances?

They go to the mayor, and the mayor would have to sign it.

And so if the mayor signed it, then it would be the city that would get sued because it was an ordinance put forward and by the legislative body and signed by the mayor.

So it wouldn't be the 30 second board of representatives that would be sued.

It would be the city of Stanford.

So it would have nothing to do with the 30 second board of representatives.

Zero.

It would not be like lifetime fitness at all, where the the city um where the board of reps would have to get a lawyer, etc.

etc.

It would be the city that have would have to defend a joint action by the legislative body and approved for the signature of the mayor's pen of the city of Stanford.

So the concept that it's unfair to put it on people, uh, you know, I like come on.

I'm sorry, it's just at this hour of the night, uh I it's hard to listen to arguments like that.

I I rep I respect everybody on this board, but the reality is is that it would have nothing to do with the 30 second board of representatives as soon as the mayor of the city of Sanford signed it into law.

It would be a law that would have to get defended by the city law department.

The city law department has already come out and said that they don't think that this is a great way to proceed.

And so we wouldn't, I wouldn't want them defending us in this case, and they're doing the right thing by having hire our outside counsel and humane world for animals.

Everybody knows who's been involved in legal cases that lawyers bill based on hours spent.

They they bill billable hours.

How much is a lawyer gonna charge to do 20, 40, 50 hours of research on this?

Thousands and thousands of dollars.

But you know what?

Humane World for Animals has already produced tons of arguments based in um extensive legal research that they've already spent the money on to give to our city and whoever the city hires to represent us if we were to pass this and the mayor would assign it.

And so to think for a second that that is not worth hundreds of thousands of order.

Point of order.

What's your point of order, Chair?

Um this is the same theme over again.

Um it seems seems I hear what you're saying, Chair, and I agree with you.

President Sherwood, please um please wrap this up because you are uh repeating things that several other representatives already said in you yourself.

Thank you.

And you know, representative Burns wanting to know if it's appropriate if some other entities, lawyers represented us in court.

I mean, I guess it's pertinent, but it doesn't change my vote.

It's irrelevant to me.

Because as a as a legislator, this is the only right thing to do in this situation.

And so, however the city or other entities want to deal with defending this situation, that's a question to be answered on another day, but it has no bearing, it shouldn't have a bearing as legislators in doing the right thing in this situation.

I yield.

Thank you.

Okay.

I believe for the first time in this matter.

Go ahead.

Um, I just I just wanted to iterate that the risk reward, I think is the the risk is low because the optics of this case would make it so that I just can't see the city this the city being sued by the state.

Um it would just it would just look bad.

And there really are no large chains that sell animals anymore.

So we're talking about very small stores coming out to sue us, and then just to to put some kind of a number on some legal cases, the the high ridge office park, I think in its entirety over the course of seven years cost the city 270,000 dollars.

Um, you know, and you can could have probably have that if we had someone like the humane society willing to do the footwork and you know, a lot of the the legal clerical work and things like that on the back end.

So I don't I think for what we gain uh the risk is low.

I yield okay.

Okay.

Um, folks, please understand that many of you are keep repeating the same talking points as the previous speaker and the previous speaker before that.

It is almost 11 p.m.

at night.

Um I see the the the last two hands up, Chair Burns again and Representative Dela Cruz again, Chair Burns.

You have the floor on the motion, Chair Burns.

All we heard was motion.

You are you were on muted.

Um okay, weird.

Um so uh I wish to make a motion and then speak very briefly on the motion, Mr.

Chair.

May I proceed?

What's the motion?

The motion is to table this matter for one week when we might have significant additional information from Ms.

Hornish and from the law department.

When you say one week, what what date are you talking about, Chair?

I'll talk about our next meeting a week from today when we can bring this up again as um an exception to the rules, whatever the term is there.

Okay, so you're wishing to make a motion to recommit to the to um November 3rd, I believe is then I vote to our next next meeting a week from today.

That's correct.

November 3rd is the date.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um is there a second to that motion?

There is no second motion.

I second the may I now speak, Mr.

Chair.

This discussion is to the motion to recommit and only the motion to recommit.

I will not let any other discussion other than that occurred.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh by uh by uh voting in favor to recommit this and revisit it in a week when Ms.

Hornish may have already found a top-tier law firm that promises lock stock and barrel to to defend us, and the law department has determined yes, that is doable.

Um we will be in a better position to make a decision.

Otherwise, we are voting on a lot of speculation, as you yourself, Mr.

Chair have pointed out by rest.

Uh Representative Dela Cruz, do you wish to speak to the motion of recommit?

Uh I think I will I couldn't support that motion.

Uh whether the organization is willing to help our legal bills or not is irrelevant.

The city should take this on.

I appreciate representative Sherwood's clarification that if in the outside on variable chance of there is litigation, it is against the city, not against the board of reps.

So that approves, please stick to the motion to recommit.

You're delving back into the odds of litigation again.

Why should this be recommitted or why should this not be recommitted?

Uh because recommending it just takes the guns down the road, and I think we have sufficient information to proceed at this time.

I do support that motion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

President Sherwood on the motion to recommit, you have the floor.

Thank you.

So I am adamantly opposed to the motion to recommit this item to Monday.

Um for the following reasons.

This committee has already spent, I don't know, two and a half, three hours discussing this.

I don't want to relive the magic next week.

Like I think that there is enough information here to move forward this evening and not have to spend hours of time next week doing this again.

Draging attorney Toma back here.

Or uh Representative Dela Cruz, please um please move mute your microphone.

Um, I don't want to, I don't want to bring uh Miss Hornish back, who's been in this meeting for hours.

It's 1101.

We all have spent a lot of time listening to two sides of this, and to think that a week from tonight, Jumane Worlds for Animals is going to be able to come back and say, Oh, we found a law firm that and expect them to be like, oh, we're gonna we found a law firm that's gonna be able to represent the city for free.

Like that's that's an unreasonable expectation.

And if one of us as a legislator is just trying to vote on this based on trying to get free legal advice, like I it that's that shouldn't be what we're what moves the needle on whether or not the right thing to do uh is to vote this uh you know up or down.

Like you you need to make a decision.

We we've been discussing this at length for eight years, seven years.

Um, and so uh additionally, I want to say that and I'm full disclosure.

I have to leave the meeting on Monday at 8 p.m.

And I guarantee you that if this committee doesn't pass this next week, because this committee decides to table it, I will bring it back on the floor and we will spend another two or three hours discussing it again because I was not able to participate in the discussion on that because I'm sure the tree, the leak blower ban is gonna take hours and hours of time.

So I think we have discussed this at an audience this evening for hours.

And the idea that we're gonna go back and do that again next week with very little prospects for more information that actually should be deciding factors in uh legislators' minds when they make a decision on this is um is not a good idea.

So I am adamantly opposed to it.

Thank you.

No hands, Ms.

Montravo, please call a roll claw.

This is for a motion to recommit this item to November third, the meeting.

Thank you.

I will start at the back of the list and work my way back to the chair.

Representative Vandervoert, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Sherwood, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Pierre-Louis, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Mazzini, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Fidel, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Cattrell, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Burns, how do you vote?

I'm persuaded.

No.

Representative Ogre, how do you vote?

No.

Okay.

That motion fails.

We're back to the main motion.

I see Chair Burns' hand in the air.

Chair Burns, you have the floor.

I'm back onto the main motion.

Thank you.

Yes, I just want to reiterate the request to the law department to get us an answer, nevertheless, by Monday or Wednesday next week.

So it may be considered at least at the full meeting.

And uh Ms.

Hornish having said that, she might try, might be willing to try or would try uh also to get back to us by then.

Thank you.

No other hands, uh Ms.

Montalvo you please please call the roll call vote on this item.

This is to for approval of the item.

Representative Anderwort, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Sherwood, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Pierre Louis, how do you vote?

Abstain.

Representative Matheny, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Fidel, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Cottrell, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Vogar, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Burns, how do you vote?

Yes.

That's six yeses.

Six yes, one no one abstention, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

That motion passes.

That concludes our agenda for the evening.

For those of you that are not aware, tomorrow's meeting was rescheduled due to the advocate um not properly posting the date of the public hearing.

Um, no matter how hard the office tried to attempt it to get them to correct it.

Um it was not the office's fault.

So for FOIA compliance, we had to move the meeting.

So this second meeting is going to be on November 3rd.

Um let me just look at the time real quick at 7 p.m.

Monday, November 3rd is the next LNR meeting on this.

This concludes our agenda.

Chair Burns, I'm going to turn the chair back over to you to uh to adjourn.

Uh I want to say I have a point of uh I have a question about that rescheduling.

Go ahead.

Um so will we be using the same link that was set out, or are we gonna get a whole new invitation?

A new invitation was sent.

A new invitation was sent.

A new notice was created, and everything has been posted and emailed.

Teams should have placed it on your outlook calendar already.

It seems that Teams likes to put the invitation directly on the calendar instead of emailing it to you, but I can go into Outlook and I can forward it as well.

Well, um for those of us that aren't on the committee but do want to attend.

I'm trying to figure out if I need to go find a new link to put in my the agenda is posted, Representative Goldberg and accessible.

That's how I have it right now on the on the board of reps.org website.

And if you just click on join the meeting, it will bring you right into the meeting.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to make sure I had the updated credentials.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

No problem.

Representative Camporelli Barbara, I just wanted to let you know that it didn't go into my thing automatically.

I didn't get it.

Okay.

I will forward it to you then.

I apologize that teams did not put it there when I added everyone and hit send.

Okay.

Um Chair Burns.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, uh, Vice Chair.

Uh thank you, guests.

Uh thank you all.

We did some great work tonight, and uh we will reconvene a week from tonight.

Thank you.

And good night.

Uh does anybody hey uh the I'm looking on the border reps website.

It still says 7 p.m.

on 1028.

That's the case.

Hit refresh on your website.

And if you hit refresh on the website, it should post it because I know whenever I have to update an agenda after I hit submit, I usually have to hit the refresh on the website.

If that doesn't work, you can clear your cache on your browser, and it should show you the correct one because I did test it after I uploaded the new agenda, which is the same agenda with the new date and the new links.

You got it?

Yep.

Wonderful.

If anyone else has any issues or needs me to go ahead and resend it, I will resend it tonight.

And again, um the day of the meeting.

Thank you all very much.

You have a good night.

We are adjourned at 110.