Okay, it should be okay.

It's it's recording now.

We'll give it a few minutes for everybody to join back.

Captain Lombardo?

I do.

You've had these troubles ever since we got off Zoom.

We have to have things recorded for legal.

And people log in.

Um and we don't see them, we don't hear them.

It's just a big mess.

Oh, I'm good.

Thank you.

Oh okay, as soon as those two get back, we'll start things up again.

So Shani, is it true that when it's a full moon that South One gets full?

Is that true?

You know what South One is, yeah.

Yes.

Uh I'm thinking.

When was the last time we had a full moon?

I don't know.

I can I I don't know.

My guess is no.

My guess is that's just a fun statistic.

They said South One needs to get full.

When it's a full moon, the people in the world.

Yeah, that's true.

Yeah.

I can tell you from my turn, there's we did watch the getting with world includes that did influence.

Really?

Yeah.

Yeah, maybe I should start getting more time to collect your whole moonness.

Yeah, okay.

I mean, I will say occasionally you have like stretch of time where you're sitting there wondering, is there something on the water?

Because it's never like this.

And this week it's just when I see that move, I'm on straight sound one.

All right, I'm gonna start paying attention to the moon and see if there's a correlation to when we have one of those weeks.

Yeah, and there's a full maybe telling you.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to start again.

I apologize for the fact that we had to uh pick everybody out.

We lost uh the live uh feed apparently.

I don't know what it what what caused it, but um so I apologize.

We are starting again.

So we were discussing with uh with Mrs.

Ben Do, the uh social services commission, and her background and experience in it.

Are there any further questions on this?

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Um always nice to see someone from district 20.

Uh so you know this commission didn't notwithstanding it's the name of the commission.

Um as I'm sure you'd learn from either reading minutes or listening to you know to uh recordings of the of the meetings.

Uh this commission spends most of its time dealing with fair housing complaints.

And some of the human rights regulations.

But principally dealing, primarily dealing with fair housing regulations.

Um that's a little different from sort of the you know the meat of of your professional experience.

What what training do you feel you'll need on fair housing rules of law uh and and local regulations dealing with fair housing in order to um to be a productive member of the commission?

Um so I think although that's not the the meeting potatoes of of what I do, I do deal with housing and homelessness quite often.

Um I think the the legal piece is where I would need to focus my efforts and familiarize myself a little bit more with the regulations in Stanford.

Um but I think the general understanding of fair housing is pretty clear to me on the equality removing systemic uh racism.

That that piece is pretty cool.

Okay.

So what I hear you saying, tell me if I'm understanding correctly, is that you have a professionally you have a good grounding in sort of the the concepts and what and the objectives of of fair housing regulations.

Um but you know, understandably, and I don't think this is criticism at all, um, you'll need to you'll need the bone up on the actual legal ramifications.

Well, so I think every every state or town has their own specificity.

So I think it's really just zeroing into what is unique to Stanford.

What are the guidelines to Stanford in order to make sure that I'm ethically grounded and following those guidelines?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Um I'm kind of impressed with your life track.

You're not somebody that uh is sitting in an ivory tower onto a new university, and um I like the fact that you started off and got your degree and gotten in the field, and then what 20 years later?

So it was 11 years between undergrad and going back to Starkrad school, and then now I'm very proud to say that I started officially my second year in my doctoral program.

Right.

I'm not done climbing my Mount Everest.

I think that's that's amenable because um you have you're going into your doctoral program, and certainly when you finish your MSW, um you have a lot of practical on the ground experience, um, which makes it a lot easier in the academic world.

Um you've just experienced things.

So I'm I'm happy to see that in your background.

All right, no further questions.

Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us.

Thank you for bearing with us with our difficulties.

Of course, we'll be voting on you later on tonight, and then the floor board is waiting up on Wednesday.

Thank you very much.

Okay, the next person is Catherine Taylor.

Good evening, representatives and fellow neighbors.

It's so nice to see you despite any technical troubles.

I think it's going quite smoothly.

Well, thank you very much.

We do appreciate your being here, and I hope that we don't have further difficulties while uh while we conduct your interview.

I'm going to turn it over to my vice chair so we can go over the application with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Ms.

Taylor.

How are you this evening?

Hi, Vice Chair Shaw.

Well, thank you.

How are you?

But thank you.

I'm hoping you can hear me well, right?

I can hear you perfectly.

I hope you can hear me as well.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Um, could you confirm your party affiliation, please?

Democrat.

Thank you.

And which municipal district do you live in?

One.

Great.

Um, and is this your first time applying for the fall commission or board party?

Yes.

Okay.

And have you um done any work for the city of Stanford for which you've received monetary compensation?

No.

And are you currently serving on any other Stanford City Board Submissions?

No, I am not.

Okay, do you fully understand?

And are you willing to abide by the Court of Ethics?

I most certainly do.

Upon confirmation by the Board of Representatives, will you be available to attend all regular and special meetings?

Absolutely, yes.

Uh, do you understand that the information for Biden application might be uh subject to disclosure under Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act?

I do.

Okay, great.

Yeah, checking your form.

I don't have your public form and disclosure state menu is holding.

Do you remember submitting those?

If even if if I could get them this evening I'd be happy to to complete it if I didn't already next can you uh follow up on that one so that we have that paperwork submitted before our board meetings which um item is she missing I believe she's we don't have the uh conflict of interest in disclosure form for Captain Taylor I will check that now okay thanks thank you actually now okay and well are there any questions on our remote audience are there any questions here please no Ms.

Taylor what is your interest in this um in this authority in this golf authority I actually have a really deep seated interest in this particular position for a number of reasons um Sterling Farms is my home course I grew up playing golf um I love Sterling Farms I think we have such a jewel of uh of a of a facility in in the city of Stanford that is really powerful and um so nice for the size of the city and the number of rounds that it it sees in a in a calendar year.

And then personally my father actually served on the golf authority uh prior to COVID and so I had like a little glimpse of of what this would entail but um I also like to think that as possibly uh an a non-traditional golfer that you might see at Sterling on any given weekend I think I might add a fresh perspective to how uh not just the golf facility but everything that encompasses the golf authority you know would would would could operate in the future anything you see that's currently maybe may or may not be working that you might want to you have some thoughts on like what you could do or I mean I'm assuming since your father was there's probably stuff that you've heard and anything that you were having your mind is a priority I think that Sterling has done such a great job in evolving and growing and modernizing you know I I can remember how it was trying to book a tea time 10 plus years ago and we really come a wonderful way.

And I think actually having uh Keith Handler as our new head pro is a wonderful development for Sterling.

He's been my personal coach as well at Sterling so I I think he's wonderful and and I I you know golf is one of those hobbies where uh it's a lifetime sport and it's something where I would love to continue to see more uh younger participants younger players um being able to enjoy it I was going through the financials over the last several months and you know we get a lot of fees from non-stamford residents which is great because obviously you know there's there are different rates for Stanford residents over over non-residents but um imagine the consistency of having you know a younger group of people coming regularly consistently having a good time playing golf with their friends you know uh during the summer months and and like having you know 40 years of that um as opposed to you know maybe uh uh a focus on an older residents in in Stanford and everything so um I like to I'd like to hope that I could help have a a different outlook and approach compared to you know maybe certainly than where my father was when he was on the authority uh several years ago sounds great and I'm happy to see a moment like normally like I I always thought look it's more men want to be on the golf authority but I'm happy that uh you will be there and uh I'm sure I hope that more and more people join like you do so thank you I hope so too thank you representative Petia please go ahead thank you very much Mr.

Um that being said, do you have I always ask everybody on this um commission this question?

Um we do have these great um treasures in Stanford, right?

You know, Sterling Farms and Hubbard Heights.

And uh I grew up around Hubbard Heights instead.

Um and um is there any way even if this isn't within the confines of what your commission does, is there any way that you could think of that we can make this more accessible to young people, i.e.

like costs, um clubs and everything like that.

You know, it's very easy to play basketball, right?

And baseball, it's not easy to get your crap together and play golf.

Uh uh, thank you, representative pavia.

I agree.

Uh you need equipment even just to show up and play.

Uh so it's you're already investing before you've even been able to, you know, swing your club.

Um I would I I think that would be such a fun idea to have some programs that were more targeted to a younger demographic.

Um and also, I mean, you representatives, you have my information.

I'm not actually all that young, but I'd like to think that I am, but uh that I I think having um well like one of my favorite things about golf is that it is such a social sport.

I actually couldn't care less what I how how well I do, like that like the score that that that's actually not how I'm assessing how well I do.

I want to have a good time.

I'm out in nature.

Sterling is so beautiful.

We have amazing birds, amazing wildlife.

Like you don't even have to be out there to to hit a ball at all and just enjoy yourself and imagine trying, especially as you know, I I do happen to live in district one.

I I'm I'm downtown a lot.

Uh we have uh such an influx of of you know younger residents in the city.

And I am somebody who grew up here in Stanford, so I you know, I I can see I could speak to the evolution of the city and I would love to see some programs to entice people maybe representative pavia, you know, we could have some kind of like program in the season where it's like you know, nine holes and maybe it's a little bit discounted or something for uh a foursome, but just to get people involved because again, you know, it's it's I I'd love to see the consistency.

I mean, I was as I was going through some of the numbers month over month, right?

There are variances, a lot of that has to do with weather and equipment and things that some that you can't control.

And so I'd love to see us try to proactively go after, not and not suggesting that the current authority hasn't been contemplating these ideas, but just you know, maybe I might might be able to bring some different ideas about how to bring some new map new new participants to to the sport.

I I love what you just said there.

And even if it's not in the what I said before, like even if it's not in the purview of the uh of the of the commission, right?

I mean, maybe like we were just talking about the the equipment alone.

Maybe there's like a got like a golf giveaway, like a bag of use clubs or something like that, or used balls.

I mean the driving range of them.

I really hope that you um bring your new energy, fresh energy to this.

And whether it's in the commission's purview or not, um I really hope that you'll uh spearhead these kind of fun things that can get people younger people involved.

We were talking about arts before.

Um sports is the same thing.

It gets people, you know, sort of um out of sort of situations that they're in.

And golfing is such one of those cool things that it it's it's very social.

I didn't get that when I was younger.

I was like, why am I doing this with a stage put in a ball in the hole 500 miles away?

I uh so if I if I may share a small personal anecdote.

Um in 2016, I completed a charity event at Sterling where I it's called the Hundred Hole Hike, and you walk 100 holes in one day for charity.

Um and I actually uh raised money for a local Stanford-based organization called the Umbrella Club, which some of you on this uh might might be familiar with.

My father was also a member of the umbrella club.

Um and I I I just I feel like it was such a fun event to you know, it had nothing it, but it would what it the preparation for it because it's a hundred holes in one day.

I started before daybreak to to get through the whole thing, but uh to representative Pavio's point.

You know, it's it's it's fun and it's so it doesn't have to be so serious.

And could it to your to your other point about kind of linking this to what the prior conversation uh about arts in the city of Stanford?

Like we we have such an amazing city with so much to offer and and like ways that we can get our our fellow neighbors engaged and in different activities.

I'm super supportive of and so if it's golf, I'd be happy to see that too.

Like you style, Miss Taylor, final question.

Final questions do all be all mallet putter or blade butter.

Bleed.

Me too.

But I I'd like both.

I'm sure.

I I mean if anybody watched Happy Gilmore too recently, you could even do it with a hockey stick.

So that's thank you so much, Mr.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Pavia.

I'm going to turn the floor over to uh Representative Kaczynski in a minute.

I just want to piggyback very quickly on uh representative Pavia.

Um the young people are the future of this board.

It is really important um, you know, to build a relationship with the physical education departments, boys and girls club and other organizations like that to get the feeder population going in.

So I I definitely encourage you and the board.

I've given them this charge before, to please do everything you can to get our young people involved.

You know, whether it is uh a regular golfer gets a new set of clubs, ask them to please donate the old clubs.

They don't have to be perfect.

Um just uh the the entry fee of coming in and joining it is just so high to get all that equipment.

So if anything that can be done by the commission to make this more open to the general public and to get them uh passionate about golf.

I enjoy walking, that's the thing that I always like about golf courses.

But I think you know we do have a demographic issue that uh you know the young people don't seem to be picking it up as much as the older people did, and that's why it's so important for this commission and our city to uh make sure that there is a pipeline to educate the kids.

Anyway, that's my soapbox.

Uh Representative Kazinski had his hand up.

Representative Kazinski, go ahead.

Oh, Chairman, I lowered my hand.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any further questions?

Okay.

Thank you very much for taking the time to come in and meet with us.

We appreciate your uh your passion on this.

I'm sure you'll do a good job.

We'll be voting on this at the end of the evening, and then on Wednesday, the full board will be voting on you.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairman.

Appreciate it.

Thank you so much for your time.

Have a good evening.

Good night.

Good night.

Okay, and the last person is Chairman.

That's you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for waiting so patiently with our issues.

It's pretty much at all.

Thank you.

I looked through it at work.

Oh it's just been such a nightmare.

I'm gonna ask our vice chair, please both.

Thank you.

Good evening, it's Mr.

Claringham.

So that's right.

Great.

Thank you for being here and being patient for all this talk.

My pleasure.

Um could you confirm your party affiliation, please?

Uh Democrat.

Thank you.

And which municipal district you live in.

I'm in 19.

Perfect.

And um, is it your first time applying for the zoning board of people?

Um no, I did an alternate on the committee or close to five years, so through uh similar processes that okay.

Um and then are you currently serving on any other city boards or commission?

No.

Have you served on any um city roles that you have received any monitoring compensation?

No.

Do you understand?

And are you willing to abide by the code of ethics?

Yes.

And upon confirmation by the Board of Representatives, will you be able to attend all regular and special meetings?

Yes.

Do you understand that the information provided in this application maybe subject to disclosure under Natic's Information Act?

I do.

Thank you.

And I think we have the same issue.

We don't have your form here.

served on any um city roles that you have received any monitor compensation no do you understand and are you willing to abide by the code of ethics yes and upon confirmation by the board of representatives will you be able to attend all regular and special meetings yes do you understand that the information provided in this application may be subject to disclosure under three of the information act I do thank you and I think we have the same issue we don't have your form here I and she's already on it so I think she's going to follow up um for you to fill those in I did complete those I think when I was talking to the mayor's office it was online okay so I do so she probably will follow up with them first and if they don't have it might reach out thank you thank you very much uh are there any hands raised our committee members check go ahead thank you um just so you've started an alternate just wanted to see what your experience is meaning is it alternate and what are you um looking forward to serving continuous serve on sure uh well as as uh is Jacobson mentioned earlier we've been shorthanded since I joined so I've been meetings once a month uh 11 people 11 per year and I've been in almost all of them the whole time so it's been a a busy alternate uh position but I've enjoyed it very much um I think it takes a little bit of time to learn um a lot of the technical ins and outs of uh zoning regulations and how the board works so having uh that much uh that much time to do it is uh helped a lot and I I feel like I can continue to be a productive member of that committee.

That's good.

I mean I appreciate your interest in wanting to actually serve and like do it you know and as a as a permanent member and you know the interest should work so and um this Jacobson does a super job running the uh the committee and I've worked alongside her for a few years too I think it's a it's a very good group thank you and are you getting the cooperation that you think we need from the city officials yes I I think we are um we get lots of help uh with technical advice uh procedural advice um continuing education um and we've had a number of ad hoc um issues that have come up where we've we've been able to dig into a particular issue so I feel like we've got very good support are do you make a practice to see each site not every site but uh whenever possible I get in my car and we normally have four to six cases per month and um if it doesn't look straightforward at all we definitely drive around and take a look at the site especially when it's a little complex some of the cases uh you know a lot of the work is about really getting to the bottom of what what the truth is what the issues are before we can make a decision and in those cases you need to see them uh so what percentage of the actual cases have you been on site to see I would guess a half perhaps about that have you had occasion where you have wished that you had actually seen the site um none that I can recall and I'm sure there have been hundreds so there could be some where it could have been helpful um we do though um the the information we're given well in advance of the meetings is very extensive and includes um all kinds of schematics and pictures in between that and what's available online um for a lot of the more routine cases um you get a very good picture of things um but that still doesn't preclude you know being out on site to see something uh especially when it's a little more complex yeah I think that's one thing I would encourage you to do because I think that's something that uh that indicates to the residents that it's being taken seriously yes and we do have understanding of the unique situation on that property we've had a few cases you know over the years that have been very much about the impact of a development to a residential community and you really cannot get a whole feel of that without going out there walking around and looking at it I think you're absolutely right are there any further questions I have my hand is chairman and you are being called thank you um good evening um so I would encourage uh should you be appointed uh to you know exercise your intellectual curiosity and not accept everything as on the surface and I'll I'll give you an example in my district there was a cannabis dispensary proposed for 417 Chapan Avenue and in the application it stated that the surrounding area was primarily primarily I think they even use a stronger word than primarily but I'll use the word for lack of a better term primarily uh commercial space and the zoning board just accepted that prima fascia as did I'm sorry the planning board and the zoning board accepted

In my district, there was a cannabis dispensary proposed for 417 Japan Avenue.

And in the application, it stated that the surrounding area was primarily primarily.

And the zoning board just accepted that prima fascia.

As did I'm sorry, the planning board and the zoning board accepted that preparation.

Department of Order.

I'm a little confused here.

Is this gentleman applying for a position on the zoning board or on the zoning board of appeals?

And if the latter, could we keep our examples of ones that are relevant to the no, because it is relevant.

My example is relevant.

Um falling to the chairman's point about driving to the actual location.

This is a really follow-up from the chairman's observation.

Driving to the actual location, what you would have what one would have seen had they actually drove to the location, is that it was co-term or co uh it was uh the proposed site was actually in the same building as an after-school program, then in the same parking lot is a child psychiatric uh care, and that there is a child youth uh martial arts studio, and it was across from a park with the playground.

So the statement that this was primarily, and I'm gonna paraphrase here, but primarily surrounded by commercial enterprises was actually false and misleading.

So your point is that it is you see the value of actually physically making site inspections.

Correct.

That's fine.

Thank you, sir.

No, I absolutely agree with that.

Um lots of things are left to interpretation.

Oftentimes applicants are they they only do this one time and they make an honest mistake about how they interpret something, and you can't take that uh as fact.

We ask a lot of questions about that, and certainly going out there and looking looking at it yourself is the best way to make sure you know what what you're looking at.

Yes, uh for the chairman's observation and comment, I would highly encourage that as frequently as possible.

So thank you without yield my time.

Thank you, sir.

Any no further comments?

Please go ahead, Matt.

Good evening, sir.

Thank you for being competent.

And um if you had one item that you compliant with Donald Board, wouldn't you say everyone that you not only gave advice, but you also learned quite a bit and enhance your ability to do well with the your decision make it.

What would that one thing be?

Um you know, I think um the zoning regulations uh I think for for any town, but certainly for a city like Stanford are very complicated.

And I think uh we get a lot of applicants who are applying for residential changes, and uh it's a very complicated process for them to understand and present their case properly.

I so I think um I think there's more we could do to help applicants be ready.

Um think through how to present their case um correctly um and make government simpler for them to access.

So I think that's that's one thing I've observed that and we try to do a lot of that during the sessions to make things clearer.

I've never met you before, but I've had a lot of calls about you, and they've all were pocketed.

So I'm taking my time that I have the tonight to say thank you for your service and continue to serve and do what you do for the the city of Tampa that we all love so dearly.

Well, thank you very much.

I do know that people are watching you.

Well, I've lived here for 20 years and our family loves Stanford and uh it's a great uh great board to be on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cherry.

Okay, see no further questions or comments.

Thank you very much for taking the time to come in.

Appreciate that.

We'll be voting at the end of the evening and then on Wednesday for thanks so much for your time.

Thank you for the night.

Thanks for bearing with us.

If those forms are missing, I'll uh be happy to re redo them.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay, the next item.

An ordinance is amending chapter six of the closed ordinance.

And the duties and responsibilities of the Aquipment's committee.

Oh, good.

Oh, thank you.

Okay.

Well, um, thank you, uh, Chair Patterson.

Hopefully, you can hear me, but I I commented on this ordinance, the last public hearing, but I just have a quick question.

Um the public wasn't able to get on this meeting till about seven thirty-six, so we missed like the first hour.

And I was just wondering, is was that part of the meeting recorded?

Um, that we can hear it at another time.

The interviews that took place.

Um, hold on one second.

Hold on.

Because they're they're not they can't hear you.

They just got rebooted.

Hold on.

Oh, Jay, okay.

Angie.

We're still on, right?

We are.

Thank you.

I can hear you guys.

This is President Sherwood, but I don't hear anybody in the room.

The room appears not to be connected anymore.

Yeah, it's the same with me.

I'm wondering.

Can you guys hear me?

This is Sue Halburn.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Oh, yeah.

But this is what's referred to as an echo chamber.

We can all hear each other, but not the other people.

Is anybody available?

Is anybody available to call Chair Patterson and let him know?

Yes, I will.

Thank you.

I just got to hold it.

I'm on the phone with Ramia trying to get her to log in now.

So okay, hold on.

Nina, have you been on the whole meeting?

I have not.

I just came on for this item.

I came on earlier because I was hearing that people were having problems logging in.

But uh no, I just came on for this item now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, i it was a lot, Nina.

It was um a lot of uh text messages.

Okay, the room is back and we're still being recorded.

We know that's Carl eating potato chips.

You just have to unmute.

I'm here.

This is Sue.

I'm at the Democratic Caucus room.

Oh, all right.

You got you can hear us, Angie.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

We can hear you.

Okay.

It is eight forty.

We're trying again to open the public hearing, the second hearing on the ordinance for adoption.

Amending chapter six of the closed ordinances, authorities, boards, and commit uh and commission.

Uh specifically the busy responsibilities that they're up on the applicants.

Public hearing open.

Are there any speakers that wish to uh speak on this?

Anyone online first that uh would like to speak on this.

I was speaking.

This is Sue Halpern.

Go ahead, please, Miss Hopper.

Start over again.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Patterson.

Um, thank you.

I commented on this ordinance and the first public hearing.

So um I I was asking for you to approve the ordinance as amended.

But I my question is as far as this meeting goes, tonight.

Um we missed the first hour because we couldn't get in.

The public couldn't get in or what have you.

And I was wondering, was that part of the meeting recorded?

I mean, we are we able to hear the interviews that took place.

Do you know?

I don't know what to answer to you.

Um probably some of it was recorded in some areas.

Yeah, we we kept getting kicked off.

I have no idea what happened on it.

And there is no way for us.

There's no way for us.

It is recorded.

It is recorded.

Sammy, the question is uh Robert before us.

Was the previous session recorded?

Yes, it was recorded.

So we have a record of everything that was said.

I'll find out later, but it was recorded.

Yeah, and then this we I'm afraid that we know we were knocked off so many times that um I cannot believe that we have a complete record, but at this point to answer your question, Ms.

Halpern, the answer is not known, and unfortunately, there is nothing that anyone in this room can do about it.

Okay, thank you.

So you are commenting now on the uh on the ordinance the second public hearing, is that correct?

Yes, well, I I just wanted to um say that I had commented in the first public hearing, so I don't think you need to hear me again.

Um I'm just asking that you approve this ordinance going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, please go ahead, representing from a bill and I'm going to committee.

And I remember I would I would have to know what meeting public hearing would be for.

Did I miss nothing?

I'm not going to be any.

The last meeting of this committee was the first public hearing on this item.

Okay, then we approved it and then it went to the board, and now we've got the second one.

Okay.

And if we approve it tonight and it goes before the board, this will become an ordinance subject to the uh mayor's veto.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Are there any other speakers to this?

Okay, speech.

Oh, Mr.

Adams, please go ahead.

Come forward and join us.

You know, the hot seat there.

No, good for that.

So good evening, appointments committee, chair.

Thank you so much for having me, Vice Chair.

Um, I would like to uh just reiterate that this is a 30-year problem that this board has worked extremely hard to uh approach from in any angle possible to get relief from.

Uh, you know, uh we continuously hear from corporation council, or we did continuously hear that from corporation council that this board could have wrote policy.

Uh and then when this board tried to go write that policy, it then said that that policy was uh null and void because it didn't it wasn't legal for the board of reps to have to write policy.

So the the pendulum has gone back and forth on this particular subject matter.

Um for the entirety of this board that I can remember, and and during the previous board, I as I remember as well.

Um and this is a 30-year problem, just like the purple bridge.

Uh this board has worked hard to do something about it, and it has been kicked in its face.

Uh just like the previous uh ordinance involving the appointments and and at the end of the day, this this particular ordinance that's on the table right now.

Uh it is really just about achieving the transparency that I think that that all the residents of Stanford genuinely deserve.

And not just the residents of Stanford, but also the members of the boards that serve because without this kind of transparency, it's impossible for the president of the board to utilize their uh charter given right uh during the appointments process.

So uh I highly encourage you to pass this this evening.

Uh and I hope it gets passed uh at once it gets to the full board if it is passed here.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, sir.

I hope you have a great day.

Thank you.

So seeing no further speakers, I declare this public hearing closed, and we move on to the last item, which is A31138, which is a review of the demographics of Stanford Board and Commissions.

Is there do we have only is there a discussion on this item?

The question is, is there anybody here to speak on it from the board?

From any and there are no speakers from the board.

From the board or from the mayor's office or anybody.

This is on day 31-231.

Uh 83138.

We close the public hearing.

Right.

But following the public hearing on 831-231, is there a discussion?

Is there a committee vote?

We will have a afterwards.

So you want to do number nine and then come back to number eight.

I would do number nine and then we will go back to item one.

All right, that's um I just go right down the line.

You you got this under control.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Okay.

So we have no speakers, nobody here to uh point from the administration on this one.

So um question for you.

So did you not receive any uh email or anything that there was not anyone here to speak tonight?

We'll reach out to you.

I have not been reached out to perhaps uh Mrs.

Staley has been uh yes, I I reached out to the mayor's office on Monday and I forwarded it to the email that that email to the full committee on Monday.

That was the email that's in the package.

For the record, can you tell us or give us an overview just for the record?

It's in the package.

Whatever that they just could not attend the meeting today and she gave the same email address or the website that you can go to for the information.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, then we will start with item number one or go ahead.

Just like to make it on the record that this is like the you know, we've had several meetings regarding regarding this item.

No one from the nutrition has ever shown up for this, nor did they give any information there was asked which they stated in an email that they were gonna provide us with information, and so we we can get one or the other and I find that to be troubling for me.

So thank you, sir.

I know you put in a lot of time on this.

Okay, so we're going to go back now to item one.

Um yes, please go ahead, representative.

Welcome.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, I want to um express my disappointment and shall I say how discussed it?

I feel by having for the second time nobody from the administration uh coming to speak and they have been invited.

I don't see the why.

I don't know what they're hiding or what they are afraid of by not coming, uh you know, uh to attend this meeting and answer the questions, which they should be obligated to answer.

I do appreciate all the efforts and the hard work that representative Estella has put into this, but again, my disappointment, you know, is is I think it's very disrespectful.

I see no reason for um uh any member.

I mean, they have attended other committees, you know, why not this one?

Because they know what they are hiding, they know what they are afraid of, and I think it's a shame.

So I wanted to express my disappointment and discuss that how I feel about this administration by not attending.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

You will have another chance to discuss this one at the end.

Um the first item is item number one, 83124, the board of ethics.

That is the nomination of Evan Gutman.

Do we have a motion on this one?

So I'll is there a second second.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on this item?

Go ahead.

I thought um he was pretty good, but for the board of ethics, I know like the other people that have come before us.

They they are a little well-versed with the uh with the law.

So I would I would think Mr.

Cutman with his personnel background or HR background, he would have been good for that, but I don't think he would be a good fit for this one for me.

Okay, any further comments?

Okay, let's move that to a vote.

Um do we have a motion to move to vote on this one?

Okay, yes, ma'am.

I think it's what we're usually uh uh vice here.

I look at some of the applications.

Do you have the note?

Nothing is there.

Did the no the note are these polls checked answer?

Yes or no?

I can show you one here in the beginning.

It's true.

Do you have what I'm talking about?

Um probably is this something to do with the warning medicine somewhere one?

No, on the app would say oh right here.

See right here?

Yeah, so the question.

Yeah, so they have circled it.

It just looks weird because it's no, they don't really let it.

Well, I mean it's just the way it's printed.

So it's just the way friends funded.

Unfortunately.

I don't know that kind of um uh punctuation laws to kill the death of the thing that they that we are you referring to the question, are you a veteran, for example?

What is the question that you're referring to?

Can we I do, but what I'm saying is the same thing as Chair Patterson.

It's so small when they print it, it comes out like that, but they do check it.

They say yes.

It's fair, you can see it's not it out, could be done.

Okay, thank you so much, Remy.

Of course.

Okay.

Second, please.

Second second.

Okay, Angelina, if you could call a role on this one, please.

Patterson.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Tavia?

Yep.

Somerville.

Yeah.

I I didn't hear you.

Walston.

I say zero one.

Thank you.

The next item is item two, the zoning board of appeals.

Lauren Jacobson, that's 831 225.

Do I have a motion on this one?

So I'll move.

Second.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on this one?

Okay, hearing no further discussion.

Can I have a motion to vote?

I think I think there's no discussion.

Okay, then Angelina, if you could please call the role on this.

Patterson.

Yes.

Shaw.

Yes.

Bigaroa.

No.

Yes.

Tavia?

Yes.

Somerville.

Yes.

Walston.

Yes.

Six one zero.

Thank you.

The third item.

Historic preservation report uh advisory committee.

Nicholas Ponzo.

That's 831-226.

Do you have a motion on that one?

So much.

Second.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion on that one?

Okay.

And Julina, if you could please call the role on that.

Patterson.

Yes.

Shaw?

Yes.

Bigaroa.

No.

Yes.

Tavia.

Yep.

Somerville.

I didn't.

I'm I didn't hear you again.

Oh, Walston.

No, the way in there.

Um Walton, you said no?

Yes, no.

It's no.

Okay.

Five, two, zero.

Next one is item four, the arts and culture commission.

That is for Liz Van Calton.

831 227.

Do we have a motion on that one?

So second.

Second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Yeah, Mr.

Mr.

Chair.

I I just don't feel like uh she lacked the um the word I'm looking for here.

The innovative like thought process that we've seen with other people.

That being said, I'm still gonna vote for her.

She seemed very financial to me.

She is from finance.

And my questions were really tailored towards the artist here.

And um she seemed to go back to finance, and that turned me off a little bit.

Maybe we need that.

Somebody's financially off on this commission.

Uh, but I'm biting my thumb as I vote yes for this.

I hope I'm wrong.

Any other comments?

I have a comment.

Please go ahead.

I thought she was wonderful, and I do like her background.

I liked how she transitioned, and then as you can tell, it says here that uh she was on the board of the community equity arts society.

So um, you know, I think she has a little bit of experience.

That's why I'm going with our and I think she she has an open mind.

Representative Pavia, I I see your point about having the passion for the arts in the uh demonstrated way, but I think her um her life story does support that interest.

And we have taken pains to have people, please.

We have taken pains to have people that have direct artistic experience on this commission.

So I think it is time for somebody that can ground this and get the financials um and help with that.

Mr.

Chair, um, when the minutes come out, read what I just said uh in my statement there, and it'll be fully in agreement with what you just and Representative Walson just said.

Yeah, representative Sherwood, I'm the representative uh Somerville.

Yes, sir.

I I agree.

I thought she was one of the best candidates we had tonight.

I've got the spirit, I felt that she wasn't honest.

She spoke loud enough that we could hear that with the best interview we had that and I also want to say that we need more like her program from prevalent law all about one thing.

They can't be on the trees and see where some more flowers there.

So this isn't support of this.

I highly recommend that we can just particular.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, for the record.

Um I like when she said she said uh she admitted that she has no experience with this, but as you can tell, she she can she can learn, she can pick up and she can do well.

So, you know, I liked her honesty about that too.

She was I thought she was a wonderful candidate for the arts and culture.

Okay, having no further comments, Angelina, could you please call the role?

I have to sorry.

Go ahead, Representative.

It's uh I don't see a hand there, but go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yes, I will agree.

Uh we concord with uh the other um uh members who just spoke.

I think Liz was uh very candid and honest person.

Um just apply and look at the position, arts and cultures.

She's not applying to be the president of the United States, so I'm sure she will do a great job with all the background, the financial background that she's bringing in.

I know that this uh commission, you know, is I need some financial assistance, so I think she will be great, and I will be voting for her.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Angelina, can you call the role, please?

Patterson.

Yes.

Yes, figureoah, yes.

Yes, Pavia, yep.

Somerville, yeah.

Yes.

700.

Thank you.

Next item is 831 228, Social Services Commission.

Item number five, and that is Connie Ben Dove.

Do I have a motion on this one?

So move.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Uh yes, Chair, my hand raised.

Go ahead, Mr.

Kazinski.

So my comments are just um echoing questions that was asked of the candidate previously, and that is that I think there's an enormous gap in Stanford's um mental health support facilities, particularly for children and teens.

As she identified, there literally is nothing available in the city of Stanford beyond the adult psychiatric ward at Stanford Hospital.

So I would just encourage you know those members of the board of the public and those members of the board of representatives for the 32nd board to take this up as a as an issue.

I mean it was not addressed in the comprehensive plan.

Um any case it it it it's it's a it's a glaring gap in our in our health care system in Stanford, the city of Stanford.

Uh it's actually kind of shameful that they that such a large gap exists there, and I encourage uh the public and future 30 second boardrooms to take this up as an issue.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Charlie.

No further comments.

Angela, if you could call the role, please.

Sure.

Uh Pavia.

Um I'm sorry, Patterson.

Yes.

Shaw.

Yes.

Pigaroa.

Kazinski.

Yes.

Pavia?

Yes.

Somerville.

Wallston.

Yes.

And Figaroa, you're muted.

Can you hear me?

I can now.

Perfect.

Yes.

Okay.

700.

Thank you.

The next item is item six, 831 229, Stanford Golf Authority, and that is Catherine Taylor.

Do we have a motion on this one?

I moved.

We cover that.

Thank you.

Discussion.

Is there any discussion on this item?

Okay.

If you could please call the roll for us, Angelina.

Sure.

Patterson?

Yes.

Shaw.

Yes.

Figaroa.

Yes.

Kazinski.

Yes.

Pavia.

Yes, ma'am.

Somerville?

Yeah.

Wallston.

Yes.

700.

And the last item on our appointments candidates is number seven, A31, 230, the zoning board of appeals, Jeremiah.

Do we have a motion on this one?

Okay.

Any discussion.

Okay, Angelina, if you would call the roll, please.

Patterson.

Yes.

Shaw.

Oh.

Oh, Shaw, I'm sorry.

Oh, Figaroa.

Sorry, she called me.

Yes.

Okay.

Shaw.

Yes.

Okay.

Kacinski.

Yes.

Pabia.

Yes, ma'am.

Somerville.

Wallston.

Yes.

700.

Thank you.

And the next item is the ordinance.

We'd have the public hearing.

Um is there any comment or discussion on this item?

Could you read the line?

Do you want a motion to approve?

Um to approve the ordinance.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, is there a motion to approve the ordinance?

Yes.

Can you move?

Okay.

Can you put on a record the name of the audience so that both people represent uh be void with this is an ordinance for final adoption amending chapter six of the code of ordinances, authorities, boards, and commissions, uh section six one two three, duties and responsibilities, the appointments commissioned, and that is it.

Thank you, is there any discussion on this item?

Yeah, Mr.

Thank you.

So I would like to apologize to this committee or something I said recently regarding this proposed ordinance.

I was recently invited to attend a candidate forum in another district.

One of the candidates was a young man, very bright, thoughtful and energetic, just the kind of person who we want to encourage to participate in city government.

After the candidate for him ended, I went up to him and said words to this vet.

I thought you did really well.

If the election doesn't go well for you, I want to encourage you to consider applying for one of the city's volunteer boards and commissions.

That's how I started in city government, and my experience is it's a great way to get started.

Plus the city could really use someone with your thoughtfulness and energy.

Now here's my I'm apologizing for what I said to him.

I failed to tell him that if he applies for a volunteer position and the mayor decides not to nominate him, his name will go on a list of people whom the mayor rejected.

I failed to tell him that his name will remain on that list for four years.

And I failed to tell him that if he applies for a job during those four years, and the employer runs a background check on him, or even just Googles him, both of which are highly likely, they will know that the mayor rejected him, which could make the employer think twice about hiring him.

Now that's just you may some of you may laugh and say, Oh, that won't happen, but I've probably got a little bit more experience in recruiting than anybody else in this room.

And that is exactly what will happen.

And that's just one of the unintended consequences of this ordinance, and of this committee's refusal to allow a rejected applicant to opt out of putting his or her name on this public list.

It's just one of the unintended consequences of the sponsor's demand for transparency.

So I want to urge someone on this committee to make a motion to amend section 6123b.

Um, so that which is the section of this ordinance that deals with the creation of this list of male can of candidates, including candidates whose names are not put forward by the mayor, and give every applicant the option to opt out of having their name put on this list.

And with that, I do.

Thank you, sir.

Um representative Tavia, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I want to say this.

On the four years that I've been on the board, there's been a lot of things that we've talked about where a lot of people are like, yeah, this needs to be fixed, right?

But this just isn't the way.

And there's always some excuse.

I my colleague um representative stallion, I don't always see eye to eye on things, but I really commend him for his effort.

Um to go about this and make and actually do what everybody says they want to do and and make sure that like to find a solution and find middle ground.

He this has been rejected.

I don't know how many times I'm confused, right?

Um there's been corporation counsel involved without him knowing about it.

And um he's ended up working with that that's in corporation council to find something that is legal by the city's standards.

Um I think that that's something we should applaud.

I think that whether we're for this or not, I think that's something we should applaud.

I think that's something we should aspire to be like as representatives to come up with creative problem solving, and really, if we really say that there's something wrong with something, um Jeff Stella here, again, somebody that I don't always see I um I'm probably not his favorite person, but I will tell you this like he is somebody that we can look up to in this regards that he tried continuously to find a solution to this problem.

I see the holes in um I I know what representative um Weinberg is talking about, and there are still uh things that we can question, but Representative Stella keeps bringing it to the table, he keeps bringing it, and I respect that.

And I hope, no matter how anybody votes on this, that they everybody respects him for this effort at the end of the night.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Representative Sherwood, please go ahead.

Yes, go ahead, Representative Somerville.

So I'm gonna say this.

I echoed in the midst of the previous speaker.

I agree wholeheart.

For me on appointment committee, I think my last rock.

And I listen and what I'm gonna say.

I feel the same way about John Phillips.

I disagree with him that I disagree with my first hunt, but I tell you that I respect him.

I want to say just uh the one thing that will keep me it would have been feeling real good about all that I've been doing on this committee uh appointment, and that's been a decade.

Keep on doing what you're doing because I see it's a bit top.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr.

Proponently Costing.

Thank you, Representative Sherwood.

We've been voted.

Can you hear me?

Hello.

Now we can hear you, yes.

Oh my goodness.

Very strange.

Okay.

Um I listened to what Representative Weinberg had to say.

Um, and look, I you know, I too have extensive experience in uh interviewing people and betting them through an HR process at multiple different organizations.

Um and I want to say the website doesn't need to say rejected.

First of all, people who apply to these things are a matter of public record.

Second of all, the website could simply just say that the person applied.

Like here are the people who applied over the past four years for a position on Harbor Commission, and it's just a list, it doesn't need to say interviewed, rejected.

It's just a list of people of names, and to be honest, if I if I as an employer, as somebody who's involved in the employment process, when I Google somebody, which if you know, I think a lot of employers do that because they're trying to figure out who it is that's applying, preparing for interviews, which is something I do.

Seeing that somebody would apply to a position at an organization or company that I work for, and I'm considering working with them, and seeing that they apply to be civically engaged in their local community is a bonus.

Like if I see that, if I were to go and find on a counselor's office that John Doe applied for the Harbor Commission, I'd be like, man, that's that's somebody who's not sitting at home and watching TV all the time and not getting things done.

That's somebody who's curious and engaged and wants to be a part of their community and volunteer.

That to me is bonus point.

So I don't I don't think that the website is gonna be something that is like this person applied and interviewed, and they failed with like a big red circle of a line through it.

I I it that is not the intention of this ordinance, and I don't think I think once implemented any I don't think the town clerk's office would present the information that way.

Um I think that that would be ridiculous to present it that way, and it simply just says that they apply.

This refers to who is applying.

How many applicants were there?

So there might be a list of three, there might be a list of 40, but there's it doesn't require that there be an interview or rejection stamp on it.

So all this would simply do on the public-facing side of it, is educate the public on what the interest is amongst their fellow residents for the position.

And if we want here to take my meeting, can you hear me?

Something just interrupted.

Or was that the office?

Tom, I don't know, but it's on things continue.

And you're the last one.

Okay, so I was just saying on the public, in terms of the public facing side, this is just a way for the public to be able to gauge how much interest by their fellow residents of the city there has been in these positions.

Obviously, it's in here because there has been a decade-long history of leaving people on boards and commissions as expired, and the executive branch using the reason that people are not applying for the position as the reason why they leave people expired on.

So this is a solution that has been brought forward that would bring transparency to the process so that the public knows.

But if we write ordinances to make sure that residents who are involved in city government don't get penalized by potential employers, I really think that representative Weinberg's perspective on it is not how employers would view it.

Um is I might I would look at it as they're a go-getter, and they they believe in something beyond you know, just simply doing nothing, or they're not lazy.

I mean, there's a lot of generally positive things you can um conclude by somebody wanting to be involved in a volunteer board in their local city government, and so I think it's a bonus to that to that president who applied, and I um I do not agree with representative uh Weinberg's assessment.

So um, so I don't recommend making it uh or add this to the ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh representative Kaczynski.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um thank you, President.

Um yeah, this just smacks is one more attempt to grab at straws to prevent transparency.

I mean, at the end of the day, this is about transparency.

I believe the representative is impugning my motives.

I believe you're correct.

So would you go on a different track, please, Mr.

I'll continue in a different way, though.

So the the the goal here is to achieve transparency, and there have been many, many efforts to prevent this from passing, even in its watered down form, which it is, it's very much watered down.

Um the fact of the matter is that running for public office or seeking out a public committee or board is a public process and it requires transparency, and there's winners and losers every day in life.

Last night, the Dodgers lost, embarrassing six to two loss.

Should they be shame publicly shamed?

I don't know.

They played hard.

Candidates run for public office.

We have an election coming up in a week.

There's gonna be winners and losers, and the poll public and all the employers in the that are interested in those candidates will be able to see if they were a winner or loser.

My point is there's winners and losers every day.

That doesn't impugn the character of the person that lost, particularly when it when when the when it's a decision, but uh essentially uh one elected official.

So I I just don't find the I find it's a specious argument that doesn't really carry weight.

Um it's important in my view that this uh initiative has become so watered down, but even in its watered down and corporation council approved format, it still advances because of transparency, and for that I support it.

And and I'm sure that the majority, if this were on the ballot, the majority of uh of Stanford voters would also uh welcome it and approve it.

So you'll also the voters.

Thank you, sir.

Representative Morrison, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um responding to some of the comments my colleagues have shared uh following Representative Weinberg's position.

Uh first, I I believe that there is a difference between putting yourself forward for public election and applying for an appointed position.

Uh, in that if I if I refer to um uh representative representative Figueroa, Mr.

Morrison has the floor.

Go for him, enjoy Mr.

Chair.

The difference is that when you run for office, someone wins, someone does not.

Representative Kaczynski described it as winners and losers.

Uh the that actually makes my point, and I believe Representative Weinberg's point.

When you apply for a position, you may not be selected among a pool of interested parties, but that doesn't mean if you're not selected, you're a loser, as though you had gone into a competitive race in the public eye.

I think someone who uh uh presents themselves should want should have the option to have their name not included if they choose going back to representative Sherwood's uh position that uh it shows you're a go-getter that you're not lazy.

Um that would be that could be one person's interpretation, but it could be quite a quite the opposite interpretation by someone else, and again, I think that should be the applicant's choice to have their name appear or not.

Uh I uh let the transparency be there, but this is not a public election.

Uh, and I I think the person should be able to determine uh for themselves what they think is best, uh especially when uh potential employers are looking at them through uh through Google searches.

Uh and I uh first certainly I wouldn't want to be perceived as having lost by simply be I because I wasn't selected, uh, and and that could that could hurt me.

And that's that's the the empathy I would have for for anyone who applies, uh, that it not um be an irreversible harm to them and let it be their choice whether or not they remain on the list publicly.

Thank you for your time.

Representative Figueroa, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

As I said it when my when my um accidentally my um microphone was open, I said it again publicly.

There's no difference, okay, between being an appointed official or an elected official, I think it will be even worse.

And the and any potential employer will easily take that as a no if I was applying to opposition, and if I lost to that election, because it is so open to the public, I suppose to an appointment where I will have to Google it.

The media is not going to be uh telling my name is not going to be published in any newspaper or any or and any television channel.

So I think there is no difference.

Rather that there is more protection if any potential uh person applying and being rejected that are supposed to be election.

So I will be very much against even if there was a second of the proposal made for this representative, but I just disagree with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um all do respect to everybody here.

I I think we're like a little bit off topic.

And um let me tell you how it works in the public sector.

Right.

Um, in the public sector, right?

Um, a job is put up for 14 days.

Okay.

And you can apply for it.

Doesn't mean that your name goes on a website.

Doesn't mean anything like that, right?

You can apply for it.

And after 14 days, it closes.

Does everybody know that?

Like I mean, I I think that we're talking about like elections and stuff, but I'm getting lost here.

Um what are we talking about here?

This is just about transparency, and again, because nobody else has come up with a better idea.

This is what we have right now.

Representative Stella came up with this is not casting aspersions on anybody.

This is just saying like isn't there a way, guys?

Where we could have it where you where we can agree on that that these jobs are open, right?

They're open on the website.

A website, name the website, you know, and they're open.

People can apply for them, click on them.

This isn't rocket science, and you know, there's a record of that, but nobody can Google it and see, nobody can Google and see what I've applied for in the public sector, and that's what we're talking about here, the public sector.

Thank you, Representative Pavia.

Not done.

Representative Weinberg, you have all this experience with um with recruiting.

Do you know this about the public sector?

Yeah, may I respond?

Yes, please.

I'm asking you.

Yes, of course, uh, of course I know about job posting in the public sector.

The um the difference between um the public sector job posting uh process that you're describing and the process that's in this ordinance is currently written, is that when one applies uh in the public if when we when one responds to a job posting and applies for the position, if they don't get the position, that's kept that information is kept private.

The fact that they applied for the position is not is is also kept private.

The difference here is that the fact that the that the individual will have applied for the position is now public information for four years.

Um prospective employer, if they apply for a job somewhere, a prospective employer will likely find that when they do a background search, which is pretty much standard in certainly any company of decent size uh these days.

Uh and if they don't do a formal background search, they can easily Google uh the person and get information, and the fact that they applied will come up.

Uh it would be uh it would be expected that in an interview um that the you know that the rec the employer would say I saw you apply for a position on the such and such commission.

How did that work out?

This was a yes or no question, Carl.

And I just want to say that.

Well, I'm just with your with your mind, like excuse me.

I'm about to complain.

Good, good.

So it it it could it could very easily happen in an in in an interview that the recruiter asks, says, I saw that you apply for the golf commission, the Stanford Golf Commission.

How did that work out?

And the individual will then be obligated to say, well, the mayor chose to decide not to nominate me.

And that will create a question mark as to why it will.

It just live Bobby.

I'm sorry.

No, I'm not no.

I'm not sure.

But I'm sorry, I know how this stuff works.

I'm strong.

Carl, no, I'm not doing that to you.

I'm not nodding my head at you.

Okay, I'm sorry.

And I apologize.

I apologize.

Can I just say one thing?

I apologize.

No, no, no, it's fine.

I understand why you thought that.

Um that's just and if if the members of this committee and next Wednesday, if the members of the board, uh, I I don't believe that's the purpose that that's what's anybody intended here.

Uh it's an unintended, but it's an unintended consequence of the way this section of the ordinance is written.

But with your money, why couldn't you work with Representative Stellating?

Representative, I'm trying to let him finish.

I'm trying to do that.

You I'm trying to suggest a better way to make this a better ordinance, which is to give the applicant the the opportunity to opt out of having his or her name posted.

Uh the people who believe that uh even if they get uh even if they don't get nominated by a mayor, the people who believe that that will, as representative Sherwood was was hypothesizing, the people who believe that that will enhance the uh the the recruiter's view of them can will have the opportunity to go ahead and have their name posted publicly, but the people who believe that that could be that that could hurt them later in an employment opportunity, I believe should have the uh option, the ability to opt out.

That's the that's the better way that I'm proposing.

Um if there is uh if there's a motion to amend uh and a second, then this committee can decide whether whether they want to do that or not.

If there is no motion to amend or um or or it fails to get a second from a voting member of this committee, then I suggest we move on.

That's as simple, that's as simple as that.

Representative, you have a floor for a short proposal.

Um what I was saying, going back to um what I was saying about the public sector, and since you know about it, right?

I I'm wondering why you couldn't work with representative Stella, you couldn't work together to come up with a solution like this.

You have the mind to do it, Carl.

That's all I'm saying.

Like you stop being defensive here.

Like I'm just saying, like we this guy's worked so hard on this, right?

Um why can't why weren't you willing at any point to work with Representative Stella on this to Representative?

You're all right, yeah.

All right, I I know who's really in charge of this committee.

I yield well it certainly isn't to me.

Uh representative.

No, I think I'm waiting and he's made it a long time.

Let him go and I'll I've looked over your direction many times.

Um you go last or something up if you don't mind.

No, I I can't, I'm sorry, I don't mean to say it like that.

But if people are speaking on the intent of why all this is going on, I think I should be speaking also why it's still going on.

Not not wrapping it up.

All right, then it just responded one thing to I I'm not speaking about the intention of this ordinance.

I'm speaking about an unintended concept.

Okay, fine, that's great.

But the point is at the end of the day, you can't represent you have the floor.

Thank you.

So what I'm hearing right now, what I'm hearing is about the consequences of what could occur if you're voted down, you're rejected, right?

No, no, excuse me.

Um is the representative talking about thinking that I'm talking about individuals who the mayor puts forward and are then rejected by the board, or does he think that I'm talking about individuals whom the which of course would then create public record?

Um, or is does he think I'm talking about individuals who apply to the mayor and whom the mayor chooses not to put forward.

Let me just say a point of order or whatever you want to call it right now.

The fact is this is the second time you did it with her, and now you're doing it with me.

The point is if you don't let the person speak of what they're going, what's the sense of doing a point of order, and you don't even let them complete a sentence about thought, what they're trying to bring on the table instead of asking before you did the same thing before with her when you did a point of order, but she wasn't even finished.

So before no, it is relevant because if you let me finish what I was getting at, maybe you wouldn't do the point of order.

But you tend to do that a lot.

Please carry forward.

So anyway, the point is what I'm getting at is this.

When the mayor puts someone forward, right, and all of a sudden the person rejected, and it's on the website, right?

And this may hurt the person, according to what's being stated.

There's no different when a person, I think it's even worse when they come to the appointments committee, and they're rejected is on tape.

I've seen where I've seen it in situations where some people have been borderline with disrespectful, that's a lot worse, and yet it's on the records forever, basically.

So the idea that just because someone says, thank you for applying, but I would not be putting your name forward, coming from the mayor's office and being on the website, I don't think it's that bad.

And also going into an interview, when you're being interviewed in any positions, and you're fired from a position from this private sector, and they interview you, you get to you get to state to the reason to why you were fired, you were let go, why you quit.

That's up to the individual.

But the idea to sit to the idea to actually believe that just because someone is turned down from the mayor, that's so much worse than actually coming here physically and being turned down by any boards, any board on the um the appointments committee, that's not that's worse.

I just don't see the logic to that one.

I really don't.

Um the other reason why I believe why it's important why there should be a record to why a person, if a person is rejected or not, is something because it the transparency also protects the individual or the city, or for people that are putting the names forward from any type of abuse of power.

Yeah, the idea that certain people could put the names forward, and if there is a pattern where you see maybe this person's not particularly careful, males or or women, or blacks, Hispanics, or whatever.

The fact is there's a pattern, they do that a lot in corporate, they do that in the police department, they do that everywhere where there's transparency.

So the idea that you would do that we should that we should be fearful of putting something on the website just to make it transparent.

I don't see anything wrong.

You yourself, Carl, said that there was two meetings according to what's on the website, right?

There has been six, the appointments commission correct now, right?

And if you look at the website still, there's still two meetings, even after you complained about it.

I've complained about it myself, and yet there's two.

So again, anything that enhances transparency for the people to hold this administration, the next administration, or a hundred administrations accountable, only serves the people, and that's it.

We should never be fearful of that.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Um I I have actually my speaking from my experience, and I I in my company I referred my friends, you can have their programs and you refer them, and even as an internal employee, I can't see if they went through.

All I could see status is like, you know, in process, I will not get a thing that I either if this person is elected or returned.

I could only get it from my own people.

Um, and I have the same thing.

I have applied for positions where like I would ask, hey, do you guys know anything you telling them?

Like, no, we don't get notified.

You know, you would you will get notified, and that's the way they'll know.

So I I've never seen anywhere where actually they put that in the public records.

Like I've never, not in my original business, we've never seen it.

So I I don't know why this is different.

Um, I just think it's I I I mean, I'm sorry, just for I just think it's unfair to the candidate to you know have that record in there, like you know, I may not like it, and I may not like it, somebody else may like it, and maybe that's why pronounced the option is a good thing or not.

Listen, I don't even agree with the ordinance, so I don't really care either ways, but I'm happy to make the amendment and see that it goes.

But what I'm saying is, like, I I just personally, if I were if I would like I would be totally uncomfortable having my name seen, and like if you're able to see and search, like this person was jacking for this, this person rejected for this, like or whatever, or even like accepted for it.

I don't want that to be a personal record, and I've never seen in my experience anywhere.

So with that being said, if I if anybody of the committee members want, and again, you can reject it, you're underseconding, but if a process perspective, if you somebody has to make an amendment, I will make the motion to amend it uh for representative Weinbert's thing.

So that's what I meant.

Hi.

Um Representative Goldberg, I think the proper thing is like call for a second if there is one.

Um I'd like to get a little bit more discussion before we do that.

I'm gonna go.

Yeah, right, Representative Colbert.

Thank you.

Um I seem to remember uh I I need someone to refresh my memory on um why did we want to see names rather than summary statistics?

And I guess I should ask that question to Representative Stella or Sherwood as the authors of this.

What why did you just remind me?

I know you discussed this previously, I just can't recall.

Why did we want to see actual names rather than summary statistics?

Representative, can you answer that?

Yeah, I just mentioned it a few minutes ago.

I think it shows transparency on who's being put forward and who's being rejected.

And and that within itself is a transparency, I think is worth having.

Because the idea that you may have what happens if you wake up one morning and there's a pattern where just say, and I'm just throwing it out.

See, like you have a mirror, and and all the women that have put their names forward have been all rejected.

Why?

How would you know for a fact that's the case if there's no transparency?

Or if they if they're all of a sudden men are men are being rejected, or women or blacks or Hispanics or so forth, whatever, and there's a pattern.

How would you establish that if you if you were so busy hiding everything?

When everything on everything on this website that I've seen so far is not factual.

Maybe I need to um provide when I say summary statistics, um, maybe I need to provide more more detail.

Um there would be a the summary statistics being a cross tab of uh by demographic characteristics of how many names were put forward, how many were rejected, how many were accepted, once again by those democratic democracy crosstabs.

That's that's what I was asking.

I I don't know if I was clear enough.

Why why wouldn't that serve the purpose just as well as seeing people's names?

But by the way, culturally speaking, there are many names that from other cultures that I don't know any, you know, I can't infer anything about them, their gender, their whatever.

I I so can you help me understand why the summary statistics wouldn't achieve this and names would because right now if you look at if you look at even on the list, just see for an example, I'm gonna use this.

Um gender, there's 20 women again, according to the website, because I'm not even sure if it's correct, but according to what they have on the website, it says 20 women, 20% are sitting on the boards.

72 of them are males.

Okay.

That tells me the numbers of how many women are serving, but how many women have been rejected?

How many men have been rejected?

I mean, I mean, I could go on and on and on.

The point is it's not correct, it doesn't give a lot of details.

And names would give that detail.

Is that your implication?

Is that for you?

So so if you don't get names, so what are you supposed to so we so we're gonna we're gonna put down oh 10 women uh 10 women were rejected?

That's it.

15 men were rejected.

I mean, the point is, unless you're putting names, unless you're putting names, it doesn't mean anything.

Uh Representative Sherwood, how would you answer my question?

Representative Sherwood is not you're not the character, Mr.

Colbert.

Oh, I I thought I could ask my question through you to my wrong.

Okay, may I rephrase then and ask the same question to Representative Sherwood as um the co-sponsor?

Yes, please go ahead.

Uh Representative Goldberg, can you please repeat the question?

Yes.

Um I was asking why I know we had had a prior discussion, I can't remember what the answer was of why did we want to see names rather than summary demographic statistics that would show us right?

Sorry.

Yep.

Yeah.

Um there's a good reason for that.

And the reason is because 30 plus here.

I shouldn't be.

I have full service.

Can you hear me?

Now you're loud and clear.

Okay.

So for the past 30 years, members of the executive branch of the city of Stanford have been using the reason that people don't apply as one of the reasons.

But the second most popular reason is that um qualified candidates have not applied.

And so in order for this process to be as transparent as possible, you would have to put somebody's name there.

And I understand what Representative Weinberg is saying about.

Oh, well, you know, what somebody's employment might be affected or so on and so forth.

However, anybody applying for this position and getting nominated, their name is public, and they're going before a public committee of the city's legislative body, and their name is on an agenda, and they run the risk of being rejected by the board of representatives.

So Nazooo, as soon as you apply as a resident of the city of Stanford for any of these positions, you are automatically subject.

There's a there's a possibility that your name is a part of the public record and you get rejected.

And so that is the knowledge, whether or not this ordinance is passed, that is a reality that every person in the city of Stanford faces when they apply for a position on a border commission.

And so this idea that like this is you know, I I realized I was asked the question, so I I'll I'll keep it just gonna say you cannot have the maximum amount of transparency and accountability on the executive branches side of this, unless you publish the person's name.

It's as simple as that, because if you don't put the person's name, and we're we're all in a community together, if you don't put the person's name, then you can still have all of these claims about they're not qualified or whatever, whatever it is.

If you if the person's name is there, and the person, as soon as they apply, whether or not this ordinance is passed, is already subjected to being publicly rejected on the record without having the opportunity to have their name removed.

That's just a fact of government that everybody who applies needs to accept before they sign their name on that piece of paper, because the board of reps could reject them.

So I get the concern, but it doesn't hold the water because you're already putting that person in that position.

They're already in that position by means of our city charter.

Um so uh with that I yield.

Thank you.

So uh Chairman Patterson, I I I'm sorry, I I've done a really bad job of asking my question.

I guess I'm just gonna yield because what I was really trying to get at is um what I'm trying to understand, sir, is there seems to be a disconnect between you know the number of people that are applying and the number of people that go forward on the process, and what I was trying to understand and and still don't understand is why summary statistics demographically derived that show the gross number of people that applied for positions at the mayor's office, and then how you know on a crosstab basis, how they filter through the process, I think would help us understand the concern.

Um I guess I just don't do a good job of asking these questions.

So I'm at this point, I I think I understand the answer, which is that if I heard them correctly, and I'd just be curious to to hear if you think you heard this too, that the idea is that unless we can see names of everyone that the administration's talked to, there's no transparency.

The the idea is that unless we can see names of everyone that the administration's talked to, there's no transparency.

Is that is that what you heard?

What's the matter?

What do you mean?

The problem I have actually is that if we're gonna go down that route, I don't think the name is our enough information.

I mean, yeah, you're not what you're actually our experience, right?

That's also a factor.

But anyway, um Mr.

Morrison, please.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks.

I chairman, I appreciate your um your help and trying to get that answer for me.

And I do yield and have a great evening.

I'll I'll go on mute.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um it's not about whether or not the uh someone who applies for a position has even been spoken with or not.

It's not about uh I I do agree with uh Representative Sherwood that of course if you are uh put forward by the by the mayor's office, it is public.

You are on an agenda, you will either pass or fail, and you know that that's could be the case when you put your name forward.

But that's not what we're discussing here.

We're discussing that uh the situation where you put your name forward and you're not put you put your name into the pot to be considered, and you were not put forward to the board of representatives.

Your name simply sits there and sits there and sits there, and that's what we're talking about, is being on that list, never moving forward, and the impression it can create that you've been passed over, and to Chairman Patterson's point of point, there's no context to it, whether they're uh we were talking about the the person's gender, male or how many men, how many women, but what about their qualifications?

What about the fact that any mayor of any party has one of the things we elect the mayor to do is appoint people with who have their vision, whether it be and I'm not even talking about Mayor Simmons or Mayor Martin, I'm talking about any mayor.

I'm talking about the mayor's office as it exists in the charter.

We elect the mayor to put people forward who share their vision, who they think are qualified.

It's not that somebody may not be qualified, the mayor has the right to put some people forward that they want for us to then consider.

Again, that's our check on the executive.

But this is about people who put their names forward for consideration, who may not want their name forward publicly if they're not chosen to move to the board of representatives.

That's the point here.

And again, it has nothing to do with whether or not they've been spoken to by the mayor's office.

Uh, and it has much more to do with uh than gender.

Why don't we say, why don't we take a full set of demographics on everybody?

What's their ethnicity, what's their religion, what's uh any number of demographic points.

If we're not going down that road, going by gender alone isn't enough.

And to Representative Patterson's point again, a name is certainly not enough.

There's no context with names only.

So I I am gonna go back to my original agreement with Representative Weinberg that people who are not put forward to the Board of Representatives should be able to take their name off the list for their own personal reasons, professional or otherwise, that only they can know what they need and shouldn't be judged by anyone else.

Thank you.

Representative Kaczynski.

Thank you, Chairman.

To Representative Morrison's point, I think that the common person, certainly an employer, will recognize the very point that Representative Morrison made, which is that these are political appointments, and that the mayor has the prerogative, and her Mr.

Morrison's description will likely choose people that meet her agenda or his agenda, depending upon who's in office at the time.

So I don't think there's any uh scarlet letter attached to a candidate, a person who puts their name forward.

I think it's broadly understood, as you seem to have said, Representative Morse Morrison, that's a it's probably understood that this is a political process that the mayor has whoever the mayor is, that mayor has a uh has a point of view that comes with criteria for what they think is positive, criteria for what they think is negative, they have an agenda, which is what they're presumably were elected for, and they're going to approve or not approve or interview or not interview people in accordance with that.

So um you know, this isn't a spelling B with with objective criteria that whoever spells the most words correctly and and spells the fewest incorrectly wins.

This is a political process.

People understand that.

So I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Before us to a vote.

And by the way, I will reiterate uh prior comments that if if there's such grave concerns about public disservice here, I wonder why my fellow representatives did not caucus with uh Mr.

Stella and others and and and work these issues out later.

Why is it just coming up when it's ready for a vote?

It's been before us many times before.

Um so it it it doesn't look good.

Doesn't smell good.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Representative, please go ahead.

What's my name?

Walston.

Sorry.

Don't get it late.

Oh my god.

Okay, I just got a few points that I'm just gonna touch on.

Um I'm voting for this ordinance because this will prevent the city getting a racial discrimination lawsuit.

And with this ordinance, it will keep the process honest.

I heard um when Representative Morris said that uh the mayor uh will put whomever they want um to fix their vision, but what if it's all I'm just saying, what if it's all white women, or what if it's all just somebody like all 20 year olds?

That's a problem right there.

And uh I want to use an example as I want to use an example.

Um Sue Halpern, she applied, I think for the historic preservation a few times.

If you can ask a few times, too.

And what commission?

And the appointments commission.

But the thing is, how how would we know that she applied that many times and was rejected that many times, unless it's on uh being transparent, and I want to say um we know that we've interviewed a lot of white males from North Stanford, not too many uh people of color, um, has been coming through.

And let me just say for the record.

I'm I'm publicly known for losing my race.

That's going to be up there too.

So I don't understand.

This is a government, this is not a private entity.

So with this, we have to keep this paper trail and also with and keep in line with the EEOC.

We gotta stay honest, we got to stay true, we got to stay balanced.

And right now, you know, many of us, you know, we see what we don't see.

A lot of people are not talking up, and with this ordinance, this ordinance will kind of let the chatter down after how people are getting on the boards in commission, and uh yeah, unintended and consequences.

I'm an unattended uh consequent because my name is up there too.

I walked, and I know that we interviewed one one gentleman.

Uh he was on camera, and he would vote it down.

He was not happy.

He came from North Tampa.

I can't call his name on camera, but if his name was on the list, it'll be so many people out there applying for the job.

Who's gonna really take time to look for a certain person if you're gonna have a lot of people?

Ideal.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Program papers.

Okay.

Um I have a motion on this item.

I don't motion.

Okay, then we can actually recognise carry the vote first, please.

Well, we have to hold on.

We already had motion.

This is a motion on the item or or an amendment.

The item.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Patterson.

I'm gonna pass.

Shaw.

No.

Bigoroa.

Yes.

Kazinski.

Yes.

Yes.

Tavia.

Yeah.

Somerville.

Walston.

Yes.

Patterson.

Yes.

Richard 1-1.

I can't even vote.

Well, hold on.

Um go ahead and uh Angelina, if you would count um Representative Somerville's vote, she is going to vote on this after all.

Oh, so what's her vote now?

My vote is what did you say then?

Oh yes.

My last reward, okay.

Yes, I think.

Yeah.

Probably.

Six one zero.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um the final item is review item.

I would like to have the motion of interaction.

Okay, if you all support me, yes, go ahead.

I'm just saying I don't even think you need to take a vote.

It's just a review and there's no vote on election.

Um I could say it's report may, but I'm not comfortable with that because it is no quote.

I'm saying the right because we haven't had we're we're not taking action because we haven't gotten the information that we wanted.

Um I also want to put it on the record that it was no action or nothing was done because no one is sure she showed up.

I want it on the record that that we've had this is our fourth meeting regarding this item, and yet they've failed to show it.

So I would like that on the record, and that is why I'm asking for a new action taken as postal report nice.

Okay.

Okay.

Now this is our last meeting.

I want to take a couple of minutes as personal prerogative here.

Um I want to thank Angelina for her good work um and keeping us on target as much as possible during this uh difficult times.

We just thank you very much, COVID and everything else.

You have been we've really counted on you, and we very much appreciate it.

Um our committee has not dealt as much with Sheila.

Um, but Sheila has always been helpful and has always um made the phone calls and helped out, and that is very much appreciated.

Um Barbara, you've learned you've you've gotten into a new job.

Um with the exception of the technology.

Um I thank you on behalf of the committee for the help that you have always given us.

And finally, I was disappointed not to hear Christine tonight because she for a new person has also been very helpful.

So I just want to thank the four of you from the office for the support that we have gotten here, um, often in very difficult situations.

Um I also want to thank um our former chairman, um Annie Somerville, um, who uh made the best of a difficult transition and who has always had my back and has always given me good counsels throughout our partnership.

So I just want to put that on the record too, and thank you very much for your help and for your trusted advice.

So thank you.

In a minute, and then finally, I want to thank um my chair, my vice chair.

Um I really enjoyed working with you.

You've gotten my back so many times.

So I just want to be on record to say I appreciate that.

And then finally, I want to thank the committee.

Uh it's just not always been an easy job, but um, you know, everybody has in the end been patient, and it is very much appreciated, and uh I've enjoyed working with you all in this committee, so I thank you for that.

Representative Somerville, you had a comment.

As long as everybody's not trying, I don't want to bore you, but I want to do say this would be respectful, whether you like it or not.

I gotta respect you.

So the thing I'm saying is thank you all.

Keep doing what you're doing, you live in.

Let there be peace.

Every day in your live walk of life.

And try to with doing that.

Somebody else take a step.

And if they fall down, help lift them up.

That works for me.

Uh I I think I say it.

you doing keep living let there be peace every day in your life walk of life and try to with doing that have somebody else take a step and if they fall down help lift them up that works for me uh i i think i say this i don't see somebody offended i pray that you would keep that in mind this board is one of the most prestigious and important uh uh uh boards on this uh on the on the chart of our organization chart of serious paper let the work that you do speak for you then when stories and when the story is told let you when stories told and the end is near trust in this that i have lived 80 years and i'm still here speaking the language of the land of the living in my own way to the point it's easy but sometimes we have to take long journeys to get around the mountain instead of going straight up the mountain but look i'm not going anywhere until um we all want to close our eyes and rest in rest in peace i believe that so you look a good work yeah you have to remind me of leave you'll be all right i don't i just want to thank you for all your work and service and all that you've done and i had a really good time working with this thank you for uh your chairman ship we have that i also echo the sentiments of uh project earlier about you admire all right with that we stand adjourned thank you all very much the only thing with the chairman this is also replicable