Um so Barbara does look like it is um 7 p.m.

Um let's go ahead and take roll call since we're not sure and then you can advise me afterwards if we have a quorum or not.

Okay.

I will start with the committee members and come back to the chair and the vice chair.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

David Blank.

Megan Cottrell.

Hello, I'm here.

Okay.

Mary Fidely.

Jennifer Matini.

Present.

Thank you.

Fred Pierre Louise.

Okay.

Nina Sherwood.

Present.

Thank you.

Okay.

Jessica Vandervoert.

I'm here.

Thanks.

Okay.

I'm also going to just acknowledge the representatives that I see that are not on the committee but are with us this evening.

I see Representative Karen Camporielli.

I see Representative Emil Goldberg.

I see Representative Don Mays.

I see Representative Annie M.

Somerville.

I see Representative Carl Weinberg.

I see Representative Vanessa Williams.

If someone else is a representative, I also see Representative Jeff Stella.

Barbara, you didn't call the attendance for the chair of the vice chair.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Representative Boger.

Present.

And Chair Burns.

I am present.

And do we have a quorum or not quite?

We do have a quorum.

We have six.

And we need how many for a quorum.

Five.

Five.

Great.

So we can afford to lose one, which I understand might be happening later this evening.

I'm having trouble opening my um the um agenda on my computer.

The PDF is not opening.

Can you put it up on the screen for us, please?

Thank you.

So my name is Philip Burns.

I am the chair of the legislative and rules committee meeting of the Stan Representative of the Stanford Board of Representatives, our legislative body.

Today is Monday, November 3rd.

This meeting is being held remotely, and we have two items on the agenda.

The first item uh we are going to be holding a public hearing on, uh, and then the committee will be discussing it and deciding whether to move it forward or to recommend moving it forward to the full board, which will be meeting on Wednesday, two days from today.

That is item number one, LR 31.100 ordinance for second public hearing and final adoption requiring a citywide transition to electric landscaping equipment in the city of Stamford.

And um I'm gonna open the public hearing and I'm going to ask staff to give me the next person in line to speak and the person after, so that people have a little bit of a heads up that they are going to be being called on.

Uh and Barbara, what are the names of the first two people, please?

The first two people are Mike Papa and Gabriel Chapman.

I will bring them over to the speaker side.

All right, thank you.

So uh Mike Kampa, followed by uh Mr.

Chapman.

Mr.

Papa, you have the floor, sir.

I do not see him as being present, but I do see that Mr.

Chapman is present.

We can skip Mr.

Papa if he shows up, I'll put him in.

We'll call him later.

And who comes after Mr.

Chapman?

After Mr.

Chapman, we have Fern Galperin and Doran Welsh.

Good.

And um, oh, I shouldn't have mentioned everybody's gonna be limited to three minutes.

Um Mr.

Chapman, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Burns.

Um, I just want to take the opportunity to thank the board of representatives for this opportunity to speak tonight, and especially uh thank Representative Goldberg for bringing this hearing to my attention and educating me more about the board's work on this subject.

I support this admission initiative for many reasons, but first among them, Stanford is a relatively densely zoned suburb.

My property, for instance, directly borders or is in within earshot of eight other properties.

What this means is that without legislating regulating landscaping equipment for much of the year, not a day goes by when I don't hear leaf blowers or other equipment breaking the tranquility of the neighborhood.

It drowns out bird song, it drowns out the sound of the breeze and the leaves.

It takes away the peaceful natural soundscape that a suburban area can and should be known for.

I'm surprised to say that after five years in Stanford, I think that in some ways the noise pollution here is worse than when I lived in New York City, and I attribute that mainly to landscaping activity.

I work in consumer research and I conducted an online survey of 200 homeowners, of which 86 were described their living situation as suburban.

64% of the suburban respondents agreed that they regularly notice noisy landscaping equipment being used in their neighborhood.

And the 64% also agreed that if there were solutions such as electric powered lawn equipment that made landscaping work less noisy, they would support implementing those solutions even if the cost of landscaping went up somewhat.

So now with that, I'll just turn to my questions.

My first question is about the fees uh and fines.

And my question is whether they are sufficient to be truly a deterrent.

Um I understand the uh a written violation for the first offense makes sense, but I'm not sure that a hundred or fifty dollar fines are sufficient to deter a small or medium-sized business if they have other financial incentives uh to flout the law.

To give an example of where a regulatory scheme has had deterrent power, in New York City, they have a no-idling rule for private and commercial vehicles with fines ranging from 275 to 2,000.

And citizens are incented to enforce this code by receiving 25% of the fine for submitting a video of a violation that leads to a fine.

Um I'd also question the adoption window.

Uh, my view is that a small business really has no incentive to impose costs on their business until the rule takes practical effect.

So if it has a two to three year adoption window, what it means is that the purchasing of the new equipment will just wait until um the 15-second warning.

Oh, thank you.

Okay, and lastly, um, and again, in the interest of improving uh the the noise pollution situation, would we consider adding a ban on gas-powered landscaping activity on weekend mornings, for example, irrespective of the electric uh leaf blower requirement, in the interest of generally improving the soundscape of Stanford, I thank the committee for uh the time tonight.

Uh thank you, sir.

So next we have uh Ms.

Galpern, followed by Ms.

Welsh.

Ms.

Galpern, you have the floor.

Okay, thank you.

Um Chair Burns and members of the legislative and rules committee.

Uh my name is Fern Galperin, Stanford resident.

I am in favor of the original nine-month ban on gas-powered leaf blowers, as stated in LR 31.100.

Uh smoking in public places such as restaurants once was normalized despite its dangers until public health policy caught up with the science.

Now, despite clear evidence that gas-powered leaf blowers emit shockingly high levels of toxic pollutants worse than the dangers posed by indoor public smoking, they remain widely used.

How harmful are gas-powered leaf blowers?

Just look at the instruction manual of a popular brand of gas leaflower steel brand.

It states in the instruction manual, quote, as soon as the engine is running, this product generates toxic exhaust fumes containing chemicals such as unburned hydrocarbons, including benzene and carbon monoxide that are known to cause respiratory problems, cancer, burst effects, and other reproductive harm.

Those fumes you smell when your neighbors are using these tools present a real immeasurable danger to your health.

Health professionals, even Stanford's director of health and human services, Jody Bishop Hulen, have come out and in support of these restrictions.

Today, due to lax regulation, five gas-powered leaf blower operators are allowed to work on my neighbor's one-quarter acre property all at one time.

I I urge you to reinstate the nine-month ban on gas-powered leaf blowers.

In fact, it would be terrific if he phased out gas flowers altogether.

We are familiar with the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes.

Recently, six surgeons general wrote a letter, an open letter to uh RFK Jr.

stating that he is entitled to his views, but he is not entitled to put people's health at risk.

I say to you, members of the Board of Representatives, you two are entitled to your views, but not to compromise the health of Stanford residents.

So I'm asking you, can you please give us a hard look?

All the science is there, it's quite clear.

And as I stated last time, you know, companies like Home Depot are moving over to electric anyway.

So I think it would be prudent for us to move in a um wise.

Okay, I I am finished.

Thank you for your time.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Calperin.

Uh couple uh housekeeping matters before we move to uh the next speaker, Ms.

Welsh.

Uh there's someone with a telephone number ending 5-4, Barbara.

I see their hand is up, and also their mic earlier was unmuted and we could hear some background noise.

Is that someone on on the board of representatives?

A phone number that's the ends in 5-4.

I don't have one.

Uh I do see our it's the only it's the only hand up that I see.

Okay, what I see with the hand up is our first speaker who was not on the line yet, and I muted him when I brought him over.

That's Mr.

Papa.

He is here.

I do not see Doran Welsh at present.

So if you would like, we can take Mr.

Papa now, and then if I see Mr.

Welsh, I'll bring him over.

Very good.

And after Mr.

Welsh, uh, who do we have after that?

We have Melanie Hollis and Sue Halburn.

Very good.

So Mr.

Papa, you have the floor followed by uh uh uh Mr.

Welsh and then Ms.

Fellas and Ms.

Halford.

Mr.

Paper, Papa.

Mr.

Papa, you're on your phone, so you're going to have to unmute yourself.

There you go.

Um, we can hear you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Good evening.

Uh I appreciate it for the opportunity to speak about you know about this particular thing.

Uh I'm an expert.

Uh you know, I think uh you're uh dealing with a very important issues uh and the fact that um you know we all talk about a product, you know, that we wanted to uh ban, which is uh it's polluter, the two-cycle uh blower.

But we also have to keep in mind, you know, the operation, the way people operate.

You know, I just watched it today in a in a video.

Uh there was four um people use the back blower, and one person used the the big blower, the two uh the fourth cycle at the same time.

Now that that's the way the industry is moving for, you know, that that particular thing creates a lot of pollution, it's a lot of noise, destroy the soil fertility that is uh, you know, the A horizon, that's where the energy is being produced, that will be destroyed.

And also uh that one may cost about uh 250 an hour to do the operation over there.

Maybe that's why the industry will like to do that way rather than do the way we used to do 50 years ago, because I'm uh 50 years into this business.

Okay.

So we more than a product, uh we have to focus in the process.

It's uh in an area that's highly dense populated area.

It should be against the law to use the four uh two-cycle back blower at the same time, making four times the noise of four times the pollution and four times the risk of uh uh reduced the fertility on the soil.

Okay.

Now we going back to the electric, it is a benefit to the electric, you know.

But accidentally, I took a picture about a year ago with uh a competitor of mine that claims to be one of the biggest one uh in the industry, and I do appreciate the effort.

And I took the picture not with to investigate just to take a picture.

But now that I look at the picture, I notice that they have uh the weedwalker, they have the big mower, uh electric and everything, but they also have about I think one to three uh steel uh back blower with the uh two-cycle right there, right?

So they the industry wanted want to sell the idea that they are uh full-time uh just to get calmers to get bigger uh put pressure on everybody else, especially the little ones that they cannot afford to spend 10,000 in the machine.

All right.

So that we have to keep in mind.

Now I'm not gonna say, you know, they are not making any effort, but that's what how the industry looks like out there, right?

Now the idea of the city of Stanford doing things now.

I'm all for it.

But not a proper 15 second, 15 second warning, sir.

Yeah, they're 15.

Yeah, I want to say that the they want they they gotta do not only this, but they gotta practice the into agroecology to solve a lot of issues because we are paying the people at the public sector to find solution for the general public how to hire the people to do the job right.

The industry is not doing the job right.

They don't even know how to put gutters.

I have to resolve all these problems on myself to work very hard.

We need some help from the public sector to become the experts and teach the customers through the uh the barrier how to do the job right.

That way we can reduce pollution and reduce noise and would reduce the cost.

Thank you very much.

Bye-bye.

Thank you, Mr.

Papa.

Thank you.

So uh if uh if Mr.

Welsh is available, uh he will be speaking, and after that, Ms.

Hollis.

Mr.

Welsh, are you available?

Okay.

I don't see him on my name.

The next person would be Melanie Hollis.

Thank you.

Before we go to Ms.

Hollis, to raise one's hand is to if you're on the phone is to press star what five.

And to unsilence oneself in a star six.

Do I understand correctly?

Yes.

And then it's star five again to lower your hand and star six to mute yourself again to toggle.

All right, uh, Ms.

Hollis, you have the floor.

Uh hi, thank you.

My name is Melanie Hollis.

I am here this evening to voice my support for the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers.

However, I am concerned about the recent amendment allowing additional months for the continued use of two-stroke gas leaf blowers.

This decision appears to place short-term business considerations above the long-term health and environmental well-being of Stanford residents.

It is also inconsistent with the scientific data presented and the recommendations of Stanford's Director of Health and Human Services, Jody Bishop Pullham.

During public meet hearings, the majority of testimony once again reflected strong support for the leaf blower ban, yet that public input does not appear to have been fully reflected in the final decision.

This is disappointing given the board's frequent emphasis on the importance of public engagement and listening to residents' voices.

Additionally, it is concerning that following the passage of resolution 4130 declaring a climate emergency emergency in April of 2022.

The Board of Representatives' actions have not fully aligned with that commitment.

Extending the use of two-stroke gas leaf blowers, particularly in neighborhoods already affected by poor air quality and with residents who have to operate the leaf blowers is counter to the spirit of the resolution and to the goal of protecting public health.

Regarding the discussion around lithium batteries, I understand and share the concerns about mining impacts.

However, it is important to view electric technology as a transitional solution, one that moves us toward cleaner alternatives while recognizing that no option is entirely without drawbacks.

It is inconsistent to focus on the harms of lithium extraction while overlooking the significant and well-documented damage caused by oil drilling and fossil fuel use.

It is worth noting that many of the devices we use daily, smartphones, laptops, tablets, smart watches, headphones, cameras, and even home appliances rely on lithium batteries.

This underscores the fact that electric technology is already an integral part of our lives and our path forward towards sustainability.

I hope the board will lead Stanford toward a healthier, cleaner, and more sustainable future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hollis.

Uh and the next speaker is Sue Helpern.

And after Ms.

Helpern, um, Barbara, who do we have?

We would have Doran Welsh if he logs in.

And if not, we could start taking hands.

Got it.

Okay.

Ms.

Halpern, you have the floor.

Good evening.

This is Sue Halpern.

Can you hear me?

Loud and clear.

Okay, thank you.

Um my name is Sue Halpern.

Thank you, Chair Burns, and thank you to all the board of rep members that are on the call this evening.

Thank you for all your service the last four years.

I would like to see the nine-month ban reinstated for gas-powered leaf blowers.

I live in the South End and I walk around Harbor Point almost daily.

I see the landscaping crew out using gas-powered leaf blowers to tidy up the sidewalks and streets.

What was particularly disturbing was to see these machines being used to blow lantern flies off the sidewalks and into the streets.

I imagine electric leaf blowers are strong enough to deal with bugs and dust if a broom doesn't do.

I am sure we all have witnessed people blowing dirt and debris into the streets at all times of the year, which eventually goes into our storm drains, thus causing another form of environmental pollution.

Blowing into the street should be illegal if it isn't already.

Blowing dirt is bad for our health.

The airborne particles can enter the lungs, leading to asthma flare-ups and other respiratory diseases.

Please ban the blowers.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Helpern.

Uh is Mr.

Has Mr.

Welsh joined us.

Mr.

Wells going once, Mr.

Wells going twice.

Well, if he shows up, I guess you can raise his hand like everybody else.

And how many hands do we have raised at this time, Barbara?

We have two hands, and I have someone who couldn't make it to the meeting who requested their written testimony to be read into the record.

Okay, why don't we take those two hands and then the written testimony?

And those hands to we know who they are.

Yes.

The first one is Jean or Jeannie Waffle Wafle.

I apologize if I've butchered your name.

I'm gonna move you over right now.

And the second person would be Jack Egan.

I will also move you.

Just please, Mr.

Egan, stay muted until uh Jean has finished her presentation.

All right, Ms.

Sorry, I don't know how to pronounce your name, Ms.

Gene.

You have the floor.

Um if you're on the phone, hit star six to unmute yourself.

If you're on the computer, um, you'll have to hit the microphone.

All right, why don't we come back to uh Ms.

Gene afterwards?

Mr.

Egan, sir, you have the floor.

Mr.

Egan.

Mr.

Egan, if you are on your phone, you'll want to start, you'll press star six to unmute yourself.

If you're on Teams, um there's a microphone somewhere.

You're there we go, you're on.

Ah, thank you, sir.

Um, hi folks, Jack Egan, 14 Lanark Road in the Chapan neighborhood of Stanford.

Um, thanks for your time.

Real quick, um, I am in strong favor of an outright ban on gas-powered leaf blowers.

Whatever uh you folks can do to restrict or eliminate this scourge from the city and the quality of life that they are detracting from, I would very much appreciate it.

Um listen, I work from home and I cannot escape the noise every day of the week.

Sundays maybe not so much.

Every month of the year, shattering my eardrums and filling my yard with toxins.

Um just this morning, 7.50 in the morning, raging leaf blowers in Japan, which obviously, as you know, is against the city's ordinance.

Um what we have now is uh is really uh a crime on sensibility with these things.

Uh why there's an assault on leaves and errant grass clippings is beyond me.

Uh, in the obsession with a tidy lawn.

Um at the risk of our mental and physical health, it blows my mind.

Any event, it's a quality of life issue, and it's completely out of control.

Um, so please do your level best to end the nonsense.

Um, and thank you so much for your time, and I really hope that this attent that your attention is fully committed to this important topic.

Thank you very much.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Egan.

Uh and um Barbart.

See Jean, how is her last name spelled there?

W-A-F-U-O.

And she has unmuted.

Okay.

Um, yes, uh, Miss Jean, you have the floor.

Oh, thank you so much, and thank you for your time tonight.

Yes, I mean, besides the noise pollution and the health hazards really have me concerned.

My window is 28 inches from my property line, and they go up and down with leaf blowers, and there's no tree there, and the grass isn't there.

And so they're blow.

I I run and put my fans on reverse.

It that doesn't help the noise.

I mean, I feel like I might be closer than he is, and I would need earphones.

You know, I'm concerned my husband and one of my sons and my sister, they have allergies, and this is you know, just stirring up all kinds of dust and mold and other contaminants.

It's a driveway, so you know, that kind of contaminant, and you know, the ecological damage is just unbelievable.

And actually, you know, I grew up in this, I grew up in Westchester in Armo.

Nobody, the lawns weren't that big a deal back then.

I don't understand what's happening.

But I will say Bedford Village has adopted this as Greenwich, and I believe Westport.

So let's get on with it.

Let's get on the train here.

You know, it's it's moving, and I appreciate the time.

Thank you so much.

Uh thank you, uh, Ms.

Jean.

So um Barbara, do we have any other speakers who appear to wish to speak?

I see Vincent Diordano has his hand up.

Yes.

Okay, let's uh go ahead and and uh Mr.

Giantano, sir.

You have um been a guest with us on this issue on prior meetings, um, having some expertise on it.

You have the floor, sir.

Just be sure to be sure to unmute yourself.

Um if you're on a telephone, you'll want to press star six to unmute yourself.

If you're on the computer, you'll have to press the little microphone symbol.

Uh can you unmute him, Barbara?

No, unfortunately, Teams does not allow presenters for me to unmute anybody.

Right.

I guess that would be I guess that would make sense.

I have uh I had to go back to the original screen, and there's a microphone at the bottom, and that's what you have to do is kind of go back to the first screen.

Okay.

Um is there anybody else wishing to speak while we are waiting for Mr.

Giordano to uh to join us?

Yes, we have Amy Ziffer.

I'm gonna move our room in your check the waiting.

Could you check the waiting room?

I got a text that a constituent uh wants to be let in.

Her email is Laura Sleiner SBC Global.net, and I guess is not being let in.

Uh we don't have a waiting room set up actually for this.

It's set so anyone can come in without having to go through a waiting room.

Okay.

So maybe you even try coming back in.

All right, thank you.

Sorry.

But not at all.

Um point of information.

Uh yes.

I I see a Laura.

I see a Laura Khan.

Um that's there.

Maybe she just can't figure out how to raise her hand or unmute, so maybe just repeat that.

Okay.

Uh I don't I don't know what the um.

Yes, I see a Laura Khan as well.

Uh so why don't we um take Mr.

Deer or take Ms.

Ziffer at this time, and then we'll come back to uh Mr.

Diordano, followed by uh Ms.

Kahn.

Uh Ms.

Ziffer, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

Um I'm not sure um how and why two additional months were um added, but I do want to point out that um in spring, obviously leaves are not falling, they're they're generally wet and decomposing, not particularly amenable to being moved by a powerful blast of air.

Um by adding those two additional months, you're just cutting unnecessarily into the benefits of electric conversion, um, less disturbing noise levels and less air pollution for no gain.

Um it's gas-powered leaf blowers are no better at doing the job than electric at any time of year.

So I fail to see the logic and adding those two months back in.

I think that if there's not an outright ban on gas-powered leaf blowers, you should revert to the uh three-month allowable window, but this there's just no justification for having the spring use of gas-powered leaf blowers allowed.

That's all.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Ziffer.

Uh Mr.

Giordano, followed by Ms.

Kahn.

Mr.

Giordano, have the floor, sir.

Yes, and thank you for um your flexibility.

Uh my name is Vincent Giordano.

I am a volunteer with the Sierra Club chapter, and I'm a Stanford High School alumnus, 1975.

I want to begin my remarks by congratulating Stanford on its silver award recognition by the Sustainable Connecticut organization.

It takes a lot of work by a lot of people to reach this certification level.

And thank you for being a Connecticut leader on environmental issues.

With one suggested modification, which has been noted by a number of people tonight, Stanford is on the verge of passing a model ordinance to address another environmental issue.

My sole suggested modification is to only allow three months for use of the gas-powered leaf blower and not the five months currently under consideration.

Starting about 2020, cities and some states have started in earnest to restrict the use of the gas-powered leaf blower.

While a few passed an outright ban on their use, such as Washington, DC or their sale, state of California.

Most jurisdictions passed partial bans and allowed use during the spring and fall cleanup seasons.

The trend now, however, is different and is more restrictive.

Most ordinances passed in 2025 allow only limited use, such as October to December.

Or they will combine a seasonal exception with an ultimate phased-out prohibition.

I refer you to Alexandria, Virginia, Baltimore, Maryland, Acton, Massachusetts.

I can give you more.

Why has the trend tightened the restrictions on gas-powered leaf blowers?

Well, it's because we know, as your last speaker just said, battery technology can do the job for most of the year.

There are at least three landscaping firms doing work in Stanford, Greenwich and Norwalk that already use battery leaf blowers year-round.

Mo Green, OWM, and Cultural Lawns.

Three examples.

And we know that battery technology continues to improve.

Battery handheld leaf blowers are already more powerful than and cost competitive with gas-powered models.

Whisper Eero's battery technology has been purchased by Black and Decker, a Connecticut firm for commercialization in 2026.

This equipment will be 40% more powerful, 40% more runtime, and 40% quieter than existing models.

The convenience of battery technology is compell compelling.

No endless cord pulls, no winterization, no need to run out for gas, no gasoline smells or spills.

While there is a cost differential at the point of purchase for backpack blowers, the cost difference falls to zero in 18 months due to lower operating and maintenance costs.

Last point, quality of life.

I've interviewed folks from Lewisboro, New York, Bedford, New York, and Norwalk, Connecticut.

They overwhelmingly spoke favorably about the reduction in noise and how much more pleasant it was to be out of doors in their towns.

It is not surprising to me that in a recent Connecticut Insider poll, readers voted seven to one to restrict the use of gas-powered leaf blowers.

So my sole suggestion is to please go back to only three months' use of gas-powered leap blowers and not the five months that are under consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Giardano.

We have Ms.

Kahn and Barbara.

Do we see anybody signed up after Ms.

Kahn?

I do not have anyone signed up after Ms.

Kahn.

If anyone wants to speak and has not yet spoken, please raise your hand.

I do see Dave Adams.

I will put you on the list for next, then thank you, Barbara.

So we'll uh hear from Ms.

Kahn, followed by uh Mr.

Adams.

Ms.

Kahn, you have the floor.

Uh if you're on the phone, you're going to want to press star six to unmute yourself.

If you're on a computer, you've got to find a little microphone uh icon and press that.

Let's come back to Ms.

Kahn.

Uh Mr.

Adams, you have the floor, sir.

Um, Mr.

Adams.

Do we have anyone else for good evening uh uh legislative and rules committee?

Chair Burns, thank you very much.

Um sorry for the delay.

I'm cooking dinner at the same time.

Um so I obviously this is uh something that I've already spoken up, spoken on a number of times.

I think everybody knows how I feel about it.

Um I absolutely uh am floored by the amount of effort that that Representative Camparelli has put into this uh ordinance.

Um I was I think that it was one of the greatest debates that I've listened to uh on any of these meetings, uh, listening to Representative Mithini and Representative Camporelli talk about this.

Uh I share a lot of the concerns uh for both uh of both representatives.

Um I do uh share the concern for uh the golf courses and and how they're gonna operate their businesses.

And I listen, I've been saying it for uh probably about a decade now, uh, by rake.

Um, you know, we survived without these blowers before, or we can survive without them in the future.

Um but uh what what I do want to uh express is that at this point uh it does not make sense to make any further changes to this ordinance.

Uh let's let's uh as much as I have reservations about electric uh technology myself.

Uh let's get this over the finish line and get this in the work and and and then uh you know maybe next year uh we in on the 30 second board, we can uh we can talk about um you know uh removing those three months or those two months uh that were that were added um and restoring the nine month ban.

Uh uh I'd like to see people change their habits uh you know grossly uh and and get away from the idea of blowing in general.

But uh, you know, obviously uh baby steps and uh know that this is not just about uh the environment, it's not just about noise.

Um it's about it's about the direction of our civilization and the our way of life.

Uh and if we don't start making alterations to the to the uh expectations that we have of uh you know uh maintaining property uh in in it in a certain manner, uh then we are going to uh obliterate the environment around us.

And uh I think it's most important here that we're protecting the environment um above all other things because without the environment, we don't have lives.

Anyway, those are my comments.

Uh thank you so much for your service.

Uh and uh I'll see you on Wednesday.

Thank you.

Have a great night.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Uh Barbara, do we have uh is has joined after.

I'm sorry, you're breaking up, Chair Burns.

I we have anyone signed up.

Is Connors ready?

Have anybody signed up or raising their hand after you hear me now?

You're still choppy, but I think I got the gist of it.

I don't have any other hands raised.

We still have Ms.

Kahn who is moved over and just needs to unmute herself.

And I am still looking to see if Doran Welsh has joined us.

So uh Ms.

Khan, um, you have the floor.

If you could unmute yourself, we're ready to hear what you have to say.

Thank you so much.

Um I live in can in New Haven, Connecticut, and we have held two public hearings about leaf blowers and the problems they cause, and I really commend Stanford for doing this.

We have not yet passed a change in ordinance about leaf blowers.

So we are looking for your guidance.

Thank you very, very much.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Kahn.

Short and sweet.

Is um is um who was the other person there?

Um I do not see Doran.

I do not have a phone number that is raising their hand to say they're Doran.

Um, so at this time, I do have a written statement from uh Stanford constituent who he asked to have it read into the record.

Thank you.

Before you start reading that, uh I believe you have someone available to assist you in contacting some people at this time.

Um if anyone had needed to be contacted, we have quorum.

Um, okay, great.

Okay, so let's continue then.

Okay, so this is a written statement from Kieran Edmondson.

To the legislative and rules committee.

I'm Karen Edmondson, a Stanford native of the Waterside neighborhood.

And I want to speak to every one of you tonight about the importance of using such gas-powered leaf blowers during the two month period between October and December, and explain to you why I still believe that it's the appropriate use when it comes to getting rid of the fallen leaves off of the sidewalks, streets, backyard porches, and front porch.

So we can continue to protect the entire environment in a more healthy and cleaner manner.

The legislative and rules committee, when it comes to the leaves that always fall down from all of the trees during the months of the autumn season, which is a common practice to keep the streets, sidewalks, and other locations in cleaner fashion, and the vast majority of those citizens who usually take their leaves or even blow them off from their homes or from other places in the Stanford committee community.

I believe that the proposed item, which is LR 31100, needs to do a lot more research, homework, and insight on if it's still such a better option to not ban the gas powered leaf blowers.

As well, it may cause a lot of noise to all neighborhood residents, but for only most hours of the days, like between 10 a.m.

and 6 p.m., those residents have a right to use those leaf blowers as long as they're not subjected to sickness, illness, or disease, so we can continue to get leaves off the ground and wait for all of the pickup trucks to remove all the leaves in every single neighborhood and respect the environment for appropriate conditions.

To the legislative and rules committee, I urge you to either hold LR 31100 or vote against this proposed item.

Pay attention to people's opinions who are against this, allow individuals to use gas powered leaf blowers and to not ban them for important reasons.

Thank you from Kieran Matthew Edmondson.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

So if there are no other people wishing to speak, I'm going to close the public hearing.

So if anyone wants to speak, please raise your hand.

If you're on the telephone, the way to the way to raise one's hand is star five.

Nobody, Barbara.

I'm sorry, the only person that has their hand raised right now is President Sherwood.

Um we did have a couple of speakers who had raised their hand for a second time, but I understand that is the public hearing.

You only get to speak once.

So that is correct.

So uh I'm going to close the public hearing and we're going to move to discussion at this time, and then I hope to a vote.

Uh Representative Sherwood, you are the first, and for now, the only one with your hand up.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Burns.

I understand that earlier today there was some concern that there might not be quorum for this meeting.

Um there is quorum for the meeting, and I don't think it's appropriate for um staff to contact members who are not in this meeting.

Uh it is okay if another board member wants to call a uh another L and R committee member and ask them to sign on if there's a potential quorum issue.

If somebody's able to do that, that's great.

But we should avoid um trying to get people on simply to vote.

People are present in the meeting and they can vote, that's great.

And we only need five for a quorum.

Um so it looks like we're okay.

I just wanted to make that statement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Sherwood.

Uh looking to see Barbara, if we could take the um agenda down, uh, it'll help me see if anybody else has their hands up at this time.

Thank you.

Uh anybody else on the committee wishing to speak.

Um not uh okay.

Representative Vandervoot, you're the only one with your hand up.

You have the floor.

Um, well, I would like to make a motion to amend this item, but I don't think the item itself has been moved yet.

Um, you know what?

That's a good parliamentary question.

Uh Representative Boger, co-chair uh Boger, Vice Chair Boger.

Um does the main does the can we start with that a motion to amend?

The better practice is to have a motion to approve and then a motion to amend.

All right.

So um do I have a motion to approve at this time?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Second, wonderful.

And Representative Vandervoot, uh, do you have an amendment?

Yes, I would like to make a motion to amend this item back to the pre-amended October 1st version.

Uh namely amend section 211-3.1 compliance period by deleting two-year period and replacing it with three-year period.

And then amend section 211-4 a 2 seasonal exception by deleting April, comma, May.

Very good.

Do we have a second?

Uh parliamentary question to Vice Chair Burger.

Can I second this?

No, you may not.

Do we have a second to that motion?

Chair, just give me two seconds.

I was I was fairly certain I'm right.

I just wanted I just want to double check very quickly for you.

Very quick, very good.

Um for any committee members who are in favor of this motion, if it's not seconded, it will fail right then or there with no vote.

Will not even be voted on.

Yeah.

Chair, I was correct.

You are not allowed to second.

Very good.

So we have a motion to um increase the uh implementation period from two years to three years, uh and to reduce from five months of the nine months that blowers are used to three months of the nine months that the blowers are used, restricting them to the months of October, November, and December, and closing the spring so-called spring cleanup loophole.

Do we have a second hearing no second?

Uh, Representative Vandervoot, it appears we do not have a second to your motion.

Did you perhaps have a different motion?

Uh no, no, that's the only motion I have, unless I'm missing something.

Perhaps to break it into two different parts.

I mean, nobody has spoken up and said that that would help them, but I I would be happy to do that if somebody I don't want to spend a lot of time on it if it's if it's you know sure.

All right.

Well, let's um if you want to relinquish the floor, we'll see if there's anybody else who wants to speak at this time.

Representative Catrell, you have the floor.

Sure.

Um, well, my heart agrees with the prior version of this ordinance.

The full board, what they chose to accept, what our full board chose to accept is the amended version.

So it is my belief that the full board is going to only accept, and this is the 31st board, which will end very shortly.

It is my belief that the 31st board will only accept the ordinance as it is.

However, for those who are very passionate about this and who believe that we should go back to the prior version.

Many of you, not all of you, but many of you are standing re-election tomorrow.

And it is my belief that many of you will be re-elected because of the party that line that you are on.

And I would say to you, and I'm doing this, I'm trying to be as kind as possible that the time for that is the 30-second board.

I believe on the 30-second board, you could get what you want.

But given how the vote went on October 6th, I do not have the stomach for a very long meeting on November 5th.

At this point, I think people are decided up down on all of the ordinances.

And so I would say most respectfully to those who believe that we should return to that other version of the ordinance.

Please introduce it on the 32nd board.

I will be a constituent then and not a member of this board, and I'd be happy to write in favor of it, but I do not believe that it is a good use of our time to go back to the old version of this ordinance and to have out of this committee the old version of this ordinance be something that we debate on because I feel like the October 6th meeting already showed or October, whatever day it was.

The October full board meeting showed us what the thinking is already of this full board, and you need 21 votes to get an ordinance passed.

So that is my reasoning for not second seconding uh the prior motion that was made.

It's now that I don't support you in theory.

I just want to focus on what we can get passed on November 5th.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Cattrell.

Uh the only other hand I see up at this time, Representative Caprelli, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I I have to start out by saying that I really appreciate Representative Cattrell's comments just now, but the idea for me of overturning, especially immediately.

Any law that this board just passed, honestly makes me sick.

I mean, then we could just go around overturning everything the 31st board did, and that just is not good governance to me.

The people have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of the original ordinance, which gives them the ability to use the more powerful machines when they are needed, which is in full.

I feel like we're nickel and diming people's health.

I feel like we're not listening to the public.

Overwhelmingly, we have received emails um in favor of the original ordinance.

I think it's something like four to one, and I'm happy to count them up while other members are discussing this.

Uh originally you guys passed it, then it was changed on the floor, which I thought was was crazy too.

I I mean, we are going back and forth on this.

Um I mean, I I just I don't understand what we're doing.

We're not listening to the public.

Um, who has written to us and who has testified today?

We had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine people in favor of the original, uh, two that I'm not sure what they were stating, and one clearly against it, which is the the testimony that was uh read in by Barbara.

Um in terms of the letters we received, overwhelming in support of the original ordinance.

So uh I just I wish that we would revert back.

I think that we have the votes, but anything we pass it is better than where we are now, which is just polluting the earth, polluting our workers, you know, throwing toxins into the air for absolutely no reason to to throw around a blade of grass.

It makes no sense, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Caparelli.

Um, do we have any other speakers on this issue?

Uh so uh coach chair vice chair broker, I believe I'm permitted to speak at this time, even if I am chair.

Um, yeah, but I do you know what?

Screw it.

I'm gonna offer to second um Representative Vanderboard's motion if she wishes.

Representative Vanderbord to uh does she need to remove it at this time or yes.

Okay, so Representative Vanderburg, did you want to remove that?

Yes, so moved.

Second.

Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Boger.

Discussion.

Hearing none, I come back to my parliamentary uh question to Representative Boger as chair.

I believe once I waited for everybody else and given absolutely everybody the last word that I am that time either permitted or or by custom permitted to speak.

Is that correct?

Yes, in committee you could speak, Chair.

Um but it has to be to the uh the amendment that's on the floor.

Yes.

So I've spoken to a number of members of the board.

Uh not so much members of this committee, which I actually didn't think would be well.

I thought we had the votes here, and I thought we had the interest here.

And I have seen movement on the board.

Uh I think a greater awareness of what's happening and a and a greater recognition of what the public is clearly telling us.

Uh loudly and clearly.

Um I'm concerned uh at the pollution aspects, and I you know, I think one of the things that has been you know not very emphasized is something that I'm concerned about, and I've mentioned the dust and I've mentioned um, but you know, upon studying the matter even further, uh, especially in the spring, during spring cleanup when you're dealing with moldy leaves, when you're blowing with these powerful blowers, you're kicking up everything on the ground.

This includes molds, uh not just in the spring when we have moldy leaves, but all year round.

Uh there's there's different kinds of molds uh coming out, and this is blowing it in the air.

Maybe who knows if this is contributing to a wave of increased allergies uh uh across the country.

So I am completely in favor of reducing it down to the three months.

There's really only nine months of the year that these blowers are used.

They're not used in January, February, and March.

So that's out.

So we are looking at regulating realistically, nine months, and if we permit the three months in the fall, and we permit the two months in the spring, we're really only prohibiting them four months of the year.

Uh so uh I am in complete agreement with uh the representatives who are in favor of changing this back, and I think we do have the votes on the floor.

And I yield and representative Cottrell, uh, you are the only one with your hand up, you have the floor.

Um if you feel that you have changed in between you and the others who are passionate about this, if you feel like you have changed enough minds, and uh you feel like there's a very good chance for the version of this ordinance, the October 1st version of this ordinance to be passed, then fine.

I'll I'll vote knowing that I will vote for this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Cottrell.

Any other speakers here.

So why don't we take this to a roll call vote?

Uh, Barbara, if you would be so kind.

Okay.

Representative Cotrell.

Yes.

Representative Fidely.

No.

Representative Metheny.

No.

Representative Sherwood.

Is Representative Sherwood vote?

Representative Sherwood votes no.

Okay.

Representative Vanderport.

Yes.

Representative Boger.

Yes.

Representative Burns.

Yes.

That's four yeses.

Three no's and zero abstains.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

And uh now we come to the main motion.

Uh is are we going to forward this to the full board for consideration?

Do we have any speakers?

Seeing none.

I'll just briefly say again, I believe we do have the votes.

A number of people, number of people have been working very hard to get those votes.

So I do hope that we will have the votes here to send this to the full board.

Um Barbara, would you be so kind as to do a roll call vote?

Yes.

Representative Cottrell.

Yes.

Representative Fidelity.

I'm sorry, you're muted.

Okay.

No.

Thank you.

Representative Metheny.

No.

Representative Sherwood.

Looks like you're having trouble unmuting.

I'll come back to you.

Representative Handerfort.

Yes.

Okay.

Um Representative Sherwood, are you able to unmute?

I apologize.

What are we voting on?

Motion to approve.

Oh, um.

No.

Representative Gogh.

Yes.

Representative Burns.

Yes and Hallelujah.

Thank you.

The motion.

Yes, please, please proceed.

Yeah.

Oh, that was four yeses, three no's and zero abstance.

Motion passes.

Um now it goes to the floor of the entire board two days from today.

And uh if the public uh keeps up the pressure on the various representatives, perhaps it'll do more than pass it'll pass with a really strong win to its back.

All right, the other matter on the agenda.

Uh and did our guest ever actually um did attorney um Lee ever join us?

Barbara?

Yes, yes, attorney lee.

Great.

So I know you're not a guest on the second item, but if you could stay for just a moment until we confirm whether uh uh attorney Castone has joined us or not.

Um he has not.

He is not.

Um attorney lead, did you think you might um might assist us with um item number two?

Uh LR31, LR 31.109 review of the Board of Representatives invocation policy to ensure it aligns with First Amendment protections.

Um would you be willing to assist us with this discussion?

Yes, uh absolutely I I actually did write um the memo on it uh that was circulated, uh so I am familiar with it.

Um I think that's probably why Tom isn't here.

Um he knew I was attending.

Um the uh the purpose of the memo was just to give the board some guidance and the legal background um with respect to invocations and what the United States Supreme Court and what the Connecticut Supreme Court has uh opined on uh with respect to those invocations.

Um being the memo addresses and puts the issue in context, uh based on speaking with several members and my review and my uh um uh past history with boards full meetings.

The board has a long tradition of opening meetings with an invocation from an invited guest.

Um ordinarily those invocations had a very respectful and thoughtful tone.

Um I wanted to make sure that everybody understood that when uh when we invite the public or uh or an individual to come and provide uh an invocation and delivery, uh they are those individuals are exercising their first amendment uh rights.

Um so the board needs to understand that when when someone gets up there, um you know they within uh constitutional boundaries, they they can express um uh their opinion and their thoughts uh on um the topic that they choose to discuss.

Um with respect to religion, uh past history and the past practice of the board uh is has been very diverse and inclusive, and it was good uh to see that over the years.

The board has invited a diverse range of speakers, rabbis, imams, uh, Native American elders, uh ministers, and others.

Um I think that diversity is actually uh necessary in order to stay within constitutional uh restrictions.

Um the goal uh of it of the memo wasn't really to change tradition or to say that the board was doing it and properly, uh, but it was really more informative.

Um that was the purpose, and it's to provide clear uh guidance.

Um my recommendation is that is that every speaker who's invited uh to give the invocation um that they're uh given a uh clear understanding of the purpose of the invocation.

Um that they there's certain expectations with respect to um if the invocation is going to be religious, can't force people to uh to participate, and so uh requests uh by the invocation speaker uh to do certain things uh should be clear that it's that it's voluntary.

Um that was really the purpose of the of the memo that I circulated.

Uh thank you um attorney leave uh from the law department.

Um I see one hand up.

It is Representative uh Goldberg, Representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

Thanks.

Um good evening, Attorney Lee, good to see you.

Good to see you.

Yeah.

Um I was wondering, is it are we within do we get into trouble if we have a document that says or a letter that when we invite someone to uh give an invocation that we outline our expectations?

It it feels like that's a slippery slope that we shouldn't touch, but I just want to know for sure whether what your thoughts legally are on that.

Yeah, I think I'd like to see that letter before it goes out, uh, because certainly um there are uh there are things that we would like to probably stay away from, and uh but but it's it's the legislature's uh privilege to conduct its meetings the way it chooses to that the uh the guidance that I put forth in the memo, I think is is uh you know is appropriate and can be provided without um without infringing upon any free speech uh uh rights.

Would it be appropriate uh for us to um discuss time limits or how long we allocate to that section of the meeting?

So would it would that be something that's reasonable, whereas addressing um comments are or addressing content would be inappropriate.

Is that sort of am I thinking about this the right way from a legal perspective?

Yeah, I think procedure is uh is certainly fair um uh game uh to uh to address whether it's whether it's timing, also I think it's fair to say to our speakers not to require anyone to participate in any religious um religious uh invocation or such as standing or praying and um so forth.

Uh I mean you can invite uh we you can invite people uh but it's important to to make sure the audience understands that it's wholly voluntary.

That type of procedure, I think, um, and including time limitations, uh absolutely um and then but there are there are things you know, obviously uh any speech that might be uh in citing um individuals that can that is can certainly uh be uh restricted.

Um so there are substantive uh restrictions that can be put in place, certainly, but uh but certain but definitely proceed procedure is um is within uh the board's discretion.

things you know obviously uh any any speech that might be uh in citing um individuals that can that is can certainly uh be uh restricted um so there are substantive uh restrictions that can be put in place certainly but uh but certain but definitely proceed procedure is is um is within uh the board's discretion thank you uh i do see that clerk control has her hand raised i would like to ask a question to her if it's acceptable with you chairman burns uh yeah that's fine go ahead clerk patrell I was wondering at this time I'm unaware that we have any such document is that true we we don't really send anybody a letter that we've invited to give an invocation with general guidelines or suggestions uh sort of an FAQ sheet is am I right about that so you're correct we there were a few of us were members that drafted something behind the scenes but the slippery slope is enforceability and so we never gave out guidelines got it I mean makes sense I get it okay well thanks Chairman Burns for letting me ask my questions I'd like to yield at this time all right uh thank you uh representative Goldberg I see that representative wallston uh has her name is her hand up representative wallstone you talked about Chair Burns I was first I think I'm first making in the system I said if I'm wine and you were too I had my my hand was put down I did not put my hand down um representative Goldberg called on me but I did not get to ask my own questions um representative wallstead I do believe I thought I saw it at the court of my eye that Representative uh Cotrell did have her hand up earlier and I know it's happened to me that my hand got put down that that's not a problem.

Thank you you're very kind representative Cottrell followed by Representative Walston followed by Representative Stella Representative Cottrell you have the floor.

Sure.

So attorney Lee you mentioned a memo um did you recently create this memo I haven't seen it that's that's I I would like to read it while we're having this discussion and I haven't seen it I also haven't seen it this is representative attorney uh lee do you think you might be able to send it to the legislative and rules committee um I guess we have a an email that goes to all of us or at least send it to the office and the office can forward it to us in the next few minutes um representative was there anything else yes um so I have yeah so I have some questions on what is considered proselytizing um so I understand that there I I've read some opinions about the whole town of Greece versus whoever um of the the takeaways from that Supreme Court case and I understand that there is some general acknowledgement that we all have the right to pray the way we want to pray and that you can have an invocation that references some sort of higher power um so I had some questions for you on what you would consider proselytizing and what you would consider not proselytizing.

If someone were to start a prayer and to say in the name of the father the son and the Holy Ghost would you consider that to be proselytizing I can't yeah um no I mean no I don't consider that um the issue a I guess could come up and and certainly uh our guests over the course of time have had very diverse you know religious beliefs and so um a person can certainly uh conduct an invocation that uh that reflects his or her religious um religious uh beliefs but the the issue when it comes to the board um is one is that you gotta make sure that everybody's where it should be diverse and I mean if you you can't um call members of the same religion every single month um that would that would likely be a violation of of the constitution we also uh the speaker and it has to be clear that it can't require anyone to uh to participate in any sort of religious uh ceremony or or prayer um but it's simply an invitation um but no I wouldn't I wouldn't I don't think that's an an issue if someone gets up and and says says a prayer that is that is

his or her religious um religious uh beliefs but the the issue when it comes to the board um is one is that you gotta make sure that everybody's where it should be diverse i mean if you you can't um call members of the same religion every single month um that would that would likely be a violation of of the constitution we also uh the speaker and it has to be clear that it can't require anyone to uh to participate in any sort of religious uh ceremony or or prayer um but it's simply an invitation um but no i wouldn't i wouldn't i don't think that's an an issue if someone gets up and and says says a prayer that is that is uh reflective of their uh religious beliefs no i think that's okay i have a i have a i have a further question to that so i would agree with you that just saying in the name of the father the son the holy ghost i pray or let us pray i don't think that they're trying to convert anyone but then i have a follow-up question what if the person who is giving the invocation talks about the blood of christ and accepting the blood of christ would that then cross into the line of proselytizing in your opinion well let me just say it's the the I I think you're getting the uh that gets close to proselytizing but but pro but from the individual's perspective that's that's okay the the issue for the board is um is you know I I guess I'm gonna hit these points over and over again is that the board has to be careful that that that it's in that it doesn't invite the same um doesn't invite members of the same religion over and over again that that diversity um is important when it comes to uh whether or not an invocation at the start of a a legislative uh meeting is um is constitutionally permissible this the board also has to uh be aware that uh the speaker uh and and anyone listening to the speaker um that that any sort of prayer that is entered into uh is wholly voluntary and um and along those lines that you know people shouldn't be made um uh to feel uh that that uh uh you know odd place or bad that they're not participating um you know the thing that asking people to stand up um sort of signals sort of is not something that uh that I think is a is a good idea because the individuals who choose not to to stand up will be it'll be obvious uh and those and there may be some individuals who choose to stand up who otherwise may not um so that's really you know what I what I hope the board gets out of uh this memo is an awareness of the things that that are constitutionally permissible and the things that that are not or may not be I guess where does one so to me in the two examples I gave one to me was not proselytizing and the other was but another listener could see them both as proselytizing or a third listener could say that neither is proselytizing that's just how they pray I feel like it's really hard to do to put a line in the sand as to what constitutes proselytizing and what doesn't well I I was yeah I I mean I uh I understand what you're saying uh just put the examples you gave um are similar to examples that the United States Supreme Court has considered um and uh and found okay um especially the first one um but the second one was was the second one more dubious uh what was the second one again yeah that's what I saw I uh the second one was talking about the blood of Christ accepting the blood of Christ yeah it's the accepting part which is uh which may be problematic um uh but that specific uh that specific uh um line hasn't really

Uh what was the second one again?

Yeah, that's what I saw.

I uh the second one was talking about the blood of Christ, accepting the blood of Christ.

Yeah, it's the accepting part, which is uh which may be problematic.

Um that specific uh line hasn't really hasn't been considered by any court that I that I know of.

Um but um yeah, that so that's that's why um that's why I I have the opinion that I do on those two examples.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Welcome.

That's all uh thank you, Representative Catrell, Representative Walston, uh, followed by uh Representative Stella and Representative Blank good evening, attorney Lee.

Can you hear me?

I can.

Oh, okay.

I reached out to you a few weeks ago, but I didn't hear back from you.

So this has been a very contentious uh subject with me.

And um I hear everything where everybody is saying, everybody has their own point, and I like how you said the diversity of different people coming to do an invitation.

I love that.

You know, we've dealt with Christians, Jewish people, and we have even had a witch come in and do our invitation.

But I I thought, not I thought, but America is a Christian nation, and I'm not trying to denigrate anybody else's belief or anything, but you know, when I hear certain things, I'm like, okay, I get what they're saying, but we are a Christian nation and our forefathers and slave masters, they used the Bible, and the Bible had Jesus' name and all of that in it.

So, you know, they talked about the bloody Jesus and all of that.

But when uh from my religion, I know we we will put an invitation out.

We won't try to proselytize or try to change anybody, just give the plain old word what the Bible says.

Everything you know we have to say, we have to back it up with the Bible.

And again, I'm gonna flip that over.

Our nation is built on the Bible.

And so the blood of Jesus, I get all of that, and people who don't believe in the blood of Jesus, that's fine.

But if you someone else come up with their religion, I don't have a problem because I can still pray and pray to my God.

So I don't, you know, for the implied chairs.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Yes, point of order, uh, and that is who is bringing up the point of order, please.

David Blank.

Uh yes, uh Mr.

Blank, you know, Representative Blank, you have the uh what is the point of your point of order, please.

My point of order is um we're not here discussing what type of nation that the US is, we're discussing an invocation, and uh to bring that up is to uh we're not exactly what we're trying not to do.

We're trying not to talk about religion, we're trying not to have this conversation about religion, and it's out of order to even bring that conversation up.

It's it it is a smack in the face to all of us who do not believe in Christ, and all of us who do not want to have religion as part of this conversation at all.

Um I uh Tindra has her points and her religion, and she may talk about that at her will, but not here, I believe.

And uh we step beyond the point of the conversation.

I I yield.

That's good.

Thank you.

May I finish Wilson?

Um I think the discussion is about what is appropriate for the implications and not so much about whether one believes this is a Christian nation or not.

Okay, I just said that because this whole thing started when I had a speaker come, and that's where it all started from.

So I'm not trying to proselytize to anybody, but I was just making a point how when someone says, Oh, they do the cross, these are things that we learned from from generations back.

We're not trying to put down nobody else's beliefs.

So that's what I want to say.

Even when the witch comes, I don't believe in the which the witch prayer and stuff, but I pray.

I yield the floor for right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Uh Representative Stella, followed by Representative Blank.

Representative Stella, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you so much.

Um first I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Sorry, Representative Stella.

I'm really sorry.

I just wanted to make sure Attorney Lee, were you able to send the memo uh either directly to all of us or to the board?

If I can have two minutes, I will be able to do it.

Thank you very much.

You need some.

Oh sorry, before the point of question.

Just a moment, please.

Just a moment.

Attorney Lee, do you have the email address for the committee or the board office?

I I do.

I I should send it.

Thank you.

Point of information, Representative Walston, and again, I'm sorry, Representative Stella.

Representative Walsh and Yeah, I know that you're asking for for your committee, but I would like to have a copy if he's going, is he going to use the board, or is he just uh sending it to the L and R committee?

Because I would like to have a copy of that.

Excellent point.

Thank you very much.

Attorney Lee, can you send it to the full board email address, please?

Could you give me a thumbs up?

You're you're muted.

Oh, you cannot send it for the what's that address?

I don't think I've ever actually sent anything to the full board.

I have to I have the let the staff and I have the legislative rules.

What's the full board?

Underscore all reps at Stanford C T.gov.

V O R underscore All Reps.

And then after that.

As Stanford CT.gov.

At Stanford C2.gov.

Attorney Lee, I just sent you both the committee email and that email address that was just read out to you in an email, so you have them.

You could send it to both.

You could send it to just the all reps email.

Thank you, Barbara.

Thank you, Attorney Lee.

Yes, if we could get that to everybody.

Thank you very much.

So, Representative Stella, followed by Representative Blank.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, just want to say I thank you, uh Attorney Lee for your work on this.

Um, you know, the reason why I did this as a review basically is a reminder for all of us that regardless of what faith that we believe in, we're representatives also.

And we have a community that many us serve individuals of different faith.

And we have to remind ourselves that because sometimes some of the behaviors are or the way things people act, you know, I'm taken back by sometimes because we we also have to remind us of this country was formed by many people from other parts of the world that came here to practice their freedom of religion that they're not allowed to in their country.

So and us, and I have to say, and I I don't mean to exclude um Republicans here whatsoever, but as Democrats, we're always talking about that we accept all.

Right?

That's who we're supposed to be, and that's the reason why I did this review.

I'm not looking to inhibit anyone from from their beliefs whatsoever.

And if by any given chance, we all know nine and out of ten, maybe unless you're not paying attention, we already know who's giving out what district is giving out the invocation.

Chances are we already know ahead of time who's giving it for whatever reason may be if those that feel like they cannot listen to someone in the the other someone else's belief, there's nothing stopping you from stepping out of the room for the time being.

But I like I said, I I want to remind us, I wanted us to be reminded that we're part of the extension of government, and we don't we don't have a certain aspects we have to be mindful that we can't we shouldn't be telling someone how they should pray.

I'm not saying and I don't think um like when um control was just saying uh representative control was mentioning yeah, no one should be trying to convert anyone in any religion.

That's the honest truth.

But at the same time, I don't I don't think there's anything wrong.

I mean, that's my opinion.

I'm not saying and I don't think um like when um control was just saying uh representative control was mentioning yeah no one should be trying to convert anyone in any religion that's the honest truth but at the same time that I don't I don't think there's anything wrong I mean that's my opinion I know attorney attorney Lee says something you know he believes differently but even people standing up you could choose to stand or sit down it's the same thing as the Pledge of Allegiance there are people that don't pledge there are people that kneel when they're doing the Pledge of Allegiance that's your your God given right which way you want to do so but again that's what this is all about um and I'm gonna just leave it there and again thank you all Phil thank you for you know taking this up as in your committee and attorney Lee once again thank you for this for the clarity thank you attorney still thank you stellar for uh bringing it to us and um and um provoking this very useful helpful discussion uh representative blank followed by I do not see any other hands at this time representative blank you have the floor uh thank you um thank you for recognizing my uh Billy to speak at this meeting um I just want to point out as um this came up uh because of uh hearsay and um and I'm sure there was no harm intended but I I'd like to actually ask us to shelve this because we do not have the information that Attorney Lee uh mentioned as the memo and all we're doing is going round Robin on our general beliefs about religion which is exactly where we do not want to be I would make a motion right now to uh put this aside and take this up at a later date um I don't know if I'm allowed to do that or not but um asking before before finishing your your your motion there I do want to point out that um we did receive five minutes ago attorney lee's opinion we should all have received it uh at our city but we don't have time to review it right now we we're in the middle of a bunch of other things so at this point it's it it's like asking us to uh read instructions while driving down a road you're absolutely right I did not realize it was um four pages got it all right so we have a motion to table this at this time I do see representative maze followed by representative Stella that's the order in which I see the hands um representative Stella do you can well first of all do we have a second to the motion this is the motion to table this matter that is to uh leave it for the time being and let the board whichever board it may be come to it come back to it another time so we have a second to that motion it appears uh representative blank that there is uh desire to continue the discussion uh representative still I do see representative may's hand up it's my intention to call him it seems though that you dying to say something no I was just gonna uh as a point of order I mean I I I heard blank mention about tabling this we're this is just a review we're not doing we're not changing language not creating a language not an order whatsoever just a discussion and and it ends tonight that's my understanding correct uh that that's why unless someone wants to unless someone wants to table it so indeed um representative blank's motion would if adopted I believe no I would not bring it back well I guess we'd I don't know what it would do um because the we're having our last meeting in two days so um uh hearing no second why don't we uh take the hands in order that I've seen them thank you for your point of order um representative Stella Representative Mays you have the floor sirne um characterizing our country as a Christian nation is fundamentally wrong and offensive it's offensive to people who are not Christians to Muslims to Jews to any other religions in this country that all require representation and people who do not believe in God and I think the problem we we're we're trying to do here is we're trying to deal with drawing a fine line between between whether these invocations should be religious based or how they should be religious based and and be be uh and have various religions represented my recommendation my recommendation for the 30 second board is let's get out of this completely let's stop these invocations they're fraught with with controversy there's something that a lot of us feel very uncomfortable about despite whatever our religious affiliations are but I think we should stop it they are not necessary and I they are offensive to some people um and they're hard to control and they're hard to draw the line so let's just stop going forward.

They are not necessary.

And I they are offensive to some people.

Um, and they're hard to control and they're hard to draw the line.

So let's just stop going forward.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

All right.

Uh thank you, Representative Mays.

Um, I do not see any other hands up at this time.

I got my hand up.

Yes, yes, I just saw it.

You you you beat me to it.

You beat me to it.

Uh Representative Walton, you have the floor and um I have a question.

Um, he said that we should just stop this.

Is he making a motion or does he want to, you know, I did not hear him make a motion.

I think he was just so I'm just I think he was I think he was expressing his uh opinion.

I think he was expressing his opinion.

Oh, okay.

I thought I heard a motion.

I you know I I did not hear motion.

Is that it?

Representative Walson?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any other uh anyone else wishing to speak at this time.

I do not see any hands up.

So um this was for review, as Representative Stella uh who introduced the matter, uh, pointed out.

It was just four purposes of having this discussion.

Uh everyone now has the benefit of uh attorney Lee's uh memo on the matter uh and can review it at their leisure, and those who are serving on the next board uh can revisit the question if they feel they want to, and the rest of us will be uh educated and edified by that memo.

Uh thank you, Representative Lee.

Um so before um uh as I see no one no further discussion, uh I just want to thank everybody ever all the members of this committee, uh the many uh members of the board who are not in this committee who nevertheless attended uh our meetings uh and thereby enriched our discussions.

This has been the last four years extremely rewarding for me to have served on this committee and to have had the honor to chair it.

So uh thank you all uh and good night.

And um I guess we'll reconvene at the regular meeting um two days from today.

Thank you all.

Good night.

Adjourned at 8:30, 8 p.m.

Have a great night.

Good night.

Good night, good night.

Thank you, Attorney Lee.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Sorry, Barbara, forgot to send that to you.

Thank and thank you for me as well, attorney Lee, and thank you to the law department for all your assistance in the last four years.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thanks for the kind words.

And so and thank you, Barbara.

You're welcome.

I'm sorry, I accidentally hit the wrong key.

Um if everyone is is ready to go, I'm gonna go ahead and end the event for everyone.

Yes, have a good night.

Thank you.

You too.

Good luck tomorrow.

Great job, guys.