Good evening, everyone.

So at this time, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the Board of Representatives at 7.02 p.m.

this evening, December 23rd, 2025.

I note that I see representatives Camparelli, Blank, Boudreau, Hughes, Lepine, and Winberg in attendance and present.

Are there any other members of the committee and voting members specifically in attendance that I haven't identified?

If you could please go ahead and call attention to your attendance.

Hearing no other.

Thank you, Representative Adams.

Hearing no other voting members present, I'll note that we have an absence of Representative Stone and Representative Hyatt.

That gives us seven voting members in attendance out of nine total, which does constitute a quorum.

So we'll proceed at the meeting.

And I'll also make note that we also have an attendance, ex officio members, Representative Walston, Adams, Morrison, Shaw, Didalo, De La Cruz, Goldberg, Sanford.

And if there are any other ex official members that would like to make their attendance known, please go ahead and feel free to do so now.

Representative Pollock here.

Thank you, Representative Pollock.

Apologies for missing you.

Representative took me a second to come out.

Got it.

Thank you, Representative Sylvestri.

Representative Hyatt.

Thank you, Representative Hyatt.

And I also heard Representative Stone is in attendance.

So we have all commit all voting committee members in attendance.

Fantastic.

Well, thank you, everybody, for your attendance this evening.

Before we move on to the agenda, I just want to make a couple of administrative announcements.

Going forward, whenever possible, this committee is going to meet in a hybrid fashion, providing for an in-person meeting opportunity for voting members of the committee and any ex officio members that wish to attend, though voting members are going to be strongly encouraged to attend in person, but for you know reasonable justification for their absence.

Secondly, for this 30-second Board of Representatives, this committee is going to endeavor to have productive and efficient debate so we can ensure that we are prudently moving through the items of the agenda in a manner that's respectful of the committee's time and more importantly, the public.

And then finally, of course, to the extent I mispronounce any names or mistake of titles or misgender any individuals of the of the board or of the public, please know that that isn't intentional, and I warmly welcome any any corrections there.

With that being said, we'll move on to our first item of today's agenda, LR 32.006.

Uh approval for an agreement with Sustainable Strategies Inc.

for federal lobbying services under RFP number 2025.0281, submitted by Mayor Caroline Simmons.

At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve the aforementioned agreement with Sustainable Strategies Inc.

So move second.

I think I heard Representative Le Pine.

So move and seconded by Representative Camparelli.

Thank you.

So before we open the floor to members of the committee for any comment or discussion, uh I just want to recognize that we have an attendance.

I believe I saw two invitees, uh, special assistant to the mayor and director of policy and legislative affairs, Miss Lauren Mayer, uh, and attorney uh Chris De Selva, uh Assistant Corporation Counsel to the City.

Hi, yes, good evening, everyone.

Hello.

Uh so before I open the floor to members of the committee or any ex officio members, you know, Miss Is it Ms.

Mayor or Miss Meyer?

Meyer, yep.

Meyer, thank you.

Ms.

Meyer, if you have any opening remarks or attorney DeSelva, if you have any opening remarks with respect to the item, please feel free.

Sure, I'll jump in.

Good evening, everyone.

It's good to see you all.

Um, yeah, so I'm here to briefly uh discuss item number one, um, which is the approval of an agreement with sustainable strategies for federal lobbying services.

And I just wanted to share briefly that um our federal lobbyist Andy Seth has been working with the city of Stanford for several years.

Um he's really a great partner and resource, not only to um the mayor's office, but also all city departments as we seek to secure federal funding.

Um and our office in particular works proactively with Andy by having weekly calls to review any potential grant opportunities.

And he often works directly with our grants department on writing grant applications as well.

And he also works with us throughout the federal congressional directed spending process, which also known as EMARC funding.

So I'll just say that, you know, with a lot of the changes that have been happening at the federal level, particularly in the past year, he and his team have been really an invaluable resource to the city and really provides pertinent and timely information regarding federal legislation and actions taken by Congress and how those in particular impact states and municipalities.

So I hope you'll improve this agreement tonight and happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Thank you very much.

And again, before we open up the floor generally, just want to offer the same opportunity to Mr.

DeSelva, if you have anything that you wanted to add.

I don't.

I don't thank you for asking.

All righty, thank you.

So at this time, if anybody wishes to be recognized for comment on this item.

I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand.

But please feel Representative Weinberg.

You have the floor.

Thank you.

So could just a question for Lauren before you looks like we're barreling rapidly towards a vote on this.

But before we do for the benefit of the public, uh, could could you help to explain what uh give a little more uh meet on the bone about what our federal uh lobbyist does uh uh on behalf of the city, um what kinds of people he typically meet they you know typically meets with, um, what's the nature of those discussions, and in particular, what what he might be doing differently given the um given the many changes that are taking place in Washington.

Sure.

Um yeah, I mean, as it relates to our office, as I said, we have a weekly standing call with with Andy, which um he knows also how to run a very efficient meeting and you know, really provides weekly timely information for us in terms of what's happening in Washington as it relates to again um again, any grant opportunities that are opening from agencies, so any programs and deadlines, um, you know, grant application deadlines, but also again what com what is the news of the week um happening in DC and with Congress in particular, and you know, again, with with the federal shutdown and kind of everything that was happening over the past two to three months with that.

Um, you know, it's just been a lot of moving parts, but he's helped to um really bring that information to us again in a weekly basis, and that helps to shape again what we're here to able to do locally and also share with um, you know, as it relates to, for instance, a month or two ago with a lot of the information arounding SNAP, you know, he helped to provide and work with us with providing information that we could share locally, and we did share locally with our local nonprofits.

So I would say the information piece is is one huge piece.

Um again, he works weekly with um our city agencies, particularly like the transportation department and Luke Buttonweaser, who you all know, um, on trans on grant opportunities, transportation grants, um, and often when the mayor um has gone down to often goes to the U.S.

Conference of Mayors winter meeting in Washington that usually takes place in January.

He's been very helpful also with just setting up meetings with particular um staff at agencies, again, federal DOT, um National Park Service, as well as our uh federal delegation down in Washington as well.

Oh, I think you're muted, Carl.

Sorry, Def.

Uh that's that's very helpful, Lauren.

Thank you.

Just one quick follow-up um a follow-up question.

You know, I think one of the questions that you know members of the public will ask is um what's our return on the investment that we're you know, the financial investment uh that we're making in um in sustainable strategies.

Can you uh give up a ballpark number either over the last year or over the last two years or over the the four years of the mayor's first term?

And you know, a ballpark figure of how much the city has received in federal grant funds over whatever the right time period might be.

Sure.

So off the top of my head, in terms of the last four years, um, I can't recall that figure, but on a broader scale, again, he's um Andy and his um firm have been with the city for several years, even prior to Mayor Simmons' administration.

Um and they've compiled that since 2020 from the period of 2024 to excuse me, 2012 to 2024, um close to 44.5 million dollars the city has um secured through um their assistance with identifying grant opportunities and funds that we've been awarded.

Well so some of that has been over the past four years, but over that broader period, I at least have that figure.

Great.

Thanks.

Thanks very much.

It's very helpful.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative Blank, you have the floor.

My deepest apologies.

I think Senator uh Representative Weinberg actually covered just about everything I was gonna ask, so I'll forego that.

Thank you.

Perfect.

All righty.

Any other representatives that wish to have the floor?

Seeing no hands raised, um Ms.

Meyer, I do have a couple of additional questions for you.

Um specifically in the the process by which the city submitted, excuse me, solicited proposals.

It sounds like you know, there's already been a continued relationship with the specific uh lobbying firm.

Do you feel like the costs for this proposal remain market based on the others that you received?

Uh yes.

Okay.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

All right, that's the only question that I really had.

Seeing no other hands raised, we're going to move on and at this point call uh for a voice vote um on approval of item LR 32.006 and approval for an agreement with sustainable strategies in all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Hearing none in opposition, the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Ms.

Meyer, for your attendance, and thank you, attorney um uh apologies, uh Dela Silva for your attendance as well.

My pleasure.

Thank you all.

Good evening, everyone.

All right, moving on to the next item um the agenda, uh LR 32.001, an approval for an amendment of the Board of Representatives rules of order to strike section 3A19 and amend section 3a17 to quote unquote operations, parks, and recreation, and to further amend all references of quote unquote parks and recreation or quote unquote operations to quote unquote parks, excuse me, operations, parks, and recreation in the rules of order submitted by President Shaw, Representative Sanford, and McKewin.

At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve the aforementioned uh amendments to the rules of order.

Uh motion to approve.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Uh, with that, does any member of the committee wish to seek the floor?

Uh Representative Le Pine, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I I I would um uh as a new member on the board of representatives, I have concerns uh about this.

Um I understand that we are looking to find efficiency and consolidation potentially holds that opportunity, but um I do think uh it is easier to get rid of something than to improve it, and I'd rather focus on how a committee that maybe didn't meet as consistently as they should have, um, or maybe whose purpose needs to be reexamined can be better positioned to be a value to uh our constituents versus the elimination uh when more than half of the board are new members who haven't participated actively in this uh committee.

I think there's a there's an opportunity to um to examine it first before making this decision and have ample time with 21 new members of the board uh to put their fingerprint on a more successful and impactful version of um uh of this group.

So uh I I yield thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, uh Chairman.

Um I don't see in um attendance many of the members of the affected uh committees, uh but I don't sit on either of the affected committees myself, and I would be interested in uh if the chair would recognize uh either the chairs or the committee members uh to get their perspectives on the consolidation.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

If there are any exoficial members that wish to be recognized, I'm more than happy to recognize them in the order in which uh the floor has been sawed.

Do you have any other additional comments before you yield?

Uh not at this time, no, I yield.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Shaw, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Chairman.

Um I put this item, so I'd like to take a moment of personal privilege to speak about it.

Um I was going to correct people when they say I'm not trying to get rid of anything.

That is not the intent, right?

It is to consolidate so you will still be able to put the items that you submitted before on here.

I submitted the support for this, and Ms.

Monta will, I don't know if you can pull up the support that's relevant to LR 32001, and I have one for the 002 as well.

And this one specifically, I'm not going to talk a lot because I'm going to ask um operations chair um uh you know representative Sanford to speak on it because he is operations chair and he's also been on the parks and rec committee, so he's got more insights on me.

But if you look at it like on how many meetings we did and how many number of review items we did, it just might it's it's mind-boggling.

And a lot of times you I went through every single one of these items for four years, and I just try to put it in a way it actually you can kind of see it.

But a lot of items is the same items like a repeat items, and even in our training, we talked a little bit about this.

A lot of items again were put because oh, we needed a status update on something.

Well, we could actually pick up the phone and call and get an update.

So I I think that you know, we we're 40 volunteers here, and I'm really trying to make an effort to make this time that we can all spend on something meaningful, and and parks and recs is very integrated with operations.

If you listen to um in the operations meeting, Director Queen O'Neill's presentation, you'll see, and a lot of the the members who sit on the in the in the city level, you you are part of the operations again.

So you'll have to go through it again.

So it's more of a integrating and consolidating.

You you have a parks and rec-related item, put it put it on the operations.

No one is trying to take anything out.

I just don't think it's a valuable to have a seven or a nine-member committee.

When actually, I and I'm gonna say the same thing for the next item too.

When I started doing the committee requests, it was like mind-boggling for me to see how many people opted for some of these committees because there wasn't a lot of interest.

So to have a, you know, people that are not interested in these committees to put on them, and then they don't show up because they're not interested and not have a quorum to me is like not worth the useful of anybody's time.

And so I'll stop there and I'll again I'll have uh representative Sanford share more views on this specific item, and I'll talk more about the next item.

Thank you, Chair.

I yield now.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Representative and Vice Chair Camparelli, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I agree with a lot of the points that Representative LePine made.

Um, on this particular committee, uh parks and rec, I'd like to say that you know, for parks and rec, and also I'm gonna go a little bit into the housing.

One of our city's most important things right now is the 2035 comprehensive plan.

And that that emphasizes both housing and parks and rec.

Um green spaces are very important to the city.

Um urban gardens, parks, uh, things like that are super important in the 2035 comprehensive plan.

And I think that we should be looking to have vigorous committee meetings in parks and rec.

Um, one of the things that I don't like, besides some of the things that we've talked about, is sort of like a consolidation of of power, but not in the sense that like I think it would be used improperly, but because we are a volunteer board, I don't know how somebody would have the bandwidth.

Uh, for example, uh Representative Pollack is would be overseeing housing, state and commerce, uh, and education committee.

There were enough things on those three committees, you know, especially housing.

Um point of order.

I before I recognize for the point of order, I might be able to address it.

Representative Camperelli, if you could keep your comments germane to the specific item.

This one is with respect to operations and park and rec.

Um, and then if you have additional comments with respect to a later item on the agenda, I request that you reserve comment on that to those items.

I think it's a comment on the consolidation of committees.

I um I given the point of point of order, representative has not been recognized.

Representative Weinberg has not been recognized.

That is correct.

Representative Weinworthy of Romper recognized, but I believe I'll check in first with President Sean.

I believe Representative Sanford, who previously had it indicated a point of order.

Do you still have that?

Representative Sherman.

Yes, I was gonna I'm just gonna raise the same concern that I understand it's consolidation, but we're specifically talking about parks and recs here.

Okay, back to back to parks and rec.

Um, I thought I thought uh President Shaw was speaking very generally as well when she started to talk about um the different committees and how you know when she starts to look at all of them, things like that were very general.

So I thought that that was going to be allowed.

Um, but since it's not, I'll go back to parks and rec.

Uh, one of the most important things for us as a city is our green spaces, and we should have vigorous committee meetings over green spaces and parks and rec.

I I think I attended many important meetings uh during the 31st board for that committee.

Um, and I would especially like to see that committee stand, uh, not be consolidated and silent.

So I will be voting in opposition to this this evening, and I yield.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Uh Representative Stanford, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just piggybacking off of what President Shaw said.

So we're not trying to eliminate any discussion or ordinances or anything that pertains to parks and rec.

We're just trying to consolidate to where it makes sense.

For for instance, you know, last year we had seven meetings.

We had one resolution.

Um before that, seven meetings, six meetings, four meetings, one ordinance that came out of it.

Um, we had a handful of resolutions in one year that were all of fee increases.

There was like 10 of them that were all fees.

We did it in the in one month.

A lot of the review items that you see are repetitive review items.

So you bring up what's the status of a basketball court, and then two months later, what's the status of the basketball court?

And then three months, what's the status?

And what we're trying to do is look at what our resources are and try to put people instead of having spread out over multiple meetings, have more people to have a quorum to have more debate to have a better more input on that on that item, not to mention our support staff that supports it.

So if you have multiple people that are staying late after hours to support our meetings, instead of doing one or two or three meetings that might have one 15-minute resolution on it that's just kind of a check the box.

How about you let two of those people go home and stay home with their families and one person can win one meeting and we could put all those items under one committee?

We're not getting rid of anything.

We're still going to debate parks and rec.

We're still going to debate operations.

All we're doing is saying instead of meeting on a Thursday, we're going to meet on a Monday or something, vice versa.

We're not we're not eliminating anything.

All we're trying to do is say, where do we have we have a finite amount of resources to support these meetings?

Let's make it more productive so that we don't have three meetings that might show up and people might attend and we might have to cancel them, or put them onto one meeting.

We know everyone's going to attend.

We know we're going to have a quorum and we're going to get it done.

So that's why I support it.

That's why I'm strongly support this one in the next item, and I'll speak on that one as well.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you, Representative Sanford.

Representative Didalo, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um, I'd also like to point out that opera that parks and rec falls entirely under the operations department.

It's within their purview of running the parks and rec and it's under Director Keonez's purview.

And I think that's also an important matter to being discussed under here is that if it's falling under operations, it can land under the operations committee.

You know, and I understand the concern going through about and to reiterate everyone that I was already said, is it's not getting eliminated, it's going into an area where it's already being handled by the Department of Operations and is going through that is who is handling that information and therefore can fall into the operations committee.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Didalow.

Representative Weinberg, I think I saw your hand raised, but it's lowered at the moment.

Do you still wish to be recognized?

Uh no, I uh uh representative Didalow made the comment I was going to.

Thank you.

Understood.

Thank you.

Representative Camparelli, do you wish to be recognized again?

Yeah, I just I just wanted to uh say to the representative that uh most things fall under the operations department.

If you look at the org chart, most things fall under operations uh that doesn't mean we should only have one committee.

Um the idea of having multiple committees is so that you can focus on issues that are particular to that that committee.

And seeing how, you know, saying that we only had one resolution or one ordinance does not fully capture what any one committee does.

I mean, we review items sometimes for a very long time.

We reviewed the plastic ordinance for over a year.

So if you just looked at a paper and and you said, oh, well, legislators and rules reviewed the plastic ordinance every single month for 14 months, that would not capture uh the kind of testimony, dialogue, all of the things that go into having a resolution or an ordinance.

Um ordinances take years and and month after month worth of testimony um to hash out.

And and again, I I agree with Representative Samford in what he said about us going home to our families and and and being able to do that, but we didn't sign up for this job um not knowing that we would be spending time away from our families.

Um many of these committees focus on things.

I I don't understand how we would consolidate three committees and do any one of them justice.

It also gives a lot of power to the chairs that are in charge of those three committees to say, you know, we can't have have these discussions because we're having those discussions, and they might not have anything to do with each other.

Um I think that on state and commerce, we should have been using that time to reach out to the delegation.

Um sorry, which representative had mentioned the point of order.

I I'm done.

Representative I I'm done.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli.

Representative Didalow, do you still please state your point of order if you still have one?

I withdraw it.

Thank you, Representative Didalow.

Uh Representative Morrison, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um first comment I want to make is I I want to agree with the uh comments that Representative Le Pine made at the outset of the discussion.

Um in general, uh, as we have the these these separate standing committees, um, and especially with so many uh new members uh of our uh esteemed board, um uh more committees uh gives more opportunities for committee chairmanship leadership development uh and uh things of that nature to uh better the um overall strength of the board.

Um that being said, uh although yes, parks and rec falls under operations, uh as as Representative Didalow pointed out, um, and uh as Representative Camborelli pointed out, uh, more emphasis on on parks and green spaces is definitely a concern that I share with many.

Um, I I would I would actually like to see more than four years back what kind what what the um we have the schedule in front of us that was put together for 22 through 25.

I'd like to see what the 30th board and the 29th board did uh as well as far as these numbers to uh see if if the 31st board's uh production on the parks and rec committee um is is an anomaly, a one-off perhaps uh for what appears with these numbers alone uh to maybe be less productive than uh otherwise is necessary.

Um, and if if the two committees were to be combined, um we would uh the the chair of the operations parks and recreation committee may find, as LNR has occasionally, that they may have to hold two meetings a month anyhow.

Um, but I would hope that if the comp committees were combined, uh, that the chair of the combined committee would would recognize that they would have to hold two meetings anyway.

Um and if we're doing that, I'd love to see other folks get a chance to uh chair committees.

So uh I am not convinced at this point that combining these two committees uh is is necessary or wise, but uh I have more to listen from the rest of my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Morrison.

Seeing no other members seeking the floor.

Um I have a couple of additional comments that I'd like to share with the committee.

Um specifically Yes, Representative Delacruz.

Uh I'm sorry to barge in, but somehow my race and function isn't working.

Uh are you seeking the floor?

Uh yes, please.

You're recognized.

Thank you.

Uh I can barely speak.

Uh, so I'll I'll be very brief.

Uh let me first point out that parks and recreation is perhaps one of the most important services we deliver uh to our constituents.

Uh to such an extent that the city at great expense completed last year, uh parks citywide park strategic plan, recognizing that we need to really look at how we are managing and progressing our parks.

Also the recently completed the strategic plan, uh comprehensive plan, again at great expense, also emphasize the importance of our parks.

Uh when I was in the committee several years ago.

The committee was far more active than in recent times.

Um that's unfortunate because there's a lot of work to do in the parks.

So I concur with the comments of representative uh the ballot, am I pronouncing it correctly?

Uh representative Campo Riley and represent representative uh majority leader Eric uh just made.

And with that, I yield the floor.

I think Representative Delacruz.

Seeing no other hand raised, I will take the floor to share some additional comments.

Um specifically to address some of the concerns I've heard raised this evening with respect to the risk of losing the board's capacity or ability to handle various subject matters that are previously handled by the park and recreations committee that would then therefore be potentially merged under the parks and recs and operations committee.

Um specifically, I'm not necessarily convinced by the arguments or the practice of the board that we would lose the opportunity to handle these matters or that we would be diminished in our ability to handle these matters um under a merged committee simply by the nature of them being consolidated.

Uh additionally, as I believe the comment has been made previously, um there is an administrative burden to holding additional committees to hold uh meetings, to publishing additional agendas, uh, and that burden can't be ignored, especially when it comes with a cost with respect to our staff, with respect to the time for both members of the committee, ex officio members, and members of the public.

Um it's something that we should be considered uh when we all when we want to propose maintaining those committees that may or may not be the most efficient use of that those times and resources, as Representative Sanford had mentioned.

Uh finally excuse me, additionally, um I think it's important to note that there may not be sufficient interest in those committees or their leadership to warrant having them or their meetings, and if there is an insufficient interest from members of this body, we would be forced to appoint additional members uh that may or may not be interested, and it doesn't mean that we'd get the particular quality that we'd like um out of the work of that committee.

And then finally, I think it hasn't been raised yet, but there is always the possibility, if as members have expressed concern that a merged committee is overwhelmed by the vast subject matter now, therefore in their purview, that if there's a particularly challenging or cumbersome or time-consuming issue, subject matter or nuance that would fall into that committee's purview, we always have the capacity to spin out for a limited purpose a special committee by action of the board or by action of President Shaw, uh that could handle that matter temporarily to alleviate some of the burden on that committee, and then as that issue is resolved, we can go ahead and continue to move forward in parallel uh with that with that merged committee as it is.

Um so with those comments, uh that's all I had to share.

Um I'm gonna see if there are any other members that wish to be recognized.

Representative Adams, you have the floor.

Yes, I I guess um um any with uh Villa Cruz.

I think if you look at the time that was spent on park and rec's and operation, um you would find out was very lengthy.

So if you would combine those and combine the time, I think most of those meetings will last two hours, maybe two hours and a half per meeting.

And I think um divide and conquer, I think would would be better, less time on park and rec and then less time on operation.

And I understand what you're saying about operation, because operation is everything is whatever the police is doing, the garbage, the road, the traffic, the beaches, the snow, the plow with the salt, everything kind of operation.

That's why Matt Connuna's pretty much run the city, because everything falls under him.

But I think we would get more done uh with the park and rights being separate.

I mean, if you look at what we had with the beaches all being get uh being redone with the service area, the bathroom, that all was dealt with by park and right.

It was a separate conversation.

I mean, it came under operation because Matt Canoon has had to sign who was gonna oversee it, but whatever design that the neighbors want with the Paul Um with the restroom, uh with the picket ball clubs, with uh botchy stuff in sort of um the park over there, the Merrill Avenue Paul, those all separate uh uh uh operation.

I think you would get more out of a set of people doing different tasks and bringing that back to the regular boat and vote on it, and let that committee bring forward what the opinion is, and if anybody got a different opinion, we can discuss that at the board meeting.

But I think uh, especially of parks and ranks um should remain separate.

I mean, if you go back and look at not not that not the times than median, because uh a lot of meeting was far goal because the guests didn't show up, but look at the combined time of the meeting and see how long they would be if it was combined at that different time.

That's all I gotta say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Adams, Majority Leader Morrison, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I want to tag on to one of the first one of the things that Representative Adams just said, uh that you know, as with many committees, many times the committee doesn't meet or hold an item because the guest doesn't show up.

So I'm sure that doesn't really reflect in the numbers we're looking at.

But um the more I think about it, the more I listen, uh, I would really like to see what the numbers are on the 29th and 30th board to get a broader view of of the parks and rec committee.

Uh I think uh uh Representative Delacruz has a uh a good point uh that that maybe the committee was not as uh uh productive during the last four years, but again, prior to that.

And if we look at what the operations department uh covers, I mean anti-blight, building engineering, environmental, fleet maintenance, road maintenance, stormwater management, traffic and transportation, but parks and rec, and there are more, but parks and rec is the is is the one among all that seems to me to stand out that engages with the public uh uh in a way that the others don't.

You go to the beach, you go to a park, you seek uh entertainment, you seek uh relaxation, you seek outdoor enjoyment.

Um, you know, you don't really need a separate committee to address recycling and sanitation and stormwater management.

It's a different kind of engagement with the public, even though it falls under operations.

I think the forward-facing nature of parks and recreation and the more green space that we want to have.

I think I think it really should uh absent any other compelling in information that I haven't heard yet.

Um the more I consider it, the more I would really think that uh parks and recreation should stay on its own, and we should uh make more and better use of it going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

President Shaw, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just want to say that everybody says it's not being run, it's not being run.

Everyone had the opportunity here to go to these meetings and suggest the items they wanted to put.

I don't even see half the people here going to those meetings on a regular thing, but now everyone wants to have a problem when you're trying to come up with a solution where we can actually make these items work and and like actually have a meaningful conversation.

Um and this whole thing of consolidation of power, I don't understand it.

I mean it's we're we're really all we're trying to do is just make make these you know items and and and I I also don't agree with the point that all of these meetings are canceled because the guests don't show up.

There's not many items to put, and if we put the same items over and over again and ask somebody to come speak about it, like how many times can they come speak about status on the botchy code?

Like I think it's just I think we need to find a way to collaborate with the city and and ask for meaningful things that we can get responses from, and right, and and part of it is again developing that relationship, getting that comfortableness to ask those questions and get the answers prior to actually having a meeting.

And I would also like to point out that I already mentioned that there wasn't much interest for some of these committees, and if people want to serve, we have another committee that is going to be a third committee for people here or a fourth committee.

So we have to think about that.

And it and we representative Sanford talked about the staff, and we are paying overtime for these staff, and there is a lot of overtime numbers because they're just staying up for these meetings again, like extra three meetings that they actually don't have to stay on for.

So again, uh we're we're we're we're we're we're we're trying to get efficiency here.

We're not trying to take anything away.

We're you know, and again, I I I don't I didn't go back and look 29th board how it was run and how many items were put, but everyone here had the opportunity to make these committees better and make this efficient, come up with items that are meaningful, but I didn't see anybody doing it, and I just don't know why now this is all of a sudden a concern.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

I just want to point briefly point out a few things.

First, um there's um, you know, some some of us have expressed the you know uh waxed rhapsodic about the importance of the parks and recreation committee.

But interestingly, when we were all asked which committees we wished to serve on, uh, and we could indicate as many as we wished, because we wanted to, um there weren't even enough people um asking to serve on parks and rec to um uh you know to to create a quorum for that committee.

Uh so I'm uh a little so I think there's some irony there that we should uh reflect about um you know the incredible importance of having this that's uh of having this as a separate committee.

Uh second, unlike many of the speakers with uh probably the exception of representative Sanford, um I served on the parks and recreation committee in on the 31st board.

So did Representative Sanford, and uh don't believe that any of the other um returnees speakers who uh also were on uh perhaps perhaps Representative Dale Cruz also served on it, not sure.

Uh but in any case, um my experience on that committee is that the overwhelming majority of the subjects that we took up were operational were were operational.

A handful of them had to do with um with uh security issues, um, which could be handled by um the uh health and public safety committee and probably belonged there uh better.

Um a few of them had to do with uh fees, um, which the operations committee also um handles in in other areas, uh, but the overwhelming majority of the subjects that we discussed that we made decisions on were operational in nature.

So I don't see why the operations, why we should be afraid of the operations committee handling operational issues that take place in our in our city parks.

Uh and with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Uh Vice Chair Camparelli, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I just wanted to comment on some of the the points that I heard uh me.

Um one of them is that there weren't enough people to uh you know, nobody expressed interest in being on parks and rec.

Um, just as an example, I asked for to be on land use, but I was given appointments, which I really don't have any interest in, but I'm going to serve on the appointments committee.

I would much have rather, if I wasn't going to be on land use, to be put on parks and rec because you know, they're similar.

Uh they have to do with green space and and land use.

Um, to keep repeating that it's an operations issue, everything is operations.

The the two ordinances that I worked on over the last two years uh entailed operations.

I worked extensively with Director Canonis, but they were put on legislative and rules.

Um the operations committee has always had a full vote.

Um, so to think that we're gonna squeeze parks and rec into operations and therefore have a staff that is not that busy, I don't think is realistic.

Um, especially since we're saying we're not looking to cut subjects or take away from the subjects or not take up subjects.

That means that there's just going to be a lot more work squished into fewer committees, um, with less chairs in leadership, which I think is unfair to the new people on the board um that want to to be in in leadership as uh majority leader Morrison pointed out.

Um with regard to to park to parks and rec, I think the bottom line is that you know, as a board, I think it says a lot about what we're prioritizing to remove this committee.

Uh it says a lot to the public.

Uh and I would like to keep I would like to keep this committee.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camp Relly, Representative Diddle, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um I think I'd also like to keep in mind is that is the overhead and the burden of getting to that extra meeting on both members of the community and members of the board.

And I understand going through and having the concern about eliminating it, but it is one extra meeting.

That already have a lot going on, both members of the community and members of the board, and going through it's one more step to overgo.

You can go and say, hey, well, we're already meeting, we can add these five extra items.

I'd rather get the five extra items added.

I think a lot of people would rather have the five extra items than going on another day and having the five items and being done in 20 minutes because it does more to break up your evening and the citizens' evening.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Didalo.

Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Oh, thank you.

Uh if we're thinking about uh gaining advantage by eliminating meetings, we can then consolidate parks and recreation, transportation and land use under operations.

And we got rid of three uh committee meetings that way.

Uh operations handles buildings, engineering, facilities, highways, and that includes school facilities, highways, land use, parks and recreation, solid waste, transportation and parking and vehicle maintenance.

That is the portfolio of the operations office.

Uh I have I rarely see an organization with such a wide span of control.

And to then bury a very important service that we deliver to our customers, uh constituents, uh taxpayers.

So very parks and recreational committee under that.

By itself alone, it just sends a message.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Seeing no other members seeking recognition, I'm going to call for a roll call vote on the approval of item LR 32.001, approval of an amendment to the Board of Representative Rules of Order.

Certainly.

Representative Weinberg.

I vote yes.

Representative Stone.

Representative Lapine.

I vote no.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Goudreau.

Yes.

Representative Blank.

Oh, yes.

Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative McEwen.

I vote yes.

Let me just tally that.

That's five yeses.

Four no's and zero abstains.

Thank you, Miss Lontalvo.

With five votes in the affirmative and four no's excuse me, four votes in opposition, the motion passes.

Moving on to the next item with business before the committee.

Um, and before we do, actually just want to acknowledge Representative Gardner, Ectificial member of the committee in attendance for the record.

Um, with respect to the next item, LR 32.002.

Um approval for an amendment of the Board of Representatives rules of order to strike sections 3A 11 and 3A113, and amend section 3a 112 to quote unquote housing, education, and commerce, and to further amend all references of education or housing/slash community development slash social services or state and commerce to quote unquote housing education and commerce in the rules of order submitted by President Shaw, Representatives Samford and McEwen.

At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve the aforementioned amendments to the rules of order.

So apologies.

Who is speaking?

Uh Representative Le Pine.

Thank you, Representative O'Pine.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Um at this time I'm gonna open the floor to debate, but before I do, I would just kindly request that representatives uh keep the comments germane to this amendment.

I also would caution in the interest of time that in their judgment, if their comments are duplicated of some of the discussion we've heard with respect to LR 32.001, that we might have a more prudent use of our time.

That of course being said, I recognize Representative Le Pine.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I I will uh avoid uh repeating any of the uh arguments made already or positions stated.

Uh I do want to state that I uh greatly support um uh the intention uh and take it uh at at face value of those that express a desire to run a more efficient uh board.

Uh there is no sense of a uh any other underlying objective in these uh uh in these actions from my perspective.

That said, even more so than um the previous item.

Uh I do object to this for many of the reasons stated.

I also want to note the point brought up about uh the time.

I I think I won't speak for all of my fellow representatives, but I for one and believe it's true of all care greatly about the time with my family and others care for the time of those that uh work in these roles that take us away from uh the other aspects of our life again.

I don't think that's the intent uh of anybody here uh who is voting uh against this to take people away from their families or uh make uh poor use of time.

Um I also in terms of the number of people available to serve on these boards.

Um I also, in terms of the number of people available to serve on these boards, uh I I really have a hard time uh um gravitating towards the least uh effective denominator bending to the least engaged representatives uh as a reason not to have uh these committees because they can't be seated, or some people didn't sign up for enough, then they need to be assigned and they need to serve.

We've been elected to serve and to represent.

Uh that's what we all signed up for.

If for some reason that doesn't work for people, they should think about whether or not they need to be in the seat going forward.

That's what the people in our city are counting on us to do.

So I count on our leadership to make sure that those uh committees are are filled, and I count on the leaders of those committees to run effective and impactful meetings uh so that people want to be a part of them uh and want to do the good work that we're voted into office to do.

And I'll yield.

Thank you, Representative O'Pine and President Shaw, you have the floor.

Thank you so much.

Again, I just wanted to give a um high level of of what I uh put together here.

And as you could see, I mean, it's even worse than the other two.

Um I was on the education committee.

I actually asked for it last time, thinking that we would have something meaningful to do, but I soon learned that you know the BOE is the legislative body, and they do most of the work, and we have literally no legislative power over it.

We approve one ordinance every year, which I don't think that's even going to come to us anymore.

And even if it did, we could still take it up through this committee or fiscal committee or personnel committee, depending on what it is.

Um, and I will also say that there's literally, as I was assigning, there's three people that asked for state in commerce and not even their first two choices, and two people or three people asked for education in their top three choices.

And as I was very transparent, and I explained and they understood, okay, I said this might be potentially consolidated, and they're like, yeah, okay, I didn't realize it.

And then when other they had other interests and they were fine with whatever was um, you know, other priorities that they had and their preferences.

And I also want to point out that um I put a lot of thought into giving people the committees that they they want, and that's my choice.

And if you didn't ask for a committee, and you know, I gave you this.

I mean, yeah, you we can have people come to the meetings, but they're not gonna show up, and there is not going to be a quorum, and then it is a lot of administrative work for somebody to set 12 meetings, and that you know, we have to send these, set these agendas, print those up and send it to the town clerk's office, all of that.

And you're literally that's all a waste of time if people don't show up when we're gonna end up canceling these meetings.

Um and this committee specifically, I I know people had, you know, there's a lot of items in housing.

I actually spoke to uh Miss Emily Gordon, um, who's you know, the housing uh committee housing on development and the administration, and there again, a lot I was trying to understand what kind of items were coming in and if there are ways to improve and uh talking it through with her, there is recording items, which again couldn't we don't have to take up those as either review items or you know, resolutions each month.

There's there's definitely efficiencies that can be gained.

And just because something was done in a manner last time, it doesn't mean we have to do it the same way.

And if we can ab you know, if we can make it efficient, like if we can make it absolutely like streamlined and certain ordinances or resolutions, whatever way we can do it, then why shouldn't we try it?

Um so again, you know, again, it looks like there is a lot on the housing, but there is a lot of efficiencies to be gained.

And given the number of items in the other two committees, I'm not sure it's just that much more of a heavy lift, or I just don't agree this term of consolidation of power.

And again, I put a lot of thought into these committees when I assign chairs and co-chairs, and this is one I thought, okay, this might work better with co-chairs because if it does get, you know, somewhat there's two chairs that can that can work through it.

So, you know, I just didn't randomly pick and choose things.

I just literally like I I had some logical reasons to assigning the way it was.

So uh with that I yield for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Deputy Majority Leader Samford, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um just kind of talking about some of the same old arguments, but I'll try to make some new ones.

This one in itself, it's not, it's not, I've been on both of them.

I've been on state and commerce and I've been on education, and and I'm I'm telling you, there are just there's not enough stuff that gets introduced that falls into those categories.

So it's not a matter really of participation or chairmanship or someone going the extra mile and trying to do there's just not enough stuff.

There's a we have a board of ed, we have a uh a teacher's union, we have a PTO, we have all these things to take care of.

So there just really isn't a lot of stuff that falls under the education committee.

Under the state in commerce, there just aren't of we had one, we had two meetings last year, two the year before.

One of them was a resolution about something with Ukraine that it was just symbolic, which is important, and I get it.

And I I but you can put that all into one meeting.

You don't have to have a separate meeting.

If anybody here is working in corporate, and on Monday you talk about coffee and on Wednesday, you talk about orange juice, and on Friday you talked about donuts.

Someone's gonna say, let's have one meeting and talk about all three of them.

You don't need to have all of this stuff when you have you know, you're anticipating an education meeting next, you know, next month, and then all of a sudden five days before you say meetings canceled because we don't have anything, and then the next month, oh, we've got an education, and then it's canceled again.

And it's no fault on who's leading it or who's a part of it, or who wanted to be on the on the committee to begin with.

It's simply that there just aren't enough things to talk about.

So what we need to do is just put them together so that you have one productive meeting a month that talks about all these important items.

To me, it's a no-brainer.

Um, but you know, I'll I'll let ever other people talk and get your opinions out and everything.

But to me, I totally support this one.

To me, it it should have been done a long time ago.

So I yield.

Thank you, Deputy Majority Leader Samford, Representative Blank, you have the floor.

Representative Blank, you are muted.

Sorry, Representative Blank.

My apologies.

I'm here.

I apologize.

Um, yeah, I'm gonna uh I'm gonna ditto uh what was just said.

I sat on the um state in commerce last year, and I can tell you from my experience, there was nothing we could have done to impact anything, and there was nothing brought up.

Um this is a no-brainer on my book.

Um I would uh support that.

Um so I'll yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Blank, representative.

Oh, and by the way, I have to leave the meeting.

My apologies.

Understood.

Thank you, Representative Blank, for your attendance.

Representative Didalo, you have the floor.

Yeah, I think I'm not gonna you know beat a dead horse here, is also going through and saying is that this is a volunteer position, our time is valuable.

I mean, other volunteer organizations, right?

We want to get things done.

That's what we want to do.

That's what we're here to do, right?

And doing that in the most efficient way possible.

I think it's important, and that's what this is looking at is going through and saying, okay, these are where things are occurring.

Let's make things efficient for the people so that the people that are this is ultimately, yes, we want to serve our constituents, but also on the other side is that it's a volunteer position, and that has to be accounted for.

And I think this consolidation goes into that is taking that time and the nature of these positions as volunteer positions into account.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Didalo, Representative Walson.

You have the floor.

If you could speak up.

Um, I'm traveling in the car right now.

Um, can you hear me now?

Yes, that's better.

Okay, sorry.

Um I sat on the state in commerce um last year, and uh to be honest, I I hate it sitting on a state in commerce, and um my passion is housing.

So I think the housing committee needs to be by itself standalone, and um, it should not be mixed or or muddled with any other committees, because there's a lot of work that we have done on the housing committee, which has gone for hours, and um, it's not just about uh, you know, uh like President Trotsky went to Emily Gordon, it's so much more than Emily Warden.

We have um constituents, you know, uh contacts us, and you know, we have to get in touch with like property management to find out what's going on in certain issues, and um there's a big housing crisis in Stanford, and I'm going to be kind of blank with you that a lot of the uh a lot of the people who aren't making the 60,000, 85,000, they're having a very hard time here in Stanford, and uh we need to have our housing committee to stand by itself.

There's too much work that needs to um continue on the housing community in development.

The black grants, those are like you know, uh the time, and I'm just really surprised that we have all of a sudden we want to start consolidating all of these committees because nobody wanted to sit on the committee.

My thing is I think you know, I'm okay with the committees that I have, but if it was such a problem with all these committees, and you know, there was lacking on education and all of that.

I think that it should have been like okay, I'm putting this person on this committee, this committee, this committee.

And if you like it, fine.

If you don't, too bad.

And I'm glad that I got the committees that I got, but to combine them, I'm in total disagreement.

I'm in opposition to this whole when it comes to housing, it needs to be by itself.

It should not be colored gray.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Walson.

Uh Representative Pollock, I believe your your hand was excuse me, Representative Weinburn, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

Um I I agree with Representative Walston that um that the board should be spending uh a great deal of time focused on on housing.

Um however, when you look when one looks at the scope of um the education, the the education committee and the state and commerce committee, uh uh one will understand that it will add very little um to um very little activity to distract from the focus of on um of this of this new committee on on housing.

I served on the education committee, and it was enormously disappointing, and I'll tell you why.

Uh the scope most people don't most people don't understand what the education committee, the board of representatives is um is supposed to do.

It is supposed as currently constructed, it is supposed to, it is responsible for approving, subject to full board approval, approving contracts that are related to the Stanford Public Schools.

Very few of these contracts come through.

They're almost almost all of them are non-controversial.

Um they're approved unanimously by consent.

Um unfortunately, in order to unfortunately, what the committee, at least in my two and a half years serving on it, turned into is a shadow, it was a shadow board of education.

Uh trying to opine on um educational policy for the Stanford public schools, a subject in which we as representatives don't have any expertise, and a subject which by charter is specifically uh uh left to the board of education elected by um uh the uh the residents of this uh the citizens of of this of this city.

So adding the responsibilities, the proper responsibilities of the education committee to a housing committee will do very little to increase their workload, um, and thus will not detract uh distract members of the this new committee from focusing on housing.

As far as state and commerce is concerned, I think the numbers speak for themselves.

We basically for the last several years have done just fine without basically a functional state and commerce committee.

So I think we should go ahead and acknowledge that.

Uh if there is some issue related to state and commerce that comes up, uh we would we will now have a home for that issue.

But frankly, um it didn't come up in the last two years.

I don't know why it would come up in the future.

Uh so I uh recommend that we move forward with uh this particular consolidation.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg, Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

I think I saw your hand raise and come down.

Did you still wish to seek recognition?

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Deputy Leader Pollock is having some difficulty getting back into the meeting, but she does want to speak.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

Well we'll have a seat.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yep, we can hear you.

Thank you.

Uh, if you could raise my hand for me and let me know when I'm able to speak.

Thank you.

You you've got the floor, Deputy Majority Leader.

Oh, great time to walk in.

Please stop me.

Um if I repeated, I've heard 99% of it.

Um, but I just wanted to jump in and share as a co-chair, and I am not going to repeat from the last uh item.

However, Karen Camparelli mentioned something that is pertinent to this item as a co-chair who would be working on all of these items together.

As a co-chair who would be working on all of these items together.

I would say I was also on housing community development social services for four years.

And uh last term was on education, and was I asked to be removed off of it because uh there's no legislative power.

We could put review items anywhere, however, I still find it to be incredibly important.

And uh state and commerce, I the history of it uh again, it doesn't meet that often.

So as a co-chair, I do think the most important is community social services with housing, and then when there's items from education to be able to have a place for it to live on this committee, is combined proposed committee.

I'm in support of it.

I'm okay with it.

It wasn't my idea, but it makes sense to me.

And I would also say, as a co-chair, should there be months or items that need more attention, just like we do during the HCD grants, um, we could have two meetings in a month because this would essentially be three meetings, and all the people on my meet on my committee, we would drop it down to one, and then there's months where it's more stringent, uh important uh timely, we would then say, let's do it to two meetings this month and join as opposed to doing long meetings.

Anyway, I'm sorry, I was scrambling trying to get back on in this meeting, and I don't want to repeat everything else that was said.

So I would like to say as a co-chair, I would support this combination.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Uh Vice Chair Camporelli, you've got the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I'd like to make a motion at this time to remove housing from this group and vote to consolidate education and state and commerce, but remove housing.

Because I I personally could vote to consolidate education and state and commerce, but I I think it's important as as representatives of the people um to have to have a committee that is dedicated to housing development and social services.

Understood.

To clarify your motion, are you moving that rather than combining these committees into housing, education, and commerce?

That instead we would only be striking those committees related to education and commerce and thereby combining them to be education and commerce.

Education and commerce as one committee and housing development and social services as its own committee.

Understood.

So I don't think allow that.

Yeah, we no, not a problem.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second second.

All righty.

So the motion has been moved and seconded.

Uh so the question before the committee is an amendment to the existing motion to the effect that would remove reference to education and instead um strike all references to excuse me, remove reference to housing and strike all references to education and state and commerce, and instead amend um all references to education and state and commerce to instead now say education and commerce.

A point of order question both which representative had a point of order?

Uh Weinberg.

Representative Weinberg, please state your point of order.

Yeah.

Uh I there's a motion already on the floor, so I don't think another motion can supersede it.

Um however, um, if um representative camparelli were to make an were were to make and uh propose an amendment to the existing motion.

I think that would be in proper order.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Um, my understanding, and I believe if I misstated it, I apologize, but I believe I stated the question before.

Was an amendment to the main motion currently posed?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

Well what was the amendment on the floor?

So the amendment on the floor is your motion to amend the existing motion, uh, which is to approve the changes that are outlined in LR 32.002.

Your amendment to that motion would instead modify that motion, thereby removing any references to housing, and thereby only leaving striking of education and commerce and replacing it with references to education and commerce.

Thank you for for clarifying that, Representative Weinberg.

Um, can I also say that I'm having a trouble hearing Representative Weinberg?

Which I don't normally have with trouble, but if you could just speak louder when you are speaking.

Thank you, Vice Chair Campbell.

Deputy Majority Leader Polarick, you have the floor, please state your point of inquiry.

Um, when I by this amendment removing housing, does that also include Representative Camporelli, uh community development and social services?

Just want to clarify.

Uh so I'll go ahead.

I'll I'll I'll take that one.

Um, so yes, I believe, you know, Representative Campbell, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

The removal of references to housing community development and social services, that committee has an entire that's the subject of the amendment, and instead retaining references to education and state and commerce as committees to be consolidated.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yep.

Thank you very much.

Uh Representative, excuse me, Vice Chair Camporelli.

Do you still wish recognition?

Uh Representative Campbell, I think I saw you shake your head, but you're muted.

No, sorry.

Got it.

Thank you.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock, did you still want recognition with respect to the question before the assembly?

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh President Shaw, did you want to be recognized with respect to the amendment?

Yes, please.

You have the floor.

Thank you so much.

I just want to say I'm completely not in favor of this because I just nobody's taking any importance from housing.

I understand how important it is.

I really don't understand why we can't add another item once in every few months when it comes up to that committee instead of like having another separate committee.

There's literally four items or five items that come up, and I just and not even every same single month.

It's once every few months.

I don't understand why we can't just take it and we have to create a separate committee.

I'm completely against it.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Uh Majority Leader Morgan.

Please raise my hand when it's my turn.

I can't raise it.

Sorry.

Understood.

Thank you.

Uh Majority Leader Morrison, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh my only request is that um someone on the committee might entertain uh a motion to amend if that's proper procedure.

Uh if this is to pass, uh, I would recommend it be called education state and commerce and not drop the word state.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Deputy Motor Deputy Majority Leader Pollock, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh, it's a procedural question.

If somebody could help answer it, uh there's an amendment on the floor to separate out the housing and social services committee.

Should this not pass, does it go back on the floor to discuss the combination in total?

Yes, that's correct.

If this amendment does not pass or does pass, we will resume debate on the main motion with respect to LR32.002 as amended or not amended based on the result of the present question.

Okay.

Uh please stop me if it's not an appropriate timing for me to say this.

Um I again, as a co-chair, would like to see all these committees together because I would be co-chair on the two separate committees.

And I would much rather have it be together and choose to have an extra meeting if it's needed.

And then I would also like to list the importance of keeping social services in the name, but I'll discuss that later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Seeing no other member seeking recognition, we're going to have a voice vote with respect to the amendment.

Um, and to clarify the question before the committee, uh, the motion is to amend the main motion with respect to LR 32.002.

The question, Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Uh Representative Weinberg.

You're currently I call for a roll call vote on the amendment.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

We will have a roll call vote with respect to the amendment on LR of the motion on LR 32.002.

The question representative Della Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair McConnell.

Uh I just wanted to point out to our colleagues with respect to education.

Over half of the city budget is devoted to education.

I think of uh support alone.

And with respect to housing, we have a housing crisis.

And again, to dilute that committee, just doesn't seem in keeping with the representative de la Cruz.

Yes.

Apologies to interrupt.

I just wanted to make sure that your comments remain germane with respect to the amendment.

There will be an opportunity for further comment on the main motion, but the question before the committee at the moment is an amendment merging education and commerce specifically, education and state and commerce specifically, not inclusive of housing.

So I just wanted to make sure that that point is clear before you continue.

Yes, uh, my comments were setting up to say that I do support the amendment proposed by Representative Difficampo Reality.

Thank you very much for Representative Delacruz.

Uh Representative Walton, you have the floor.

Um I just want to kind of make it clear.

Housing community uh black grants.

That's uh, you know, the full name.

You keep saying housing, it's only one proponent, but is the community black grants with that?

Um the full name, that's all.

Apologies.

I had a bit of a technical issue there, so I didn't hear you towards the end.

If you don't mind repeating your comment.

Uh I'm just whoa.

Uh I'm on the highway.

Um, the techno we're being technical, and you keep saying like the housing, but the housing and community black grant, it's all one committee.

And I keep hearing you saying housing and not the whole thing.

Can you hear me?

Hello.

Hear you now.

Thank you.

You heard me?

Um, and to clarify, uh, just uh for all those in attendance, the name of the committee per the exact rules of order as established in the organizational meeting is housing slash community development slash social services.

All righty, hello, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Yes, apologies.

Um apology for the technical difficulties on my end.

Um so uh representative Walston, uh I just wanted to clarify that the rules of order as adopted by the Board of Representatives on its organizational meeting, um, titles the committee in question housing slash community development slash social services.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And for clarifications purposes, um any references I have to to that quote unquote housing committee should be taken as references to the housing slash community development slash social services committee.

Thank you, Representative Walson, for that clarifying point.

Seeing no other hands seeking recognition, we're gonna move forward with the roll call vote with respect to the amendment uh to uh item LR three two point zero zero two.

The question before the committee is an amendment to the main motion, removing any references to housing and instead only striking references to education and state and commerce, and thereby amending all references to either education or state and commerce to education and commerce.

Uh Ms.

Montalvo, if you don't mind assisting me with the roll call.

Yes, thank you.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

On the amendment, I vote no.

Representative Stone.

On the amendment, I vote yes.

Representative LePine.

On the amendment, I vote yes.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

On the amendment, I vote no.

Representative Boudreaux.

On the amendment, I vote yes.

Representative Blank, if you're still with us.

On the amendment, I vote yes.

Thank you.

Representative Campo Realy.

Let me yes.

Representative McEwen.

On the amendment, I vote no.

Thank you.

We have six yes votes, three no votes, zero abstaints.

Thank you very much.

With six votes in the negative and three votes in the affirmative.

The negative has it.

The motion does not pass.

Excuse me.

I think I misspoke.

Six votes in the affirmative, three votes in the negative.

With that, the amendment does pass.

And so the question before the committee is with respect to LR32.002 as amended to strike section LA 11 and LA 113 and amend section excuse me to strike sections LA 11 and amend sections LA 113.

Um to education and commerce and to further amend all references of education and of state and commerce to education and commerce in the rules of order.

Seeing no other members seeking recognition, I'm going to call for a roll call vote with respect to the question before the committee, which I'll repeat for clarification.

The question before the committee is approval of an amendment to the board of representative rules of order to strike section 3a 13.

I previously misspoke.

Um and to amend section 3a 11 to then therefore be education and commerce and to further amend all references of education or state and commerce to education and commerce in the rules of order.

Ms.

Lon Paulo, if you could assist me on the roll call.

Absolutely.

Representative Weinberg.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative LePine.

Yeah.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

Thank you.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Boudreaux.

Yes.

Representative Blank.

Okay, I'll come back to you, Representative Blank, if you're still with us.

Representative Camporelli.

Yes.

Representative McEwen.

Yes.

Representative Blank, are you still with us?

I see your presentation.

Yes.

I vote yes.

Thank you.

I vote yes.

Sorry about that.

No, that's quite all right.

That is nine affirmatives, zero against, and zero abstaints.

Thank you, Ms.

Montalvo.

With that, the motion passes unanimously.

As amended.

Moving on to item LR 32.003.

The next item of business is an approval of an amendment to the Board of Representatives' rules of order to strike section five related to procedures surrounding debate and replace it with the proposed language as stated in the legislative record and previously circulated to the members of the committee.

Submitted by Representative Sanford.

And at this time, I would entertain a motion to approve the appropriate amendments to the rules of order.

So moved.

Thank you.

I believe Representative La Hine.

Yes.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

With that, we'll open the floor to any members seeking recognition.

Representative Walson, you have the floor.

Representative Walson, you're up.

I'm here.

I was wondering if you could just read that into the record.

So when the constituents go back to listen, they'll kind of know what's going on.

If you can read that directly, if you don't mind.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Thank you, Representative.

Thank you, Miss Montalvo for pulling that up.

Uh so I'm gonna read this at a bit of a heightened speed.

It is a lengthy amendment that's proposed.

Um but the amendment states that these debate rules shall be solely apply solely to the meeting of the full board of representative uh during meetings of any committee of the board, the committee chair shall be responsible for the maintaining decorum, managing recognition and ensuring that all debate remains germane to the specific agenda items under discussion.

Sub point A, first recognition, a member recognized to speak on any matter shall be limited to five minutes for their initial remarks.

Sub point B, second recognition.

A member who has already spoken once on the same matter, maybe recognized for a second time, consistent with subsection five B2 for a period not to exceed three minutes.

Subsection three, further recognition, no member shall speak more than twice on the same matter without permission of the president as provided in subsection five B2 and subsection D enforcement.

The president with the assistance of the clerk shall enforce these time limits and may alert members when their remaining time is limited.

Subsection E, presidential discretion, the president may at their discretion allow additional time for clarification, responses to personal remarks or matters requiring further explanation.

Subsection F effects of amendment of a motion to amend the item under consideration is made and seconded.

The time limits set forth in subsections A and B shall reset such that each member shall again be entitled to speak for up to five minutes for each speech for each first speech and for three minutes for each second speech on the amendment.

Subsection G, non-transferability of time, debate time allocated to a member under this section, personal to that amendment is personal to that member and may not be transferred, yielded or otherwise reassigned to another member or speaker.

Subsection H sub suspension of debate rules for specific time.

The assembly may by a two-thirds vote suspend the debate limit rules set forth in this section for a specific single item, uh agenda item, excuse me, a motion under this section uh shall not be debatable and must clearly identify the agenda item to which the suspension applies.

During the period of suspension, all other provisions of Robert's rules of order newly revised shall remain in full force, and the question may be moved in accordance with those rules.

If the motion receives a second and is adopted by two-third vote upon the completion of debate and final disposition of the item, the standard debate limits established in sections A through G shall automatically resume.

That being said, my reading into the record uh should be secondary to the language of the legislative record to the extent there are any errors in my recitation.

Uh with that being said, uh representative excuse me, Deputy Majority Leader Samford, you've got the floor.

Hey, thank you, Chair.

I I introduced this really out of fairness and lessons learned on previous boards.

Um we have 40 people and 40 people deserve a chance to speak.

And what we've seen in the past is that a lot of times we get people that will talk and talk and talk, and people that really want to speak on an item won't because they don't want to prolong a meeting and they don't want to, you know, all of a sudden it's midnight, it's 1230, and they don't want to speak.

So with 40 people, what this does is it allows people a fair opportunity to to be heard.

So the whole point of Robert's rules, right, is to have a debate.

It's not a speech, it's not a presentation.

It's allowing people to have make their point and then yield the floor and let someone else make a point.

And then if you have something to follow up, you've got a second time.

But there's just rules there so that we can all be fair and have our voices heard.

Now, if you wanted to have a board of 11 people, we may not need to do that.

But what we're doing here is very, very typical for legislative bodies all over the place to have rules in place so that everybody gets a chance to speak.

So this should have been done a while back.

It wasn't, and that's fine.

But our current rules, the way they they play out, really fly in the face of fairness and debate.

So if you read it right now, it says um we can suspend this and have a limit on debate if the minority leader and the majority leader agree, and therefore their their vote basically trumps everybody else's vote, which flies in the face of Robert's rules because the idea is in Robert's rules is that everybody's vote is equal.

So what we're doing here is simply laying some groundwork to say, listen, we've got a lot of stuff to cover.

We want everybody to have the opportunity to speak.

And if there comes a time where we really need to have a long drawn-out debate, then we're going to put it up to a two-thirds present in voting rule.

We'll will eliminate the five-minute rule.

But then after that, we're going to go back.

And so this way there's a mechanism in place to where we can you know have that lengthy debate if we need to, but it's it's better than what we currently have because right now you would have to do that for each individual item, and then you would have to have the majority leader and minority leader approve of it, which doesn't make any sense.

So this is a simple how-to guide for everybody going into our regular board meetings.

Again, it doesn't apply to the committee meetings, but when you go into our board meetings, these are our rules.

It's very simple, everybody understands it, and we have some discretion in there to the for the president, so that if he or she, whoever is president, says, you know, someone was called out by name, they can say, okay, uh representative uh Weinberg, I'm sorry, I'm picking on you, Carl.

Uh you you were addressed by name, you can go ahead and respond, you've got one minute.

Or Representative De La Cruz, you've got one minute to respond.

You were so there's some discretion built in there to allow us to have a productive conversation.

I think there is uh I I think it's a 95%, you know, uh document.

I think it's it it really covers all the basis and and it would what it really does is is it allows 40 people an opportunity to to be heard and not you know want to keep their hand down because it's getting too late or they don't want to speak or they don't want to prolong something and you know we've got to go to work in the morning or something like that.

My point is is that this just uh it evens out the playing field and and gives a very clear idea of what we do and how we do it in our meetings.

So with that, I yield, I'll take any questions, but for the most part, I think it's pretty black and white.

Um literally and figuratively.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Deputy Majority Leader Samford.

Seeing no other excuse me, Vice Chair Camparelli, you've got the floor.

Thank you.

Um I will be voting against this.

I think that you are a perfect example, Chair, of why we don't need these rule changes.

Um, you've kept us on track when getting repetitive, you've brought us back to the subject.

Um, I think a well-chaired meeting allows for everyone to be at the table.

Um, another example of why we don't need this is that generally in in a board meeting, when somebody has spoken more than one time, the chair will recognize someone that has been speaking just for the first time.

Um, you know, and I don't know if that's part of the rules, or it's just the decorum that the board has set up, but I've seen that multiple times.

Um, anybody that wants to speak generally does.

Uh, I don't think it's that some people are speaking more than others.

Some people are just more contemplated and don't have a lot to say or are not passionate about a subject.

Um, but we do have rules in place to take care of of most of the things that that are amended here.

Um, the president has the ability to do most of the things that are on here, and so do most of the chairs.

Um if there could if there comes a time, uh Sam uh representative Sanford just said when we need a longer debate, we can vote on that.

That just puts more time on the meeting because now you have to take a vote of the full board on whether we should be able to have a longer debate.

It's it's just more bureaucracy and and more vote taking.

Um, and it just prolongs the meeting, and it takes away from the substance of the meeting.

You know, once you put a lot of these rules in place and and bureaucratic red tape, you're taking away from the substance of these meetings.

Um, it takes the focus away from what we should be thinking about, um, not whether somebody has spoken for two minutes or three minutes or five minutes, but the content of what they're saying.

Uh, we will be debating very important things in our city.

Um, and some people will have more to say on them than others because some people are more knowledgeable about the subject than others.

That's just the way that it is.

Um, and so for those reasons, I I think that the rules that we have in place and good chairing and uh wonderful precedent that we have now that we can keep these meetings flowing.

Um and I yield.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

Um, I I strongly support uh representative Sanford's uh proposal.

Um I understand that some people have more to say than others, but um but my experience on the 31st board is um those people are often um incredibly repetitive.

Um and anything that they anything that uh they need to say um they should be able to say in five minutes.

Um however um I would like I I uh will I am going to uh propose separately three amendments to um representative Sanford's um motion.

So um I'll take the first, I'll do the first one first.

It's an image an amendment to section E.

Um to add the following to this is on presidential discretion.

So we're currently reads the president may at their discretion allow additional time for clarification responses to personal remarks or matters requiring further explanation.

I wish to amend that to add the following text.

The president will not consider a brief clarifying question to be a first or second recognition of a representative.

And I so move such this amendment.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Broudreau.

The motion to amend the question is moved and seconded.

Uh Representative Weinberg, if you could just repeat one more time the amendment, I would greatly appreciate it.

Yes, it will it will simply add the following.

I'll be glad to send this text to you.

I think I've done, but I'll be glad to do it again.

Um to add to section E, at the end of section E, presidential discretion, to add the following sentence.

The president will not consider a brief clarifying question to be a first or second recognition of a representative.

Um may I speak as to why I'm proposing this?

Yes, Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Okay, just briefly.

Uh the originally proposed uh language uh by by representative Sanford gives the president the discretion to exempt a brief clarifying question from the limits on recognition of a representative.

Uh my proposed addition, this additional sentence would just simply direct the president to make such an um and and uh exemption.

Um that's all I have to say about it.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative Walston, uh, do you seek to be recognized with respect to the amendment or with respect to the main motion?

I saw your hand previously.

Uh representative representative Waltzon, excuse me, you're still muted.

All righty, Representative Wilson.

We'll circle back to you.

Uh President Shaw, just to confirm your comments are related to the amendment.

That's correct.

Then you've got the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I just have a point of inquiry through you to uh representative Weinberg.

Just help me understand.

Are we saying that so if somebody is asking a clarifying question, then your proposal would say that that I don't consider or the president shall not consider that as their first or the second time that they're allowed to speak.

Is that my interpreting that correctly?

Correct.

Correct.

So and so a representative, if they have a brief clarifying question, they don't have to fear that they have used up one of their two opportunities to speak.

That's the only purpose of it.

I recognize that, but I am a little concerned that and this has happened in the previous board that people just ask, may I answer, may I clarify, may I clarify, and then it just adds on to the time.

And I think it's not fair to the other reps that are actually in line to speak.

So as much as I'm cognizant of what you're trying to do, I am not sure if that's a good idea just to just for this, the the very same reason I had mentioned.

So thank you.

May I respond?

Uh Representative Weinberg, um, I'm going to move on in the order as that statement wasn't directed at you.

It was more a statement as to the merits of the amendment.

Uh Representative Le Pine, you've got the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh my interpretation of the amendment is that that provision is baked into the words presidential discretion.

And uh that the president has the discretion to allow additional time, whether it is the second or it's a brief clarifying question to make that distinction.

So it seems redundant and unnecessary to add that amendment, uh, because I think the president can make that decision based on the nature of the question raised already, based on um uh based on this proposal, which uh I I um I support.

So I don't support the amendment, but I do uh uh but it's so that's what we're talking about right now, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Lepine, Representative Goldberg, you've got the floor thank you.

I appreciate your recognizing me.

I just wanted to say that that I actually had some of the same concerns that Representative Weinberg brought up when I read this.

Um that being that in the case where a president um was overly um committed to scorekeeping, uh and and I don't believe that's the case today, but I'm thinking about in the future that this rule could be used to shut down a faction that maybe is out of favor.

So I think that um based on the experience I think Representative Weinberg and I had, this is a good safety net.

So I am in support of it.

Now obviously I'm not on this committee, so I can't vote for it now, but should it find its way to the main four?

I would be uh I would welcome the opportunity for this change.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh swinging back to Representative Walston, if you still are seeking recognition, please unmute and let us know.

I'm here.

I I just arrived at my destination, so I was um putting the stuff out.

Not a problem.

Yeah.

Just to sorry, excuse me, Representative Walson, just to confirm, I just want to make sure your comments are limited to the nature of the amendment.

There will still be an opportunity, and I saw your hand previously raised for recognition of the main question.

And so if you if you comments are limited to the main question, I'll recognize you first once we dispose of the amendment.

Unless, of course, your comments are germane to the amendment.

It's my comment is germane.

And the only thing I just want to say, I'm going to I'm not even going to take a whole minute.

I'm listening to everybody talk, and it's like, are they are they two and a half minutes?

Are they uh getting close to five minutes?

So I don't think uh we need to put minutes on people's speech.

I think Representative Wilson, Representative Woolston, apologies.

The the amendment specifically is just the addition of language to the president's discretion in recognition of clarifying questions being counted as first or second recognition.

Comments related comments related to the length of the time or the limitations would be germane to the primary question, which we are not currently discussing, but I'm more than happy to recognize you.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate you so much.

I really do.

Thank you.

I I appreciate your comments.

Yeah.

Uh seeing no other hands with respect to the amendment itself.

We're gonna move forward with a voice vote.

Um the question before the committee is a motion to amend the motion uh related to LR 32.003.

The motion to amend would add the language the president will not consider a certifying question to be a first or second recognition at the end of subsection E of the proposed language document.

That single sentence shifted the year.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes, I believe that if we are likely not to vote unanimously that once the proper procedure is a roll call vote.

Yes, Representative Weinberg.

If it is unclear whether or not the vote is unanimous, I will proceed with a roll call vote, but I'd like to attempt this with a voice vote.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Excuse me.

Uh so all those in favor of the motion to amend as previously stated, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Nay.

Nay.

Any abstentions.

Hearing none.

Unless there is a motion by the committee.

It is of my opinion that the nays outnumber the ayes.

And that was clear to me.

And so I'm going to say that the motion is defeated.

I would support a oh, I'm sorry.

I I will ask again for a roll call then.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

We'll move forward with a roll call vote.

I see a couple of individuals have identified.

Thank you.

So moving forward with a roll call vote, Miss Montalvo, if you don't mind assisting me there.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote on the amendment?

Proposed amendment.

Yes.

Representative Stone, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Yes.

Representative Le Pine, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Thank you.

Representative Hyatt, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Representative Boudreau, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Yes.

Representative Blank.

How do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Representative Caporelli, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Representative McEwen, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Yes.

Okay.

That's four yeses.

Five no's and zero abstaines.

Thank you, Miss Montalvo.

So with that, uh the motion does not pass.

And the primary motion will continue as originally proposed.

So with that, are there any members that excuse me, Miss, excuse me, Representative Walston, did you want to be recognized with respect to the primary question?

Representative Walson, you're still muted.

So motivat I'm fine.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I have a second of my three proposed amendments to Representative Sanford's motion.

And this is in section H, which concerns the two-thirds vote.

Well we can look it up exactly what the two-thirds vote, how it's defined.

We can go look that up in Robert's rules.

I think it would simplify things and expedite things.

If we add it after the words the assembly may by a two-thirds vote, insert the following words of representatives present and voted.

So it is unambiguously clear what the two-thirds vote means.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Representative Le Pine, thank you for the second.

The question before the committee is a motion to amend the proposed language by inserting the language of representatives present and voting after the language two-thirds vote in subsection H.

Is there anybody that wishes to be recognized?

Seeing no members seeking recognition, we will move forward with a voice vote on this one as well.

The question before the committee is a motion to amend by inserting the language of representatives present and voting after the words two-thirds vote in subsection H of the proposed language.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions.

With that, the motion unanimously passes.

The question now before the committee is as amended.

So the language that I previously read as amended with the language now inclusive of representatives present in voting in subsection H, following the words two-thirds vote.

Is there any member that wishes to excuse me, wishes to be recognized?

See Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Yeah, I have a third amendment to propose, but I'm I'm I'm happy to yield uh to any further discussion on the um on the uh on the the main motion uh and and to do it after that discussion.

Does not appear that anybody seek the floor.

So representative Weinberg.

Go for it.

Uh so um I I wish to add uh I make a motion to add a section I that would read as follows.

This amendment will last at the end of six months from the date of enactment, unless renewed by a majority vote of the full membership of the board of representatives.

Okay.

So my third can may I speak?

So I'll wait for a second if there is one.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Apes.

Who is that?

Sorry, I'm needed.

Representative LePine.

You want me to show you?

Uh Representative Goldberg, if you could please mute.

Hearing that the motion is moved and seconded, seconded by Representative Lepine.

Uh Representative Weinberg, I believe you would ask for the floor.

Thank you.

Um, this this amendment that I'm proposing basically says after living with these time limits on debate, let's make sure they advance the public interest by taking another vote.

Uh if you wish, you may label it a humility clause.

I think these timely, I believe that these time limits in the main motion will improve the quality of our deliberations.

And presumably we will find out if a majority of the board agrees.

But let's face it, none of us knows for sure.

So let's demonstrate a little humility.

At the end of six months, after we've experienced these new rules uh for that period, if a majority of the board still likes these new rules, we'll vote accordingly, and the new rules will become permanent.

On the other hand, if a majority feels otherwise, we will revert to the debate rules from the 31st board.

In either case, the majority will rule instead of needing a two-thirds vote to change.

Uh to change back to the old rules.

And meanwhile, we will show the public and ourselves that the 32nd board operates with the level of humility that perhaps previous boards may have lacked.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg, Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

You've got the floor.

Yeah, I think the only thing that we're showing the public is that we're indecisive.

Look, the way you make a rule is you make the rule, and then in six months or a year or two years, you can always change the board rules by coming back and voting on it at two-thirds.

But to pass this and say it's going to lapse in six months, just so that we can be back here in two more months to talk about it again, when it doesn't make any sense.

And then you're saying we're gonna have to do a majority vote when the board rules specifically say to change them after the three months, you require a two-thirds vote.

You start getting into this whole what which rule do we follow debate?

It's very, very clear that if you want to change the board rules six months from now or a year from now, come back and change them.

But let's not get into this habit of we're gonna try try something out for a little while, and if it doesn't fit, then we'll we'll change it again.

And then if that we don't like that, we'll maybe we'll change it again.

We we have a very clear direction in what we want to do, make the change, move on, and if two-thirds don't like it, change the board rule.

But to keep going back and forth is is not productive, and it's it's it's silly.

So with that, I yield.

Thanks.

Thank you, Deputy Majority Leader Samford.

President Shaw, you've got the floor.

Thank you so much.

I am in 100% agreement with uh representative Sanford.

I mean, we we cannot make rules so we can change them in six months.

That is not the intent of it.

I mean, obviously, if something doesn't work, we can go back and revisit, right?

But to have say something like, well, we can put it now and put a clause in, and I do not like things that contradicts the board rules, because we should we shouldn't be making those kind of changes that you could do that for every every rule change we make, and I don't think that's the intent of this.

Uh it should be the intent of this.

So I'm in um I'm not in favor of this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Vice, excuse me, Representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

If you are still seeking recognition, I notice your hand is down.

I'm no longer seeking recognition.

Uh Representative Sanford covered my question.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Vice Chair Camporelli, you've got the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I I want to say this with all due respect to the new members.

I I mean no disrespect in what I'm going to say right now, but I am definitely in favor of this amendment.

Um, I think the majority of this board, just as I did not know, does not know what it is to debate uh an issue on the floor and how much time it will take for some statements to be made.

Some people speak slower than others.

So some people have more to say.

Um so I I think that testing out this rule, which is a big rule change, is a good idea.

And I really appreciate uh representative Weinberg bringing up this amendment, and I will be voting in favor of it.

I yield.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camp Rally.

Majority Leader Morrison, I saw your hand was raised but is no longer raised.

Are you still seeking recognition?

Uh no, thank you.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Uh Representative Le Pine, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh I won't repeat uh what Representative Camporelli said, but I do um uh uh like the concept of approaching this large change with humility and like that terminology that Representative Weinberg utilized for that.

Uh I do agree with the comments of uh of others about um this not being uh uh maybe the uh the norm.

Um but we are at the beginning of a session where again uh the majority of of representatives are new to the board and we're proposing a significant change, which I think is a very thoughtful change uh put forth.

Um by deputy majority leader Stanford, and I think this makes that movement even better.

So uh I I will support this.

Thank you, Representative Lepine, Representative Goldberg, you've got the floor.

Thank you for recognizing me.

I appreciate the oper the opportunity to support this amendment.

So Representative Weinberg and I were talking about this uh when it first came out, and we were both of the same mindset that um there's a lot of new people who are uh learning their way.

Um this is a huge change, and we're not really sure where their future is going.

I certainly appreciate um the thoughts of President Shaw and uh Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

I know their intentions are good and pure.

And uh, but I do think we need to test this out.

I the one problem that we talked about was you know, two thirds is a high hurdle, and we're making a lot of changes right now where we have a lower hurdle rate.

So the whole idea of saying, let's let's keep let's is there a way for us to keep it at the lower hurdle rate if this change doesn't work out.

Um what was I think what motivated, and I'll let representative Weinberg address this because it is a question, but but but Carl, it it was your idea that we we wanted to keep this since this is a a change made at a lower threshold, we wanted to have the ability to undo it at a lower threshold.

Am I right on that?

Or do I misresent?

Do I not remember correctly?

Yeah.

So that's what this yeah, that was the idea, which I think is is perfectly reasonable.

Look, you you're not gonna have any problems getting probably 75% sponsorship if this works out well.

If it doesn't work out well, you know, it needs to get reversed easily.

So with that I yield.

Thanks.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh, just as a housekeeping item, please direct any questions you have through the chair.

Uh, and any kind of recipient or target of a question, please wait until you're recognized, just so that we can keep things orderly um in the event that a question may not be proper at the time or germane.

Uh excuse me, President Shaw, you've got the floor.

Thank you.

My question is to you more from a procedural standpoint.

Uh two things.

One is the so we have the Robots rules, which allows for our like 10 minute, right?

10 minute uh for the debate.

And then now we're making the amendment here.

However, my question is that but we have the Robots rules, and then we have the board rules, and then so the board rules already say that as a two-thirds to change after a certain time.

Would it would that is that a contradiction if we now add the simple majority to the board rule right here?

Because there's now the Robert's rules, the board rules, and now we're adding another layer of change to the board rules.

So is that uh a contradiction itself?

Thank you, President Shaw.

I would be of the opinion that we can make exceptions to rules within our own rules uh based on the language that we insert.

Uh so we can certainly say that you know, this isn't the language that's proposed, but for example, notwithstanding the requirements set forth in section X with respect to amendments, uh specifically with respect to this section, the threshold to pass is why.

I think that is draft from a drafting perspective, permissible and easily interpreted uh and actionable.

Um whether or not the proposed language is clear, I'm not going to opine on, but I think from a procedural standpoint, we do have the ability to create exceptions within our own rules.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Are there any other members that wish to be recognized with respect to the amendment?

Seeing no others, I'm going to share some of my thoughts as well.

I can understand and appreciate the the caution with respect to what might be characterized as substantial change.

That being said, I think from a purely administrative and procedural standpoint, it does not behoove this committee nor the board generally to be in the business of creating sunset clauses on our changes.

I think that it will nonetheless, even if there's overwhelming support at the time six months from now, force us to add yet another item onto our agenda simply to affirm that support.

Um I don't think that that is an efficient use of our time.

I think we already have an existing mechanism by which if we wish to change the vote, excuse me, change the rules, we have a mechanism to do so.

Yes, it is a higher threshold.

Yes, that was likely intentional uh when it was drafted, uh, because we need to be sure that we do wish to reverse a change previously discussed and passed by this body.

That being said, if we have reservations about the merits of the motion, the primary motion without speaking to its merits itself, we should simply debate those now and vote on them rather than approving something that we have reservations about with a sunset clause that simply brings up a previously discussed and ruled on issue.

Uh so that's that's my opinion.

I I think I'd vote against the the amendment as it's currently drafted.

Uh Representative Weinberg, you've got the floor.

Uh thank you.

Um I do not have reservations about um about representative Sanford's um motion.

However, I don't make any claims to omniscience.

Um and that's my and that's the reason why I think it behooves us to just test this out.

We'll know, we'll easily know in six months.

Um I believe that this is a good idea.

I'm confident it's a good idea.

Um, but it is a very significant change in the way uh this board has uh has traditionally operated.

And I think it's smart for us to um experience these changes and then um and then make a final decision.

And that's all that this means.

I think that the time that it'll take on a meeting six months from now is rather trivial compared to the um compared to the costs of if we've made a mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Ryan, excuse me, representative Weinberg.

Uh Representative Hughes, you've got the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to quickly go on the record and uh say that I'm opposed to uh the sunsetting amendment.

Um I just think that uh doesn't really make much sense to me for rules.

Um, and that really we should just stick to uh you know the goals that are being accomplished in the underlying uh resolution.

Um so thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Seeing no additional members that are seeking recognition, I'm going to call a roll call vote with respect to the amendment.

Um the question before the committee is a motion to amend the proposed text by inserting a new subsection I with the following text.

This amendment shall lapse after six months unless approved by a majority of the full membership of the board.

With that being said, Representative Weinberg, I just want to double check that that is the intended text in large effect.

Well done.

Thank you.

So that's the question before the board.

Absolutely.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote on the amendment?

Yes.

Representative Stone, how do you vote on the amendment?

No.

Representative LePine, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Yeah.

Representative Hyatt, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Representative Poutreau, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Yes.

Representative Blank, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Representative Caporelli, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

Yes.

Representative McKeon, how do you vote on the proposed amendment?

No.

Okay.

Let me just tally that vote up.

Okay.

We have four votes for the amendment.

We have five votes against the amendment, and we have zero abstentions.

Thank you, Ms.

Montalbo.

With five votes against, the motion does not pass.

The primary question before the committee is the approval of LR 32.003 as amended by inserting the words of representatives present and voting after the words.

Two thirds vote in subsection H.

Are there any members that wish to be recognized?

Seeing seeing none, I will share some additional comments I have with respect to the proposed amendments to the section 5B5 generally.

Specifically, two clarifying points with respect to subsection E rather than the text responses to personal remarks.

I think the use of the term personal remarks is often referred to as comments on personalities or other personal aspects of members of the body rather than what I believe was intended by deputy majority leader Samford, uh, which is uh really just points made towards other members to that effect.

Excuse me.

And in addition to that, a separate clarifying point.

Uh with respect to subsection F effects of amendments.

Um, I believe that it was not the intention of Deputy Majority Leader Samford for time to refresh for trivial or minor or otherwise not material amendments, like for example, amending the word there to be and or something to that effect that might not otherwise materially change the nature of the motion being considered.

And to that effect, I would request and solicit from the committee a motion to amend the proposed text by and I'll do this combined for efficiency, um, to it to strike the word personal in subsection E before the word remarks and to insert after the word remarks the words quote unquote directed at another member through the president and separately with respect to subsection F to insert the words at the conclusion of the last sentence, quote unquote, only to the extent such amendment materially modifies the original motion in the president's discretion after the words, quote unquote speech on the amendment.

Um is there anybody that would make such a motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Representative LePine.

Is there any second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Are there any members that wish to be recognized?

Seeing no individuals express a desire to be recognized, I'm gonna run this by a voice vote.

So all those in favor of the motion to amend as I previously described, uh, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

The motion to amend passes unanimously.

The motion before the committee now is a motion to approve LR 32.003 as amended.

Are there any members that wish to be recognized?

Seeing no members wishing to be recognized, I'm going to call for a roll call vote with respect to the approval of LR 32.003 as amended.

Uh if anybody is unclear as to what those amendments are, please let me know.

I will state them.

With that, uh Ms.

Montalvo, if you could please assist me in the roll call.

Absolutely.

Representative Weinberg.

Apologies, Ms.

Montalvo, Representative Walson, you've got the floor.

I think you just said that if we don't know that you'll repeat something, which you just said, you said it so quickly.

Yes, yeah.

So I'm happy to repeat what the amendments that have been approved are.

If if you're unclear, yes.

Yes.

Got it.

Uh so the question before the committee is with the respect to the approval of item LR 32.003, which is an approval to the amendment of the Board of Rules of the Board of Representatives.

Excuse me, the rules of order to the Board of Representatives to strike section five related to those procedures surrounding debate and replace it with the proposed language on the screen that is part of the legislative record, which I have previously read into the record, as amended by inserting the words, quote unquote, of representatives present and voting after the words, two-thirds vote in subsection H and as further amended by striking the word personal in subsection E and inserting inserting after the word remarks the words quote unquote directed at another member through the president and to further amend to insert the words, quote unquote, only to the extent such amendment materially modifies the original amendment in the president's discretion after the words, quote unquote speech on the amendment in subsection F.

And with that, Ms.

Montalvo.

If you mind calling the roll.

Absolutely.

Apologize.

My mic was not responsive.

Okay.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Stone, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Lepine, how do you vote?

Yeah.

Representative Hyatt, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote?

I got the pull that Representative Boudreau, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Blank, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Camparelli, how do you vote?

No.

Representative McQueen, how do you vote?

Yes.

That vote is eight.

Yeses, one no, zero abstentions.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Montalvo.

With that, uh the ayes have it, and the motion passes.

Moving on to LR 32.004.

And before I do, I just want to recognize for the record uh clerk Johnson in attendance as an ex-officio member of the committee.

Uh the next item of business, LR 32.004 is an approval uh of an ordinance amending section 213, excuse me, 214-32 of the code of ordinances to allow the city to accept a private road by only requiring a petition signed by no less than two-thirds of the owners as submitted by Representative Weinberg.

And at this time, I would entertain a motion to approve the aforemended ordinance.

Motion to approve.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

And with that, Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I'm actually going to um if I if I can uh move to re recommit this item to steering.

Uh I think it's not ready quite yet.

I think this is better for us to have a brief discussion about it.

Um at this point.

Um I'd like to at a future at our January meeting to invite um director Kinones or uh city engineer and city engineer Casolo to come in and give us their viewpoints on it, although I have spoken to them and they are generally supportive of this concept.

But I don't think we've got a pro I don't think we have a specific ordinance yet, uh the text of an ordinance yet.

But I do want to explain why what the purpose is here.

Um representative Weinberg, apologies.

I just want to address the motion that you've made.

So I just want to make sure that we have a second to the motion to commit to steering before we move on to any comments related to to that to the to the um the proposed ordinance.

Mr.

Chair, you're looking for a motion to move on to the code.

We're looking for a second.

Uh second on the motion to recommit.

Second.

Thank you very much.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Thank you.

So this imp this proposal uh this is kind of a complicated situation that um uh that that some of you may not be for obvious reasons and for not fully up to speed on.

Uh but this proposal is intended to resolve the catch-22 situation involving for the process for the city to accept a currently private road as a public road.

It also would prevent a small minority of the property owners of that province of the of that private road to what thwart the interests of a large majority.

Representative Weinberg, uh apologies.

Um I just want to keep us uh on topic.

So I just wanted to say that the the motion currently before the committee is one to recommit to steering.

Of course, when the motion to approve the ordinance is before the committee, I I am certainly welcome of any then I'll be glad to speak to as to why we should recommit it.

We don't have the text we don't have the text of an actual amendment at this time.

There, therefore, I'm not quite sure how we would approve it.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

I yield.

Thank you.

Um I think I I don't see any other member seeking recognition.

So with that, we'll try this by voice vote.

Uh so the motion and the question before the committee is to recommit item LR 32.004 to steering committee.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

Hearing none, uh the motion passes unanimously and we recommit to steering.

Moving on to LR 32.005, an approval of an amendment.

I mean, to the board of representative rules of order to strike section E3 related to the public comment portion of the board meetings uh and replace it with proposed language as stated in the legislative record and previously circulated to the committee as submitted by Representative Weinberg.

Uh Representative Weinberg, I believe you might have a motion to make before the floor.

You've got the floor.

Yes, I move to recommit this item to steering, which I believe is the proper procedure.

Um this is um I I'm move to recommit to steering.

I'll just wait for a second.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Uh Representative Weinberg, if you'd like to be recognized with respect to the motion to recommit this item to steering.

Thank you.

This is a complicated and controversial measure.

Um there is uh again uh there are two alternatives so uh that are being you know that are being presented uh concerning amending the the board rules of order uh uh for um for this purpose uh for the the public participation session and uh and given that we've been going on through this committee's been going on now for about two and a half hours.

I think we will have a more healthy um and enlightened debate if we uh postpone it to um to our January meeting and that for that is why I recommend recommitting at this time to steering.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Uh does anybody else seek recognition with respect to the motion to recommit this item to steering seeing no other member seeking recognition?

I'm going to call this one by voice vote.

All those in favor of recommitting item LR 32.005 to steering, please say I.

I'm sorry, Chair.

I I for whatever reason I have my ability to raise my hand has been removed, and I was trying to raise my hand, but it wasn't working.

So I'm very sorry to interrupt you, but I would like to speak on this.

That's all right.

Uh Vice Chair Cambrella, you have the floor.

Uh I'd like to debate this and vote on it in this committee.

I'm not really sure why we can't.

It is a controversial issue.

Um I'd like to start debate now.

So that's my comment.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli.

Are there any other members that wish to be recognized with respect to the motion to recommit?

Seeing no other.

Yes, I am.

Representative blank, you've got the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair, uh, for recognizing me.

Um, and I would like to uh move that we recommit this to steering uh without debate.

Um as uh Mr.

Uh as Representative Weinberg said it's uh controversial and will take up an immense amount of time and uh is not uh fully vetted.

It debating it at this point would only elongate our evening and uh not result in a positive outcome for anybody.

Uh that's my uh words on this, and I greatly appreciate your time.

I give yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Are there any other members that wish to be recognized?

Seeing no other members seeking recognition, we'll go ahead and move forward with a voice vote with respect to the motion to recommit it.

Excuse me, the motion to recommit item LR 32.005.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those in favor, excuse me, all those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

Any abstentions?

Hearing none, I think unfortunately that result was unclear to me.

So we are going to move forward.

The roll call vote.

Ms.

Montalvo, if you could please call the roll.

Thank you.

So this is the roll call vote for the motion to recommit LR32.005 to steering.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Uh yes.

Representative Stone, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative LePine, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Boudreau, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Blank, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Caporelli, how do you vote?

No.

Representative McEwen, how do you vote?

Yes.

That is seven to recommit to against recommitting and zero abstentions.

Thank you, Ms.

Montalvo.

With that, uh, with seven votes in favor, two against the motion passes.

And item LR 32.005 is recommit to steering committee.

All right.

With that, I believe we've concluded the order of business on the agenda for this meeting.

And at this time, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Uh point of motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Um point of order, Representative Blank, please state your point of order.

No, it's Representative Weinberg, I believe.

No, apologies.

Representative Representative Camparelli had raised your hand.

To speak before the motion.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Apologies for missing you, Vice Chair Camporelli.

Did you have uh was that before the vote?

No, no, no.

It's just I in closing remarks.

I just wanted to thank you for the amazing job that I see that you've done chairing this meeting.

Um, we had a lot on the agenda.

It was your first uh meeting where you were chair, and I think you did an amazing job.

And I just wanted to recognize that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

That's that's very kind of you to say.

Um with that, uh, do we have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camporelli.

As far as I understand in committee, motions to adjourn need not be seconded.

And with that, I adjourn this meeting of the legislative and rules committee uh as of 9 31 p.m.

December 23rd, 2025.

Thank you very much, all committee members, ex officio members, and members of the public for your attendance and your attention.

Hope you all have a wonderful evening.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Happy LA's, everybody.

Happy holidays.

Thank you.