Alrighty, let's go ahead and get started.

Hello, everyone.

Good evening.

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

on January 27, 2026.

I note that I see Representative, excuse me, Vice Chair Camparelli, Representative Boudreau, Representative Hughes, Representative Hyatt, Representative Le Pine, Representative Stone, and Representative Weinberg of the Committee in attendance.

Representative Blank, are you here?

All righty, hearing nothing.

I also see in attendance representatives De La Cruz, Morrison, Johnson, and Shaw, ex official members of the committee in attendance.

If there are any other ex official members in attendance that would like to be recognized, please go ahead and speak now.

Okay.

All righty.

Hearing no others, uh seeing that we have eight out of the eight out of the nine voting members present.

I conclude that we do have a quorum and we'll proceed with the meeting.

Moving on to our first item of the agenda.

LR 32.004, an ordinance amending section 214-3.2 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 submitted by Representative Weinberg.

At this time, I'd entertain a motion uh to approve the aforementioned ordinance.

So moved.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Who is that?

Uh LePine.

Thank you very much, Representative LePine.

I have a second.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

So the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate a catch 22 situation, where uh when property owners on a private road want to explore petitioning the city to accept the road as a public road.

The current ordinance requires 100% of property owners to sign a petition before the acceptance process may begin.

In order to understand the catch 22 situation, here's a brief summary of the current process.

So step one, property owners petition the city to accept the road as a public road.

The way the ordinance is currently written, this requires signatures of 100% of the property owners.

Step two, the board passes a resolution instructing the city to report to the board on whether or not the private road meets the requirements of a public road, and if not, what remediation is required.

Step three, the property owners engage at their own expense.

A professional engineer to conduct a study to determine the necessary remediation of any uh to meet the requirements of a public road, including an estimate of the costs.

Um they may also wish to uh engage an attorney to advise them on any legal issues that might arise.

Uh again, at their cost.

Uh step four, the city's engineering department reviews the professional engineers report and issues an opinion about it.

That fulfills the board's resolution.

Step five, now that the property owners have an idea of the costs, um, they decide whether or not they want to proceed with the required remediation.

Step six, if the property owners decide to move forward with the remediation, and once the city engineer certifies that the road now meets the required specifications, uh the planning board, board of finance, and board of representatives vote to accept the road as the city row.

That's the process.

Okay.

Here's the catch 22.

Some property owners are reluctant to sign a petition to initiate the process without knowing what the remediation might cost.

And they won't hire an engineer without some assurance that our board will consider their request.

But they can't ask for that assurance from us until they submit the petition.

By lowering the signature threshold from 100% to two-thirds, a supermajority of property owners can find out what their coast costs might be while retaining the right to decide not to move forward.

And meanwhile, of course, the city will incur no expense at any point along the way.

Uh I've confirmed with Michael Toma of the city's legal department that there are no legal impediments to my proposed amendment.

This meeting to answer any legal questions anyone might have.

I've also consulted with Director of Operations Cuniones and City Engineer Castle, and they've not uh expressed any opposition to this amendment.

Uh uh Mr.

Castleau is also uh available at this meeting to answer questions if there are any.

Um thank you very much to both of you for for uh joining your time.

So I encourage the committee to advance this amendment since it is an amendment to an ordinance.

The next step for us would be to advance it uh to a forward to a public meeting, uh to a public hearing, rather.

And with that I yield, I'll be glad to answer any questions, or of course, through me, ask any questions of attorney toma or city engineer Castle.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Are there any members that wish to seek the floor?

Seeing no hand Vice Chair Camper Ellie, you have the floor thank you.

Um Representative Weinberg, can I just ask you a question?

If let's say 80 percent of the people on that road want to pursue it, I I don't remember what the supermajority was.

Was it 80 percent?

Was it 70 percent?

So that's my first question.

The amendment proposes two-thirds.

Two-thirds.

Okay, and the other third does not want it.

Do they end up having to pay their share of it?

That's a decision for the property owners to make.

If they're members of a homeowners association, they presumably have rules already in place, they likely have rules already in place about uh how to pay for uh you know for any improvements or any work that's done on the road.

It's conceivable that the the ones who want to move forward with it, just say this is so important to us that we'll incorporate you know collectively 100% of the cost.

Um it's really up to the property owners to make that uh to make that decision.

Um it's it's not the city's decision.

Um uh and it's um it's it's not it's not the city's decision.

I'm sorry, I I'm not understanding.

So two-thirds decide that they want to proceed, and then they go through you know the whole process, and then it comes time to we're gonna fix the road.

Does the city pick up the cost of fixing the entire road?

At no time does the city incur any costs, not even for fixing the road.

No.

Okay.

No, I mean the city, and my understanding is the city can choose to accept a road.

Okay, for some or all of the remediation cost cost, but the city is under no obligation to do so.

And in discussions with attorney toma, he will he's assured me that he will make sure that uh the resolution, if he's drafting it, will make that abundantly clear.

And this also you're saying applies to um separate homeowners, like where that's a real private road, because what I understood private roads in Stanford to be would be like I think we have a road between us called Peak Street or something like that.

So Peak Street is in District 20 off of Dunn Avenue.

Peak Street is an unaccepted road.

Okay.

It's in a different category.

This does not apply to this amendment.

Uh this this amendment does not apply to that situation.

To unaccepted roads.

The unaccepted roads.

The difference between an unaccepted road and a private road is an unaccepted road, while it hasn't been accepted by the city.

The city, my understanding, subject to Mr.

Attorney Toma correcting me.

My understanding is that the city owns the road.

A private road is not owned by the city.

It's not owned by the city.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I yield the floor.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camperelli.

Uh Representative Boudreau, I saw your hand up and then down.

Did you still wish to seek the floor?

Uh no, my question was answered by uh Representative Weinberg's comments.

Got it.

Thank you.

Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Uh and you're muted currently.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Following up on Representative Camboris' question, in the absence of a document like a homeowners association bylaws, or any document that compels those who do not want the improvements, how is that handled?

Those that the one-third that did not sign the petition, how can they be compelled to go along?

Well, I I think I think what the question you're asking is can they be compelled to pay to pay a portion, their portion?

Correct.

You know, presumably they'll be happy to drive on the road.

I I I mean I I think that's a question for attorney Toma because it's a legal question.

Um I would think that if there isn't any legal anything that legally compels them to pay, then they wouldn't, then they can choose not to pay.

But that I think that question can be better answered by attorney Toma.

Uh Attorney Toma is not on the call, as I understand.

Yes, yes.

Well, if can you hear me?

Uh yes, I can.

How are you?

Okay.

Good.

Good.

Um the um the charter has a set of provisions in it that talk about um the authority of the city um to assess um benefits against properties that are receiving public improvements.

So the city has in its ability um the authority to charge the owners uh on a private road who are benefited by the improvement of the road.

And the charter provisions don't require prior consent of the uh property owners, and there's no exemption for any property owners who um don't sign the petition.

So the uh the charter does allow for the city to uh charge for these costs um everybody who lives on the road and is benefited thereby, uh whether they have signed the petition or not.

And that's no different than um other public improvements, such as the installation of a sewer line on a road that did not previously have a sewer line.

Um if the city was to install a sewer line, uh the city has the right to um assess the cost of the benefit against each property on the road.

Um now those same charter provisions do leave it up to the city, meaning the border reps and and the mayor's office together.

Uh it's it's kind of an involved process, and I don't want to get into the weeds on that, but suffice it to say that the city does have the discretion to decide at the outset um how much of the cost is going to be imposed upon the owners.

It can be up to 100%.

It could be something less.

And I'm sorry.

Uh go ahead, are you finished?

Yes.

Yes, okay.

I have a follow-up.

Uh so if two-thirds sign the petition, one-third does not sign the petition, the city does the work required by the rogue, and then the city bills all the residents uh their uh share of the cost.

Is that that's how you understand it?

That that's one way um for the process to work.

Um there's another possibility that um the costs are and the and the work itself is uh left to the uh private owners, and then all the city would need to do would be to uh make sure and certify that the work was done up to city standards.

But uh in either case, the the city can uh through um border's resolutions and um certain approvals by the administration can impose the cost on on the owners.

Uh so as I understand it, uh Michael.

If if in that approach, if the owners decide to work privately, and one third didn't buy in.

How is that circle square?

Well, that would be if if it happened in that way, it would be up to the private owners to decide who pays among them and and how much.

Uh the city wouldn't really um have an interest in that scenario as long as the city was sure that it wasn't having to um lay out any funds of its own and the uh the members of the street were paying.

I I think the street uh could decide for itself the owners who who was going to pay and and in what percentages.

I see.

Okay, uh, thank you, Michael.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

A question for attorney Toma.

Um when this um when this situation has arisen in the past where uh where um where uh property owners have petitioned to um uh uh to uh change their road from private to public.

Um would you agree that the past practice has been uh for the residents to bear the cost of any rehabilitation of the of the road?

That that that has generally been the way it's worked in the past.

Yes, that that's my understanding that the um petitions that have come in in the last 10 20 years have always as far as I'm aware, this is anecdotal information, but as far as I'm aware, they've always resulted in the Board of Representatives passing a resolution that uh expressly sets the cost of the improvements on the private property owners.

And again, anecdotal anecdotally, I I think in many of those cases um the uh private owners who had petitioned thereafter decided that they weren't going to move forward because they they weren't uh willing to incur the costs.

So I I don't have a lot of information about past examples because I can't think of a time in the last 10 or 15 years when a petition is actually gotten to the point where the private owners are doing the work uh on their own and paying for it and then giving the uh giving the result uh the resulting improved road uh over to the city.

Um that that's my understanding that that's that's how it's been for for quite a while now.

Representative representative de la cruz, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

Um sorry, this is a very uh complex uh subject.

In the case where one hundred percent of the property owners signed a petition, that's very clean because it is then understood that they have agreed to bear the cost, if there is a cost.

Lowering the threshold to two-thirds seems to introduce these other complications.

So I'm wondering what is the problem that we are trying to solve here with this amendment to the ordinance.

Perhaps representative Weinberg and answer.

Yes, representative feel free to representative Weinberg, feel free to answer that one.

So the problem is that is that under the current ordinance with the hundred percent requirement, um the property owners can't in any kind of rigorous way find out what those costs might be.

The property owners can't in any kind of rigorous way find out what those costs might be.

If they have a homeowners association agreement that says that if a majority want to move forward with an improvement with an improvement on the road, such as repaving, that homeowners association will have will say what the you know how the how the property owners vote, uh whether it's square footed, whether it's you know, linear feet on the road, or each property owner gets one vote, or or how it works.

And they have to follow that whether they're in the whether they're in the minority or not.

Um if they don't have a homeowners association agreement that that already um outlines the rules, then they then they need to negotiate decide among themselves.

It could be that um you know that a couple of property owners say no, I don't want to pay for it.

There's no compulsion absent prior rules to force them, and then the property owners that want to move forward will then have to decide whether they're comfortable incurring a hundred percent incurring a hundred percent of the costs.

But that's their decision to make.

All this amendment does is to enable the process to move forward before any financial decisions before anyone is required to make any financial decisions.

Uh right now they're they're dead in the tracks without without a hundred percent signing.

Well, the property owners can get estimates from contractors.

And then they can decide uh they don't need uh any other amendment to know what the cost will be, and they can decide they need not be that in the water.

Well, Virgil may I respond Chairman McHugh response?

Yes, Representative Weinberg, yes.

So that's correct that they can at any time they can commission a study, hire an engineer, and so forth, but they have no assurance, you know, absent the board, our board accepting a petition to their petition, they have no assurance that our board is interested in um in you know in accepting the road if it's brought up to you know, if it's brought up to code.

Um so they're taking quite a risk under the scenario you're describing, Virgil, they're taking quite a risk by lowering the threshold, it gives them the op that it helps them to understand that if they go ahead and you know and pay for upgrading the road to you know to um to meet the city's specifications, then they can have some assurance that the um that our board will move forward and accept the road.

Absent that assurance, it's just too great a risk.

And again, there's no there's no um, you know, there's no financial obligation of the city one way or the other.

So that's the conundrum that we're trying to resolve.

That's the conundrum that we're that we're trying to resolve, be able to get some assurance from this board that if they decide to if the property owners decide to move forward and bring the road up to up to specifications that this you know to the satisfaction of the city engineer, that this board and the other boards will move forward and accept the road.

Oh, does the board of finance have any role in this?

May I respond?

Yes.

Yes, I believe the process includes approval by the planning acceptance of the road by the planning board and the board of finance as well as the board of representatives.

Accepting the petition and passing a resolution instructing the city engineer.

Unless the charter provides otherwise, it is my understanding that resolutions of our board, although I'm for setting fees, have no legal, uh cannot compel any legal action.

Uh just resolutions, uh statements of the board.

Thank you, Carl.

It seems to me that having 100% of the property owners buy in on the deal.

Lowering the threshold seems to me for the use other complications and uncertainty that I'm a little uncomfortable with.

But thank you for your explanation.

Uh and I yield.

Thank you, Representative uh Dela Cruz.

Uh represent uh Vice Chair Camper Lee, I saw your hand, uh, but I'm gonna call on uh Clerk Johnson if he still wanted the floor seeing as he hasn't commented on the issue.

But I see he's right, he's pulled his hand down.

Uh yeah, no, thank you.

Okay.

Vice Chair Camperella, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh Representative Weinberg, please pardon me if I'm not understanding this yet, because it's a little bit complicated.

But I want to ask you rather than make an amendment, why doesn't the city just take themselves completely out of this?

Like, I don't understand why we're weighing in on private roads like HMOs and things like that.

To my understanding, the way they function is they do these things by themselves.

I I didn't realize that the city had to be involved in this.

So is there a reason that we can't just let these associations or these private roads dictate their own future?

Like, can we just take ourselves completely out of it rather than amends just get out of dictating to private roads what they should be doing?

May I respond?

Well one second, sorry, before before I give you the opportunity to respond to that, uh Vice Chair Camparelli, I just want to clarify the the item before the committee today is the amendment changing the threshold for a process that's in place.

Uh so before we go off kind of discussing whether or not the process as a whole should exist, I just question whether or not that is an appropriate use of the time of the committee for this specific item.

Uh you're muted.

Okay.

Okay.

Alrighty.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Do you yield?

Yep.

Thank you very much.

Seeing no other hand seeking the floor, I have a couple of questions of my own, and apologies if this may have been addressed.

I don't think they were exactly, but we've touched on them.

Um, my first question being uh for attorney Toma, if you're still on the call.

Yes, I'm I'm still here.

Okay, great.

Uh so you had mentioned at one point that the city could charge property owners regardless of who would sign on for to the petition for benefits made on private roads.

Is that is that correct?

Right.

The um the charter, and I'll direct you to the specific place in the charter where where all of this uh is discussed, it said C eight-60-1, and and the sections that follow.

And they talk about public improvements, improvements made to streets, to highways, to uh wells, to dams, um parks, and etc.

And what they what these sections discuss is um how the work is to be done and how the work is to be paid for.

And there are specific provisions that talk about the city having the right to um assess a benefit, and the the benefit is the the benefit the public improvement to the the adjoining property uh to assess the cost of that benefit to each property that receives an improvement.

Um is that irrespective uh is that a separate power that the city has, irrespective of the acceptance of a private road process that we're discussing tonight.

Is that is that a general power?

Yeah, that's it.

This is a general power that goes beyond uh just the ordinance.

The ordinance is a um the the ordinance is a piece of legislation that deals only with one small subset of these improvements, right?

That the ordinance deals with improvements to roads to make them uh to make them consistent with city standards.

Uh the charter talks about any kind of public improvements being made.

Sewers, you know, like I said, the whole list.

Um what the charter uh provides is a procedure whereby the city can decide that it's going to charge the um properties who are benefited for the cost of the work.

And uh as I as I mentioned earlier uh in response to a question by Representative Weinberg, um my understanding of the way things have worked historically is that the city has historically placed the cost on the property owners who are benefited thereby.

That makes sense.

Um my next question is there was a period between petition and essentially a final assessment as to what that remediation might cost.

And unless I misheard, uh, which is possible, um I believe Representative Weinberg, you had said that the cost burden during that process and in getting that assessment rests on I believe the property owners, or was it the petitioners, or more off track there?

Well, um the the charter gives the city um discretion in each case to decide um what part of the cost of of a an improvement is to be assessed against the properties that are benefited.

So historically, historically, I think all the costs associated with improving the road, including hiring an engineer to do a uh an investigation, um the initial paperwork all the way through to the end.

Um again, my understanding is that that has always been uh placed upon the pri the property owners.

Understood.

So if this amendment were to be approved, could there be a circumstance where less than 100% of the property owners have triggered the process to cause an assessment to happen, and the city were to pass along the cost of that assessment, not necessarily the remediation, but the cost of the assessment to the property owners that did not necessarily sign the petition?

Yeah, I think that is a uh possible scenario, yes.

Okay.

And then my final question is after the assessment has been completed and a remediation is proposed, um, is there of another threshold either by petition or otherwise that the property owners then have to approve or engage in that remediation before it's done.

I believe Representative Weinberg said there was an opportunity to either move forward or not, once it was clear what work needs to be done.

Yeah, I think uh I think the uh residents of the of the road could always come to the city and say we we no longer want this process to continue forward.

Uh we've decided we we don't want to incur the expenses and we we want to stop right here.

Um I would you know I would think it would be um some something that the city would obviously honor and and not and not continue to um move toward having the physical work done out out in the field uh is there uh only to build these people.

I I don't think that's the intent of the uh of the street opening uh the street acceptance ordinance to uh to force this to happen um on on a road that doesn't want it that there they are the ones that initiate this.

Yeah, I I agree, and I and I and I can understand that uh I guess what I'm trying to kind of clarify for for everybody, including myself, is really the the circumstance where we might have uh a property owner incur a cost that they otherwise didn't necessarily agree to.

Um maybe that is something that we are fine with, you know, maybe we're fine with having 66%, maybe it's a higher threshold.

I think that's a question for the committee.

I just want to make it clear that it might happen so that we can better understand you know whether or not it should happen.

Um so you know, I think, and just to clarify on my last question, I know at the beginning of the process we have a formal petition that's made by currently 100% of the owners, but it's proposed to be two-thirds.

Once the assessment is complete and the the remediation is proposed and it's clear what needs to be done.

Is there a formal process per the ordinance or the existing code of ordinances, not this proposed ordinance, that the city receives that that voice from the street from the property owners as to whether or not they would move forward.

Do we need another petition, for example?

It it's not that the the current ordinance is silent on that.

There's no language in the current ordinance that um provides for the acceptance uh of a second petition um rescinding the first one.

I I think that's something that would probably happen just you know um informally uh outside the the contours of of the ordinance.

The ordinance doesn't speak to that, but as I said, I you know I I don't see why the city which didn't go out and seek to commence this work in the first place, uh if they were sub if the city was subsequently told by the same property owners, well, we have second thoughts, we don't want to go forward anyway, uh why the city would disregard that.

I I that doesn't sound like uh a likely scenario.

And again, historically um there have been petitioners who have ended their uh you know their their petition um process to to have a road accepted once they've found out what the costs are, they've they've let it be known uh we don't want to move forward because we don't want to incur these costs.

And as far as I know, the city has always honored that.

Understood.

That that's helpful to hear.

I I think uh that that's all the questions I had.

I think that you know, I am generally supportive of addressing this catch 22.

I can absolutely appreciate that we've got a problem here where it is difficult to get an assessment on the cost so that property owners are informed as to whether or not they do wish to move forward.

I think that we need to address that catch 22.

That being said, I also think that there could be a scenario where that majority of people who have triggered the petition could move the process forward in such a way that other property owners might incur cost.

Um and I'm not sure we address how that might be done.

Maybe maybe we leave that up to private actors to negotiate.

Um, you know, maybe we attempt to address that as well.

Um but that that's my my current concern.

Um and with that, I I yield.

Um and Representative Weinberg, uh, you've got the floor.

Uh uh, thank you.

Um a question for Attorney Tama.

Um if the property owners, either all of them or some submajority subset of them are paying for the costs of the engineering staff or the remediation work that needs to be done, whatever.

Okay.

Can the city assess mandate uh financial assessments to the property owners if the city has not incurred any expenses?

I don't believe so.

I I don't believe that's the way the um the charter is written.

The the charter presupposes that that benefit assessments um are levied for cost that the city has incurred.

The charter presupposes that that benefit assessments are levied for cost that the city has incurred.

If the city hasn't incurred any costs, um, then I don't see how this these provisions would be triggered.

So this whole hypothetical scenario where the city is assessing um costs to, you know, and requiring uh recalcitrant property owners to in essence reimburse the pay the city uh for improvements, um is is it's not going to happen if the property owner if the city has made it clear through the res through resolution that they're not going to be responsible for any of the costs, that the property owners alone will bear the costs.

Um so this whole this fear of people getting property owners getting us getting assessed by the city is strikes me as moot uh because the city doesn't have any costs to get reimbursed, any expenses to get reimbursed, you know, for which to get to get reimbursed.

Um if um it may turn out that um a supermajority of the property owners want to move forward with the improvements if they if there's nothing in place that um spreads those costs over a hundred percent of the property owners, um then presumably the cost will be borne by the property owners who want to move forward with the uh with the improvements.

Um, but that's something that's for the property owners to uh to resolve if there are rules already in place, um you know, for example, if they just if there's a homeowners association agreement and um you know a majority of the property and majority of the property owners want to move forward while it's a private road to repave the road, the homeowners agreement says that everybody has to chip in and pay for the repaving, whether they want it or not, so be it.

If there are no if there's nothing in place to you know to require that, then it's for them to figure out and decide.

Yeah, if I if I could add one thing, um I I would add that the street uh acceptance ordinance is worded in a way where I I think it's implicit that the intent is that the private property owners perform the work because the way it's worded, it says that certain specifications must be met before a road shall be considered for acceptance as a city street.

It doesn't say that the city shall do the work, it simply says that the work has to be made, has to be done, and the road has to meet certain specifications, and then later at the end of that ordinance, the last section talks about emergency repair of streets, and that section talks about the Office of Operations being authorized to do work on an unaccepted street when there's an emergency, and that's the only place in the ordinance that talks about the city actually doing work.

Um I think in the normal course uh it's kind of implied that if if petitioners come to the city asking for the city to accept their road, um they they are the ones that perform the work.

Um the city engineer certifies that the work was done up to proper specifications.

Um it doesn't have to be that way, uh, because as I said earlier, there's a whole charter section that talks about the city having the authority to make public improvements in a variety of areas, but certainly doesn't have to be done that way, and I I don't think the street ordinance necessarily contemplated that it would be the city uh in the normal circumstance going out and doing the work.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Weinberg, do you yield the floor?

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman Conn.

I just wanted to make sure I have the proper understanding.

I thought from my earlier comment, I understood that the property owners can go and get prices from a from contractors and decide whether they want to go ahead or not.

So what is the catch 22 about knowing what it would cost to do the work?

I that I don't understand the catch 22.

And a question for Adorno Thomas.

In my homeowners association, we have a sinking fund because to cover those costs in a given year would be prohibitive.

Does the city to us to recover any costs?

Is that done in a fiscal year, or is it done over many years to make it feasible for the city to recover whatever cost it incurs when the city does the work in those circumstances?

When the city does the work and um assesses the benefit against property owners, it it is not something that has to be paid all in one year.

Um payment uh over a number of years.

Uh I don't have it in front of me exactly um how many years, but it's not it's not a one-year situation.

I say thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

And how about the catch 22?

Can someone explain to me what is the catch 22 when the property owners can go ahead and hire a contractor and or get bids from contractors?

Yes, Representative Weinberg, feel free to answer that one, though I'd kindly request that you you keep the answer brief, as I think this is the third time you've described what that catch 22 is.

Uh so if you could summarize it briefly, that would be great.

I I'll do it in one sentence.

Thank you.

Compound though it may be.

Um the catch 22 is that until the board of reps accepts the petition, the property owners have no confidence that the board reps will even consider accepting the road.

So they're taking they'd be taking a very big financial risk by getting estimates, etc.

etc.

without the assurance from this board that this board, if the road is brought up to specifications, will consider accepting the road.

That's the catch 22.

Thank you, Representative.

Uh Representative De La Cruz, do you yield?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Seeing no other hands, I'm gonna call this for a vote.

We're gonna do this by roll call.

Um, so the question before the committee is uh whether to approve the ordinance amending section 214-32 of the code of ordinances.

Um point of order, yes, representative Weinberg.

I I believe that since this is an amendment uh to an ordinance that it would require a public hearing.

Um I believe my my motion was to advance this amendment to a public hearing.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Um Attorney Tome, I know that's not the purpose of your attendance tonight.

Um, can you clarify whether any amendment to the court of ordinance requires a public hearing or whether or not there are only certain enumerated subject matters which mandate the holding of a public hearing with respect to the passage of an ordinance?

I I don't know the precise uh rule, but uh in my experience, any kind of substantive amendment has to go through the process of a public hearing.

And I I would consider this to be a substantive change, a substantive amendment that uh must be um put down for a public hearing.

I can next month.

Thank you, Attorney Toma.

Um Representative Weinberg, thank you for clarifying your motion on the table.

Uh so we're gonna go by roll call vote.

The motion for adoption is to schedule a public hearing um on the subject matter of approval of the ordinance amending section 214-32 of the code of ordinances.

Ms.

Montalvo, if you can help me call the roll, please.

Absolutely.

I'm going to start with everyone alphabetically who is not a chair or a co-chair, and then I'll come back to the chair and co-chair.

Representative Blank, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Boudreau, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Hughes, what is your vote?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt, what is your vote?

Yes.

Thank you.

Representative LePine, what is your vote?

Yes.

Representative Stone, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg, what is your vote?

Yes.

Representative Camporielli.

What is your vote?

Yes.

Representative McEwen, what is your vote?

Yes.

Okay, that is 900.

To send this item for public hearing.

Thank you very much.

The motion passes.

Moving on to the next order of business.

LR32.005, approval of an amendment to the Board of Representatives' rules of order to strike section E3 related to the public comment portion of the board meetings and replace it with the proposed language as stated in the legislative record and previously circulated to members of the committee submitted by Representative Weinberg.

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

So moved.

Most so moved.

Thank you very much, Representative Blank.

And I think there was one other.

Oh, thank you very much.

Does anybody wish to seek the floor?

Representative Weinberg, as the mover, uh, you've got the floor first.

Thank you, and I will do my best to make this the last time I speak at this meeting.

But that's not a prom.

That's a that's that's an effort, not a promise.

Uh so as you can see, I've revised the proposal significantly from an earlier version.

Done that in response to the feedback that it received, which I thought was very helpful.

Uh here are the two amendments or the two changes that I'm proposing in the rationale for each change.

First I'm proposing to require public speakers to sign up by 4 p.m.

on the day of the board meeting.

I don't consider this to be an undue burden on anyone who wishes to address the board.

Signing up is easy.

Public speakers can either email or call the board office at any time since the previous board meeting.

They effectively have a month to do that.

They can speak either in person or online, whichever works better for them.

Signing up in advance will encourage speakers to prepare their remarks, which will help us to better understand what they want us to do.

Secondarily, it will also help the president to time manage the meeting, since she will know in advance how many speakers to expect.

So that's the first change.

The second change with a single addition, the second change adds word for word, an instruction that the president recites at each meeting.

Those words are quote, personal attacks against board members will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, unquote.

We're all familiar with those words.

My entire time on this board has said that orally as part of the instructions for the public comment period.

The single addition is to add the words whether or not the speaker states the name of the board member.

Both presidents on the 31st board took the position that a personal attack was perfectly okay as long as the speaker didn't mention the rep's name.

Even though when it was obvious who the speaker was personally attacking, that's a loophole that I think that we should close.

This amendment will not for this change, will not prevent the public from criticizing an action that one of us has taken or criticizing us for words that one of us has said or written.

A speaker will continue to be free to say so-and-so said this or wrote that, and I found it offensive or stupid.

They can even say I want the board to censure or remove so and so from this board.

But they won't be able to use the public comment period to say the rep from District X is a liar and a horrible human being.

But not but notice that they haven't mentioned that person that rep by name.

That's the proposed change.

And with that, I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

Yes, if you have an emotion, if you have a motion of the amendment, feel free.

Yeah, I would like to amend this by striking from uh section E3B.

Um the sentence that was just referred to by Representative Weinberg, the personal attacks uh against board members will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, but the speaker states the name of the board member.

Um my reason for this is procedural uh rather than substance.

Representative Boudreaux, sorry, one second, let's wait to see if you have a second before we for discussion.

Is there a second to that amendment?

Second second it from I'm not on the board.

Yeah, I was gonna say, Representative Delegate, I appreciate the engagement.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Lepine.

Uh Representative Boudreau, you have the floor again.

Yeah, my reason for this is uh procedural rather than substantive.

I saw that in LR 3210, there is substantially similar language, but slightly different.

Uh and I don't think this committee should uh recommend two rule changes affecting the exact same sentence in different ways.

Uh so I think we should only discuss this in one of the two uh items.

I also prefer the text that's in 3210.

Uh it is personal attacks generally, not just against board members.

Uh so also against you know the mayor or other members of the audience, uh, etc.

Uh so I think we can remove it from from this amendment and just handle it once in this committee meeting.

Michael, you're down, you're you're muted.

Thank you very much.

Uh thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Uh Representative De La Cruz, I saw you seek recognition with respect to the main motion.

Are you seeking recognition with respect to the amendment at this time?

Uh no, I will lower my hand.

Thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Are there any other representatives that we should wish to seek recognition with respect to the amendment?

Seeing none, uh, I'll say um having proposed LR 32.010 um with the revised language, I think procedurally.

It we could either strike this or amendment or amend it, excuse me, to match that.

Um, I don't think it really makes a substitutive difference um procedurally.

Um I don't see an issue striking the language here.

Um I think that's all the comments I had at this time.

Calling again to see if anybody has any or wants to seek recognition with respect to this amendment.

Seeing no other hands, let's give this a shot by uh voice vote.

All those in favor of amending LR32.0 uh excuse me, LR32.005 to strike quote-unquote personal attacks against board members will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted whether or not the speaker states the name of the board member.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Representative Weinberg, you're muted.

Thank you.

Uh all those opposed.

Hearing none, any abstentions.

Hearing none, uh the vote passes, the motion passes.

Um we will now consider again LR32.005 as amended.

Uh does anybody wish to seek the floor.

Representative Dela Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Shao.

Uh the rules provide for only registered persons to participate, looking others from participating.

Nimming communication.

Perhaps some history on constituent participation might help.

Uh, let me start with a mail allowance.

Uh there was a prior mail allowance to provide for us to communicate one way with our constituents, which was totally inadequate.

You better provide the opportunity to communicate with that institution.

Majority Lingler Marson and I were to establish an adequate quarry dollar mailing allowance.

So we were trying to encourage participation with the public.

Then our board was made aware that other boards provided for participation by the public at the meeting.

Then to emulate those other boards, we instituted the public participation session to encourage participation in our meetings.

Now let's talk about restoring trust in government.

Given events around our nation, there is a critical need to restore trust and public engagement in government.

As the demonstrations in Minnesota and elsewhere show.

What is the problem that this would be trying to solve when only the maximum number in the last 14 months of unregistered speakers has only been four?

This is not consistent with restoring trust in government.

And I will support Mayor Simon's goal to support to encourage participation and trust in government.

I cannot support this proposed change.

But thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Uh, Ms.

Montalvo, if you have a word copy readily available of this amendment, could you pull that up and strike the language that's been amended?

I will look for one and post it to the screen as soon as I find it.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh Representative Blank, you have the floor.

Um I I understand where Representative Weinberg was um attempting to solve this issue.

Um where we would um have an advanced um notification.

Uh the number of people trying to speak and um provide uh ample time for the public comment.

Um at this point, um, I'm fully on board with this, and um I don't think it prevents anyone from participating in our legislative uh uh or providing comment to us.

And uh at this point I yield uh to allow others to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

President Shaw, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Sher McKewin.

Um, just a couple of things I want to point out.

The signing up has always been in the rules.

We have not changed that part.

It's always said there to sign up.

Um, also I would say that the Board of Finance and both Board of Education have signups required, and their process works flawlessly.

So we're just trying to be the same way.

And I just think that if you establish a process, it makes it easier for people rather than confusing, do I sign up, do I not sign up, do I show up, do I not show up?

I just think that it makes it consistent, it makes it easier for people.

Um, and I do think that you know, once we establish a process, it will make it consistent, and I think people will find it easier to do it that way.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

Yeah, I have a question about this.

I was looking at the uh existing rules of order, and like uh President Shaw mentioned, there is, you know, uh the sign-up uh is is referenced.

Uh but it has also been the practice of the board as Representative De La Cruz referred to to allow kind of last second speakers.

So um by making this amendment that wouldn't uh change the ability of people to speak ad hoc, would it?

Or is that the intention of this to prevent people from from speaking ad hoc?

And I I yield.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Uh to that question.

I think uh off the fly, I would say from a parliamentarian perspective, uh, if the rules mandate signing up, uh opening up the opportunity to speak to those members of the public who have not signed up would be in conflict with our existing with our rules.

Um I think it really depends on the language.

I think the language of the proposal, that would be my interpretation, and I think my interpretation of our existing rules would also be that same interpretation.

It says speakers shall sign up.

Excuse me, speakers shall sign in prior to the start of the meeting.

Uh that language doesn't allow for discretion.

Uh so in my opinion, uh, I would say that permitting those to speak outside of uh having not signed up, excuse me, before the meeting started, would be in conflict with our rules.

Uh representative Boudreau, you have the floor again.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, so then my understanding is the only substantive change that this is proposing is to say that uh there will be a speaker's list that is created, and that the cutoff for signups will be at 4 p.m.

rather than at the start of the meeting, because the existing text just says prior to the meeting without specifying when that means.

Is that uh is that your interpretation as well, Chair?

That would be my interpretation as well as parliamentarian, yes.

Okay.

Yield.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Seeing no other representative uh Vice Chair Campo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um sorry, I didn't get to see what's left.

So I might be speaking on something that's on the other rules and not this one.

Um, and if I am, feel free to stop me.

I know you will.

Um you know, we have a we have a 30-minute public speaking section with a maximum of 50 minutes.

And uh at our first board meeting, we had a young man show up that was not signed up to speak, that didn't realize for whatever reason that he had to sign up to speak, and he had something that he felt was really important to say to us.

And again, he was a young man, it was his first time coming to government to speak out.

And for me, discouraging somebody like that to participate in government is literally a crime.

I want more people participating.

I think we all do.

Um, and so and so making it more difficult to to come and speak to us.

I I cannot get on board with um there there, and this is this this part I might be speaking to the the other rules change, but um there was a rules change saying that the person had to have their district available to them.

Most people that I talk to don't even know what their district is, so that's sort of another barrier to enter in in speaking that might discourage somebody, or maybe they didn't have the time to search for their district number.

Representative Watmore, please state your point of order.

Yeah, uh the um the uh the requirement or expectation to state what district you're from you live in is uh not is not in the uh proposed amendment, and therefore I believe not a suitable subject for discussion.

Is is that in the other section?

No, Chair McAllen, or was that gotten rid of completely?

Representative Weinberg, unless I'm looking at an outdated copy, the proposal says prior to the start of the meeting, I'm cutting into the middle of the sentence, no later than 4 p.m.

The proposal says prior to the start of the meeting, I'm cutting into the middle of the sentence, no later than 4 p.m.

prior to the start of the meeting, indicating their name and board district end period.

That's what I read.

I just wasn't sure if it was on this set of rules or the other thing that we'll be discussing, but I I'm fully against that.

That's just one more barrier to enter.

I understand needing to keep good order.

And you know what?

If if more people than can speak show up that can't fit in the 50 minute, you know, maximum cycle, then I understand turning them away.

But I just I just can't get on board, especially with what's going on in this country at this moment.

I want more participation and and I'm gonna defend that with my vote.

Um there's no additional burden on this board by being able to you know allow people that show up that that leave work or or come from their homes to speak to us and hear them out.

Um so I don't feel that there's any need to to enforce this or or change the rules.

I hope that this won't be enforced.

I know that the rules already state that.

Um I hope that our our president will find it in her heart to allow anybody that shows up to speak to the board.

And I yield the floor.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camporelli.

Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman.

I concur with everything that the representative Camborelli has said, even though the prior rules said the same thing.

The then president and prior precedents.

Ever since a public participation uh uh session has been in effect, the presidents have allowed people that did not sign up to also speak again in the spirit of encouraging people to participate in their government.

A precedent has been set.

And as I said before, this is not in keeping with trying to uh encourage trust in our government on participation is totally uh uh contrary to that goal that Mayor Siemens so clearly stated the FOIA on ethics training session to Saturdays ago.

So I couldn't possibly uh support this.

Uh thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Dela Cruz.

Representative LePine, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman Cowan.

Um just a question of clarification uh maybe to you or or through you to uh President Shaw who's in attendance.

Uh President Shaw mentioned that both the Board of Ed and the Board of Finance uh have their um cutoff rules, and this would be bringing us into parody with them.

Am I mistaken that the the Board of Ed is one hour before the meeting and the Board of Finance is before the meeting starts?

Shad McEwen, may I answer that?

Yes, go ahead, President Shaw.

Thank you so much.

Yes, uh Representative Napan, I think there's I think um Board of Fed is 6 p.m., which I think they start their meeting at 7 p.m.

And I was under the understanding the Board of Finance meeting is also one hour prior, but I could be totally wrong.

I do know they have to sign up and there's a deadline.

I just don't remember exactly what that is.

It could be it could be just before, or it could be one hour before, but I can verify that.

Thank you.

Okay.

I and uh I I appreciate that.

My understanding is one hour for board of ed and right before with the board of finance.

If anybody else has clarification, certainly would welcome that.

Um but uh so I'm fine with uh with a cutoff period, I think three hours before why for us to be an outlier when we have very few speakers.

It's uh representative De La Cruz said uh there were actually six at the last meeting, five at the meeting prior to that, and ten, which was heavily attended before that.

And there's already uh plenty of uh room for our president who I have enormous confidence in uh the ability to manage the meeting to make judgments if the list of speakers gets too big to actually limit the speaking time and to cut off the speaking time of 50 minutes.

So those provisions are already there.

So I I don't see any need to create any additional hurdle for public participation.

I agree with with Representative Camparelli that we should be encouraging public participation.

I'm not here to uh place judgment on what might be a burden to a community member, and I think that's a overreach on our part to make that judgment of what's easy for one person and not for another.

Um why should we make any uh additional considerations?

Certainly not placing a hardship on our ability to order and manage the meeting.

I I don't place uh um a lot of uh uh faith in the idea that um by having an earlier cutoff time, uh, you can equate preparation with the quality or value uh of what people will deliver.

I think we regularly dispel that myth as as a group of representatives, uh, with people going on with written words for 10 or 12 minutes at a time on this very board.

So a lot of preparation and maybe not a lot of value at times.

Um so uh I I don't see this as the the hill to climb for us.

I think we should be going in the other direction.

We should focus on managing how we speak and run in the meetings and giving the public ample time to speak, uh ample time to sign up as much as we can allow, and we should be there to listen before we talk and I'll yield.

Thank you, Representative Lepine.

Uh Representative Morrison.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um through you, uh I would love to hear uh my colleagues' uh uh opinions on what is the purpose of having a sign up and a deadline for signing up, yet you can show up and at the president's discretion, more people can speak.

Uh I don't ask the question with the purpose of uh attempting to limit or not limit anyone's discussion.

Uh, but I'd love to hear what if we if the president has the discretion too and will permit people to speak who haven't signed up, what is the need for a sign up in advance at all?

Um through you to uh the rest of the committee if you could indulge me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Majority Leader Morrison.

Representative Dela Cruz, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

Uh the last two meetings that I have at the Board of Finance and the Planning Board.

After all the registered speakers spoke, the chair asked, is there anyone else that wants to speak that hasn't signed up?

So even though those boards have registration uh procedures, it is not a requirement.

Um the question that Representative Morrison just asked is a very valid one.

Maybe why have such a rule at all?

That people just show up and speak.

As I said, the last 14 months, the maximum number of speakers were 17.

Only four hadn't signed up.

Is four additional voices a problem?

We don't want to hear from them.

And the others throughout those 14 months.

One on the registered speaker, two, three, then maximum four.

I don't see a problem there.

We want to encourage people to participation.

Uh on the other boards.

Allow for that.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Della Cruz.

Uh Representative Walston, I saw your hand up and then come down.

Did you still wish to seek the floor?

Um can go ahead.

I yield.

I'll yield right now.

Sure.

Uh feel free to, I'm gonna pull you out of the line, so feel free to just raise your hand if you're if you're wishing to seek the floor again.

Uh Vice Chair Camperelli, you have the floor.

Uh please allow our president to go first.

I was just gonna uh answer Eric.

Understood.

Representative Shaw, you excuse me, President Shaw, you have the floor.

I was also going to respond to um Representative Morrison.

So if you'd rather want your committee members to go first, I'm totally fine with that.

I have no preference so long as someone goes.

Okay.

I I just wanted to answer the question as well.

Um the the reason that you would want to sign up is again for us to determine for that for myself and and and Clark Johnson in the office to come in how many people are there.

It would be good to know because if you know it may not be the case all the time that there is only like a few speakers, like there's budget times, there's other times, but there are gonna be there could be more people.

So if there's already like 10 people, then I know that we would have to limit the time to two minutes.

So it will help us make some decisions.

And whether I make it at six o'clock or seven o'clock, it doesn't matter, but I would like to make the decision before the meeting.

And that would also help me determine how many speakers are there if they're coming in person and whether we'll be able to accommodate all those people or not.

So to me, it's important that you know, rather than people randomly just showing up, it would be important to have the speakers sign up regardless of what time we decide.

So that with that I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I will take a moment for a point of information.

Um, existing rules that require the public comment period be limited to 30 minutes with the possibility that it be extended up to 50.

That extension has to happen by motion, and that motion has to actually happen before public comment period starts.

Uh so that's a key piece of information as to you know, do with it what you will, but I will say that having a list versus not having a list generally makes being informed as to that vote more challenging.

Uh and with that, uh Majority Leader Morrison, you have the floor.

Or excuse me, uh apologies, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Did you have more comments?

I just I was just wanted to respond to uh the majority leaders' comments.

Um and also honor what our president just said.

I I think it does help to have a list.

I'm not against the the board having a list because that will tell us the majority of people that are there to speak.

Um and to answer one of Eric's uh one of Representative Morrison's questions.

Um the risk that the person speaking takes in not signing up is that they might not be heard, because if enough people have signed up for the 50 minutes, then we will have to turn people away.

And that I understand, right?

Because we have our rules and people shouldn't be cut to let's say one minute of speaking when they've signed up prior.

Um and that is still at the discretion of the president.

Uh it's it's a 50 minutes out of our lives, and I think the more people that come to speak the better.

Um you also get put to the end of the list when you don't sign up.

So generally the way the board has worked is that the people that sign up first go first and in order, and then the additional people, if there's time are heard uh at the end.

So um there are rules already in place for sign up.

And I I again I hope the president is going to use her discretion to allow people to speak.

And I yield.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camperelli.

Uh majority leader Morrison, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, the comments I heard were pretty much in line with with what I was thinking.

And I particularly um agree with the the procedural uh from President Shaw, uh, knowing how many people have signed up, uh, gives the president the the time uh in advance to just to determine how many, how much time each person is going to get uh per the rules we already have in place.

Um that's it.

I I I appreciate everyone's comments and thank you for indulging me.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

Yeah, there's been uh a bit of back and forth about the uh the norms of the board in the past versus uh your interpretation as parliamentarian of what the um what the rules actually allow.

Uh so at this time I'd actually like to propose another amendment um to kind of formalize that to uh insert in uh section three uh E3, a point five, uh stating that the president uh sorry, stating that time permitting, the president may recognize speakers who are not uh on the speakers list.

Uh Representative Boudreau, I'm sorry, could you please clarify exactly where you're proposing to insert that language?

Uh as a new section, so we have section 3D before us and three five.

I see, thank you.

Is there a second to that amendment?

Point of point of information.

Um I believe our rules already give the discretion to the president to allow people to speak.

There's no need to add that.

The rules already have that.

And I see the president shaking her head, yes.

So excuse me, Vice Chair Camparelli, if there's language in the existing rules that I may have overlooked, I am I'm happy to certainly revise my opinion.

I don't see anything in the rules that grants that discretion.

And I think the operative language that the speakers shall sign up, and with respect to the subsequent section, that speakers are to be recognized in the order that they are identified on the speakers list.

That together to me doesn't leave room for discretion to have speakers outside of that list under our current rules.

Again, also to clarify, um, I'm speaking more so as a parliamentarian than chair in this instance.

But that being said, my opinion as parliamentarian is advisory and is not binding on any individual committee or the board.

Uh so if if the president disagrees with that interpretation, she can rule any point of orders that come up with respect to this issue at that time.

Unless we've been we've been performing outside of the rules for all this time and without being able to sit sift through the rules currently.

The president has always had that discretion.

Um, unless the past parliamentarian was completely wrong and all the presidents, but we've always done it that way.

So I don't know.

Is there any second to Representative Boudreau's amendment?

Hearing none, Representative Boudreau, you still have the floor.

Um I guess.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Uh I just wanted to say that I concurred with your interpretation of the rule.

Uh it says shall.

And the prior presidents, ever since the rule was implemented, did allow for public for unregistered speakers to speak.

But a strict interpretation of the rule doesn't give the president.

This uh this rule, this proposed rule doesn't give the president that option.

Uh so I would be I am sorry that there was no second to representative uh proposed amendment.

Uh had I been a member of the committee, I would have made the same amendment proposal.

Uh so that there is no question that those that do not I I have no objection to a list.

It serves the purposes that were stated by President Shaw.

Uh however, looking at past history, the maximum number of unregistered speakers is four.

I don't see how that can disrupt some eternal plan.

Certainly we should be able to accommodate four for constituents that want to talk to us.

Uh, but I concur with your interpretation of the rule as parliamentary.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative De La True.

President Shaw, you have the floor.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.

I did go through the rules, and it doesn't explicitly say that.

It just says that the president shall establish the times, times establish.

However, I just want to also point out that in the past practice, while the past presidents have allowed to speak, obviously it's still within the time limit of what we've had.

So um so that's just the only other thing that I want to point out.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Majority Leader Morrison, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, yes, I agree with the shall.

Uh and uh the president does need uh as much of an advanced list as possible to determine how much time each speaker is going to um uh be afforded.

Um so how do we fix the shall where while still uh giving the president the discretion to, for example, fill the remainder of 30 minutes if there are people who have not signed up in advance.

What I wouldn't want to see happen is if we remove or diminish the word shall in some way, and then people just stop signing up.

That leaves the president and the clerk uh in in quite a bind at the last minute and trying to figure out uh how much uh time uh each speaker is going to be afforded.

Uh perhaps uh speak perhaps some language that might suggest that if you don't sign up in advance, you're not guaranteed uh uh that it's not guaranteed that you'll be able to speak, or perhaps uh add something that says it uh the uh if if the initial 30-minute period has not elapsed, uh additional speakers may be uh invited to speak at the president's sole discretion, something along those lines.

Um I don't want to eliminate the sh the the effect of the shall for procedural purposes, but I do want the president to have the discretion uh to fill the remainder of 30 minutes if it remains, and I leave it to my colleagues.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Representative Le Pine, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I I'm worried now that we're moving the line too far in the other direction.

I mean, my my concern is throwing an obstacle in the way of public participation beyond the need to sign up and give the president the opportunity to effectively manage the meeting.

So if we can do that by signing up before the meeting starts, great.

Uh and I have no issue with there being rules that if you don't sign up, you don't get to speak.

Um if we keep leaving it at discretion, then every then why have the rules in the first place?

Uh and I think we saw what that leads to uh over the last four years.

So I'm I'm I'm all for structure.

Uh I'm not for obstacles or unnecessary burdens, let the public show up, let them sign up before the meeting starts, so President Shaw can make her decisions about whether they're gonna have a curtailed um uh time to speak, and if she has to extend the total time or not.

And beyond that, uh I think we're making it easy and accessible for the public to engage as we want them to.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Lepine.

Uh seeing no other hands uh seeking the floor, um, I'll take the floor.

Um I generally don't believe that a cutoff at 4 p.m.

versus a cutoff at approximately 7 p.m.

or 7 30, whenever the meeting starts, is that substantive of an obstacle that it creates a dampening effect on public participation.

I think that we as a city or adults generally, I should say, are are well accustomed to understanding, identifying, becoming knowledgeable of and complying with deadlines.

When I spoke before this board as a member of the public for the very first time in a committee, uh I Googled how to do that.

It was very easy to find that I had to sign up to do so.

And I think I emailed specifically Miss Montalvo uh to sign up.

Uh and I got on there uh and I said my piece.

It wasn't very challenging to do so.

It wasn't very challenging to identify.

And administratively, we could I'd even suggest make it even more easy to identify by putting large text somewhere on our home page that if you wish to participate in a public comment, you must email this address at this time.

When I go to the store, Googling operating hours, very easy to do.

And I don't genuinely, I don't generally become upset when I go to a business outside of its operating hours when I fail to find the information accessible to myself.

I think there are benefits to having a 4 p.m.

cutoff as opposed to having it cut off as the meeting starts, largely without duplicate duplicating uh the comments that were made earlier this evening.

Uh I think there's an administrative burden that's lessened.

Uh there are things moving between the hours of four and 7 p.m.

that the board office should hopefully be able to prioritize.

Um and having this taken off that burden so that we know by 4 p.m.

before that 5 p.m.

cutoff, excuse me, the 5 p.m.

close of business comes for for most government offices.

Um I think that would probably lessen that burden on them.

Uh I don't think it dramatically puts an additional burden on the public.

And I certainly don't think that a 4 p.m.

cutoff would dramatically impact or excuse me, negatively impact public engagement.

Um with that, those are the comments I have.

Uh Representative Dilo Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman Kahn.

Uh I'm gratified that you are so comfortable with Google.

My aunt Millie doesn't even know what Google is.

Should probably think it is a contemporary dance craze.

Uh and we have the elderly, and our rules are not common knowledge on our website is not the easiest one to navigate.

So with all those considerations, uh I I like the earlier idea to let people show up uh before uh up to the meeting.

And that gives the president an idea of how much time would be needed for the public participation.

Otherwise, if we do not change this rule, the net effect is to discourage and put obstacles in front for public participation.

Uh I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Representative Goldberg, give the floor.

Thank you.

Uh and if I drop off uh my my battery just started beeping at me that it was dying.

So I'm trying to find a power supply.

But what I wanted to say was, you know, the reason that I'm sponsoring these changes is not because I want to limit speech, but because I want to limit chaos.

And one of the things I've always struggled with is whether or not we need to extend the speaking time.

So I was thinking that putting some more process around what at least over the last four years I've interpreted to be a fairly chaotic process to put some structure around it.

Didn't seem to me to be an undue burden.

The other thing I'd point out is, you know, there's 40 of us, we're all very engaged in our districts.

I feel like a lot of us um know where our constituents are coming from.

We read the email.

Um it seems like to me uh that this isn't unreasonable, and it helps the president, the clerk, and the office do their jobs better, and it helps me decide whether or not I want to extend the speaking uh time period.

So that's why I thought this is a good idea.

As I reflect on the comments of the chairman of this committee, he seems to be rein reinforcing that that you know, order as in the rules of order is a good thing.

It limits our chaos.

So I I hope that my colleagues will be supportive of of these what I think are fairly straightforward and reasonable changes, that we will all continue to be deeply involved in our communities and have a sense of our district before we walk in the meeting.

Um I will tell you that I have over the last couple of years, you know, five years now, um rarely have I heard I'm trying to think of I have heard a new and intriguing thought at the public speaking session that fundamentally shook my belief in what I understood my constituents' mindset to be.

And nothing's coming to mind at the moment.

I'm just sitting here going through that.

But I think I've said all I need to say about this at this point.

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and and yield and look forward to hearing the rest of the conversation.

Thank you for recognizing me, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Representative Walston, you have the floor.

Um my thing is I know you said Google, but what about I'm not calling people stupid, but what about the illiterates who don't know how to go on the websites and stuff, they can hear, or they can go down town and you know, they they can hear in the streets that oh, there's a meeting from one of you know, from one of the neighbors.

If you want to go down there, you have an issue, you want to bring it to the board to need their help.

They will show up.

They're not going to think about getting online to Google.

And I'm I'm just going back to the 31st board when this elderly lady had come out to the meeting.

She showed up out of the blue.

She was seeking help.

She was seeking help.

So let's not make it harder for our constituents to come before us to voice their complaints.

Everything is not uh as you know, Representative Goldberg said, he's he's he's looking ahead for chaos.

But everything is not chaos.

We're here to try to push our city forward to make it a better city and to make ourselves accessible to the same people who put us into the office, not to cut their voice off.

And our president, you know.

He has the right, you know, to extend the meetings if she wants.

I'm not going to sit there and try to take any power from our president.

So I I think we still need that sign-up list.

It helps because she goes from the list to whoever is online, and uh, you know, I know like the last time I think she just cut it right off, but we need to have this list.

So when you're illiterate or you are or ignorant, that means you don't know.

So when the people who don't know, they show up, they can sign the list, get their voice um heard their concerns into our ears to make them feel that we, as board of representatives, truly care about our constituents.

Not that we're all looking at our time or we're so bored, why don't these people hurry up?

They're not saying anything.

Everybody has a voice, everybody's voice is important.

So let's just keep this list.

Let's not take any power from our um president.

And I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Uh Representative Camporelli, excuse me.

Representative Weinberg, did you still wish to seek the floor?

And break my pledge.

It's it's your right.

There's been sufficient redundancy in this conversation that I'll pass.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

I appreciate that.

Uh Vice Chair Camporelli, you have the floor.

I just have a quick comment, and it's and it's I don't mean any disrespect because I I come from the same privilege that I'm about to admonish.

I think that a lot of the comments right now speak to our own privilege.

I a lot of people don't know how to sign up online.

It's just that's just the way that it is.

And ideal.

Thank you, Representative Camporelli.

Uh Representative De La Cruz, you'll the floor.

Yes, uh, I'm grateful that Representative Watson reminded us of those early people that came from a facility that was completely being neglected, and it was almost in tears.

That lady didn't know Google from a hole in the wall, but she came to us, explained the problems that the seniors in that facility were having.

Many of which wouldn't know Google from a hole in the wall.

And it alerted us to take action.

And Representative Camporelli and Representative Martini went to the facility and documented the long standing problems without their having the ability to speak to us without prior signing.

We would have never known that.

So I'm glad that Representative Watson reminded us of that.

And I heard the word chaos before.

In all the time that the public participation period has been in effect.

So I don't see what problem this is trying to solve, and I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative De La True.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Well, sadly, I will break my pledge.

Um I just want to remind everyone at the risk of sounding like a person of privilege that uh that people can sign up by using their by telephone, simply by calling the board office.

They don't have to do it by uh online or by sending an email.

Um that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Seeing no other members seeking recognition, I'm gonna call this item to a vote.

Um the motion before the committee is the approval of item LR 32.005 uh as amended, which you can see on the screen, the amendment being uh the striking of the last proposed uh edition being uh quote unquote personal attacks against board members, will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, whether or not the speaker states the same the name of the board member.

Uh we're gonna hold this one by roll call vote.

Ms.

Montalo, if you could assist me in calling the rule.

Absolutely.

Representative blank, what's your vote?

Um actually um with all due respect, I I'm not sure what we're voting on.

My apologies uh to the to the chairperson.

Not a problem.

I will repeat.

So we are voting, excuse me.

This vote is for approval of item LR 32.005, which itself is an amendment to the Board of Rules, Section E3 related to the public.

My apologies, go ahead.

Okay.

I I mean if you're if you're up to speed, then I can I I don't have to repeat the whole thing, then okay.

You don't have to repeat the whole thing.

It just it just but we're not we already voted on the on the uh requested amendment, but now we're voting on what's remaining.

That's that's correct.

We that's exactly right.

Yes.

All right, then I vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Boudreau?

Yes, Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative Le Pine.

No.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative McKewin.

Yes.

We have six yes votes.

We have three nay votes and zero abstentions.

Thank you, Ms.

Monpoldo.

With six yeses, three no's, the vote passes.

The motion passes, excuse me.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a question for you quickly.

Yes, Representative Goldberg.

And this might uh if this is out of order or the president can answer it.

So this passed when it goes to the full board, it won't be on consent, right?

This will be a non-consent item.

That is correct.

I believe that is correct.

Um, though, depending on how we dispose of LR 32.010, the greater board may be more informed as to how they want to dispose of these together.

Okay, so that's exactly where I was thank you for picking up on my line of thought there.

Yes, thank you for for that information.

I I yield and thank you for letting me ask my question.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh, before I move on to the next item, Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Yes, I I'd like to suggest that we take up item number four uh 32.010 next, because it follows on with the uh the board rules discussion that we were just having.

Not quite sure procedurally if that requires a motion to uh change the order.

If it does, then I still move.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Do we have a second for the motion to suspend the rules for the taking up of LR32.010?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Let's see.

Oh, I just have where is my uh uh so we'll hold this by voice vote.

Excuse me, no, roll call.

Uh we need to see whether or not we pass two thirds.

So Ms.

Montalvo, if you could please call the roll.

Sure.

Representative blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative Lupine?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yeah.

Yes.

Representative Camporelli.

Yes.

Representative McQueen.

Yes.

Okay.

That is eight yeses, one no and zero abstentions.

All right.

The motion passes.

So we will now consider a motion.

We'll consider item LR32.010.

Uh, and I this time I'd entertain a motion to adopt uh LR32.0.

Excuse me, LR32.010.

Approval of the amended and restated board rules of order as provided in the legislative record.

So moved.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg, I believe.

Was that you, Representative Weinberg, for the second?

Uh no, I thought it was Le Pine, but I could be mistaken.

Yeah.

Apologies.

Thank you, Representative Lepine.

Alrighty, so there's a motion and a second.

Representative Blank, you have the floor.

Thank you, uh Chairperson.

I have one request to take up when it came to this discussion.

I would like to make an amendment to the uh to this to this document.

Uh specifically section three, paragraph B.

Um I would like to see it go from if at a meeting after the invocation and calling of the roll, a quorum is present.

Um I do not understand the concept or need for the title uh the item invocation.

If we're gonna put things in order, where's the pledge of allegiance, then the invocation, then the poll of order, where we should be saying and explicitly this do goes to quorum if at a meeting after the calling of the role the quorum is present.

So I would like to strike a uh after the invocation um from that line.

Um I guess I still move.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Before I call for a second, I just wanted to clarify your motion.

Um is the intention to remove the invocation generally, or just simply remove reference to it in that line with respect to the rule.

I ask only because just go ahead.

I was gonna say I asked only because there are other references to invocation in the document.

Uh so I just wanted to see if you're scrubbing the whole document of that reference or or just that line.

I uh I'm trying to I'm trying to explicitly talk to quorum.

Okay, uh nothing uh about the invocation has to do with quorum.

Thereby I I am just trying to make the document more focused.

Thank you in that respect.

Thank you for that clarification.

Is there a second?

Sorry.

Second.

Thank you, Representer Boudreau and Weinberg.

Uh the question before the committee, excuse me, is whether or not to amend these amended in the rest of rules of order to strike the words uh the invocation and um from section three subsection B.

Uh Representative Blank, you still have your hand up.

Are you seeking the floor again?

No, thank you.

Okay.

Seeing no one seeking the floor, I'm gonna try this by voice vote.

All in favors of amending this proposed amended or stated rules of order by striking the words the invocation and in subsection three, excuse me, section three subsection B, please say aye.

Aye.

I all those opposed.

Any abstentions?

The motion passes.

Uh so the motion before the board is the adoption of LR 32.010 as amended.

Uh and at this time, I'm gonna call for a motion uh to amend this document further uh to delete reference to appropriations.

Excuse me, let me find the section reference in section 7B105 and replace it with the word appointments to correct a typo.

So moved.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Lepine.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, let's try this by voice vote again.

All those in favor of amending these proposed rules of order to delete reference to appropriations committee in section 7B105 and replace it with the word appointments.

Please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it, and we will fall back to consideration of LR32.

As further amended.

Is there anyone seeking the floor?

I have a question, sorry, point of clarity or yes, Vice Chair Campbell.

Are we trying to take all of the amendments that were listed prior at once and vote on them?

Apologies, which amendments?

The two that were stated, like the the one I just stated and the one that was stated by the code.

Just the little the little typo one, and and is that what we're voting on right now?

Those just got voted on.

So those are those changes are approved.

So now we've fallen back to approving the entire document as a whole.

Okay.

Okay.

And yes.

Okay.

All righty.

Seeing no hand seeking recognition, I'll speak to this one having submitted it and drafted it.

Uh, largely the intention of these changes has been to reorder and clarify and clean up rather than substantively change.

There are some substantive changes uh which are highlighted in the red line.

Not all changes are highlighted in the red line, specifically because to do so would render the document illegible.

Because again, even if text wasn't changed, I move them around just so that the document flowed more cleanly.

And so that was the motivation here.

So I believe that this document closes some loopholes.

I believe that this document is an easier one to read.

And I believe it also excised some language that was otherwise duplicative of existing Roberts rules without changing them.

And if we can create a shorter document that is less confusing, that was the goal.

Seeing no other hands seeking recognition.

Let's try this by voice vote.

Yes, President Shaw.

Sorry, if I may ask a question.

Yes, yeah.

Sorry, before my question, I just want to say that thank you for putting a lot of work into this.

Um you did a tremendous job just trying to standardize a document, make it consistent with Rabbler rules, a lot of work went to it.

So I'd really appreciate you looking looking through this.

My question though is um, so the changes we made um uh last time with the um representative Sanford's changes, are they already incorporated in here?

Yes, representative Sanford's changes are in here already and incorporated.

I think I'd have to double check, but I think there was minor tweaks to the language that didn't change any substance.

Um but yes, the the I'd say 99% of his changes are in here.

And then the public speaking section that we just voted on, will that be further incorporated into this as well?

The public speaking comment is already incorporated as Representative Weinberg had proposed with one change uh with respect to the final sentence.

Uh so the committee just approved his amendment without the addition of this sentence.

My proposal mirrors his exactly with the addition of that sentence as modified.

And I modified it specifically to no longer uh if you could scroll a little bit further down, Ms.

Montalvo to the green.

There you go.

So this sentence here was what representative um Boudreau had struck in Representative Weinberg's amendment.

Uh the reason why this is slightly modified is because, in my opinion, personal attacks generally, regardless of whom they're levied against, whether it be members of the public, members of the administration, or members of the board, should be inappropriate.

Nobody should be making personal attacks generally, and I didn't feel that board members should be should receive heightened protections.

So I struck reference to board members.

Any personal attacks of any kind is considered disruptive.

Uh so that's the difference between this proposed comment section and that of Representative Weinberg's.

Other than that, it mirrors what the committee just approved.

Great.

Thank you so much.

I just want to make sure that everyone understands that as well.

Thank you again.

I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Representative Camparelli, you have the floor.

Sorry, I just want to make sure that I understand.

Because I did not vote for uh Representative Weinberg's change, that is now folded in to this document.

That is so we're voting on stuff double.

It's no longer separate.

So when this goes on the floor, if people have an issue with represent representative Weinberg's, then they would have to vote no for this whole document to be changed.

And I so I'd like to make uh I'd like to amend this somehow, and you'll have to help me with that, so that reparative representative Weinberg's changes would be separate because I could then vote for these other changes.

You see what I'm saying?

It's sort of like the charter revision commission.

We put it all together and then the whole thing went down.

Yes.

Uh procedurally, we could do it that way.

Alternatively, to make things easier, we also could simply have debate on this document and amend any changes that we'd like to make to Representative Weinberg's language.

We could make that uh Representative Blank, you're you're not muted.

Let's like unless I guess.

Thank you.

Um we could simply propose amendments to this document going forward.

Uh and so that that would be my recommendation just from a procedural standpoint, maybe make this a little bit easier so we could all talk about one thing, and we could always make amendments to any individual section, including uh but not limited to Representative Weinberg's proposal in this section.

I guess what I'm saying is we've already discussed any amendments that the that the committee wanted on that document, I guess, although we did not uh talk about removing the fact that most people don't know what district they live in.

Um, however, like I don't have a problem with this document, but I do have a problem with the other.

So then I would have to vote against this entire thing.

Is there any way to just separate, keep separate the way that it is now when the full when the full board votes?

Yes, you could certainly propose the amendment tonight to cut that entire section from this proposed document, and then this document would move forward absent representative Weinberg's comments and representative Weinberg's comments would continue as its own legislative item.

As vice chair, is it appropriate for me to request that amendment or does somebody else have to do it?

It's a great question.

I'd have to double check.

Let me see.

Sorry, I don't remember this stuff by heart yet.

Uh Representative Morrison, I think Representative Weinberg, go for it.

Weinberg Morrison.

I believe that I believe that our rules is currently instituted, don't allow the chair to propose an amendment, but uh but is silent about a vice chair.

Yep, I agree.

And that that was my interpretation.

I just wanted to find the exact text, and yes, that is correct.

No motion may be made or seconded by the chair, or in the case of co-chairs by the co-chair acting as chair during the meeting.

So okay, so it's only if I were to be acting as chair.

Okay, then I then at this time I'd like to point of information.

Yes, President Shaw, please state your point of information.

Thank you.

So I'm just I'm just just want to make sure.

So we even if we take this amendments out, these are part of the board rules, right?

So eventually it will be incorporated in the board, it has to be incorporated in the board rules.

So whether we take it as a separate item or not, it eventually will have to go in here.

So I'm not sure making an amendment is is would it solve any issue?

Because we've extended like can't like Vice Chair said, like we've extensively debated the you know, the item that uh representative Weinberg presented.

So I'm may I answer her the only reason is that it wasn't it it wasn't a full eight members voting for representative Weinberg's amendment.

So my thought is that um it would also be the same on the floor.

There may be members that want to vote against that section of it, and I think their voices should be heard on that while wanting to approve maybe the rest of the rule changes.

So it it would fold in to the board rules at some point.

I'm just asking that at this time when we send this to the full board, that these two issues are kept separate, especially since we had a lot of constituents write in against the the changes that representative Weinberg asked for, and no members wrote in in favor of them.

So if I understand correctly, you for the purposes of the discussion and for the members to hear and the board members to vote, you want that as a separate item, but whether if but but if it gets updated in whatever way it is, then you want that version to be incorporated in the case.

Then it will be incorporated, absolutely.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

That's all I needed to know.

Thank you, President Shaw and Vice Chair Camparelli.

Uh Vice Chair Camperley, I believe you had the floor before the point of order or point of information.

So I'd like to to make a motion to amend this set of rules to uh remove the the changes that Representative uh Weinberg has asked for.

And I don't have the paperwork in front of me in the other LR, whatever it was.

Sorry.

Sure.

Maybe I can suggest um uh let's see.

A motion to amend by striking section 10, subsection B through section F should cover all of what is uh also reflected in Representative Weinberg's proposal.

Uh point of information, sir.

Yes, Representative Boudreau.

I think it would just be section B through E, since we removed all the changes from subsection F.

Yes, that is true.

But you have I would recommend for the clarity of the procedure to include Section F in the event that Section F is further amended.

Representative Weinberg's motion, excuse me, proposal.

Uh Representative Camparelli, you still have the floor.

That that's it.

I have sorry, so this is a good idea.

And I'm hoping somebody seconds it is there any second second.

Representative blank, thank you.

So the motion for adoption now is with respect to amending this document to excise or remove sections 10A subsection B through subsection F.

Is there anybody that has their hand raised currently that still wishes to be recognized with respect to the amendment?

Yes, Representative Le Pine.

Just it in addition to striking it, should there be language in here as a holder of what we're approving that says that it will ultimately be replaced to reflect the language resolved upon with item.

Um trying to find it.

Not a problem.

I understand the the question.

Um so I would suggest that no, that wouldn't be necessary because when we approve any changes to the Board of Rules orders, they become a composite document thereafter.

For example, Representative Sanford's amendments that have already been adopted are part of the rules of order.

Uh so if this section is missing and Representative Weinberg's is approved, however which way it is approved as amended or as proposed, it they simply would come together to form one complete document.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I see two hands still raised, Representative uh De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

I just want to say that I concur with Representative Campo's concerned about uh mixing these two documents.

Uh I concur with our concern.

Thank you, Anna Yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Majority leader.

Yes, Representative Goldberg.

So uh I kind of got lost in the the in what was exactly proposed, and I just want to you to clarify you're attempting to delete 10 a, B, C D, E, but leave F as it's currently written in this document.

Did is that what is on the floor right now?

No, the question before the committee at the moment is to delete sections 10A sub B through F.

Oh, you want to delete F as well.

That's the amendment.

That's the motion before the committee.

Okay.

So what about the green personal attacks language?

Was that I where what is the status of that?

I'm unclear at this point.

The green language under 10 F.

Sure.

Right now, that language is included in this document.

The motion before the committee is to delete the entirety of sections B through F.

Because those sections would be resolved by the disposition of Representative Weinberg's item.

So we will have the opportunity to debate his item.

We could on the floor at the meeting reinsert that language if we so choose, and then that language would not be duplicative here.

It would rather insert here independent.

But his so once again.

Just to clarify what we're what you've got before you what was adopted previously didn't include this green sentence in F.

That's correct.

That's correct.

If we wish for that to be included on final adoption, we would have to have an amendment on the floor during the board of representatives meetings to reinsert that language.

Okay, thank you for help.

Uh thank you for that point of clarification.

I guess it was a point of order.

Yeah.

Not a problem.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh I previously had majority leader Morrison.

Do you still wish to seek recognition?

No, that was from earlier, but thank you.

Thank you, Representative Morrison.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Two things.

First, I I I uh uh support support this amendment uh in the interest of um you know continuing to learn from our experience with the charter question.

Uh second um second, just to uh clarify uh what I think was Representative Goldberg's question.

I think this happened before, took place before you joined you may have joined the meeting.

Um my original my proposal was amended to take out uh the reference about um about personal attacks with the understanding that it would come back with the understanding that instead of discussing and debating the language that I had proposed, we would debate uh the language in the document before us now.

Yeah, um so it was neither it was neither uh accepted nor rejected.

It's just it'll come up later when this uh you know when we come back to the whole thing.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I I guess the only concern I have about this amendment is I think it's important for us someplace to say that personal attacks will be considered disruptive and will not permit whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments by name or otherwise.

I I just want to make sure that that is included someplace, because I I do think we need to say personal attacks are out of bounds and inappropriate.

And what I'm what I fear right now is a process that leads us to adopt um language that's or adopt an amendment that um leaves that permissible.

So my question to you, Chair, is in order to put that back in, let's say we if we hypothetically, if we strike A through Fin A through F, and Representative Weinberg's prior proposal is adopted, we still don't have personal attacks are considered disruptive anywhere.

Is that right?

That would be correct.

But again, if you or any other member feels that that language is important to add, that can be an amendment on the floor.

The the point being we can have debate on that item.

I think procedurally the question is whether or not the item is debated here or the item is debated there.

Either which way we'd have an opportunity to debate the item.

I don't think it would go unaddressed if uh a member does in fact make a motion to amend Representative Weinberg's item.

Yeah, I I guess what I fear, as I said before, is um I could foresee us allowing this all to move forward.

Let's just say this is adopted, then we're gonna have to do committee work on the floor, which doesn't seem to be productive.

Um, and since we already adopted four, at least I didn't even think I needed to discuss uh I'm sorry, was it item four?

Was that the one that that we adopted or that the committee adopted with uh representative Weinberg's changes?

Was it item number two?

Oh, it was item number two, okay.

All right, so at any rate, it I I just I don't know that I could support pulling all this out.

Well, Representative Goldberg, I I deeply apologize for interrupting.

If you'd yield the floor to me, I might have a suggestion that that might address that concern.

I will yield to you.

I'd love to hear your suggestion.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

My suggestion um not being allowed to make a motion in the committee.

Uh perhaps we amend this amendment uh to only delete sections B through F, except with respect to that last line.

That way, if Representative Weinberg's amendment were to go forward as is currently proposed without that language, it would essentially sit on top of and this would be tacked on to the bottom, and we can debate the merits of that sentence now uh rather than having additional amendments come to the floor.

So can I ask you a follow-up since I yielded to you?

Yes, yes.

Okay, thank you.

I I don't want to break any rules of order here, that's why I asked.

Um so I wonder if the proposal of the amendment would be willing to procedurally, would it be cleaner for you if they went back and said and modified their proposed amendment to take the advice you just gave us?

I wish that were true.

Uh I wish that were the case, but once it's been moved and seconded and it's in the possession of the committee, uh, for the same reason why, for example, one member can't make drastic changes in the mover accept those changes outside of the procedures of debate and approval.

So procedurally, well, I guess I'll just yield.

I I wish there were a way to do that because I I think you'd probably sail through.

Um I don't think anybody is gonna be thrilled about personal attacks being considered um acceptable behavior.

Thanks for uh thank you for uh indulging me.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Before I represent uh recognize Representative Weinberg, is there a motion uh to amend this amendment uh to instead delete sections B through F, except with respect to the last line highlighted on your screen now that reads personal tax and thank you, Representative Blank.

Is there a second?

I second.

Thank you, Representative Hyeb.

The amendment now uh being uh the deletion of items B through F, except with respect to the last sentence.

Is there anybody that wishes to seek the floor with respect to that change in the amendment?

Uh Representative Boudreau, you have your hand up.

Yeah, uh I have a question, I guess, through you uh to Representative Camparelli because the the purpose of the main amendment is to uh separate the questions of uh LR 32.005 and the overall restating.

Um and if this amendment to the amendment defeats that purpose, then I don't think it makes sense to do.

Um so I'd like to see if uh the the representatives who originally wanted this amendment uh think that it defeats the purpose of their amendment or not.

Vice Chair Camparelli.

I mean, I am not gonna make a really big deal out of that, just because in I was only on the I've only been on the board for two plus years.

I don't remember a personal attack on a representative.

I know that people have come to the board to attack different things that representatives have said online about other members of the board or statements they have made or things that they've done as board members.

I personally don't care if somebody comes to the board and personally attacks me.

I have more of a problem with other board members attacking me, if I'm really honest.

Um I think it does muddy up what I was trying to do, which was to take all speech items and separate them out, because I think some people just have an issue with restricting speech at this point in time or any point in time, and I'm one of them.

So I would prefer that this is all kept nice and clean, separated.

We make the amendment on the floor.

I'm gonna be making an amendment on the floor um to remove the language about people needing to um have their have their uh district number because a lot of people don't know their district number.

So we could make those two amendments very cleanly and it wouldn't be a big deal, and it would keep the the speech part separate.

So I appreciate you recognizing that.

Um I would like to keep this separate if at all possible.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camperelli.

Representative Walson, you have the floor.

Um I agree with Representative Camperale.

And uh I have been attacked by a board member on the last board, but he's not here now, but I've been personally attacked.

And uh let's keep this uh separate, please.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Majority Leader Morrison, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh let's do what we can to if we can to try to get all these amendments done here in committee and not uh deliberately say we're gonna save amendments for the floor.

So let's let's try to figure out if we can uh make keeping this separate work tonight and get it worded properly.

And uh if um uh is it Barbara who if Barbara can um change the text at on the fly so we can see uh exactly what changes we are considering making.

Um with this one, I only have a um a PDF.

I don't have a word version of this, unfortunately.

All right.

I I would urge my colleagues to to get all amendments out of the way here in committee because that's what committee's for.

Thank you.

Point of information.

I I can't go back now to the one that that we voted on already that included that language.

I probably should have made that amendment, but I didn't to remove the part about the you can make another you can make another motion.

No, because we're not discussing that item right now.

Uh it's not part of this document.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

So that's why I was saying that amendment will have to be made.

I will make that amendment so this one could just fold right in, and we could keep the speech items separate from the rest of the rules.

Understood.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Representative.

Excuse me, Majority Leader Morrison.

Representative de la Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

And the hour and the complexity of the amendments that need to be made.

Perhaps the committee can consider to recommitte this hearing and have these amendments worked out for the next meeting.

And that's my suggestion.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

Thank you.

If we were to do that.

So one, I'm not.

So if we were so I'm not sure if this is even a germane conversation, so if it is shut me down or shut this down.

But I guess what I'm worried about is do we pass our time limit on changing the vote threshold to adopt changes to the board rules?

So in other words, will we uh will we go from the 50, the simple majority to the two-thirds required to adopt rules if we if we recommit this?

Uh to answer your question, uh we have up through and including our third meeting, uh to to pass these changes, which would be I believe if I'm counting correctly, the conclusion of our February meeting after that.

Yes, the majority leader Morrison.

Sorry, forgive me for the interruption.

We have the third third meeting after the organizational, so we can make the 50% changes through the March board meeting.

Thank you.

Uh does President does President Shaw concur with that since she'll be the presiding officer.

President Shaw, if you'd like to, yeah, go away.

Yeah, I I was just gonna uh just respond or speak uh in general.

I mean, I'm not so concerned about the word thresholds.

Um what I am concerned is that you know we have you know you put in a lot of work in this, and it it does seem to me that besides the couple of changes that uh bike shared camp really want to make.

I don't know if I haven't seen anybody else having an issue with anything else.

So I'm not I just don't like this concept of going back to committee open and over again when we have a meaningful document if there's only a couple of things that need to be changed and we can get those changes done now.

Um I just don't think anything productive is gonna happen between now, you know, you know, just waiting for another month.

So my recommendation would be, you know, um, again, if you know my shit camper only has mentioned that if there's only two things that she'd like to take out, or this section that needs to be dealt with separately, and know that no other comments or no other uh major changes that people are worried about, then we should discuss and move forward and vote on this document.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Shaw.

Representative Goldberg, you you had the floor technically.

Also to really drill home the point.

Representative, excuse me, majority leader Morrison is correct.

The rules clearly state we can do so during the first three regular meetings of the board.

Okay, thanks.

Uh I'll I'll yield.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Representative helping me.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh seeing all their hands raised, let's call this to a vote.

We'll do a roll call vote.

And the question on adoption currently is to make this a little more simple for for everybody in the committee.

The question on adoption is to remove sections 10, subsection B through F, except with respect to the last sentence, which is personal attacks, will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, whether or not the speaker identifies a target of such comments by name or otherwise.

If we could do that by roll call vote, please.

Yes, Representative Boudreau.

So my understanding is that there was a motion to amend this document by removing all of section 10.

And then there was an amendment to that amendment to uh reinsert subsection F.

The amendment from Vice Chair Campbell Riley was to delete sections B through F in their entirety.

Uh your amendment was to amend her amendment by instead of deleting F in its entirety to instead only retain that portion of that last sentence.

That's great.

I don't think that was my amendment, but that's the that's the question before the board is just to uh amend the amendment.

Yes, that is the question before the board.

Okay, thank you.

And apologies, I thought that was your amendment.

I forget whose amendment that may have been.

Absolutely.

Representative blank, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Boudreau, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Hyatt, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative LePine, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Stone, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg, what is your vote?

Uh um.

Uh uh, yes.

Okay.

Vice Chair Camporelli, what is your vote?

Oh.

And Chair McEwan, what is your vote?

Yes.

And let me tally that really quickly.

We have five yes votes, four no votes, and zero abstentions.

Thank you, Ms.

Montalvo.

The motion passes.

Um, and at the risk of frustrating the rest of the committee.

We are now falling to Vice Chair Camporelli's motion as amended.

Again, this is now to excise um sections B through F.

Excluding personal attacks uh will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted, whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments by name or otherwise.

Uh and apologies again on the committee.

We'll have to roll call this one as well.

Um so now to be abundantly clear, the question before the committee will remove the text in sections B through F, except for that last highlighted sentence.

Ms.

Montalvo, if you don't mind.

Certainly.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Exactly.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

Unfortunately, um, I think you're muted, Representative Hyatt.

Yeah, I was pondering the um.

Okay.

Representative LePine.

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Oh, yes.

Yes.

And Chair McEwen.

Yes.

Okay, let me tally that.

That is eight yes votes, one no vote, and zero abstentions.

Thank you very much.

The ayes have it, and the motion passes.

We fall now to the main motion, which is the adoption of LR32.010 as amended.

Uh for the convenience of the committee, I will outline the amendments we have currently in effect.

Currently, this proposed document will be amended uh to remove reference to the invocation in section.

Let's see.

In section three subsection B.

There is also an amendment in effect to correct a typo with reference to the appropriations committee, and instead replacing that with reference to the appointments committee.

And then finally, as we just discussed, the deletion of subsection or excuse me, section 10, subsection B through F, except with respect to that last sentence, which remains in the document.

Is there anybody that seeks recognition at this time?

Seeing no hands, let's call this for a roll vote again, once last time.

This vote is for adoption of this document as amended in the manner I just mentioned.

Ms.

Montalvo.

Okay.

Thank you.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative LePine.

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Camporelli.

Yes.

And Representative McEwen.

Yes.

Okay.

That is eight.

Yes votes, one no vote, zero abstentions.

Thank you, Ms.

Montalva.

With that, the motion passes, and we will move back to our order of the agenda, which is item LR 32.009.

A res approval of a resolution for the third from the 32nd Board of Representatives beseeching the Connect the Connecticut State Legislator to empower municipalities with the right to ban pet stores from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits submitted by representatives Camporelli and Pollock.

This time I would entertain a motion to approve the aforementioned resolution.

So moved.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

And thank you, Representative Blank, I believe.

Anybody that seeks recognition.

Apologies.

Seeing nobody seeking recognition, let's call this for a voice vote.

All those in favor of approving item LR 32, a resolution uh from the Board of Representatives to the Connecticut state legislature, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

With that, the motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to the next order of business, which is LR 32.001.

Uh review of a revised comprehensive tree ordinance submitted by Representative Camporelli.

So anybody that seeks recognition with respect to this review item.

Chair, may I I speak on the item?

Yes, Vice uh Vice Chair Camparelli, you have the floor.

Um I just represent Weinberg and I are sponsoring this together.

Um and we just wanted to basically update the committee on where we are, and so we just wanted to give you some idea of of what we've been doing, the work that we've been doing.

Um so we met with the administration to review the key objections to LR 31-106 and are actively working to revise and overhaul the sections of the ordinance uh that the administration had an issue with.

Um we also began outlining the framework for an urban forest working group, uh, which would include us as representatives, um the administration, some people from the administration, some stakeholders from downtown Stanford, arborists, and other experts and community members.

Uh we also met with the urban forester from Hartford to discuss best practices, lessons learned, and potential approaches that could inform uh the revised ordinance.

Um we initiated an informal conversation with zoning to explore future collaboration and the inclusion of additional standards related to urban forestry and development.

Um that's it, basically.

We do not have a revised ordinance yet.

We're in the process of of doing our homework on how best to revise it.

And I'd entertain a motion to uh recommit the item to steering.

So thank you, Representative Camporelli.

Uh I believe Representative Weinberg.

Uh, do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Uh the motion before the committee is to recommit item LR32.011 to steering.

Before you do that, can I ask a question?

Uh depends on the question.

Representative Goldberg, but yes, go for it.

Well, first of all, thank you to my colleagues for taking this on.

Um, kudos to y'all.

Um, and and I hope we find something that's workable.

How do we uh so I live, you know, I represent a district that has a lot of trees.

I'd like to be involved in the working group.

How do we I guess a question to either representative weinberg or camparelli?

How do I raise my hand to be part of the working group?

I think I think you just did.

Well, I I am just guessing that you're gonna have other uh representatives from the densely forested part of the town that might want to raise their hands too.

Had have y'all given any thought to um I I mean I think Carl and I are from deeply forested, you know, parts of the town.

We're both from North Stanford.

Um so we were thinking that you know we represented that part of the community.

Um, but we'll certainly consider you know adding other members.

Well, I'd like to be involved, and I just wanted to make sure that there was some mechanism for others on the board that wanted to be part of the working group to raise their hand.

I wasn't sure how you were going to do that.

So that was my question.

And by the way, Chair, am I germain or not Germain at this point?

I think it's I think it's borderline.

Okay.

So you yield.

Uh I'd love to.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh, Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Yes.

In in all the time that I've gotten to know you, Emil, I've never known you to be resident to raise your hand.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, I think.

And we we would um we would relish your contribute, your participation and your contributions.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Is there anybody else that seeks to the floor with respect to the motion to recommit?

Seeing none, let's try this by voice vote.

All those in favor of recommitting item LR32.011 to steering, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The motion passes unanimously, and item LR32.00, excuse me, 011 is recommitted to steering.

All righty.

Having concluded, I believe our business uh on the agenda for this meeting, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Thank you, Representative.

I hear uh so all those in favor will do this by voice vote, of course, uh for the motion to adjourn.

Uh please say aye.

Excuse me.

Aye.

Thank you.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Hearing none, uh, we are adjourned.

The motion passes.

Uh legislative rules committees adjourned as of 9 39 p.m.

on January 27th, 2026.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Uh Chair, before you go, can I just ask um for item 010?

Can you please send me over the Word document for that item?

Because all I have in the file is PDFs.

Then I can go ahead and make all the changes we need to make.

Yes, I can do that.