get started.

Uh hello everyone.

Thank you for everybody attending both in person online.

So at this time I'm going to call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the board of representatives at 7 o'clock p.m February 24th, 2026.

I make note that representatives Camp Rally, Blank, Boudreau, Lepine, Weinberg, and myself are in attendance.

If there are any other voting members of the committee that I haven't recognized, please definitely speak up.

Looking and seeing there we go.

And Representative Hyatt, see you there.

You should Ms.

Montalvo, if you can help me move representative Hyatt as a panelist, that'll be very helpful.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All righty.

So seeing that we have eight members of the committee in attendance.

I find that we have a quorum.

So we'll proceed with the meeting.

And I don't see any explanation.

Oh geez.

How do you pronounce your last name?

Alicia.

Politia.

Alicia Politia.

So we also have Representative Police in attendance as well.

All right.

So with that being said, uh let's move on to the first item of the agenda that's going to be LR 32.004 an amendment to excuse me an ordinance amending section 214-32 of the code of ordinances to allow the city to accept a private road by only requiring a petition signed by no less than two thirds of its owner submitted by representative Weinberg I understand that a public hearing was approved for this and scheduled for this meeting.

So at this time we're going to recognize our first speaker who was signed up first to speak it's going to be uh missing a little nervous all right I am a resident of a private road in North Stanford and appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of LR32.004 an amendment to section 214-32 of the code of ordinances to reduce the signature requirement to two thirds of property owners in about October of 22 the Stanford legal department reviewed this ordinance on the required signature threshold for city's petition process for private road acceptance and determined that 100% of property owner signatures would be required.

Previously the standard was a simple majority of 50% and as far as I could tell this has been the standard since about the early 1960s.

In March of 2025 my neighbors and I submitted a petition requesting acceptance of a private road over 86% of the residents endorsed this petition while the remaining voters abstained due to concerns about potential costs of upgrading the road to meet requirements.

Without an accepted petition we are unable to initiate a meaningful dialogue with city engineering to establish the assessment yeah the sound came up okay I have somebody who says they can't get in where'd my meeting go I just had it.

Ms Montalvo if you could please mute sorry okay um without an accept wait where did I leave on guys okay um without an accepted petition we are unable to initiate a meaningful dialogue with city engineering to establish the essential baseline of requirements and standards needed to proceed with contracting the work.

By approving this reduction in the ordinance signature requirements to two thirds you will enable the majority of supportive property owners to take decisive action confidently shape the future of the road drive meaningful process progress and a lasting positive change.

We respectfully request permission to move forward with identifying the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with the city of Stanford's regulations.

Thank you so much for this opportunity and we appreciate your consideration.

Thank you Miss Hay and next up we've got a Mr Adam Mann sure if you're on the call but if you are please indicate yourself by raising your hand I see you man I think I've enabled you to speak yes there we go.

So I don't want to go over all the numbers again because I can't remember them off the top of my head, but the petition for the two-thirds vote of acceptance of a private road to get the as Kathy had mentioned to get the accurate costs and updates and everything needed.

I think that would be great.

Um not only dishonest, it's tough to get in touch with some people, and response is not always 100%.

At least we can get an idea of what the city would require of us to upgrade the street to their standards for acceptance.

I just wanted to speak in favor of it.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Mann.

Appreciate your comments.

Of course.

And next up we have an apologies.

I didn't ask you.

Christine Johnson.

Christine Johnson.

Yeah, you've got four.

I'm gonna just kind of toss something out to all of you.

As a small group, when you vote on something, do you need a majority or just a certain quorum, right?

So we're a small group on our road.

And we can't always get everybody to agree 100%.

Kind of like, you know, what you all go through when you have something that you want to vote on.

And all we're asking is for you all to think of us, you know, kind of with the same standards that you hold for yourselves when you're having a meeting when something is tabled and voted on.

We can't all agree, but the betterment of our road is important to all of us.

And it's I've been a resident of Stanford for 15 years.

Love living in North Stanford, love living on Pembroke Drive, and we want to move forward and make it beautiful.

And some people are just as Adam said, they abstain, they don't come to the meetings, we can't get them to sign.

And like any small group we just it would be great if we didn't have to have a hundred percent.

That would be the betterment of all of us.

And that's all I had to say.

Thank you very much, well.

So at this time, uh, first of all, actually, let me ask, is there anybody else in attendance that would wish to speak on LR 32.004 that hasn't had the opportunity to do so?

If you do, please raise your hand.

I sent an email.

I think they're locked in into your account.

Uh Mr.

Adams, you have the floor.

I just moved him over as a panelist.

It might be a second before he can unmute himself.

Okay.

Hello, legislative and rule.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Uh, good evening.

Uh, my name is Dave Adams.

I live in Glenbrook, and uh, I wanted to just chime in on this particular uh item because I think that there's a um a fundamental principle that needs to be considered here.

Uh a lot of people uh you know, not that I'm a homeowner, not that I live on a uh on on one of these private roads, and I certainly feel for the homeowners that live on private roads that want to uh make their roads public.

Um, but you know, a lot of people move and they choose to buy property on private roads, specifically because it isn't city property.

You know, when the city takes possession of a road, they get access to the first 10, 12 feet, or I forget what what the actual number is.

I think it's might be 11, I don't know.

Uh, but the reality is is that you are surrendering a lot of rights to the city that you would otherwise be able to maintain as private to you and your local community.

This is uh uh a short step to city sewers and city water, which to be honest with you.

I'm on city water now.

I really wish I wasn't.

It's full of it's full of chemicals.

I I turn on the faucet, all I smell is chemicals.

It's really bad.

But when I was on a well, I was in in better shape.

Now, if I was living on a private road and I had purchased into a private road, I would be defending that private road hell or high water.

And so I don't understand where we want to basically overrule the the will of private property owners as to uh whether or not their property becomes encroached upon by the city.

When you want to do something like that.

You know, people change properties, properties exchange.

One day that that property owner may change hands.

And maybe that's the appropriate time to go and try to make this road public.

Property rights are really important to me.

And I think that uh it's uh that there are a lot of downsides to making things public.

And uh so my uh desire to see you uh vote this one down.

Uh I think you need you need to uh you need a unanimous consent before you you start to change the rights over people's property.

And I thank you for your time and I hope you have a great evening.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Adams.

All righty.

Is there anybody else in attendance that wishes to speak?

Uh Mr.

Mann, I'm not sure if you raise your hand intentionally, but unfortunately, we're not having repeated comments from members of the public.

Uh, but I appreciate you indicating that you wish to speak.

Are there any other members that haven't spoken yet?

Seeing no other members of the public that wish to speak that have not had the opportunity to do so, I'm going to close this public hearing with respect to item LR 32.004.

And this time I'd entertain a motion to approve the aforementioned.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau and Representative Blank.

Um I also want to make note that we have an attendance, uh, attorney Michael Toma, assistant incorporation counsel to the city of Stanford, uh was attending uh answer any questions that the committee may have with respect to LR 32.004.

Uh with that, I'd open the floor for anybody that wishes to speak as to the item.

Was the item seconded?

Yes, it was seconded.

Uh Representative Le Pine, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh appreciated.

Uh before you take the floor, Representative Pine, I just want to note for the record that Representative Hughes is an attendance.

Yep.

Sorry about that.

No words.

Uh I want to express my gratitude uh to Representative Weinberg for submitting this ordinance and and the members uh of the public that have attended and spoken.

Um I found the prior conversations uh very enlightening uh on this proposed ordinance uh in that as has been raised by some of the members of the public, uh this uh ordinance would allow uh a non-majority uh uh group of uh residents on these on these roads to understand the cost.

It isn't an immediate decision or burden to those other residents, and without it, they can't even get the necessary information required to make an informed decision.

So uh I think it is a very common sense of step.

It certainly has my support.

Uh and uh and I look forward to a uh fairer way to allow residents to make an informed decision about the the status of their of their private roads, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Uh Vice Chair Caparelli, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair McEllen.

Um my question is for uh representative Weinberg.

Uh Representative Weinberg, my question to you is what if someone has a hardship?

That's the only thing that's bothered me about this.

Um, you know, I understand getting 100% consensus is a difficult thing, and my heart really does go out to people that are living on a street that has a bad road, and I have a few of those in my district.

But I I worry about those people that might have a hardship that might be avoiding the other members or or voting no on these things just simply because they don't have the money.

Is there something in this ordinance already existing or that could be written in to accommodate that sort of thing?

Representative Weinberg, if you'd like to respond.

Uh sure, thank you, Karen, for that question.

So I think that so then I think I I think that I'm if I might I've got to rephrase your question a little bit.

Um but to get to uh the heart of the the the matter that you're raising.

Um so to me the the question is um how does if um if the residents of a private road after having their petition accepted and finding out what the costs you know finding out from the city what the costs of bringing the road up to code uh are um how do they actually those costs of course are borne by the residents not by the city.

Um how do the how do the residents decide um how that's going to be paid and by whom?

Okay, that's really for the residents to decide.

In many cases, um these um uh the uh property owners on a private road have a homeowners association, which already has rules for exactly how that works.

Um and those rules may or may not include uh include hardship exceptions.

In um in the case of Pembroke Road, my my understanding is that they well, they don't have a homeowners association, they have they do have a bank account with money already put aside.

Uh of course, we don't know if they're they don't know if that the money that's already in the bank account is sufficient uh to pay for uh whatever improvements are necessary because they don't know what the cost of those improvements would be.

That's that's that's the catch 22 that they're in, but they already have money put aside.

Um if they don't already have a legal agreement, um, and again, I'm not an attorney, uh so you know take what I'm saying as you will.

If they don't already have a legal agreement, then the it's up to the property owners to figure it out.

Uh and if they can't come to some kind of accommodation, then perhaps they won't be able to move forward um with with public with with uh converting the road from private to public.

But in any case, it is it is up to the um the property owners to decide how it will be paid.

Um and whether uh you know, obviously, if they don't, if nobody if certain property owners don't have a legal requirement to pay, then they don't have a legal requirement to pay, and that's then up to the remaining property owners to decide whether they wish to go forward on their own.

Um in any case, it's it's not uh there's not the ordinance doesn't get into this issue of um of how it is paid, other than um making it clear that the um that the property owners are responsible for any necessary improvements to the road.

So I hope that answers that that totally answered my question and it cleared a lot of things up for me.

So I really appreciate um your answer, and I yield the floor, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camp Rowling.

Sorry, Representative Good Roth.

Yeah, I just want to emphasize because a number of uh one of the comments we hear from the public as well, representative Camp Rowley's concern, but seem to have kind of circled around people being compelled into things.

And what we're really changing right here is just the ability to get the conversation started.

There would be you know further process before the road actually gets accepted.

But uh, like we heard from the two people sitting behind me, uh, you can't even really have a meaningful conversation with uh with city engineering until they have this initial petition, and that's the threshold we're lowering.

Uh there would still be you know more process before the the road actually changes hands, becomes a public road.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

All righty, is there anybody else that wishes to seek the floor with respect to item LR32.004?

Seeing no one, uh let's attempt to call this for a voice vote.

So question for the committee is whether or not to adopt or approve the ordinance related to the uh acceptance of a private road uh by only requiring a uh petition signed by no less than two-thirds of its owners.

All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions none?

The ayes have it.

Item passed unanimously.

And thank you, attorney Toma, for your attendance.

You're very welcome.

All right.

Moving on to our next item.

Do you mind if we excuse our yes?

Absolutely.

And join the rest of your evening.

If we could, we join it.

All righty.

Moving on to the next item of business is going to be LR32.012.

Uh in approval of a proposed prototype formally.

So yes, I know.

Uh for use of space at Lethon uh wider community center submitted by Maryland Mayor, Caroline Simmons, excuse me.

Uh per the charter approval this item uh must sequentially be completed uh approved by the planning board, the board of finance, and the board of representatives in that order.

I understand the board of representatives has elected not to approve this item there.

Board of Finance.

Board of Finance.

Board of Finance.

We can find that.

I have elected not to approve this item in its recent meeting, and as a result, the item uh may not be heard or considered by this committee.

Uh moving on to next order of business LR32.013.

Uh approval of an agreement with Corvell comprise claims inc for liability claims administration submitted by uh Mayor Caroline Simmons.

And I understand we have one invitee in attendance with this item.

Attorney Elizabeth Turner, uh assistant cooperation counsel to the city of Stanford.

Uhtorney Turner, uh, did you have any initial remarks you wish to make with respect to LR 32.013.

Oh, it actually probably should have asked whether or not Attorney Turner was in attendance.

And it looks like they may not be.

All right, okay.

Uh hi, members of the board.

Uh, this is David Villava.

I'm the city a risk manager, and I'm actually the one that submitted this RFP, so I can speak on on behalf of Liz Turner.

Um the the budgeting for for these professional services are under the risk fund.

So I think I'm I'm I'm the appropriate person to speak on on this contract.

Sure.

Yeah, if you have some some initial comments you'd like to make, the floor is yours.

Sure, thank you very much.

Uh so this is a proposed contract uh for liability claims administration.

Um it's uh professional services that the risk fund has always had.

It's just never come up to uh any board for approval because the contracts have uh have been up to this point under 100,000.

So it didn't meet that threshold for for uh a board approval per the purchasing ordinance.

Um but uh it it the this contract is effective uh January 1st, 2026, and there's a provision that they're not to continue uh services uh once they reach that 100,000 threshold, unless there is private approval to uh uh prior approval to proceed uh based on uh approval from from both boards.

Uh this was unanimously approved by the board of uh finance, and what this is it's basically liability claims administration.

So anytime there is a claim brought against the city for anything from uh, hey, someone hit my mailbox and uh uh it needs to be uh uh replaced or repaired, or there was a pothole that caused damage to my vehicle or uh a triple fall on a sidewalk or or a wrongful termination for any reason where we have legal claims brought against the city.

We we we need a third party administrator uh to sort of manage uh and administer that process hand in hand with our legal department.

Um it's a requirement for our liability insurance, obviously.

Uh, because if we were to do without it, we would have to self-administer, and it's a lengthy process for our insurance carriers to approve that.

So that's what's in front of you now.

Um the fees themselves are on a per claim basis, so that's why we believe uh this time around it's going to be under 100 uh over 100,000, and it's in front of you.

And we estimate because they are taking over from a previous uh uh a third party administrator.

Uh for year one, we estimate the contract to be uh come out of 161,363.

Um for year two it'd be 120,806, and for year three, 124 uh 478, and there are two additional uh one-year options um that can be triggered by either party.

Um and uh those are just about a three percent increase from year three.

Uh so that's what's in front of you.

Just to give you a scope of again.

Um on average, we base this pricing on we have about between 130 and 140 claims annually of different complexity, and uh we uh in doing the math and in terms of their proclaimed fee schedule, those are the numbers that we we we but either gonna come up with uh in terms of expense to the risk fund, which have been budgeted for.

Um, and with that I'll I'll take any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Bilalvo.

Did I pronounce that correctly?

Yes, you got it.

Point of order.

Yes, Vice Chair Camperelli.

Sorry, Chair.

Um Representative Walston would like to be uh moved to be a panelist.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Uh if we could also move representative Adams as well, that would be that would be great.

No, I think that's David Adam.

That's David.

You know, I've moved representative Adams as well.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All righty.

Uh we're gonna have to open a formal motion and then have debate and then we can field it that way.

Um, but at this time, is there any motion uh to approve item LR 32.013?

So move.

Thank you, Representative uh blank and representative Weinstein.

Excuse me, Weinberg.

It's one of those weeks, really.

Uh and uh and with that, does anybody wish to seat the floor with respect to LR 32.013, Representative Bridge Row?

Uh yeah, just a quick question through you to the administration.

Um is so in the past you mentioned that uh this has not been triggered for board review because it hasn't gone over the 100k threshold.

Uh but it looks like you know now we're expecting to go over.

Is there anything in particular that's changed with respect to the city's liability, or is this just a thing that's crept up over time with inflation, or essentially why is this over 100k now?

It it has crept up uh, I think beyond inflation.

The contract that we currently that we had previous to uh uh 1231 that ended 1231 2025 was with an incumbent firm that had been with the city for close to 20 years.

So their prices definitely creeped up.

And when we put this out to RFP, um obviously it it's it's it's based on a variety of factors, not just lowest price, but um the incumbent came in significantly higher.

And um this company Corvell uh also uh won the RFP for workers' comp uh administration.

So there are some synergies there in terms of like uh you know executive management.

We have we have the same team uh on on both on both sides of things.

So it hasn't been just cost creep.

Um the the last contract that we did have uh with with the previous incumbent, we were out of uh uh uh extension clauses.

We were at a little over five years with them.

So it's it's definitely cost creep.

Okay, thank you.

Representative, thank you.

And and thank you, uh David.

You've you've you've answered two of my four questions already.

So thank you.

Um so just quickly in in what way, I mean the contract is is obviously very long.

Uh, in in what ways, if if there are any, uh does the contract uh deviate from the city's standard contract?

Are there any significant deviations?

No, it's uh this the contract itself is pretty standard.

Um all the references to the exhibit, one of them being their replies, uh, was quite lengthy because they we'd ask for information such as like uh financial information, and this is a publicly traded company, so they've literally put in their annual report in there.

So it's just a lot of lengthy reviews that we did our end, but other than that, it doesn't deviate from a standard professional services contract of this nature.

Okay, thank you.

And then my my my other question is um without disclosing any inappropriate personal or proprietary information.

Uh can you uh can you tell us what caused the um the 6.2 million dollars uh in in uh that was incurred uh the incurred loss for commercial auto accident in the November 22 to 23 time period?

And if it's not appropriate to answer the question, just to say so and that's uh uh there was one big auto liability claim that took place in fiscal year 2023, uh and it's one claim that's driving that increase.

Just one uh with the with the police department.

Okay, I had a feeling of asked what it was, but I wanted to wanted to make sure.

Thanks.

Thanks very much, and I yield.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative Lahan, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh, and thank you, David.

And you noted um that this uh um Corvell Enterprise is is already a vendor to the city.

Is there when they submit their uh RFP submission today, um tie their rate to a uh uh a discount, so to speak, because they're already contracting with us, or is there a further opportunity before these prices are locked in to um to push them harder on the fact that they're now going to be the recipient of of two such contracts rather than being handled as two separate engagements?

Uh yes, good question.

Uh they were lowered because we came back to them after uh tentatively awarding them the workers' comp administration contract for a best and final offer.

Um and it it lowered and came it came out to these to these prices that I listed today.

Okay, so this represents their final best price.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

And just this level of legal legal work required to administer these claims.

Can you just describe a little bit?

Is it is it a more of a uh do you have to have a special area of expertise?

Is it a junior level and it's just a matter of of administering to the um the mass of requests, or is there is there more uh advanced level of legal expertise required for the service they're providing?

Yeah, uh it definitely depends on the claim.

So the claim team is made up of six people, uh a manager, a supervisor, and four uh claim adjusters.

And it's the claim adjusters that basically handle the initial intake.

So a claim is received by the city and they will uh facilitate uh the investigation and response uh along with the legal department.

So it really depends, and yes, they certainly have uh different levels of expertise.

So uh something like uh uh a professional liability claim like uh like uh like a wrongful arrest that that might uh impede on some civil liberties are gonna be more complex than then uh than a simple uh you know um uh a pothole repair or something like that.

So the other thing is them handling it end to end from receipt to resolution.

Yes, but but certainly uh our legal department is involved with with the defense strategy and and final um uh if there is settlement, it's it's coming from the legal department.

So they're they work hand in hand together.

They're that they aren't making independent decisions on their own.

Great.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative LePlan.

Is anyone else that wishes to speak on LR32.013?

Seeing no other individuals looking to speak, uh let's go ahead and move forward to the vote.

Like to try this by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving an agreement with Corvell Enterprise Inc.

for liability claims administration, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions.

All right, with that the agreement, uh the approval or the item uh is approved unanimously.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Uh Vivolva, or excuse me.

I'm so sorry, how do you think?

No problem.

Villadva, you got it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your attendance.

Sure, thank you.

All right, moving on to our next item of business, gonna be LR 32.015.

Um, an amendment to the board of representative rules of order to insort insert what would be subsections each in section 10 related to the public comment period.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, representatives Weinberg and Blank.

Um with that, would anyone like to seat the floor?

Representative Leachia, you have the floor.

Just wanted to make sure no one else had anything to say first.

Um perfect.

Um, so I've I've done an extensive amount of legal research on this.

I am not a lawyer.

I'll start with that, but I've read uh two cases that I'd like to bring up.

Um and this uh briefly addressed kind of wording on the particular line.

This is the personal tax line um from the changes.

Um I think uh you will actually bring that up.

Um so I again well I'm not a member of this committee.

Um I did actually want to lead up front with kind of some proposed language that I had, but also then after that, give my reasoning to it.

Um one second.

Yeah, so I'm uh talking about uh section 10 public comment, and this is uh the um as currently this is uh what the current uh motion is for.

Um I'd actually slightly like to change this.

Um and I'll I'll give my reasoning um after so I'd actually like this to say personal tax, comma, insults, comma, or abusive language directed at individuals rather than at ideas or actions that are disruptive to the to the conduct and business of the board shall not be in order.

Um this rule shall not prohibit criticisms of policies, decisions, or official actions.

Um this is this is two parts.

Um, and now I'm gonna kind of talk about the cases here um where these were brought against uh two cities um uh in different states.

One was the city of Norwalk in California, and one was in New Jersey.

Um and the courts ruled um both ways.

So um the first case is actually white versus I'm so sorry to cut you off.

Yeah, before we move into the merits, I'd like to see if we can get a motion in the second the amendment as uh representative police had phrased it.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg and Representative Boudreau.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um again, uh just a briefly kind of going over some of the legal framework that courts have ruled that most of us are aware of.

Um legislative meetings are you know considered a limited public forums.

Um that said, courts allow legislative bodies to adopt reasonable rules of decorum in order to maintain order and ensure orderly conduct.

Um, however, it's important um that us as you know as a legislative body, um we only regulate conduct and which might be a disruption, um, and not viewpoint or protected criticisms.

Um so that's kind of why my proposed uh language has two parts.

One where we're we're we're talking about uh you know personal facts and we're saying kind of there, you know, there are their insults, abuse of language, and and that, but we also protect in our in the second passage.

This rule cannot not prohibit criticism, policy decision or fichal act.

And so we we always allow um the public um as if it's a right and the first amendment right to speak um about that.

Um so first uh white versus the city of Norwalk, not to be confused, but our neighbor Norwalk uh is in Norwalk, California.

Um the court ruled that so as I mentioned before that that a council um can limit uh kind of comment to the agenda item.

So this is what the city of Norwalk did.

They said in their meeting, they limited the comment to only agenda items.

Um in this case, speakers refused to uh confine the remarks to those items.

Um the speakers were ruled out of order by the council, um, and inevitably they were removed from the road.

Um a lawsuit was brought against the city.

Um the plaintiffs argued um that their ordinance was uh vague and uh facially overboard.

Um, but the Ninth Circuit um kind of rejected that challenge and they ruled in the favor of the city in this case.

Um the court upheld the ordinance.

I do have the or the city ordinance here.

Um I can read it, but I don't think that that would probably be great use of our time.

Um but the main thing here is that you know what the courts say and what they intended to to buy this ruling is that um you know speeches may be ruled out of order or removed if they refuse to comply with procedural rules, um, meaning that if you disrupt the proceeding, the council has the right to stop you and stop you from speaking, and if it comes to that, you know, remove you from the room or or from the zoom, as we're gonna try to talk on that.

But um, kind of the key principle here is we can we are allowed to regulate disruption, but not the few points of the public.

Um in the other case, um, this is uh Bessler versus the Board of Education.

This is uh uh West Windsor, Plainsborough, New Jersey.

Um so we have uh Philip Esler criticized the board members' actions for handling his daughter's treatment during public comment.

Um his remarks were strong, they were pointed, they were accusatory, um, but he did not yell.

Um he followed the rules as they were they laid out by that town's um ordinance, um didn't exceed time, um, didn't didn't uh refuse to yield the floor, and he was respectful with his comments.

Um and they were they were criticisms.

Um the the providing you know, the officials, so this is the board of education, cut him off and stopped him from speaking.

Um, and said his comments were considered you know tax.

Um the jury in this case found that they did in fact violate his for the First Amendment rights, um, because you know he followed all the rules properly um and kept uh you know proper decorum.

Um so the court kind of the court allowed this kind of jury verdict to stand.

Um and this kind of brings up another another point, and this is why I left in the second um sentence or having second sentence um that partial kind of uncomfortable criticism should always be allowed and protected.

Um, you know, we're we're public officials and people do have the right to criticize us and our policies and our actions.

Um those are kind of two two cases uh that I wanted to to speak towards.

Um happy to read the proposed language again.

Um copy of that.

Yeah, that'll be great.

kind of very verdict the stand um and this kind of brings up another another point and this is why I left in the second um sentence um or added in the second sentence um that parsing kind of uncomfortable criticism should always be allowed and protected um you know we're we're public officials and people do have the right to criticize us and our policies and our actions um but those are kind of two two cases uh that I wanted to to speak towards um happy to read the proposed language again um but we can copy that yeah that'll be great bothered uh I uh this will not be a right yep um and with that um I yield the floor happy to kind of answer any questions if that's allowed but I'll speak more towards it that's it I yield thank you very very very much representative Alicia uh representative walston you have the floor hi I was wondering if the board office has um representative police um information so that we can put it up on screen and see and go along uh representative walson I'm typing that up as we speak so I will have that up momentarily oh thank you you're welcome titles or the best apparently uh is any email representative hughes and then Weinberg thank you chairman I just wanted to ask uh does that amendment still uh allow for or does is the language about um when uh the the speaker uh makes a mention of a representative without saying their name would that amendment still have that language in this representative leecher you can respond to that if you'd like perfect um so you're in terms of uh like a criticism um is that kind of just uh ask a question back yeah so so there was there was basically the the way it was written was you could be out of order as a speaker if you you know say something about a uh elected official uh board representative and uh you you know say something negative without actually uh mentioning the representative's name would that language still remain with this amendment so so here's kind of where you get in the area depends what the criticism about so if you're saying you know it's a criticism about a policy um a policy that I hope I hope maybe right I'll use myself as an example or a decision I took or some type of official action I made on the record um they would certainly allow be allowed to speak towards that but very obviously you can't I won't use the insults or abusive language here but I they can't come in and you know say like you know go something yourself or something like that um in the public comment section um but they can absolutely be harsh um and criticize uh pretty much um anything in my official capacity um as it is a right hope that does that answer your question uh sorta I think if we get the amendment on the screen I'll be uh more understanding of this thank you should be able to see it now representative hughes but let me know if it's not coming through okay yep I can see it now all right so for the clarity of everybody in attendance uh the language on the left in green is what was originally proposed the amendment that's currently before the committee the language that's presented on the right and representative hughes you still have the floor uh thank you Chair McEwen um I get I guess I would ask uh rep leacher if you could just define uh personal attacks um I mean so I guess the definition is kind of right after there so insults are abusive language directed at individuals um okay thank you I yield thank you representative hughes representative weinberg you have the floor uh yeah through you to uh to representative pollucia I might um would um would this also um would this also cover um permit when once when it's when your amendment says um um it shall not prohibit criticism of policies decisions or official actions uh would it also include in therefore not prohibit criticism of um of um things that um someone has written either in a newspaper or social media or you know so forth i would i would hope that it would um so that um you know so that you so that members of the public will be free to criticize uh policies decisions actions or uh you know or opinions that are expressed in writing but I hope that that would be would be permissible um as as well as you know votes people have taken votes

I would hope that it would so that you know, so that you so that members of the public will be free to criticize uh policies, decisions, actions, or uh you know, or opinions that are expressed in writing.

But hope that that would be would be permissible.

Um as well as you know, votes people have taken votes any someone has taken or anything someone has said um has said orally and so forth.

So would it um I would think so, yes.

Um I um the way it's written, I have to defer for a legal opinion on that, but uh um the way that I've found and read search that yes, if you if anything are you is that specifically targeted um to us or any kind of writing, any public opinion.

Um I mean you're mainly saying the board itself.

Well, the way this is now written is uh is that it's personal tax against anyone, not just members of the board, correct?

Ah, um yeah, correct.

Yeah, any okay.

Um which I think is a good I I think that I think that's a good idea.

Um and what I hear you saying is that at least in your opinion, obviously this would be the dispute decision of the president or whoever is chairing the the board meeting at the time, uh but at least in your view uh criticisms of um of things that that someone has written would be fair game.

I would agree with that, okay.

I good.

I think I think I think it should be.

Um any of the you know other ordinances that you um did you reviewed and thank you for doing this research.

Um it's that's really terrific.

Um did you see any more uh detailed definitions of the phrase personal attacks?

Yeah, but um so through through Sherry McHugh and the to uh representative Weinbert.

Um so I did not did not see the use of personal attacks.

Um I'm happy to read one of like one of the two ordinances um that I brought.

One one was because it's board of education, they have their own rules, and the other was uh one of the city council did have like an actual ordinance.

Well if they don't find personal attacks, they don't don't they don't define personal attacks, it's uh mostly threatening abusive language, loud, um anything that's a disruption um is generally what where we can you know we no longer have decorum and that's where we're allowed to uh the president on the stop speaker.

Okay, and then I just want to one more question, which gets to um I think that the the issue that representative hews was was raising in the you know in the earlier version or the unamended amendment um it that's in green on the left hand side of the screen, it includes the phrase whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments by name or otherwise.

Um would you be amenable to adding that phrase to your amendment?

I can interject here also to make easier.

Representer Palicia, uh though happy to have him here doesn't have a vote.

No, you can feel free to make the amendment.

Okay, okay.

May I ask him this point of yes?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um greater commander who's on a committee.

Um would you be amenable to that addition?

Yeah, I think so.

You know, I and in my first, oops, I can take the floor.

My personal opinion, I I would I'd rather someone if they something to say about me, say it straight out in the public comment.

Um I'm sure anyone, everyone here would as well.

So you know, no one's wondering what they're talking about, but yeah, I think that's fair.

Okay.

Um, when the time's appropriate, I'd like to make that you can feel free to make amendment.

Uh so I I'd like uh I'd like to uh propose make motion to amend um what's on the right hand side uh so that after the phrase personal tax insults or abuse of language directed at individuals, um, and then to add uh whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments by name or otherwise and then it proceeds from there.

Uh is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Vangel.

Question before the committee uh is an amendment to amendment uh inserting the words whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments by name or otherwise after the word individuals and before the word rather.

Yes.

Um sorry, and I don't know if this is correct or not.

We have not yet taken we have taken up the original amendment to the amendment.

Yes.

We voted on it, yes.

Do we need not vote on that first before we move to this?

And I appreciate the the change.

Yeah, but don't we need to vote on the first part of the first thing?

Thank you for that point of order.

This is the highest degree of amendments we can tolerate before we cannot have any further amendments.

So we can amend an amendment, but we cannot have third degree amendments of amendments, and technically the first item before the committee, LR 32.015 is yes, it's an amendment to the board rules of order, but it's not an amendment in and of itself to an item.

So we can do an amendment and an amendment to that amendment, but we can't go beyond that.

So yes, we can we can do this.

Point of order.

Yes, Vice Chair Camparelli.

We're only making one amendment because Representative Pelici is not making this amendment.

Representative Weinberg is making the entire one amendment.

Isn't that correct?

That is not correct.

Representative Felicia's suggested language was moved by Representative Weinberg and seconded by Representative Blue Raffles.

Oh, okay.

I yield the floor.

You're you're correct.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Uh so I know that there were some hands raised prior to this amendment.

I'm gonna recognize those folks first to see if they wish to speak on this current amendment.

But if your comments are related uh outside of the amendment that Representative Weinberg just proposed, please hold your comments until we get back to the larger amendment.

Um so first I recognize uh representative Walston.

Do you have any comments with respect to Representative Weinberg's limited language?

Um I think uh Representative Camporelli had her hand up, and I don't want to jump ahead of her because she is on the committee.

No, I I don't have my hand up.

Um I don't agree with this language, but one question.

Has anyone gotten the opinion from attorney Mooney when he uh gave his verdict regarding the Board of Education about this about the same thing that we're talking about tonight?

That that was one of the questions.

Uh Representative Walson, that is kind of not related specifically to Representative Weinberg's insight.

Oh yes, okay.

But I can circle back to you when we get back to the main motion if you'd like to.

Yes, and I think I'm just trying to look here now.

It's kind of small on my screen.

Um I don't agree with the whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments.

I don't agree with that because it can be more than one or two people who have said the same thing, and you don't know who you're um targeting.

So I'm not in agree agreement with that.

That's a great area for me.

And that's it.

Thank you, Representative Wolston.

Representative Camparelli, you see me.

Vice Chair Camperelli, you said you you were not seeking the floor not at this time, no.

Thank you.

Representative Boudreau, you have a hand on the main amendment and the main motion on this amendment.

Thank you.

I'll circle back.

Representative Hughes, did you wish to speak to this amendment?

Yes, yeah, thank you.

I just want to say uh, you know, I'm gonna vote against this amendment.

Um, I think the whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments is too broad and has some free speech implications.

Uh thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Seeing no other representative seeking the floor with respect to this amendment, uh, I think we'll have to do this by roll call.

Uh so the question before actually, yes, Representative Weinberg.

So this is this is a sensitive issue for me.

So I was um in uh on the 31st board, and and perhaps explains why why I'm proposing this on a 31st board, um a speaker during the public participation session.

On a 31st board, um a speaker during the public participation session.

Um member of the board of representatives of being anti-Christian.

Um I believe that uh that everybody, at least on the board, knew that he was referring to me.

Um the I raised a point of order that this was personal attack.

Um point of order, please.

Representative Walson, you have the floor, please state your point of order.

I need to know how this is germane to what we're talking about.

He's going back to the 31st uh board when he was the chronic offender.

So I think we need to stick to this with the words.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Colston.

You don't explain what the relevant why I think it's relevant.

Uh not at this time.

So I'm gonna consider that point of order not proper uh because representative Weinbridge is speaking to the merits of the amendment.

Um I'm appealing that.

I I appeal it.

Uh okay.

And then we can I do I need to tell you why I appeal it or not.

We just take a vote.

Depends on whether or not the underlying issue is debate is debatable, and it is not, I believe.

Um so no, Representative Walson, you are not recognized to explain your appeal.

Um, however, I believe or correctly appeal must be seconded.

It's it's it's one-sided.

This is one-sided, that's why I'm appealing it.

Representative Walson, Representative Walson.

I said that unfortunately there is not an opportunity to explain the appeal, but your appeal is heard.

We need some accuracy here if we're gonna tell a story.

Yes, an appeal must receive a second.

Is there a second to sustain or to support representative Walson's appeal?

I second it.

I'm sorry, who was that speaking?

Lori Hyatt.

Thank you, Representative Hyatt.

Uh, so the decision before the committee is whether or not to sustain the chair's ruling that representative Weinberg's comments was germane.

Uh so in this circumstance.

All right, so in this circumstance, we vote in favor of either so we vote to sustain the chair's decision in the affirmative, or if we wish to overrule or overturn the chair's decision, we'll vote in the negative.

That's unclear, please raise your hand and say so.

And simple majority.

That is simple majority.

Yes.

All righty.

See nobody I'm sorry, could can you say it again?

Yes, of course.

So right now the question before the committee is whether or not to sustain the ruling of the chair that the comments were germane.

A vote in favor will sustain the decision of the chair, meaning uphold it.

A vote against will overturn the decision of the chair and result in the comments being considered not germane.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

I'm confused.

Um, my hand is up.

Yes, Representative Hyatt.

Um I'm not understanding.

Oh, is it yay and nay for can you repeat that please?

Yes.

So if you are in favor of sustaining the chair's decision that the comments were germane, they were appropriate, you would vote yes.

If you want to override or overrule the chair's decision, thus resulting in Representative Weinberg's comments not being germane, you would vote no.

Okay, thank you.

I yield yep, thanks, Representative Hyde.

Alrighty.

Uh, with that, I think we will unfortunately have to call that my roll call, I suspect.

Uh so Vice Chair Camp Rally, how do you vote?

Yes, Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudrell.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative Le Pine.

Yes.

Representative.

Yes.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

I'll abstain.

And I myself am voting in favor.

That makes it seven votes in favor.

One note against and one abstention.

So the motion passes, excuse me, the item passes, and the decision of the chair is sustained that the comments were germane.

With that, the point of order and the appeal are disposed of.

And Representative Weinberg resumes the floor.

So I'll try to be, I'll try to be brief.

During a public participation session, a speaker accused a representative of being anti-Christian.

I dare say, without actually taking a poll, that everyone knew he was re that the accusation was leveled at me.

Ruled that since the speaker had not mentioned anyone by name.

Point of order.

Yes, Representative Walson.

I don't know how to say this, but is Representative Weinberg.

I'm just going to say it in layman's turn.

Is he trying to think for the majority leader from the 31st board?

I'm sorry, from the president from the 31st board.

Because he said, I believe, but did she pointedly?

So that's my point of order.

He can't think for her, and she's not here to speak up on it.

So I'm I'm calling a point of order because he believes.

I can believe a lot of stuff, but it is it won't be true, but that's my point of order.

Representative Wolston, points of order are specifically designed to identify alleged breaches of our rules of order.

I think I did.

The comments you made don't, as far as I can identify, point to any violation of a specific rule.

Representative a point of clarification, then I'm sorry.

I'll use a point of clarification because I'm hearing him.

I was on the 31st board, and I'm not here to argue or anything because Carl and I, we've had our history and he's had his history with a lot of people.

But if he's going to talk, I I want Carl to speak for himself and don't try to think for anybody, and he knows what he did.

I just want him to take accountability for his own action and not throw anybody and not the victim right now.

Representative Wolston, that definitely does not sound to me like a point of information.

Uh Representative Weinberg made the comments that he made.

Um, and I'm not unsure, I'm not sure I understand the information that you're seeking to confirm.

Can you phrase it in a concise and short question that you are posing to Representative Weinberg?

Well, I um what I'm saying is Carl has I don't know.

I'm I'm attacking if I say he has allegedly rather than making statements, please just phrase your point of information in the form of a question, a limited short and brief question of information to Representative Weinberg.

My question to Representative Weinberg, why are you bringing this now on the 32nd board when you were the chronic offender when you should have brought it to the 31st board?

But why now?

And and I think you're not taking accountability.

That's that's what I that's the best way I can say without attacking, without sounding nasty or any of that before you shut me down again.

That's it.

Thank you, Representative Walson.

I don't believe that's a proper point of order, excuse me, a point of information.

Um, I think that is more appropriate.

Once you seek the floor, you can feel free to make the comments that you wish to make.

Uh, you're free to opine on the comments and remarks that Representative Weinberg made.

Uh, but I don't believe that's an appropriate point of information.

Okay, I received what you said.

I would like to opine once he's done.

Thank you.

Did you?

You may you have the floor again, Representative Weinberg.

Thank you.

Um, to be clear, when I raised my point of order during that public participation session, the president ruled that uh the speaker was not out was not making a personal attack because the president's prior phrase the president's words because the speaker had not stated um the individual by name that he had not stated the individual's name.

Oh that to me is um is a loophole that allows for personal attacks.

Um and my reason for proposing this amendment um is uh this narrow amendment is to close what I consider to be a loophole and on you.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Uh Vice Chair Camparelli.

Are you seeking the floor for this amendment?

Yes.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I just I want to say a couple of things.

One, I'm going to be voting yes for this amendment, but no to the main motion.

Um I'm gonna vote yes for the amendment because it at least gives some of the speech back, I feel to the public.

Um, but no to the main motion because I don't believe in in restricting the public.

I want to comment on the story that uh representative Weinberg just said, and I want to try to be as sensitive as possible to both the members of the public and representative Weinberg.

Um the way that I remember this is there were two incidences, and they they had to do with uh person's religion.

Um there was a person that gave an invocation that that kept referring to Christ and brothers in Christ and things like that.

And I remember Representative Weinberg giving a speech on the floor that he was extremely offended, that he was not a brothers and brother in Christ, that he uh was Jewish, etc.

etc.

And then there was someone after that that came to speak that did not mention Representative Weinberg, and we did all know that he was referring to Representative Weinberg.

But to me, that was a public official uh admonishing someone for comments that they made about their own religion in an invocation, which is completely permissible.

Um, and then that person attacking that action, which I feel is fair.

Um I I want to say that in the two years I I'm not on this board for a very long time, but in the two years that I've been on this board, I really have not seen members of the public attack us personally.

I have seen board members attack each other on next door in the newspaper, all kinds of places.

I've seen us attack each other, but I really have not seen members of the public come up and use their three minutes of speech, three minutes, folks.

That's what we're talking about here to attack us personally.

Um, and so I will be voting yes for this amendment, but I will be voting no for the main motion because I do not believe that we need to, and and I also think that this is gonna create a lot of problems on the floor.

Uh, people getting into, you know, what's a personal attack and what's not a personal attack.

I think we're putting the president of the board in a very bad situation.

Um, so it's another reason that I'll be voting no for the main the main motion.

And that is it.

I yield and I I thank you all for listening.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Representative LePine, you have the floor.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Um, first of all, as it relates to this specific amendment of the amendment.

Uh uh, just in sequence of my thinking, I was originally opposed to the initial amendment uh that was on the floor on the agenda tonight.

Um, with Representative Policia's proposed original language of his amendment.

I would support that.

Uh, with this additional amendment brought forth uh about whether or not the speaker identifies target of such comments or not.

Uh I do not support this.

And if it carries, I will not support uh then the uh the overriding amendment.

Um I watched the last board conduct themselves as a member of the public uh before I ran for this seat.

It's one of the reasons I ran because I thought our city could do better, and I think everybody who sat on that board has to own some responsibility for their behavior.

Um I think these conversations and trying to fight the last board's battles through written legislation versus integrity of conduct and recognizing our position as public officials is misguided.

I'd prefer we do away with the entire thing and continue to conduct our business the way we should.

And my question for you, vice chair, maybe with your parliamentarian hat on, is as I heard Representative Policia discuss those other cases, uh, which are largely focused on preserving the board's ability to do business without being interrupted or disrupted.

My question to you is do we not have many protections within the current rules of the board that uh that protect us against disruptive conduct that prevents us from doing business.

Uh Representative LePine, did you did you want to yield the floor?

I'm I'm asking, I'm asking uh you, Representative McCount, if if you could just opine on whether or not our current board rules have protections against disruptive conduct.

I would say, as a general matter, our rules and Roberts rules have some do have protections, broad plenary powers and you know, presiding officer, um, to rule people out of order um for a variety of reasons, including when they are disruptive.

Uh, that being said, whether or not the rules as written are adequate to achieve that goal and whether or not this amendment improves or hinders that I'm not speaking to all.

Understood.

Understood.

But there are protections in there.

And so I think we have the ability to govern with those protection protections adequately.

I find this all unnecessary.

I especially find it unnecessary to add this last amendment, and I will strongly oppose it.

And again, if it carries, I'll be in total opposition to uh to this action, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Uh Ms.

Montalvo, if you could please promote President Shaw to be a panelist.

I will do that right now.

Thank you so much.

Uh Representative Wolston, you have the floor.

Um I just want to say I love what Ryan, I'm sorry, what Noah, what Representative LePine Um said, and I totally agree with him.

My thing with the personal comments, it wasn't broken, it doesn't need to be fixed.

And I'm going to stand with Representative Le Pine because we don't need this.

We already have uh, I think we've been doing pretty pretty good for the last few months on our board.

And we don't, this right here is just taking up our time.

We don't need this, we don't need to add anything, and we don't need to take away anything.

So I stand again firmly with um representative Le Pine and one more thing.

Could Representative Politia?

I just I'm just trying to get what he was saying about the I need some clarification about the Norwalk case again.

If if if I can get that, please.

And I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Wolston.

At the time, the question before the committee is limited to Representative Weinberg's current amendment in bold.

So comments with respect to that Norwalk case don't appear to me to be germane, but I can say certainly circle back to you if you wish to seek the floor and ask that question when we fall back to the to the main amendment that uh representative uh leave uh was it Boudreau?

Did you know you seconded?

Who made the motion with respect to Representative Peach's proposal?

You'd also made that Representative Weinberg.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Uh okay.

Seeing no other members seeking the floor with respect to Representative Weinberg's motion to amend.

Let's move forward to a roll call vote.

So for clarity.

The question before the committee is whether or not we insert the words, whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments after the word individuals.

Thank you.

By name or otherwise, after the word individual and before the word rather as displayed on the screen in bull.

Thank you.

Perfect.

And we're gonna hold this by roll call vote.

Representative, excuse me, Vice Chair Caparelli.

No.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

Passy said.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative Le Pine.

No.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Blank.

Abstain.

And I vote in favor.

That's going to be four votes in favor, four votes against, one abstention.

The motion does not pass.

Alrighty.

The motion before the committee now is the motion proposed by Representative Weinberg.

Uh originally, which was an amendment to item LR32.

Thank you.

Umposing the language displayed on the right side of the screen.

Is anybody that wishes to seek the floor with respect to this amendment?

Representative Wolston, you have the floor.

Is this the time that I can inquire about the Norwalk?

Yes.

Okay.

I need clarity, please, Representative Politia.

Can you just kind of clarify what what you're seeking clarity about?

Is there a particular question about the case?

I just need clarity about the verbiage, and you know, I want him to explain it another way to me.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Wilson.

Sure.

Yep.

I guess uh answering through uh Chair McEwan.

Um so the case is White versus the City of Norwalk.

Um that is the Ninth Circuit Court.

Um, it's from 1990.

Um be able to pull that up to um online.

Um I can what I'm gonna do is I'll go over some of the facts of it.

Um as you'll see if you look it up.

The uh the court was what the court ruled is that council um well, sorry, the facts of the case is that the council limited the public comment to agenda items.

Um speakers refused to confine the remarks to those items, um, and then they continued speaking, and they were ruled out of order by the council.

Um after that, the presiding officer um had the speakers removed to to for failure to comply with the meeting rules.

Um inevitably the plaintiff, who were the people that were removed, filed um a lawsuit.

Uh the plaintiffs argued uh that the ordinance, um which I didn't read, but I'm happy to read it, um, is uh facially overboard and vague under First Amendment.

Um the ninth court rejected that challenge, and and the court upheld that the ordinance um was applied and interpreted correctly, um, and it was applied to preserve order.

Um happy to kind of go on further.

Does that answer your question?

I can kind of talk more towards the case more.

You know, you're getting more in the kind of case law where you really do have to pull it up because it is very long.

Um but uh does that answer?

I need a little bit more, please.

Sure.

Um so the next uh piece here is that the per uh the courts rule basically in this case that the presiding officer may enforce reasonable viewpoint neutral rules to maintain order and decorum.

Um speakers may be ruled out of order, removed um from the room when they refuse to comply with procedural rules that materially disrupt proceedings.

Um that said, the government may not suppress speech merely because it is critical or offensive.

Um and then as I mentioned, kind of the court upheld upheld the city's um authority to enforce its rules um where enforcement is tied to um disruption rather than viewpoints.

Okay, thank you.

Got it.

Representative Wilson, did you yield the floor?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

Yeah.

Um, so I I like this change in the language uh that Representative Politia has um proposed.

I think it's an improvement over the language that we were considering last month.

Uh I believe I remarked to several representatives or of this committee when we were considering it previously.

Uh, my concern that as the previous language had been written, uh personal attacks was just very broad, um, and it was too broad.

And so my uh request had been to kind of narrow that down and refine it into a definition of what a personal attack is that would um that would be more limited.

And so this helps with that.

Uh, but part of uh, well, I guess the next comment is to the main motion, so I'll uh hold off and I'll say this is an improvement because it helps clarify uh what an impersonal attack is.

Uh although as uh well I'll use it for the okay.

Thank you, Representative Goodreau.

Representative LePine, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd like to uh move the previous question if I can and and bring this amended language to replace the originally proposed language that Representative Politia proposed, and that Representative Weinberg has um put forth now.

I'd like to move it to a vote.

Thank you, Representative LePine.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Is he yes?

That's fine.

Yeah.

Representative Haya, did you have any point of order specifically?

Are we sinking the floor?

Oh, we're seeking the floor.

Got it.

Unfortunately, I have to dispose of this motion of uh motion to call the previous question before that.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Uh, this motion is not debatable.

Uh we are going to hold this by roll call vote.

It must pass by two-thirds.

And Vice Chairman County, just point of order.

This is this is there will still be a discussion then on the final uh passage of this.

This is just to replace the language with this amended language, correct?

That is correct.

The motion before the committee right now is the amendment to item LR32.015.

We call that question.

We would call the current motion to a vote.

Thank you.

Point of order.

I think there's a confusion.

Point of order.

I'm very confused.

One second, representative or vice chair camparelli.

There we're we have a point of order on the floor now.

Um I I thought that I had uh moved uh the language moved and received a second on the language that's on the right hand side of the uh of the screen.

Um it it sounds like if I'm understanding representative Le Pine correctly, it sounds like that's what he's trying to do also, or am I not understanding?

Representative Le Pine by moving the question is attempting to close debate on your amendment and bring it to a vote.

Right.

And it and to I understand correctly that if the um if the committee votes to move the question, then we have no more debate.

We take a vote on the language that's on the right-hand side, and then we're done.

Your motion is strictly an amendment, not an approval.

So what your with the vote on that issue would be an amendment to the main motion.

And then we'd fall to the main motion.

Yes.

Okay.

Um clarification, just I think that question raised by Representative Weinberg is creating the confusion, and that's exactly my intent.

I just want to be clear.

I'm not looking to close the debate.

I'm looking to move from whether we're debating the left side of the screen or the right side of the screen to adopt the language as proposed on the right to close that, and then that becomes the center of the discussion.

And I'm not looking to shut anybody down from then having that discussion.

I understand.

Though for future reference, please limit uses of points of information to be questions rather than adding remarks.

My apologies.

Not a problem, Representative Line.

Vice Chair Camparelli, you also had a point of order.

No, no, it's all worked out now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Let's go ahead and move over to our roll call vote.

The question before the committee is a motion to move the previous question.

A vote in favor will close debate on Representative Weinberg's amendment, which is the language on the left on the right, uh, and a vote against will keep debate open uh on this proposed amendment.

It is not a vote to approve the amendment, it is simply a vote to bring forth the vote without allowing any further comments.

Hopefully that is clear.

Representative uh TV Vice Chair Camparelli, how do you vote?

I vote no representative blank, yes, representative Boudreau, no representative Hughes, uh Representative Hughes.

Sorry, yes, thank you.

Uh Representative Hyatt, no Representative Le Pine, yes, Representative Stone, yes, Representative Weinberg, no, and I vote.

Um so I heard no abstentions.

Um there are four votes in favor, five votes against the motion to move the previous question fails.

Is there anybody that wishes to speak to wishes to have the floor to speak to the amended the amendment on the right hand side?

Representative Hyatt, I know you had raised your hand previously.

Did you still wish to seat the floor?

It wasn't in regards to what you just stated, it was the last comment that we were talking about.

But it's uh was that about the the language on the right?

Did you have any comments about the language on the right-hand side?

Yes, I did.

Though those are proper at this time, that's what we're considering now.

Okay, I I just was trying to make a point that that's why we voted for the president, which is Romney, right?

So if she she should have the right to, she knows when something's not right, or she knows when someone's being abusive or the wrong language is being used.

Why aren't we giving her a chance to do her job?

Why are we changing the rules?

She's quite capable of doing that.

Is that not how it works?

Oh, am I missing something?

Uh Representative Hyde, you know.

If you have a procedural question, I'm happy to feel that, but if it's you know just your remarks that you're making about why are we going to why are we not giving rep uh president um Shaw the right to make the calls when she when if something is not appropriate understood?

Uh to answer your question, I just want to, I guess, a procedural point.

The language on the right or the left for that matter, um, are is language that President Shaw or any presiding chair would have to interpret and apply on any given situation.

So it doesn't necessarily remove power.

Um, but that's all I'll speak to on that limited question.

My point, that's why uh it should flow as it is.

Why we reinventing the wheel, if that's what she's there to do.

That's all.

And I thank you, Representative Hyde, Representative Walson.

You have the floor.

Um, yeah, kind of beaten up right about now.

Um, again, I wish that someone had uh attorney Mooney's um opinion.

I was listening to one of the Board of Education meetings when Jackie Heffman, she said it best.

Uh she was paraphrasing what attorney Mooney's opinion.

When she said, if they're giving you a compliment, it's okay.

But if they speak against you, then you're going to look at it as a personal attack.

But my thing is I'm going to say, like I said earlier, we should not even be having this discussion.

Nothing should have been changed.

It wasn't broken.

Since when this is this is still a great area.

This is this is this is not complete.

Directed at individuals rather than at ideas or actions that are disruptive.

All of that part is good, but take out the individuals because, like Representative Camparelli said, they don't come.

Uh uh, our constituents and residents, they don't come uh pointedly attacking anybody since I've been there at the meeting.

They haven't said, Oh, rep Walton, you did this, this we haven't had any of that.

And I think that our represent our constituents and residents, they have been very, very respectful.

And as far as the border rats, you know, I think a lot of them who are sitting now, they're cowards.

I don't know if I'm calling a name, but I'm just saying, but you know, we there are pseudos that are out there on Reddit.

I've been talked about, I and you know, it just goes off, you know, goes off my shoulder.

There have been articles written about me.

I've been called names, but you know, I've learned to get tough skin.

This this comes with the political arena.

They talk about Trump, they call him all kinds of names.

But you know, let's I just wish we'd do away with this whole thing.

That we should not be discussing this because it's not broken.

I yield, thank you.

Thank you, Representative Wolston.

Seeing no other member, Representative Weinberg.

Yeah, is President Shaw still on the call on the line.

I believe so.

Yes.

Through you, may I ask for a question?

That's my question.

Let's hear it.

Yeah, well, it's not a personal question.

Um through the through the chair to to uh President Shaw.

Uh, does the the the proposed language on the right, does that um inhibit you in terms of your uh leadership and and management of of the meeting in any way?

I'm trying to get to kind of the concern that the representative Hyatt was raising.

President Shaw, feel free to respond if you'd like to.

Thank you.

Uh Chad McCuin.

Um I don't think either this version or the version before um quite frankly does anything uh to me.

Um I just think that um if I had a choice, I would just take them all out and just deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

But I'm going to leave it up to this board to, you know, if they if the majority of the board wants to have a language that that supports something, that's fine with me.

My only concern is that whatever we put here is never going to be enough, right?

Because we put something and then somebody's going to interpret something else in some other way.

And then we, and then what do we do?

Okay, then it's like, oh, well, I didn't really mean this, I meant this, right?

So I don't know where it would stop.

So with all of this, that is my only concern.

Um, representative Weinberg.

Um, and so I think at some point I need to, you know, should I have to have a judgment of where it goes south, and I need to like stop it wherever it is.

Um, it may be difficult, it may not be difficult, but um, I'm sure going to you know make my best effort to protect my board members.

I'm not gonna let anyone speak ill off the board members.

Um, and you know, we we respect the you know, I don't I don't necessarily think it's just between us and the public.

There's no such thing, right?

It's between all of us too.

We respect the public, we respect each other, and we in return, I think that expect the same from the public or other board members to treat us the same way.

Um, so to me, I I think that you know, uh is it a difficult situation for me in any case, whether this language is or not, yes, it is, but you know, I have to just deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

So I don't know if that answered your question, but that's what I meant.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Did you have your main motion of representative Hughes?

You've got the floor.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, I just wanted to say that I'll be voting against uh this item.

Um that though I I appreciate the folks who have done work on this and understand their intentions.

I just think uh it is kind of a slippery slope.

Um, and also I think also we should consider how much time this would take up at the next board meeting.

Um, and I think there are a lot more important and pertinent issues that affect uh you know Stanford residents every day that we should really be laser focused on.

Um, and as this is currently written, I think it's just not uh necessary, and I think there are clear uh free speech issues uh with the way this is currently written.

And I think there are clear uh free speech issues uh with the way this is currently written.

So I encourage folks to vote uh in opposition to this.

Uh thank you, uh Chairman Kewen, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative.

See no other members seeking the floor.

Let's hold a roll call vote with respect to the amendment, uh, which is the language on the right.

Uh, it is not an approval of the item, it is just a uh vote on the motion to amend.

Sorry.

Uh Mike Chair Camparelli.

I'm gonna vote yes on the amendment.

Thank you.

Representative.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau, yes.

Representative Hughes, no representative Hyatt.

No.

Representative Le Pine.

Yes on the amendment.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

I vote in favor.

Uh the motion passes with seven in the affirmative, two against, and zero abstentions.

The motion before the committee now is approval of item LR 32.015 as amended by the language on the right.

Does anybody wish to seat the floor?

Yeah, so I supported this um amendment to change the language uh as it limited the scope.

Uh, but like I believe uh representative camparelli said I still don't really support the main motion.

Uh I don't think that going beyond the existing rules that say that the president may keep order, uh, which would prevent disruptive comments.

Uh we've limited this in the new language to just be disruptive comments, but that just makes it totally redundant with the with the existing rules in my view.

Um now I still think that's an improvement because I thought the the previous rule had uh issues of being overly broad.

Um, but I I really don't see the need for uh this rule change at all.

Um, with apologies to the representatives who had issues with previous experiences.

I think that uh any disruptive comments are already prohibited, and any non-disruptive attacks uh should be permitted.

Somebody wants to attack me in a non-disruptive way, then maybe so you do it.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Representative Police.

Oh, I'll uh let the uh committee representatives go first.

Uh Representative Le Pine, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um now that we have what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils in front of us to vote on, and I appreciate the work of Representative Politia to at least make this a little more uh digestible.

I really appreciate the comments of our board president.

Uh I think she answered the concern, and that's going to come down to any president.

And I think trying to foolproof that with some written words that are going to try to block the next unforeseen president of the board that may judge things differently than the way we see it is a fool's errand.

So I am uh going to oppose this uh revised amendment now before us, and hopefully we as Representative Hughes so rightly said, move on to the real work of the board that we're voted into the office that we hold to work on.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Vice Chair Caparelli, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to thank uh Representative Police for making the amendment.

Um I will be voting no against the main motion.

Um I I really appreciate the comments uh by Representative Hughes and LePine and all of you really um for standing up for a for speech.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Caparelli.

Is there anyone else that wishes to Representative Police?

I'll speak for uh I'd like to state that um I'm not trying to oppose anyone's uh first amendment right or speech.

Um that's why the second sentence here is in place.

Um I also have an alternative uh proposed language, unless it if case people want to be here until midnight, but somebody work is in committee, right?

Um that's why we're here.

I'm I'm happy to propose it.

Um, but I won't if no one wants to discuss that's like a that's like a hook right there, right?

I mean procedurally, I'd suggest that you probably if you have the floor and you want to say um so I do have uh and I because I again I like to keep the committee work here.

uh proposed language unless it if in case people want to be here until midnight but committee work is in committee right um that's why we're here i'm i'm happy to propose it um but i won't if no one wants to discuss that's like a that's like a hook right there right uh i mean procedurally i'd suggest that uh so that you probably so uh if you have the floor and you want to say sure um so i do have uh because i again i like to keep the committee work here um i know this you know if this passes tonight as as it is on um uh the current the original amendment there might be more you know debate on the floor um and as everyone said that's probably not the best use of our time um so i uh my i have another proposal um which is comments that materially disrupt or impede the orderly conduct of business of the board shall not be in order period this rule shall now not prohibit sorry this rule shall not prohibit criticism of policies decisions political positions or official actions period um that strikes pretty much everything personal attacks and all that but it personal attacks can be comments um so again I'll read that again comments that materially materially disrupt or impede the orderly conduct or business of the board shall not be in order this rule shall not prohibit criticism of policies decisions political uh sorry it should be the same uh so the this rule shall not prohibit criticism of policies decisions or official actions that's a missed uh miset that um this kind of focuses more on conduct not content um and then it raises the threshold a little bit using the materially disrupt um it avoids subject tone um policing which you know such as personal attacks um it also kind of allows preserves the right to criticize um policies and officials um uh it in my opinion uh from the constitutional law classes I took in college I believe it oh holds every piece of our first amendment principles um but that's it I'll give the floor happy to read again thank you representative police seeing no other members seeking the floor let's call this for a vote the question before the committee is approval of item LR 32.015 as amended which is reflected by the language on the right hand side of the screen um are you going with uh representative police words that he just had uh spoken no representative walston the motion for adoption by the committee is the representative is uh the language on the right hand side okay so what representative police just said that's coming up unless somebody makes a motion no but at this time I wouldn't consider emotions to amend this language appropriate at this time because the language has already been amended and decided unless there was not an opportunity to do so because we have maxed out on the number of amendments but that is not the case here because prior to the last motion which was a motion to amend LR 32.0105 members of the committee had the ability to make further amendments and we chose not to do so the reason why well allow me to finish the reason why that rule is in place in Robert's rules is to prevent us from going back and forth with respect to amending and unamending that language uh so it's in that place so it's in place for that reason.

Okay so what representative police just said it doesn't count it doesn't matter not under consideration whatsoever.

It is not under consideration at this time and it will not be under consideration.

Not in this committee meeting okay thank you representative with the vote uh representing vice chair camparelli you have the floor excuse me what is your vote no thank you representative blank no representative boudreau no representative hughes no representative high I didn't hear the question can you repeat that please before I give my answer yes the question before the committee is approval of item LR 32.015 as amended which is reflected by the language on the right so a vote in favor would be an amendment to the board rules of order no thank you representative no representative stone no representative weinberg yes I vote in favor with no abstentions uh there are two votes in the affirmative seven in the negative the vote fails to pass all right yes having concluded the order of business for the agenda this meeting uh I entertain a motion to adjourn to adjourn thank you all in favor aye I need abstentions the ayes have it and we are adjourned uh this meeting of the legislative rules committee is adjourned as of 845 p.m on february twenty fourth two thousand twenty six thank you all for your attendance good night thank you good night

Yes.

Having concluded the order of business for the agenda of this meeting.

Uh I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it, and we are adjourned.

Uh this meeting of the legislative rules committee is adjourned as of 8 45 p.m.

on February 24th, 2026.

Thank you all for your attendance.

Good night.

Thank you.

Good night.