I think we have a good amount of people.

So I think we'll get started.

Good evening, everybody.

Today is Monday, June 8th, and I call to order the student committee meeting of the Board of Representatives.

The time now is 7:02 PM.

Ms.

Montomo, could you please call the role, please?

Certainly.

Representative Adams.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Bouchard.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Camporelli.

Okay, I'll circle back around to her.

Representative Gardner.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Hughes.

Okay, we'll circle back.

Representative Johnson.

Rick Johnson's traveling, so I doubt he's gonna join.

Yeah.

Okay.

Representative McEwen.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Morrison.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Pollock.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Representative Price.

Thank you.

Representative Sanford.

Present.

Thank you.

I know that President Shaw is here.

Representative Shore.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Sylvestri.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Weinberg.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Weirs.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Zachary.

Present.

Thank you.

I also see that we have a number of ex-officio members, including Representative Walson and Representative Lepine.

I also see uh Representative Hughes.

And I'm just checking to see if Representative Camporelli has joined us.

Okay, I don't see her, but I know she is supposed to be joining, so I will check back for her later.

Thank you.

I see Representative Adams as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, she called a presentative Adams first.

Okay.

Looks like we have a quorum.

Thank you, Ms.

Montobo.

Um the uh so we'll go ahead with the agenda.

The um invocation will be the response for date of the representatives of District 13.

Um we don't have any honorary resolutions, so we can move on to other standing committees, starting with the appointments committee.

Uh which one of these co-chairs will be presenting today.

Uh, I'll handle that.

Uh present.

Okay, go ahead, uh coach.

So the appointments committee will be meeting on Wednesday the 24th at 6 30 p.m.

And that is in the democratic caucus room and by webinar.

Uh we have 10 items.

Uh item number one, uh32.045, the environmental protection board, uh Laura Tessier, and this is a reappointment uh to a term that expires in December 2028.

Uh item number two, uh31.046, also environmental protection board, uh Lee Schemetz.

Uh it's a reappointment to a term that also expires uh December uh 2028.

Uh item number three, a31.047, uh parking violation hearing officer, uh Lori Longo uh Legirs.

Uh it's a reappointment to a term that expires December 2028.

Uh item number four, a thirty-one dot zero four eight, parking violation hearing officers.

Uh Marnie Morantz, uh to a term that expires December 2028.

Item number five, parking violation hearing officers.

Uh Robert Willis, uh to a term that expires December 2028.

Item number six, the fire commission.

Maria Linares, uh a reappointment to a term that expires December 2029.

Uh item number seven, a 31.051.

Uh fire commission, uh Linda Darling uh to a term that expires December 2029.

Uh item number eight, the fire commission, uh Stephen Canna, uh to a term that expires December 2029.

Uh item number nine, a32.053.

Uh John Dolski uh to a term that expires uh December 2029.

Finally, uh item number 10, uh a32.054, uh Fire Commission, uh Michael Hyman to a term that expires uh December 2029.

Uh move these items to uh be set on the consent agenda.

Second, I thought I had lost audio.

Uh that concludes uh the report of the uh appointments committee.

Um president Shaw, you're muted.

Sorry.

Um hold on, hang on, Coach Shore.

Sorry, I've just uh I know there was a motion, a second, and I was asking for discussion.

Oh, my my mistake.

I'm good for one per meeting.

Um I do have a clarification.

So item number nine, I know it's not the heading is not there, but I presume that's for the fire commission also.

Uh yeah, uh, you know, we've been doing them in batches, and um as yeah, my you know, my mistake for making two mistakes per meeting uh for making that assumption, but you know, we we we're we're trying to batch uh uh categories and as that one fell right amidst uh several other uh fire commission appointees.

Um yeah, I'm just wanting to make sure.

And you do we know?

Is that one under fire commission?

I presume it is because it's all like together.

Yes, it is.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Just wanted to make sure we don't make that.

Um, okay.

Any other discussion on these?

I don't see any hands.

Seeing none, we'll take this by voice vote.

All those in favor of adding items one through ten of the appointments committee items to the uh student committee agenda, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, those items are added to the agenda.

Thank you, Coach Shore.

That concludes.

Moving on to fiscal committee.

Um, which one of the co-chairs would be presenting?

This will be my month, Madam President.

Go for it, Co Chair Morsen.

Thank you very much.

Uh fiscal committee uh will take up the following three items.

Item one, F32.089 for 324,646 dollars, an additional appropriation grants, Stanford Police Department funds from SAMSHA through recovery network of programs to cover salary and fringe costs for a police officer assigned to the behavioral health unit.

I'd like that on item two, F32.090, 62,566, and additional appropriation grants, uh grant office state funds for LGPQE quality enhancement through shine early learning to support contracted services, direct services, conferences, and training and program supplies.

I'd like that on.

And finally, item three, F32.091, a review item of municipal tax services, motor vehicle registration and tax collection program.

And I so move items one, two, and three on to the agenda.

Second.

There's a motion for um moving items one through three.

I heard a second.

Any discussion on any of these items.

Okay, seeing none.

We'll try these by voice board.

All those in favor of moving items one through three of the fiscal committee agenda.

Please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, those three items will be added to the agenda.

Very good.

Thank you, Madam President.

Our meeting will be Monday, June 22nd at 7 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

And I thank you.

Thank you so much, Co-Chair Morrison.

Moving on to legislative and rules committee, Terry McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

The Legislative and rules committee is going to be meeting Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 7 p.m.

And in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

Uh, there are three items considered tonight for the agenda for L and R, and that's going to be number one, LR 32.016, an ordinance for public hearing and final adoption to repeal the appointments commission per Article 17 of Chapter 6, including Section 6-121 through 6-124 of the Code of Ordinances.

Item number two, LR 32.017 ordinance for public hearing and final adoption, amending the code of ordinances to establish information reporting requirements of the Office of the Mayor with respect to the applicants and appointees of the city boards and commissions and LR 32.019 ordinance for publication and ordinance establishing a conservation commission.

Um because of some anticipated discussion amongst these three items.

At this time, I'd like to preliminarily move items one and two onto the legislative and rules agenda.

Okay, there's a motion to add items one and two of the legislative and rules committee agenda.

Is that a second?

Second.

Okay, any discussion on these two items.

Looking for hands.

I don't see any.

Okay.

Seeing no hands, let's take this by voice vote.

All those in favor of moving items one and two of the legislative and rules committee agenda, please say I.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, those two items will be placed.

Thank you, Madam President.

At this time, I would like to move item LR 32.019 on to the legislative and rules agenda.

Okay.

Madam President.

Okay.

So there's a motion and second.

Yes, uh, discussion, yes.

I'd like to uh representative hughes.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to amend that to uh the land use and urban redevelopment committee.

Second.

Okay, so there's a motion to move uh amend that to be moved to land use committee and there's a second.

Any discussion on this?

Uh yes, I can't raise my hand.

Okay, I see uh yes, go ahead, uh representative pollock, and then it'll be representative camperelli.

Go ahead.

Um, I was just gonna say I saw the email came in, but I would like it to be public record for steering.

Um can you explain briefly why you would like to move it?

Uh representative Hughes, would you like to take that?

Yes, definitely.

Um, so yes, so this item was originally uh introduced during the 31st Board of Representatives in September in the land use committee.

Um, and I believe after um learning more about it that I agree with that um committee assignment.

Um, and also the reason for raising this now is because during the previous steering committee, um, the language of this ordinance was not published in time, therefore I was unable to read it and recognize um that it, you know, previously nine months ago was in the land use committee.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you.

I yield as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh representative camperelli.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, first I'd like to start by addressing the reason that I originally put this on land use.

So I and I know some of the people that were on the board for the 31st board will remember this, but I had put several ordinances on the board at one time.

I put a plastic ordinance, I put a leaf blower ordinance, and I put a puppy mill ordinance.

And all those ordinances were put on the legislative and rules committee where ordinances belong.

Um, and I went to the chair of that committee for two months in a row, and I asked him, Bill Burns, can I put this commission?

The um, the commission that we're talking about right now, the conservation commission on committee, and two months in a row, he told me that there was no room for it.

At that time, and I know that majority leader will remember this because I remember him being in most of those meetings.

We were meeting until 12, one o'clock in the morning in some places, like well into the morning.

And committee members were were getting annoyed with me for putting so much on that committee.

And so I asked land use if I could put it on their committee because they didn't have a heavy agenda and they accepted it.

Um I would like the board office to share what is on our own board website.

I sent them a link earlier a few minutes ago, um, so that I can show it to you guys.

Sheila, are you there or Barbara?

I'm I'm currently sharing the agenda.

Can Barbara share it?

I will grab it right now.

So this is the board's website under committees and what they do.

Uh the legislative and rules committee, you will see the very first bullet point says considers reviews and recommended, recommends city ordinances for enactment by the full board.

The second is actually what somebody might think is a land use issue, right?

Considers and recommends the approval of land purchases and sales, leases of property by the city and leases of city property to others.

Those are all land use things that are to be considered in the legislative and rules committee, says the board of reps' own website.

Um second to that, I want, I would like for the committee to look at what our what our committee looked at last month.

Okay.

Last month we took up an appointments commission ordinance.

We also saw that the city itself put a repeal of a of an appointments commission on our committee rather than to put those two items on the appointments committee.

On the 31st board, I didn't understand how things worked.

You know, what was the proper uh way to go about things?

And and I made a lot of mistakes.

So one of the mistakes I made was I had several times just gone right out to the steering committee and asked them to consider something, and then was told no, you have to go through the chairs.

And I also thought that two of the ordinances that I put on did not belong on legislative and rules because I didn't understand what legislative and rules was about.

And so I'm gonna give you guys two examples.

I put an ordinance that touched the board of education, um, the city's operation department, public health and safety, and restaurants, which are are handled by public health and safety.

I originally thought that ordinance belonged in operations because it touched so many different areas of the city.

And I was corrected and told no, that's a legislative item.

It belongs on legislative and rules.

And so that plastic ordinance, which touched the school system, which touched operations, which touched all the different departments in the city, and board of ed was placed on legislative and rules.

Um had an ordinance that was to transition the entire city's fleet of landscaping equipment to electric and the city itself, the residents to electric powered gas blowers.

I also thought that belonged on operations.

I was told by by Virgil it gets referred to legislative and rules because it's an ordinance.

So these are the reasons why I put it on the legislative legislative committee because it's a piece of legislation.

Um because the very first thing that it says on what our committee does is it legislates.

Again, just going back to the different items that we had on our committee this month.

The appointment the chair of the appointments committee was not fighting to have the two ordinances that we reviewed on their committee, because they belonged on legislative and rules.

So if we if we start here, right, I could foresee any ordinance for any anything that an ordinance would touch being battled over for where it belongs.

Do you know what I'm saying?

It's just like the president of this 30 second board wants things orderly and rules to be followed.

And to me, if we start opening up this can of worms, then we're gonna argue where everything goes.

Um I also want to say something else.

I sent the ordinance to the committee, I think four days after steering, two full weeks, two full weeks before we have the meeting.

Now I don't like to rush people, and I think that two weeks is two weeks and and four days actually, um, is enough time to review what is in the ordinance.

Um nobody came to me and said, look, I really don't think this belongs in your committee, and I'd like to discuss it.

That's something that the president has encouraged that we we work to talk to people, you know, outside of the meetings, no surprises at the last minute.

And so, you know, that's another place where I'm asking the leadership of this board to support me because this was literally waited until the meeting was over to spring on me when I had sent the ordinance um four days after steering and two full weeks before uh it was to be reviewed in the committee.

Um and I yield.

Thank you, representative Camporelli.

Um representative Weinbark.

Um thank you.

I think it's also instructive to read the um the responsibilities uh and uh and footprint of the land use and urban redevelopment committee.

So I'm reading from the Stanford Board of Representatives website.

Uh the land use urban redevelopment committee considers and makes recommendations to the full board on first approval of street acceptances and closings of streets.

Well, that's not what this is about.

Second, establishment of fees for planning and zoning board applications and CBA appeals.

That's not really it.

Uh ordinances, but only specific types of ordinances.

There are ordinances relating to rental properties, demolition and rehabilitation of properties, trees, and landscaping.

Whereas this is an ordinance to create a volunteer commission.

Um fourth, all urban redevelopment projects is necessary.

That's not what this is about.

Fifth, contracts related to revaluation and assessment of real property, typically as a secondary committee.

That's not what this is about.

The committee also monitors the progress and status of major projects such as Mill River Green Green Belt Transit Way.

That's not what this is about.

Enterprise zone activities, that's not what this is about.

And uh zoning enforcement activities, um, so I would submit that if we actually read what the two committees are responsible for doing, it's it seems clear that the responsibility for approving uh for making recommendations and holding hearings and public hearings on ordinances uh belongs with the legislative and rules committee.

And I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Weinmark, representative Sanford.

Thanks, Madam President.

I was going to kind of go up with Representative Weinberg was saying, but in a different route, I I think it ultimately impacts land use by impacting future ordinances relating to rental properties demolition and rehabilitation of projects.

So I think you can make the argument it could be on either one.

Um so for the argument that you know land use doesn't have that much on it, and L and R does, I mean, we can say that, you know, if it's a lighter schedule then put it on land use.

Either way, I would I support the land use.

I think it that's where it's gonna have the biggest impact.

So I think that's where you're gonna get the most um, you know, more qualified, you know, individuals that are going to be speaking on it.

So anyway, I I support the land use uh uh agenda item.

So I yield.

Thank you, uh representative Camporelli for the second time.

Um when I when I created this ordinance, I conferred with the director of operations, all of the EPB board, which are actual experts on land use, and the city's chief planner.

Um, so I'm not sure what expertise exists in our land use committee that doesn't exist in legislative and rules, but that's not that's not even the argument.

The argument is the board has a way of functioning.

And if we if we start muddying up those waters and changing the way the board is functioning, we are literally going in opposition to what the president stated her most important uh item is, which is keeping things orderly, ruly the way that they go, uh, not springing things at the last minute.

I did not spring this ordinance on anybody at the last minute.

I put it in the committee that it belongs in.

Um, and if we're gonna argue that this doesn't belong in legislative and rules, then legislative and rules really does not have a function because if it's not the legislative committee of the board of reps, then you could literally argue that like I just said, that every single ordinance goes somewhere else.

Like, where would we have put the plastic ordinance?

The plastic ordinance touched operations, it touched the board of ed, it touched uh public health and safety.

So, so if somebody puts something on public health and safety, and then somebody comes along and argues it belongs on legislative and rules after it started to be taken up, that's not orderly.

That's not a board conducting themselves in an orderly manner, I don't believe.

Um, and and if we're going to remove this from the legislative committee, then we should change our website because it doesn't make any sense.

Thank you.

Um representative camparelli.

Um representative Hughes, I thought I saw your hand go up.

Maybe not.

Yeah, I'll just I'll just say real briefly.

Um, you know, I just really firmly believe this is uh um has a land use impacts and is a land use committee item.

Um, and I can assure you that co-chair price and I will give it, you know, a fair consideration, and that the other members of the committee will definitely give it a fair consideration.

Um I don't foresee any other items this month, so we could dedicate the whole month to it.

Um, so we'll have plenty of time to hash out the merits of it there.

And I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Majority Native Morrison.

Madam President, I see co-chair price's hand up.

Would you be willing to uh uh recognize him before me?

Sure.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Representative Price, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Morrison.

I appreciate that.

I'm you know, I I I gotta say, I really came into this with open uh open blinders, so to speak.

I I I didn't believe it or not, have a dog in the fight.

Um, but that being said, uh, after reading through the website for LNR, reading through the left side of land use, I do tend to agree with representative use that there should be a land use issue based on the description on the website, and and I'm I'm not seeing it as clearly perhaps as representative camparelli or representative weinberg, but ordinances related to rental properties, demolition, and rehabilitation of properties, trees and landscaping.

To me, that's also pretty clear.

So I respectfully disagree with representatives camparelli and representative Weinberg.

I do think this is a land use issue.

I am in complete agreement with representative Hughes, we'll give it every consideration.

I do think it should be in land use though, and with that said, I yield.

Thank you, representative prize, Majority Leader Morrison.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um look, I I can easily see this item on either committee, but I'm gonna lean towards land use as well.

Um, you know, uh uh through you two, representative Camborelli ended up putting this on uh land use because the L and R committee was their schedule, it was very weighty back in September.

So it's not that it doesn't belong on L and R or doesn't belong on another committee, but I think it was perfectly appropriate for it to go on land use instead of LNR, because this is largely a the functions that this ordinance uh uh addresses uh are almost exclusively uh land use.

Um and it not all ordinances go on LNR, nor do they have to.

For example, the the ghost gun ordinance uh that we passed on the 30th Board of Representatives that was uh done by the public safety and health committee at the time.

So sometimes, you know, in my humble opinion, when there are ordinances that really tend to be focused on a specific area of city or agency function, that that committee should might be the appropriate place to have it uh and and uh a more broadly touching ordinance, such as uh plastic bags or straws, uh, which do, as was noted, cover many different things.

You know, L and R seemed it is definitely the one to certainly handle much more broad-reaching um uh ordinances and and uh changes there too.

Um, but uh I I I'd like to support this one going to uh going to the land use committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, representative shore.

Yes, uh thank you, President Shaw.

I I guess my question would be this.

First of all, uh the ordinance that uh majority leader uh uh Morrison referred to, is that more the exception than the rule?

Because uh just by definition uh it would seem to me that an ordinance would originate in the legislative and rules committee.

It's uh piece of legislation.

Uh uh and and especially going through and just reading the definition of what the land use committee is, it's it's it's really more uh pertaining to zoning and and those sorts of matters.

So I don't know, my vote would be that it should be in legislative and rules because it's ordinance.

It's uh it's a piece of legislation.

That's what we do in that committee.

I yield.

Thank you.

Um I see both Representative Weinberg and Camperelli said, Representative Camperelli, are you wishing to speak again?

Yes, madam president.

I was just can you hear me?

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, yes, we can.

Go ahead.

Um, I was just gonna say uh what would be the argument then for leaving uh the two appointments ordinances on legislative and rules.

What would be the argument that those don't belong on the appointments committee?

I can announce that, Madam President, if if you may.

Yes, go ahead, uh Coach Gardner.

Yes, Representative Camberly, I understand your point, um, but it's more to do with the format of the appointments committee meeting.

We have members of the public there who are waiting until the end of the committee committee meeting for their vote to be taken so they can understand if they got the job or not and leave.

Um it's not really a sort of format of a meeting which is conducive to having a big debate about the merits of the appointments commission, which is why we felt it'd be best to be debated in a more sort of like private setting of the L and L committee.

But uh on the whole, I do agree that these uh matters should be handled by the you know that the dedicated committee as the land use would be in this scenario.

Well, that that's the same that's that's the same argument actually because if an ordinance for publication about things that affect the appointments process does not belong on the appointments committee, then an ordinance that simply affects certain aspects of land use does not necessarily belong on land use.

I mean, a conservation commission does things like look at uh those lantern flies that are that are you know creating havoc in our community.

Um the other thing that I that I wanted to just point out to everybody is that LNR has routinely handled boards boards and commission structures, uh appointment structures and processes, terms of office, ethics provisions, uh reporting requirements, um, and amendments to the Stanford Code of Ordnance, which is exactly what this is.

This is an amendment to the code of the to the code.

Um so I'm not, I'm not really sure why everybody is arguing to put this piece of legislation on this committee and why they're not arguing to take other things that affect things like appointments process off.

Um it is literally the legislative committee.

What will we do if we're not taking up ordinances?

I want to just say one more thing.

In 1968, when this commission was taken up, it was taken up on this committee.

It later became the um the EPB, but it was taken up in legislative and rules.

I think okay, thank you so much.

I know uh majority morsen's hand up a second.

I just wanted to say one thing.

Um, not having any view on what it is at this point, which committee one way or the other, I see it.

What I'm trying to say is for me, it's two things.

If you're going by the website description, I wouldn't because to me, that's one of the part of my project is to revise the website because we don't think a lot of that is still completely makes sense.

So I wouldn't just go by it, literally.

Um the second thing is to me personally, again, like I'm not taking one way or the other, but I've been told in the past board that ordinances can go anywhere as it fits in that particular you know, department or whatever it goes through.

It doesn't necessarily have to be.

I've asked the president a couple of questions, and that's what I've been told.

So that's just the way I have I have viewed it.

So anyway, I'm not saying one way or the other, I'm just pointing this out that again I wouldn't go by the website description because it really it really needs a huge revamping.

Uh with that, uh, going back to Majority Leader Morrison and then uh representative Hughes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I appreciate appreciate those uh observations.

Um going back to what uh co-chair Gardner said, um I it that falls in line very much with I think what Representative Camborelli was saying about you know L and R being have having a heavy load that month and moving it to moving presenting the item to the land use committee instead.

Uh, you know, and to answer um your your question, Representative Camparelli about why we may not be fighting to move things.

Well, the I would have preferred the appointments item to uh have been handled by the appointments committee, uh, but the chairs made a choice and and that's fine.

And LNR is certainly an appropriate committee to take it up uh instead.

But and there is the process now with the L and R committee.

There's no functional need to move it to appointments, but this item has not yet been taken up, and we have the opportunity now to place it on what we think is the most appropriate committee uh for for the the I think rather focused nature of it.

Um and um and commenting further on what President Shaw said, uh I wouldn't take the descriptions on the website as as uh exclusive and uh limiting uh or as as wrote as our rules that we must follow.

Those are general descriptions.

Um and um when I first joined the board, I was also told that uh you know LNR handles much of these things, but ordinances can be on any committee and have been many a time.

Uh so um with that I'll yield.

Thank you.

Uh representative Hughes.

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to read uh from the uh report, the committee report.

Um, but it but it mentions I think I sent it to everyone um the the Connecticut General statutes that this committee um is created or that authorizes municipalities to create uh this committee explicitly says that they're to manage land and water resources, and it explicitly says that in the committee report that i emailed to you all um the individual who spoke about this in l and r before it was recommitted steering it mentioned that those connected general statutes explicitly deal with the management of land and water resources which is explicitly land use um and so it's clear that were it to pass there would be land use implications in the city of Stanford and that's why I firmly firmly believe that that's the committee it belongs in and I yield thank you.

Thank you so much.

I just can't raise my hand can you put me in the line go ahead I'll go ahead and I see representative camperelli has her hand up that actually no you you haven't spoken yet please go before me go ahead yeah um I have more of questions um maybe a few statements uh I agree that this could go on either or um through you madam president camperelli um it sounds like it's a procedural situation and I'm hearing the arguments one of the questions I has is under the way it sounded like you were defining it that all ordinances then should go on L and R as opposed to sometimes specific ones can go places um can is there a specific reason why you do not want it on land use because it does seem like it can go there but is there a reason why it shouldn't in your eyes besides procedurally well I I would like to I would like to answer that um somebody just said that it hasn't been taken up yet and that's not the case we had it on our committee everybody here on this committee voted to put it on our our committee the legislative and rules committee and we did take it up we had a full meeting about this and we had invited guests um that attended the meeting and so and so that's the reason that I think it belongs here I also believe that if we start going back on where we put something on committee um and arguing over what belongs where we're opening up a really big can of worms and and also somebody made the point that um we're gonna change the way that we do things in terms of where we put things on committee but we're not the only state state we're not the only town in Connecticut that has a legislative and rules committee that takes up ordinances like this is common common use across the country if you're not gonna have a legislative and rules committee that looks at ordinances what I mean what is the majority of what we do the other thing is that it's land use and urban redevelopment okay it it's it we read from the board the board website which I'm glad we did what land use is supposed to take up it might seem uh that you know every single thing that touches land use belongs on that committee but that's not the case I mean if you do a simple uh Google search you'll see that that one of the things that legislative and rules does is it takes up uh the structure of boards and commissions uh the appointment process terms of office ethics provisions um a conservation commission is is simply another city commission established by ordinance um the legislative and rules committee uh whether the subject is conservation ethics housing public safety uh when we're creating or defining a commission through ordinance that falls squarely within the legislative and rules process um the committee's role is legal and structural not not subject matter expertise.

And in fact, when I spoke to the the the city's attorney about uh that the fact that some members might want to change what has been written, she said to me, I would advise against that.

This is very, very close to the the exact statutory requirement for this type of commission.

That I brought in the entire anybody that touches land use, right, to make sure that we are structuring this ordinance in a way that is advisory and does not gum up any kind of anything, uh, should say a lot about what I was trying to do with this ordinance.

So if it's if it's a matter of somebody thinks that another committee could do it better, which is which is what Representative Hughes brought up, that they would do this more justice.

Um I don't think anybody could be more thorough than I than I was in including every area that this ordinance would touch.

The legal office of the city, all the land use boards, the director of operation, all have had a hand in writing this.

I would not even put it on committee until the entire EPB looked at it, and until Ralph Blessing saw it.

Um, so you know, again, that's what this committee does.

It takes up the structure of uh of ordinances, anything that has to do with the statute or commissions or or things like that.

And that's why the city chose to put the appointments commission repeal on this committee.

I don't advise this board to change those types of things because they are structured the way other boards are structured across the country.

So uh with that I yield.

Thank you.

I'm going to go to uh Pardon McCuman since uh he's not spoken yet.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh similarly to uh co-chair price, um, I I actually really didn't have much of a dog coming into this fight, um, considering despite the fact that the item was on legislative and rules.

Um, uh really I I think that the committees themselves, you know, have limited subject matter kind of areas.

Um I think legislative as rules is one of those unique ones where it can kind of accept a lot of different things, some of which have subject matter, you know, kind of specificity.

Um but just because something has subject matter specificity doesn't make it inappropriate for LNR, like I think almost everybody here has kind of agreed to, um, that these things could in theory go both places.

Um that being said, um I think that though LNR has the general applicability, it also has subject matter expertise in one very specific area, and that is the drafting of legislation.

Uh it's in the name.

Drafting of legislation, drafting of rules, considering how those might impact other areas.

Um, and I think it's I think it's good at it.

I think we I think we do a decent job.

Um that being said, um, I also find that representative Hughes's um arguments have have merit.

Uh, you know, it certainly impacts land use.

Um they also have subject matter expertise in the things that impact land use and how these types of things might impact land use.

Um so I could I could really honestly see it going either way.

Um I I don't think I have a strong preference one way or another.

I will say that um one of the reasons why I think it could be appropriate, uh the reasons why it's appropriate in land use are obvious.

The reasons why I think it could be appropriate in legislative and rules uh specifically is because the text of the ordinance is is pretty basic in that it largely imports statutory powers without modifying them really at all.

Um, to me, as a non-subject matter expert in land use, um, when we import legislative powers or when we import structures outside of elsewhere, specifically state statute, um, to me, it begs the question.

The first question that comes to mind from a legislative perspective is whether or not we have the ability to modify those powers when we import them.

We have a choice as to whether or not to import them, but the choice is not clear as to whether or not we can modify the things that we import.

And so therefore it becomes less of a question in my mind as to whether or not we import them and modify them, and more so whether or not the powers that have already been granting to one body within the city should be instead spun out to a separate body in the city, and that makes it more of a structural question than it is necessarily um a substantive question.

Um and that that's that's kind of the ways I've thought about it to the extent that's helpful to the members of this committee in making their decisions.

Again, I don't really think that it's inappropriate to be in land use.

I don't think it's inappropriate to be an L and R.

Um, I think there's a universe where it's possible that both committees could be involved because they do have valuable insight.

Um, then those are the thoughts that I have, at least at least thus far.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you.

Um also wanted to mind people.

Everyone gets to vote on it.

It's not like it's going to be in one committee and it stays there.

So I understand the passion here, but we're getting we're we're we're spending way more time than we need to be.

I'm going to recognize people, but I'm just saying.

Uh with that, I'll go to uh representative Weinberg.

Um thank you.

Um, you know, Chair Mc Chair McEwen, you know, in essence makes a very interesting suggestion, which I would recommend that we consider.

Um which is to um to whether we do this as a primary committee and a secondary committee, hold hearings with that that both committees are present at, have both committees um vote in terms of vote their recommendation to the full board.

Have both chairs, uh, uh the chairs of both committees uh give their reports at the board meeting.

Uh so we're able to hear about hear the recommendations from both the perspective of people who are uh particularly focused on land use issues and the perspective of people who are particularly fake focused on legal and legislative issues.

So I would propose um I'd like to make a motion uh to amend um amend the motion on the the motion as amended on the on the table that on the floor to have uh to have this as um as appearing before both committees, preferably in a single meeting of both committees together and have both committees uh each committee to vote and uh have their respective committee chairs uh deliver their reports to the full board at the next meeting.

And I saw move.

That is second to the motion that uh representative Weinberg made to amend it to uh have both committee meetings together, okay, hearing no second, Madam President.

Yes, I'm I was just gonna say I I would be amenable to that as long as legislative and rules is the primary committee and land use is a secondary committee, um, and we hear the meeting at the legislative and rules um meeting.

So I use that.

And I'm just saying that I'm trying to to be accommodating to the other committee.

I agree with you that we all are gonna vote on this in the end.

So we need a second first, representative campanoni for um representative Weinberg's motion, and then we can have a discussion.

So are you seconding his motion?

If his motion is to have land use as a secondary committee, and it would be heard at the legislative and rules meeting, then yes, I would separate that.

Is that your motion specifically, uh, Representative Weinberg?

So moved.

Okay.

So there's a motion to make uh LR as a primary committee and land use as second secondary committee, and there's a second discussion on this piece.

Um, point of order.

I I am yes, so sorry, madam president.

But right, but right we have a couple motions on the floor, and the parliamentarian might have to back me up on this.

So we had a motion to to send it to L and R in a second.

We then had a motion to send it to land use in a second.

That's what we're discussing now.

Now we have a motion to amend and a second.

Do we need to close out the secondary motion for Ellen for land use?

Sorry, go ahead, Parliamentary McCain.

I'm sorry, I just I think we're getting a little off the rails.

Sure.

Um, I think the answer to that would be no.

I think really the motion that we're considering right now is a motion to amend the motion to amend.

Um this would be we've talked about this once prior, I think, where you get too high in terms of our motions to amend.

Uh we are either at or immediately below the maximum motions to amend, we can entertain.

I think we I think we can be, if I recall correctly off the top of my head, three degrees out from the main motion.

Um, so I would not recommend amending this any further.

Um if we feel like we need to make further changes, which I'll save my opinions on whether or not that's that's wise.

Uh, if we make further changes, I recommend that we are dispensing with some of these motions, either vote them down and then start amending again if ultimately necessary, um, because we do have to make our way through all of them.

Okay.

Uh, with that, any discussion on the existing motion of having uh I'm gonna I have um the co-chairs of the land use race, and sorry.

So I'm assuming you'd want to speak specifically on this.

I would recommend I'm going to recognize um co-chair Hughes first.

Yes, uh, on which motion can I speak on?

So this is the motion to have LNR as the primary committee and land use is the secondary committee.

The motion that representative Weinberg made.

And yeah, Chair Shaw, President Shaw, can I just briefly do I have the floor?

Hold on a second.

Are you are you pro are you asking?

Are you gonna ask flat-ifying question, President Weinberg?

Or what is that?

Yes, is it is is it clear that um that under my under my amendment that both committees would meet together and both committees would separately vote, and both committee chairs chairs of both committees would make their reports to the full board.

I do not believe that actually is the procedure for being a primary and a secondary committee.

So I don't think that's the way it would work, but I'm going to um ask uh our parliamentarian to weigh in on this on my statement.

Am I right by saying that?

I would agree with you.

Yeah, I would agree with you, President Shaw.

Um, and then also uh just a procedural suggestion.

Um this is what I'd recommend to make this abundantly clear, uh, because technically we're moving forward on a motion to amend representative Hughes's prior motion to amend.

Um, we still have to vote through those motions and get back to the main motion.

What I'd recommend is it sounds like there might be an aptitude to maybe have a secondary committee, maybe have some mandated procedural steps and joint sessions.

What I would recommend is respectfully that representative Weinberg ask the body for permission to withdraw his motion.

We dispose of representative, which will follow us back to representative Hughes's motion.

We dispose of that, either yay or nay, either which way we will then fall to the main motion as amended or not as amended, at which time representative Weinberg would be free to make his motion again once the dust has settled.

Um, and then we'll have a little bit more of a clear playing field as to how we're postured at that point.

So agree.

So are you withdrawing your motion?

So agree.

Yes, okay.

And then I would that were representative.

Point of information.

Sorry, who is this?

This co-chair Hughes.

I was never able to, I was never given the floor again and able to discuss.

Um, I don't support a secondary committee.

Um, I think tonight's evening, point of order.

That um there were things that were said that are just not true.

Sorry, I'm not trying to Ralph Lessings did not speak.

Representative Hughes, sorry.

There is a point of order, and I and before we we would go back to the discussion if you want to speak and then randomly go to the main motion, but representative uh Weinberg withdraw his motion to have the primary and the secondary.

So we're good on so you we're not specifically now speaking on that item, but we can go back and you can do your comments when we go back to the main motion.

Is that okay with you?

Yes, thank you, madam president.

President Shaw, apologies.

I also have a point of order.

Sorry, what what was that?

My my point of order is to just point out that, and I and I hate to be that guy, but you appointed me to be that guy.

Um we have to please the meeting.

We have to we have to at least give an indication or at least pause for the opportunity to object to Representative Weinberg's withdrawal.

The motion's been seconded, so it's in possession of this body.

So we have to at least call an opportunity to object to that.

If there's none, we can consider unanimously approved, but we we have to at least give that opportunity.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Does anyone have objections for uh representative Weingort's motion to be withdrawn?

Okay, seeing then we can conclude that that motion has been withdrawn.

So now we're back to uh representative Hughes' amended motion of moving it to the land use.

So um I representative Hughes, would you like to speak now?

And then Yes, thank you.

Okay, go ahead and then I will recognize um representative leaders after that.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to correct the record that at the legislative and rules meeting.

Um, you know, Matt Kinones and Ralph Blessing were there, but they did not say a word about this item.

I know that because I would have asked them.

Um, you know, so the idea that there were land use officials there who you know uh were able to answer questions, it never got to that point.

Uh, because it was recommitted to steering.

Um, so I just want to be clear about that because you know, people watch this, reporters watch these and they write down what people say, and sometimes I've noticed incorrect information gets published.

Um, so I just wanted to correct that and then also just note that um, you know, the Connecticut general statutes again that are in this ordinance, grant a conservation commission land use statutory powers.

Okay, that is very different than if this was drafted as purely advisory.

Okay, it's it's not about tagging horseshoe crabs.

This is about land use decisions, and I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Coach Hughes.

Um representative Weirs, go ahead.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Um I want to first say, for me, this is all very constructive conversation as a newer representative.

Um, I'm learning with every single meeting that we have, and as part of the steering committee discussion, which is where I think this discussion, my understanding kind of belongs.

Um, but um I'm I'm looking at this at a high level.

We're kind of having two different discussions.

One is about the item number three, um, that is currently on the agenda that we're contemplating whether or not it's going to stay where it resides right now.

Um, we're also having a bigger discussion, which is where do future ordinances go?

Should they, you know, what is the litmus test for every single agenda item, how do we determine which committee it should be on?

Um for me, it would be helpful to have a visual almost a flowchart of understanding of you know, uh when an item is presented, what is the test that it goes through to determine where does it start?

You know, does an ordinance always automatically for discussion purposes start here?

But um, is it okay for it to be moved?

I think there's precedent of that happening.

I'm assuming that there is.

It sounds like there has been.

Um the the discussion, the potential of having two committees, I'm not sure I follow how that would even happen, you know, whether we're talking about this item or any future item, but we do always welcome members of various committees to attend and participate in discussions, um, even if a topic that we believe belongs on one committee and it's not, uh, when I decide every month when I go through the agenda and decide which meetings I'm going to attend live or which ones I want to watch recorded, the ones I want to participate in, this is exactly the thought process.

It may not be on my committee, but it indirectly or even directly relates to a committee that I'm a chair of.

So I don't, I'm sorry if I sound like I'm rambling, but I'm I'm sharing my thoughts as I see this discussion.

I don't know whether there should be a future agenda item where we're discussing this test of how these things should be done if there is such a thing as putting together a flow chart.

Um I'd like to move forward with um voting on this item and whether or not you know we're gonna move this to another committee or leave it where it is.

Um, but I think there should potentially be future discussion at a higher level on how we make these decisions.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Rears.

You're writing another thing to my list of things to do.

Figure out this isn't this is all part of the whole revamping.

So we will we will come up with a process.

We might have to involve some legal discussions and maybe remake it super clear.

But then again, it we can make it as clear as we can be, but then depending on the item.

Sometimes we would have to move it or whatever it needs to be, and and that's the way it works, but we can at least get some guidelines for people uh where to start with.

So thank you for that suggestion.

Uh representative camperoni.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I just wanted to um comment on representative uses comment.

Um I thought he was maybe saying that I misspoke, which I did not.

Um what I said was that I conferred with all of the land use boards, and they all saw this saw this ordinance, and they are all okay with this ordinance, they are in agreement, they helped write the ordinance.

Um Director Canonis had to leave the meeting because he had an emergency with his children at home.

Uh, if representative Hughes had a question, uh, and wanted to ask, have you seen this ordinance?

Do you agree with this ordinance?

Because that's what I stated in committee.

Um, I'm gonna I'm gonna use what your rules are for this, and that is reach out to that person before we get to this point and ask representative you should have contacted, if he didn't believe me, Ralph Blessing or Director Canonis, that they had seen the ordinance, they had a meeting over the ordinance once it was finally rewritten by the the EPB, or you know, conferred with the EPP, he could have reached out to them and just asked them, did you really see this ordinance?

Are you guys okay with it?

Um, so I just I feel like like we're spinning.

I feel like we have to have some rules that we abide by.

Uh the legislative process is pretty clear per the board's own website.

Um, in 1968, it was put on the same exact committee.

Uh there is a structure and in order to the way that the board is organized.

I think it's a good one.

Um, there are always going to be things where you're questioning where where should this be?

Like, for example, what was on our our committee?

And if we start re reassigning things that we've already assigned as a committee, like this committee, this body voted to put this on legislative rules.

Representative Weinberg and I, who are the sponsors of this ordinance, are willing to have land use as a secondary committee.

They can attend our meeting and ask any questions.

I mean, they can do that without even being on on the meeting.

Um, again, I sent this ordinance through over two weeks before it was spoken of on committee.

We could have invited the entire land use committee to hear and ask questions.

Um that's the proper way to do things, not the way that we're doing them now by second-guessing this committee itself and what is written on the board itself.

Thanks.

Sorry, I keep forgetting to yield.

No, that's okay.

Just one quick thing, though.

I don't want people to misunderstand it.

I know you mentioned that um Director Kinunis and uh Mr.

Blessing is all like looked at it, but not necessarily they have told us what committee it needs to go to, right?

That's not what you're saying.

Absolutely not.

No, what I'm saying is that I don't want anybody to just misunderstand that's why I try to.

What I'm saying is that they were all consulted for months to get this ordinance written.

You know, in addition to corporation counsel, obviously, who who wrote this and who is advising that this is basically the statutory requirement, and we should not mess with this ordinance at this point.

It's it's well written.

Um, so I understand I I feel like we're in a little bit of a dog and pony fight here, but it's clear on the board website, this belongs where it is.

I am willing to accommodate land use and have them as a secondary committee.

I hope that this committee uh chooses to vote that way.

Otherwise, I feel like we're just opening up a million cans of worms for the future.

Thank you.

Um representative Hughes.

Sorry, I thought your hand was up.

Yeah, you are you good?

Oh, yes, sorry.

I was I was using I just want to point out real quick that you know I did follow the correct process as representative camparelli stated.

This was submitted four days after steering.

Okay, this uh was an item that you couldn't click on and read the text of.

Um, you know, and then when I uh raised issues with it was the next possible time, which was the L and R committee.

Uh I I don't know when else I would was supposed to raise those issues.

Um, so I just want to point that out that you know it it's hard to object to something when you don't submit it to steering on time.

And I yield, thank you.

Well, your hand is raised.

I hope that's time to clarify and we can move on.

I have to correct the record, I'm sorry.

I submitted this item on time, I followed up with the actual ordinance.

This committee voted to send it to to legislative and rules, and I sent all of the language and everything, a description of the language, everything two weeks prior to the committee meeting.

Now I have I was on the 31st board, madam president, and I saw people sending ordinances through 48 hours.

That's the requirement.

I have to get everything in 48 hours before the committee meeting.

I don't act like that.

I don't roll like that.

I sent it in two weeks prior, and I did put this on the committee on time.

This was not submitted late.

What I what I was saying is that a few days after it being approved for legislative and rules, I right away sent in all the language, and that the committee had two weeks to look at the language.

I think that that's fair.

So I just wanted to correct the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

President.

Sorry.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

You can't raise your hand.

Go ahead.

My apologies, but I I didn't yield the floor a while ago, but I let it go on because I got a lot of answers to my questions.

I'm sorry.

It's not your fault.

This has been a healthy conversation.

I will wrap up with um, I didn't hear uh a reason why it should not be on land use.

I think everyone could be involved.

And I I'm concerned that if we keep uh it on L and R with the premise that any ordinance should be on there, I think that sets a little bit of a dangerous precedent, and I refer back to our charter.

It does not state that every single ordinance has to go on through L and R, but I would support and I'd like to move forward with voting on this motion.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

I see both your hands raised.

Um go ahead, Representative Weinberg.

Yeah, I just really should move this forward.

This is this is a fiction, this idea that that keeping this on L and R means that every ordinance has to go on L and R.

Um the again, the the descriptions of the committee responsibilities are very clear on what ordinances go on what committees.

So for example, when uh when Representative Morrison made the reference to the ghost guns ordinance, the public safety and health committee specifically is responsible for considering and making recommendations to the full board on ordinances relating to public safety.

That's completely unambiguous.

And that's why I presumably that's why the ghost gun ordinance went uh on the public safety and health committee agenda.

Um so this is not, you know, so this idea that that every ordinance must uh only appear on on L and R is just not consistent with uh what uh the way we've laid out the responsibilities of these of these committees, uh but it is clear that um if you read those responsibilities that in general ordinances belong to go do go to uh to L and R.

That I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Campanelli.

I'm sorry, I'm a little bit tired because I've been traveling all day.

I would like the parliamentarian to repeat all the reasons because uh uh minor the I don't know if you guys are minority leaders anymore because we are all Democrats so uh representative Pollack.

Um to answer your question, we gave many reasons why this belongs on legislative enrolls.

Um, and I would like the parliamentarian to repeat some of those reasons for our police.

I don't know if that's necessarily a good idea.

I think whatever everyone heard has heard, and we got it.

Representative camper, I'm sure representative Pollack has is listened to what he said.

I think he she also said, and I think he also said that there's arguments for both it it could be in both places.

So in the interest of time, can we if no one has any objections and no more discussions?

Can we move this to a vote?

Okay.

With that, uh Ms.

Monto, let's do this by roll call.

So the motion before us is to amend this original motion to move this item from um legislative and rules to land use.

So if you are in support of moving this item to land use, you vote yes, and if you're not in favor, then you vote no.

Parliamentarian McEwen, did I get that right?

There's so many motions, I'm confused, so I want to make sure that's correct.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Everyone's good.

Okay.

Ms.

Montel.

Sorry, I see uh Jeff's hand up.

Hold on a second.

Sure.

Just a quick question.

We're not yet um voting on whether or not this item is going to be put on the agenda.

Or are we voting both at the same time?

No, we have to do the amended uh motion first and then we'll go to the original motion.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, okay.

No more hands?

Okay.

Uh Representative Adams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Bouchard, how do you vote?

No, Representative Camparelli, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Gardner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Johnson is not here.

Representative McEwen, how do you vote?

I'm staying.

Representative Morrison, how do you vote?

Abstain.

Representative Pollock, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Price, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Sanford, how do you vote?

Yes.

I'm going to skip over the president for a moment.

Representative Shore, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Sylvestri, how do you vote?

Representative Sylvestri.

I think you're still muted, Representative Sylvestri.

I vote yes.

Thank you.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Wirce, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Zachary, how do you vote?

Yes.

President Shaw, how do you vote?

I'm going to abstain.

Thank you.

Just give me a moment to add this up.

Point of information.

Yes.

Go ahead.

I just wanted to ask Ms.

Montalvo if the calculation of the vote tally incorporates the amount of votes we have per individual being half or full.

Yes, it does actually.

That's why we're going to end up with a point five usually because we have five individuals that have a half vote.

Got it.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

And that's why it's going to take just a moment longer for me to make sure I've gotten all the half votes where they need to be.

Point of inquiry.

Yes.

Will will uh the board office also let us know who had half a vote, who had one vote, or whatever.

I can definitely do that.

Yeah.

Barbara, I think there are eight people with half votes.

No, I have the only individuals with half votes being Representative Gardner, Representative Hughes, Representative Pollock, Representative Price, and Representative Sylvestri.

What about Representative Pollack and Representative Sylvestri have full votes?

Representative Shore, Representative Gardner, Representative Hughes, Representative Price.

Okay.

Let me get that list for who has the full votes again.

Then I apologize.

I'll pull up my list as well.

They have they have full votes because of their leadership position.

Is that correct?

Representative Pollack does, and when I announced it, I did announce Representative Silvestre will have a full vote.

And so does Representative Camparelli and Representative Adams.

Thank you.

I have Adams and Camporelli as full votes.

So who should have a half vote?

I have Gardner, Hughes.

You said Pollock does not have a half vote, she has a full vote.

I'm trying to hold on, let me try my sheet.

One second, please.

President Shaw, I have it here.

You have it here.

Okay, go ahead.

I was just gonna verify, but go ahead.

The representatives with a half a vote are the co-chairs of appointments and land use.

Representative Shore, Gardner, Price, and Hughes.

All others have a full vote.

Okay, so we have four half votes only.

That makes sense.

I will recalculate.

Three abstentions.

Three point five no votes.

And six point five yes votes.

So if you'd like me to read that out again, I have 6.5 yes votes, 3.5 no votes, and three abstentions.

Who do you have as no votes, Barbara?

For no votes, I have Representative Bouchard, Representative Camporelli.

I have Representative Shore, Representative Weinberg, and Representative Wirtz.

Isn't that four and a half?

One, two, three, four.

Hold on.

I have a lot of scratch-outs here.

Let me run it.

One, two.

Yes.

So that is 4.5, no votes, three abstentions, and then uh have one.

I have five and a half.

Yes.

One, one, one, one, two.

Six.

And point of information.

Yes.

Yeah.

Can you just explain the rationale for certain co-chairs receiving full votes?

I've explained that in steering a long time ago.

Representative Weinberg.

It's what was kind of well.

Then rather than wasting everyone's time, if you could just send me a quick text, I'd appreciate it.

Yes, I will give you a quick text, but it was explained it and yeah.

Okay.

I have three individuals with half votes that voted yes.

So that's 1.5 right there.

And then I have for whole votes that are a yes.

So 3.5, 4.5, 5.5.

I have 6.5 yes votes, 4.5 no votes, and three abstentions.

Does that match everyone else's calculations?

I just want to make sure because there's a lot of scratch outs on that.

I get I get five and a half yes votes.

I mean it doesn't change the outcome, but so I have I have Representative Zachary, Celestia Pollock, Sanford, and one more full vote.

Oh I'm sorry, you're right.

Six and a half.

Yeah, yeah.

So that is a half, yeah.

Yeah, Adams, Gardner, and Hughes make one.

I have Pollock, which is a whole vote.

I have Price for a half vote.

I have Sanford for a whole vote.

I have Sylvestre for a whole vote, and I have Zachary for a whole vote.

So just make sure.

I apologize for the scratch-outs.

No worries, sorry for throwing this on you.

So we have 6.5 full votes, 3.5.

Sorry, 6.5 yes votes, 3.5 no votes, and 3 abstentions.

So four abstentions.

Okay.

I have three abstentions and 4.5 no votes.

Yes.

Okay.

So with that, that motion to amend and move it to uh land use passes.

So we will now go on to the main motion of taking it on the agenda.

So Parliament chaired McCune.

A question.

Since now this item is going to um land use.

Would we take up this item as the agenda item there or could we just do it here since actually the motion originated here?

Yeah, the motion is still pending.

It's just amended.

So we're moving this item straight to land use.

That's the motion on the floor.

Okay, so now the main motion on the floor is to move this item to land use.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I'm present.

The motion's already pending.

Okay.

It's amended.

So okay.

Is that any discussion now on the main motion itself?

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

All those in favor of adding this to the land use agenda, please say aye.

I need opposed.

I'm opposed.

Uh one I see, okay.

Is that uh representative camparelli?

Yeah.

Okay.

Any abstentions?

Madam President, I abstain.

And I Weinberg abstains.

Okay, so uh Chairman Kuhn and Representative Camporelli.

I mean, uh, representative Weinberg has abstaining.

Okay.

Have you noted that uh Ms.

Montal?

With that, that item is added to the land use agenda.

I have representative Camporelli as a no, and I have representative McKeon uh McEwen and Weinberg as abstentions.

And then I have the everyone else as a yes vote.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Chair McEwen.

I I presume that crosses out your uh agenda items.

Actually, uh no, yes, it does.

All right.

We would have a special meeting just for just for LNR.

Okay, moving on to personnel committee.

Chair Weinberg.

So the personnel committee will meet on Monday, June 15th at 7 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room.

And by webinar, we have one item on the agenda, P32.009, approval of an employment contract for diversity, equity and inclusion officer, Janine Freeman.

Um and ISO move to put this on the committee agenda.

Okay, so there's a motion to move personal committee item p32.009 to the agenda.

Is that a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

See, none let's take this by voice vote.

All those in favor of moving this personal committee agenda to the uh to the main agenda, please say aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

That item will be added to the personal committee agenda.

Thank you, uh Chair Weinberg.

Moving on to land use and urban redevelopment committee, which one of the co-chairs will be presenting today?

I am uh President Shah.

Go ahead, coaches.

Thank you.

Uh so the item uh we have again is LU 32.006.

This is a resolution accepting Pembroke Drive as a city street by property owners pending certification by the city engineer that Pembroke Drive meets the qualification for acceptance.

Uh this was submitted originally in March, and uh I believe the materials are not ready for it.

Uh game time at the moment.

So at the moment, I'd like to move this to pending.

Okay, that item will be moved to pending.

And then I was just gonna say that we'll have the uh other item that we just uh voted on uh for the entirety of the uh meeting, which is uh Wednesday, June 17th at 7 p.m.

by webinar.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to operations parts and record committee, Claire Sanford.

Uh thank you, madam president.

Umperations parks and rec committee is gonna meet Thursday, June 18th at 7 p.m.

via webinar.

At this time we have three items OPR 32.012 resolution and approval of public hearing establishing fees for e-Gayner, Brennan golf course, um number two, OPR 32.013, a resolution and approval public hearing, approving the fee schedule for Terry Connor's ice rink, and item number three, OPR 32.014, which is a review item, uh the Ever Source Underground Cable Modernization Project.

At this time, I'd like to move items one, two, and three onto the operations agenda for Thursday, June 18th.

So there's a motion to move items one, two, and three to the operations agenda.

So second.

Second.

Okay, any discussion.

Uh presentative Weinberg.

Uh thanks.

Uh through you, um, may I ask uh Chair Sanford a question?

Go ahead.

We're not moving it to land use, Carl.

I'm just kidding.

Go ahead.

Um, you know, there's been a lot of um uh publicity about uh the Eversource project.

Uh there was um a meeting on Friday at uh the Harry Bennett Library, which I attended uh for people to come and learn more about it, ask questions.

Uh there's a website that there's an Eversource web page dedicated to it.

Uh there's a series uh there's sign up for emails and so forth.

So I'm just curious.

I I'm I'm not just what if I might ask, what what do you hope to accomplish by uh by having this review item?

So when we started off at the beginning of the year, we were gonna uh look back after five to six months to have a check-in to see how things were going to be able to update any ask questions.

Eversource reached out to us last month because the transportation department reached out to them and said, Hey, um, are you ready to update?

And they said, Yeah, we've got some updates, and I said if we have other items that uh need to be discussed, I'd be more than happy to have Eversource here.

Uh I don't think there are people that know about some of the the website links.

So I would like to you know give them some of that feedback to say hey, you you when you hit the QR code on one of your mailing, it goes to Hartford and not Stanford.

So give them a little bit of feedback.

So that's why I'm putting it on here.

Okay, all right, thank you.

You got it.

That's all I have, ma'am present.

You're muted.

Sorry, I'm muted.

I'm sorry.

You're good.

I don't know why I mute myself so much.

Um, so there's no other discussion, so let's take uh this by voice vote.

All those in favor of moving items one, two, and three of the operations committee agenda.

Uh please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, those items will be added to the operations agenda.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Moving on to public safety and health committee, Chair Bouchard.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Um the public safety and health committee will meet on Thursday, 25 June at 6 30 p.m.

via webinar.

Uh, we have two items that we'd like to put on the agenda.

The first item uh is for review, PS32.008.

It is an overview of the regulations on the use of personal watercraft in the enforcement of these regulations within the jurisdiction of Stanford, Connecticut.

Um, and the second item was a late submission, also an item for review.

It is the overview of the Stanford Park Police and the enforcement of quality of life issues in Stanford Parks, including uh use of e-bikes, loud music, and loud cars.

Um, so with your approval, I'd like to move that to our agenda.

So we'll move the first item um because the second item, since it's a late submission, we'll have to uh take a vote to consider it.

So would you like first move that?

Let's move the first one if that's okay.

Uh yes, please.

Okay.

Uh there's a motion to move item number one of the public safety and health committee agenda.

Is that a second?

Okay.

Any discussion on the first one.

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

All those in favor of adding PS32.008 to the agenda, please say aye.

Uh any opposed.

Any abstentions?

So that item is added to the agenda.

Before we go to this item, the second item, Chair Bouchard, is there a reason why this was submitted late?

Is there something that someone wanted to have this this month?

Yes, it was added uh as a request from a member of the um public safety and health committee.

Uh, it had come up as an issue, uh, I believe presented by one of her constituents.

Okay, and given that we already had a light agenda for this month, uh, there was room to add it.

Okay.

Uh thank you for that.

And generally, I'm I'm I what I would like to say is if it's an item that's an ordinance or a resolution that needs urgency, I would recommend putting it in, but if there is a review item, generally, I don't like to add this as a late submission, just as my thing.

But since you had said that some of our consumers are asking about it, I would be uh willing to accommodate it.

So with that, um uh is that a motion?

I mean, you made a motion, are you making a motion to move this item?

Oh, let's make a motion to consider this item.

Are you making a motion to consider this item, Chair Bouchard?

Uh yes, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is that a second?

Okay.

Um discussion on the consideration of the item.

Okay, seeing none, we have to do this by roll call.

So uh Miss Montabu, we need two-thirds for this to be able to consider this.

Okay, I'll begin.

Representative Adams.

How do you vote?

Yes, representative Bouchard.

How do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Camporelli, how do you vote?

Yes.

Thank you.

Representative Gardner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Hughes, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Kewen.

How do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Morrison.

How do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Pollock, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Price, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Sanford, how do you vote?

Yes.

Ms.

Skip over the president.

Representative Shore, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Sylvestri, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Weirs, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Zachary, how do you vote?

Yes.

And then President Shaw, how do you vote?

Yes.

Thank you.

It's unanimous.

Yes.

Okay.

So that item uh passed unanimously to be considered.

Now do I have a motion to add that item to the agenda?

Uh, yes, please, Madam President.

Okay.

Is that a second?

Second.

Any discussion.

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

All those in favor of adding this item PS32.009 to the agenda.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Those two items will be added to the public safety and health committee agenda.

Thank you, Chair Bouchard.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

That completes my report.

Thank you.

Um, and then moving on to 10th committee.

I don't see any items here, unless uh co-chair palette.

Do you want to move anything to any committees?

Okay.

I I do not.

I'm surprised that we're good.

You guys had a long two months, so maybe a break is good.

Um, okay, moving on to transportation.

I do not see any items here.

Either just yep.

So Chair Weirs, we're all good for this month.

Go next.

Take a take a breather.

Take a breather.

My second thing.

And okay, and then um the next item is just uh taking up the approval for adding the June 1 2026 regular board meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Is that a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Okay, all those in favor of adding the approval of the June 1 2026 minutes to the uh agenda.

Please say hi.

Hi.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that will be added to the agenda.

Um, and this is not our month to review the um the pending pending agenda.

So, with that, we conclude our business for today.

A motion to adjourn.

Second.

Okay.

Uh the moment the meeting will be adjourned at 8 35 p.m.

Thank you, everyone, and have a good night.

Night all.

Good night.

Go next.