Alrighty, thank you everybody for your attendance this evening.

Uh this time I'm gonna call order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the board of representatives as of 701 pm, June 23rd, 2026.

And I note that I see in attendance, representatives uh blank, boudreau, vice chair camparelli, representative Hughes, Hyatt, Repine, myself, Weinberg, and ex official member, ex official representative Walston.

And also Majority Leader Morrison.

I will read those.

And committee Moore Stone.

Thank you.

Perfect.

And with that, we have all committee members in attendance.

So we do have a forum.

So tonight we've got two items on the agenda.

And we also have two public hearing schedules for the benefit of the public and to respect their time.

I think it you know makes sense to hold these public hearings together, early side by side.

I mean, um, and also just given the way we've approached these ordinances in the past to also consider item number two prior to item number one.

Uh so in that vein, I would appreciate a motion to suspend the rules in order to hear the public hearings together and consider item two before items.

Thank you very much.

I hear a motion, and a second.

Thank you very much.

Uh point of information, yes, yes.

So do I understand correctly that the order if this motion uh is passed, um that the order of tonight's meeting will be one public hearing, then a second public hearing.

I'm not sure if we first in which would be second.

Then the third item will be um taking up LR 32.017, and then the fourth item will be taking up LR32.1016.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Alrighty.

Uh, so we have a motion and a second.

Uh the question before the committee is a suspension of the rules as I have described.

Um, let's try it by voice vote.

Um, we're gonna see if that works.

Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

Hearing none, the motion passes.

And point of information, yes.

Uh which public hearing will go first.

We're gonna do item number one first followed by item number two.

So so uh 32.016.

Correct, okay.

Yes, um, of course.

So uh with that, I'd like to open this up for public hearing on item one, LR 32.016 for those members of the public that are speaking on this item.

Please keep your comments limited to this ordinance, which is a repeal of the appointments commission.

Um, of course, you are you know welcome to speak on the second public hearing, which will be with respect to LR 32.017, which is the ordinance establishing reporting requirements on the office of May.

So, with that being said, I have a couple of members of the public who have signed up to speak, first of which is Miss Halpern, which I believe is in attendance from only.

So I should have more than that.

Alrighty, Miss Alburn, you've got three minutes to share your remarks.

Hi, good evening.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Um as it appears the appointments commission will be eliminated.

I sincerely appreciate this ordinance to add affirmative reporting in the boards and commission's report.

In my opinion, there should be further language added based on my experience applying for a position on HPAC, the historic preservation advisory commission.

Apologies to interrupt.

I just wanted to remind you that if you have comments on the reporting ordinance, we're gonna have another public hearing this evening, immediately afterwards, and you'll have an opportunity to speak on that.

But if you have any comments on the repeal itself, now would be the time for those.

No, I wait.

Thank you very much.

Not a problem.

Thank you, Ms.

Alper.

Uh, next up, we have Mr.

Adams who's attending in person.

You got the floor, sir.

You've got three minutes.

Thank you very much.

Uh good evening.

Um, my comments uh, you know.

This is a new debate for a lot of members on this board, and it is my sincere feeling that this is a bait and switch.

Uh what I I see happening is that uh you'll repeal the appointments commission, which was intended to be in an independent body that handled appointments.

Um you'll repeal that, and then you will make no ground on the following item, which uh we'll talk about again in uh the second public hearing.

I do not think that it is uh a good idea to pass this repeal of the appointments commission until after you secured uh, you know, some some ground in terms of uh regaining the authority of the board of reps when it comes to appointments.

This is you know, this is a uh something that's been going on for decades, so it's not a new thing.

Um, and as I described in that previous public hearing at the regular board meeting, uh multiple groups of people have tried to attack it.

It's not, you know, it's not a um, it's not something that you know it's new, it's not a new conversation.

Uh and after uh my experience watching the previous two boards, it you know, and especially the last board.

Um, I think that uh you really gotta be careful about what it is that you um get out of corporation council on this matter, because you may get two different opinions out of the same person, uh just separated by you know what month you're you're you're asking the question because I as I remember uh members of the 31st board uh worked hand in hand with corporation counsel on ordinances, and worked diligently for months, and then we only were then led uh or told later by same corporation council that uh all of that work was was null and void.

And that you know, all that time spent and effort that was spent with corporation council, um it you know, it wasn't it was gonna fly.

So I would be very, very careful about passing this repeal um in advance of of actually securing you know something for for the the following ordinance that we're gonna speak about.

And those are my that's my comments.

Uh thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Uh next up I've got Miss Uh Calabries who uh appears to be here remotely.

Oh, I don't know, right.

Um is there a camera?

Okay, I can turn on my camera.

Are we not okay?

Did my time start?

Oh, whenever you're ready.

Okay, sure.

Great.

I was gonna turn on my camera, but I don't see a way to do that.

Um, I'm here in opposition to repealing the appointments commission ordinance.

That's LR 32.016, I believe.

Um, appointments to boards and commissions is a politicized process.

The mayor has the power to appoint members who will implement the mayor's preferred policies.

However, like the federal constitution, our city charter gives you the legislative body the power to approve or reject an important an appointee.

So this is not a purely political process.

Because the process has been so politicized and so delayed in Stamford, the uh prior board of representatives passed an ordinance creating the appointments commission, which had a very salutary purpose to assist in vetting and recruiting and recommending qualified members of the public to serve on our boards and commission.

Sadly and unfortunately, that commission was never permitted to fulfill its function, and that is because of mayoral non-feasance, which we have seen is a pattern here in Stamford.

When a mayor is opposed to something, a mayor just simply doesn't act.

And unfortunately, we haven't had enough members of our legislative body who are strongly enough committed to their role as a check and balance to challenge that.

And that's why I'm especially opposed to this ordinance because it was submitted by the mayor.

And it has nothing to do with an individual mayor.

It's the fact that the office of the mayor is seeking to eliminate a body that could potentially limit or set some contours to that mayor's power.

We know that the appointments commission can't require the mayor to accept their recommendations.

That's why it is somewhat it functions also politically for the mayor, because just like the mayor gets support politically when they're elected, they also have to be willing to accept the downside and the criticism when they are not fulfilling their role, for example, by appointing people and by appointing people fairly to boards and commissions.

I have heard members of this of the former board, or at least one suggest that the mayor should be protected from the political fallout.

No, that's wrong.

That is not how our how our system of government works.

That's not how political power works in a democratic democratic election-based system of government.

Um, you get both sides of the coin.

And frankly, too many qualified members have applied to boards and commissions and been overlooked time and time again, and that's why we need, especially with this particular board that has been more willing to do the mayor's bidding.

We need more independent oversight here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Calabries.

All righty.

Um, are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on LR 32.016?

Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing with respect to LR32.016 at 7.13.

7.13 p.m.

Excuse me.

Uh we're gonna move on to the public hearing with respect to LR 32.017.

Uh, which I'm opening now at 7.13 p.m.

Miss Halburn, you've got the floor.

There you are.

Hi, can you hear me okay?

Yes, yes, ma'am.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you again.

Um, as I said, I appreciate the ordinance to add affirmative reporting to boards and commissions report, but um I feel it's my opinion that further language needs to be added based on my experience applying for uh HPAC.

I have lived for 42 years in the South End of Stanford, which is which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

I was vice president of the South End NRZ for many years and have been a member of the historic neighborhood preservation program since 2008.

HNP is Stanford's nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting Stanford's architectural history.

I had applied for HPAC in 2024.

There were three empty seats and one expired seat.

I was voted on by the DCC and interviewed by the mayor in March.

I had not heard back until July after sending two emails to the mayor's office asking for notification.

I was advised that my application would not be moved forward.

To be candid, in October 2024, four men living north of I 95 were interviewed by the Board of Reps for HPAC, and all were approved.

Consideration might be given to provide an explanation if a candidate is not selected.

May I suggest this simple statement be added to the ordinance to ensure all neighborhoods and people of all backgrounds be represented?

The mayor is required to consider appointments to ensure that to the fullest extent possible, the composition of boards and commissions reflects the diversity of the residents and the geographic areas of the city.

Thank you.

That's I wanted to add.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Halper.

Next up we've got Mr.

Adams.

So good evening again.

On this particular uh matter, I think uh I think that you know, after reading uh the language and really kind of you know giving it some serious thought, I think this doesn't actually go far enough.

Uh and while I know that we're trying to avoid the mayor from vetoing this ordinance, uh, because that's just likely to happen anytime you are approaching um this kind of uh you know check.

Um and it's obviously happened twice in the in the past.

Uh I think what's really important here is this idea that uh the public doesn't have a right to know who, or the Board of Reps doesn't have the right to know who it has been applying.

I mean a name.

And why uh why I um I'm saying that is because if you go to the zoning board meeting and you want to talk on a zoning board meeting, you have to give your full name and your address.

Why should uh uh a member of the public be subject to greater vetting or greater, you know, uh declaration of of information, a personal information, than people who are going to be uh, you know, serving functions for the government.

I would figure that actually it's the other way around.

It's you know, members of the government should be more exposed than members of the public.

That's how everything else in our system of government works.

So I don't see why it would be different here.

Um that being said, I hope that you get this over the finish line.

I hope you uh consider uh this halburn's uh amendment, and I would really like to see this get over the finish line.

Uh, you know, I will take inches.

Uh, you know, we've been we've been trying for yards and we haven't gotten anywhere.

Uh I will take inches.

Um, this is not about this mayor.

This isn't about uh anything.

It's about what are we leaving behind for our posterity?

What is it that we are going to be affording to the people that are going to live here in 30, 40, 50 years?

You know, it's kind of, you know, this idea.

I mean, I don't want to get into it.

I was going to talk about Westfill being a 50 year 50-year-old building and we're, you know, now we're planning for 50-year buildings.

Why are we ever planning about 50 year buildings?

We should be planning for 400 year buildings.

Uh it seems nonsensical to me.

But in terms of this particular uh ordinance, plan this for the grand future, not just for this immediate political situation.

Thank you, and I hope you have read it.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Thank you.

Uh next up we have Miss Calabries.

Good evening again.

I support LR 32.017.

Um, although inadequate, it does it saves some piece, some strand of the appointments commission.

Um I note from having followed these conversations since last year that it addresses a member's concerns or at least one member's concerns um about the privacy of applicants, so that an applicant is not required to provide certain demographic information that does help with reporting.

Um, I never really thought some of those concerns were very valid, um, that someone might be concerned that if they were not accepted, but um that those concerns are addressed.

What I think the associated um, the associated breakdown information um tells us, it should be very alarming for an all democratic legislature um in a very blue city, and that is that it looks like 76 percent uh of the members of boards and commissions are Caucasian, and that is in a majority minority city, and only 29% are female.

Those are some very weak numbers for again an old democratic, especially for an all democratic board, and we need to have some movement on that.

Um in terms of your concerns that the mayor may override, may override the I'm sorry, maybe to the legislation.

I would urge you to override the veto.

Um, it's up to you, the board of representatives to make the law.

Remember, schoolhouse rock, that's you, the legislative rec.

You're making the law.

Um, you should not cower before a monarch as you or before the executive, or allowing them essentially to function as a monarch, as you did with two other bills that the mayor has vetoed.

And with that, um, I also want to emphasize the need for the home address of the members um of the potential appointees, because we do not have adequate geographic and representation within Stanford, and that often can reflect um socioeconomic data.

So we have people who live north of the merit making decisions about housing and living conditions for the people who live south of Bold's head, and the people making the decisions know nothing uh or know very little about the impact of their decisions and the living conditions because they don't experience it day-to-day.

That is represent is um essentially it's it's not taxation, but it's zoning, etc., legislation without representation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Calabries.

Uh that's all I have for members of the public that had signed up in advance.

Are there any other members of the public that would speak?

Seeing none, I'm going to close this public hearing on LR 32.017 at 7.22 p.m.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

So at this time, let's move forward um to item number two.

Um, so at this time, I would ask for a motion to approve LR 32.017.

So moved.

Thank you.

Second is there.

I heard a second from Vice Chair Caporelli.

Uh great.

Uh so with respect to this one, uh, I'd like to start by opening the floor, uh and then well, taking the floor, I mean.

Um, so with respect to LR 32.017, um, I've received some feedback from the mayor's office um expressing some concern about the cadence of the report, uh, meaning monthly being too frequent and could cause you know administrative burden, um, and that they would prefer to see that adjusted to quarterly, uh, which is, you know, kind of a a cadence that I had already considered when I drafted this ordinance.

I don't think that it's otherwise objectionable.

Um they've also expressed uh an opinion that they would appreciate having this ordinance wait until they get opinions for legislative council.

Uh I've spoken with legislative council previously in floating this concept of this ordinance concept by them, uh, and they had offered preliminary support.

Um that being said, I, you know, unless members of the committee disagree, I don't think it's objectionable to move this from monthly or quarterly.

Uh, but we should move forward with approving it with that change this evening, uh, as a new public hearing would be required, uh, because it's a substantive change.

And I'd rather not delay this further than that, and so that we can at least get on the books a schedule for a public hearing next month.

Um, so with that context, I would appreciate a motion to amend the ordinance to strike, let's see.

So to strike in section D the word month in the first sentence where it says not less than once per month to say instead not less than once per quarter.

Is there any motion?

I'd like to make that motion, a motion to move it from monthly to quarterly.

Second.

And thank you, Representative Hughes.

I hear a motion in a second.

Is there any debate or comment or does anybody wish to seek the floor with respect to those amendments or that amendment?

All right.

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

All in favor of making that amendment, please say aye.

All opposed.

All righty.

Uh any abstentions.

Okay, the ayes have it.

And the ordinance is amended.

Is there anybody that wishes to seek the floor with respect to passage of the ordinance as now amended?

Representative blank, you look for it.

Um I'm I'm saddened by the fact that we um are being told last minute.

Um, request from the um I recall from our prior conversations with the mayor's office and included a uh press lengthy presentation.

Uh, that the data that we were expecting was already being called and already being calculated, and that would matter.

Um is uh I'll live with the quarterly and we have something, but I don't quite understand the need for corporation council at this point because they've gone through this presentation, they've gone through all this effort.

And at this point, we're not getting any more information than they were already clean.

Where are we going with this?

We're gonna postpone this out.

And I get it, we have to do what we have to do.

But it at some point we draw the line in the sand, move on, and you're past the northern.

And at this point, this is games, almost looks like games.

I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And that we're we're looking at a situation where we've already been told by the mayor through her uh chief of staff that all we're getting is exactly what they have, and we're not going to change that.

What we're asking for is information area.

So why we need corporation councils input at this point is beyond my understanding.

Uh, quarterly, but I'm not real happy about the council.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Blank.

Are there any other members that wish to seek the floor with respect to LR32.017?

Representative Wonderful.

Thank you.

Well, I'm I'm I'm I'm glad for the amendment to change the reporting to quarterly.

Uh I uh I think that monthly was an unnecessary administrative burden on um on the mayor's office and you know it's like an unfunded mandate.

Any it just anytime we increase the administrative burden one place, it means they're not able to do something else.

Um, because time is not intimately lasting.

Um I'll still be voting against this uh ordinance.

Um I thought that one of the public speakers uh described the problem um really well uh that when she when she said that as I recall the numbers uh only about 30 percent of the people who serve currently serve on the volunteer boards and commissions are women, when obviously women are at least 50% of the total population.

And only about I think are I think around 20% of the people who serve on the volunteer boards and commissions are people of color when they represent probably majority of the city.

Those are serious problems that we could be pressing.

However, I don't think that the passage of this ordinance will do anything to solve that, this problem.

What we should be attacking is our recruiting process, which I think is unsuccessful in it.

And in adequate, and this ordinance won't, the information that this ordinance will create will not do anything to improve the recruiting process.

It may confirm what we already know we could validate that confirmation just by asking for a one-time review of 2025 applications.

So again, I don't think this ordinance really will do anything to solve what are real problems.

And therefore I will be voting against it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to say first and foremost that information is power.

And I think that having this information could help us change the structure of boards and commissions.

You know, of boards and commissions are female might have already moved her in a different direction.

Maybe people like Sue Halpern will get a second look now because the mayor realizes that there's a lack of women on the board.

I think that our mayor wants to promote uh females.

So I think power, you know, information is definitely power.

I don't remember, and this is a question to the chair and the uh lead sponsor of the ordinance, if we had a statement in there about diversity.

I know that it wouldn't carry any teeth, but it might be something nice to add.

Um so I'll I'll pause for a minute while maybe you could answer that.

I don't think currently there's any language in the ordinance proposed that would otherwise comment on the appointments process itself.

It's simply just a reporting requirement on the state of play.

I'm just asking if we if the if the committee has an appetite for adding a diversity statement to the to the to the ordinance.

Um once the floor is available, I'm happy to share a comment.

My my personal thoughts on that.

Okay, and then the and then lastly, um, not to be controversial, but what if what if we did have the option of an applicant being public?

We we've been fighting against this idea of having people's names out there publicly, but maybe some people would prefer to have their name out there publicly, like the speaker that we had, Sue Halfren, I think has made many public statements about how many times you know she has submitted her name for various different things.

What if that were optional?

That's the second thing that I'd like to find out if the committee uh has an appetite for.

So those are my two questions to put out there, and I'm gonna yield with that.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camper.

Representative, I uh don't have any direct commentary on representative campaign points.

I wanted to address something that Representative Weinberg had said that stood out to me.

Um, because I believe the phrase that he used was that it was likely that the reason for the disparity we saw in the people who are appointed was due to a disparity in applications.

And I think the fact that we are saying it is likely is kind of the point of this ordinance is we don't know for sure.

And the solution that uh representative Weinberg had proposed was uh you know, one time request of of the documents in order for us to see.

Um but while that might work for you know today, I don't think that puts us in a good structural place uh for the future.

It only allows uh us on this board uh to review things.

It makes it uh much harder for a member of the public who doesn't have record request power except through the uh except for the FOIA process uh to get that information.

So I think there is value in in making sure that there is at least you know a leg on this.

And you mentioned needing to recruit better, and I 100% agree with that.

Uh something I've been trying to do, although I would and I've not had that much success so far.

Um, but how we know where we need to go in that recruiting comes out of this data of which groups do we do we need to get uh engaged with uh so I think I do think that this helps um and I think it's positive step forward of the legal content.

Thank you, everyone could draw.

Are there any other members that wish to seek the floor with respect to LR 32.017?

All righty, seeing and hearing none.

Let's call this for a vote.

Uh we'll go roll call.

Uh uh Vice Chair Camparelli.

Garrett, can you just repeat what we're voting on right now?

Sure.

This is a motion to approve LR 32.017 um as as amended, specifically for public hearing.

I vote yes.

Uh Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyde.

Yes.

Representative Le Pine.

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

No.

And I myself am a yes.

So that is eight in favor, one against the motion passes.

All right.

Moving on to LR 32.016.

Um, as has been the case in our previous meetings, considering uh a lot of folks have made comments previously that you know their support in repeal of this would be within the context of ideally the passing of LR 32.017.

I think, as again, we've done in the past, it makes sense to delay our vote here.

Um, excuse me, to delay our vote here and see how the uh the public hearing resolves.

We don't need to have a public hearing on this one again because we have had no substantive changes.

Uh, and so with that, I would request a motion to postpone definitely.

So, I hear a motion and a second.

Does anybody wish to seek the floor with respect to the motion to postpone?

Okay.

Let's try this by voice vote.

All those in favor for the motion to postpone definitely LR 32.016.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

The motion passes.

Okay.

With that, that concludes our business for today.

Representative, do you still wish to seek the floor?

Uh I wish to speak the floor on the substance of the L32.016 to address some of the public comments, but we've already disclosed pair.

I guess I'll put it on the next one.

Understood.

Uh with that, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to declare.

I hear a motion.

Do we have a second?

Uh we are adjourned at 7 39 p.m.

Thank you very much for all of your attendance and for the public for their comments.

Night everyone.

Good night, everyone.

Thank you for attending.

Good night.