Thank you so much for your attendance at this time.

I'd like to call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee, June 20, excuse me, July 28, 2026 at 701 p.m.

In attendance.

I see we've got committee members, uh, Representative Blank, Boudreau, Vice Chair Camparelli, Representative Hughes, myself, Representative Stone, Representative Weinberg.

Uh, and I don't think we yet see Representative.

No.

And Representative Lepine is excused.

Uh, and so with that, we have seven members out of the nine and have a quorum.

Uh, additionally SEX officio members, uh, Representative Field, Finkel, Morrison, Pavia, Politia, Price, Shaw, Sylvestri in attendance.

And if there's anybody else that I may have missed, please let me know.

So did I I did yep, thank you.

And Representative Sanford.

Okay.

All righty.

So with that, I think for some administrative ease and scheduling, um, I would appreciate if we could take the agenda backwards.

Um, so at this time I'd like to make a mo, or excuse me, I'd like to solicit a motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of taking items in the following orders.

Three, two, and then one.

So move.

So I thank you.

I hear a motion and a second.

All in favor.

All right.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Any abstentions?

All right, so the motion passes.

One roll move.

All right.

And with that, first up on the agenda now will be LR32.020, an ordinance for publication, an amendment to the code of ordinances, article seven, delegating authority, uh, the shellfish commission to the harbor management commission as submitted by Mayor Caroline Simmons.

Uh, we have two invited guests with respect to this item.

Attorney Rosenberg and Corporations Council, the legal department's office, uh, and Chairman uh Damian Ortelli.

Um, would either attorney Rosenberg or Chairman Ortelli if you'd like any, you know, say any words with respect to the item.

Mr.

Chairman, I think it might be helpful for Dr.

Ortelli to give some background as to the measure that uh former mayor David Martin took uh to uh endow the Harbor Management Commission with the duties of the Shellfish Commission.

Sure.

Chairman Ortelli, I think you're muted if you're looking to speak.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um, just to introduce myself, um Damian Ortelli, Chair of the Stanford Harbor Management Commission, and sort of of the uh shellfish commission, apparently.

Um back about 2016, Mayor Martin came to me and said, hey, you're doing a good job as chair of the harbor commission.

Uh we'd like you to take the duties of the shellfish commission.

And I said, okay, uh never do a bad job good, so why not?

Um and uh uh so he uh uh this memo uh shifting the powers and responsibilities to the uh shelf to the harbor management commission.

Um and we have uh dutifully discharged those duties over the last uh several years.

Um we uh uh one of the things that's bringing this to us now is that um a part of uh the responsibilities is we have uh certain number of acres out in the harbor that we lease to uh a shellfish purveyor.

Um and we were up for renew on that.

And um the um the the minds at in corporation council felt like it would be a good idea to establish this ordinance to uh you know have this uh uh officially on the books so that you didn't have to go searching for Mayor Memos um, you know, sort of executive order, I guess.

Uh and so this is really just codifying um how we've been active active um over the last uh eight or nine years.

Um and uh I appreciate the uh appreciate the the the thought that went into it.

Um we we had a couple of uh revisions over the last couple of days just to make the language a little bit more clear.

Um, and I can you know take any questions anyone has on uh what the Harbor Commission does as Shellfish Commission or um you know any more of the history uh that uh uh you know you guys would like to hear.

the last uh eight or nine years um and uh appreciate the uh appreciate the the the thought that went into it um we we had a couple of uh revisions over the last couple of days just to make the language a little bit more clear um and i can you know take any questions anyone has on uh what the harbor commission does as shellfish commission or um you know any more of the history uh that uh uh you know you guys would like to hear and here to answer any questions that you have and and thank you uh for taking this up and thank you to attorney rosenberg for helping shepherd this to you guys thank you very much chairley one second can you choose I think it's the final thing uh okay perfect all right so I'd like us to take a couple of votes to get this rolling so we can open this up for questions and any discussion um specifically we've got one minor procedural hurdle um we've got a revised version of the ordinance that we received yesterday uh and the board rules mandate that we get those uh 36 hours prior um we can consider it upon a two-thirds vote i don't think it'll be controversial but I'd like to at least have the vote so that we can follow our board rules um is there any motion to consider the the revised version of the ordinance thank you and a second all in favor uh any opposed any abstentions the motion passes and now we are permitted to consider it so now we may I have a motion to approve LR 32.020 motion to approve thank you second and a second perfect representative second that's all right oh thank you thank you um my my question is to uh to either the the um the chairperson of the harbor management and shellfish commission or to the attorney um with regards to paragraph c of the ordinance uh of the yeah ordinance um uh violations regulator issue uh by commission pursuant to the section shall be fined no more than 250 dollars that sounds like a lukewarm slap on the wrist in today's market um is there a cap by the state or feds that keeps us from yes increasing that um uh I I really would like to see us change that language may I respond it's Bert Rosenberg please that language is taken directly from the state statute so in my opinion uh we don't have the we don't have the authority to impose a fine that exceeds uh what is permitted by the state statute all right so this is state driven yes sir and not and not the city or our willingness to yes sir that entire section C is is taken directly from the uh from the state statute okay uh not happy but okay uh representative representative uh thank you uh through you a question for um uh for Dr.

Ortelli by money yes uh Dr.

Ortelli um are the um members of the harbor management commission in favor of the passage of this ordinance thank you for asking that yes um they all are and they uh uh enjoy doing the the work of both committees uh both commissions um and so it'll really just be much the same uh uh it it's just on the books in a more uh uh convenient and uh I I suppose thorough way thank you I yield thank you representative um at the risk of nitpicking I think I see a couple typos in the draft that's ahead of us and I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding um anything and that they are in fact typos in section C it says the commission may prohibit the tapping of such shellfish is that supposed to say taking or is hacking something that actually shellfish but I don't know that I noticed it I believe that is the language of the state statute.

Dr.

Ortelly I don't know if you want to uh oh yeah yeah you know I I I didn't see that and I suppose tapping a shellfish is not very kind to it um but um uh it it may be uh it may be a typo I'm I'm not sure all right if it's a typo I'll I'll correct it yeah uh point of order then does this turn to wear it yeah but uh see uh screener's error is we could be correct yes okay yeah okay which he confirmed okay's errors then I don't know that did you have a okay that was the only one there's another one in the title which is it says shells you got it I yeah uh attorney Roger did you hear that second one just no I didn't repeat that for a minute in the title of the ordinance it says shells fish rather than shellfish oh yes yeah I'm sorry I'm sorry about that okay perfect you hi um this is for Dr.

Uh attorney Brokenbird.

Did you hear that second one?

Just no, I didn't.

Did you repeat that formula?

In the title of the ordinance, it says shells fish rather than shellfish.

Oh, yes.

Yeah.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

Hi.

Um, this is for Dr.

Ortelli.

Can you just give us a brief description about what you would be doing or what you do as shellfish commissioners?

Uh yeah.

So several things.

As I mentioned before, the uh lease of the shellfish uh beds are directly uh a function of the the shellfish management commission.

Um there's also a uh uh uh part of the land use um uh evaluation that the harbor commission does.

There's a there's a a second evaluation for sh for impacts on uh shellfish uh beds.

Um and so it's um it there the so we we go into the uh you know looking at uh somebody's putting in a dock and and they have to get signed off by the shellfish commission um as to whether or not there's a uh there is a bed there or there might be some sort of an impact on on the the um aquatic life.

Um we also work with the the Department of Agriculture Um pretty closely.

Uh we're we're doing water quality uh testing.

Uh uh Soundwaters does that, does the testing for us and it gets shipped up to the labs.

We're trying to get the shellfish beds open for the public again for the first time in decades.

Um so we've been spearheading that and we're using the monies that we take in the uh shellfish lease uh as a part of to to pay for the um uh the water quality testing.

Um and you know, as the the as that matures, we can then start to stock.

There are there are several towns that that do stock things um that the that the public can come in and and um you know and they pay a they pay a fee for a a clamming license or something, and then they can come in and clam.

Um but that's down the road.

Um we've also created a uh a shellfish plan, uh shellfish management plan um that is uh uh um you know kind of gonna roll into the harbor management plan.

You guys will have a chance to look at that once it's finalized and attached to the harbor management plan.

Should you decide that this is uh this ordinance is the right direction and you formally add us.

Um and um let's see, did I did I forget anything?

Um I mean that's those are the those are the broad strokes.

Uh it's not a it's not a terribly um time consuming job.

Um the shellfish uh commission had been shut down for several years before uh Mayor Martin gave uh handed it to us.

Um there was a a gentleman that was chair, and he you know, sort of was the one that that made that whole thing run for quite some time.

And when he passed on um uh passed away, um I I guess nobody really took up the mantle, and that was when uh you know uh Mayor Martin uh got around to to giving it to us.

Um so our our hope is to continue to find ways for the shellfish commission to uh grow and be um you know be involved.

Um and there's uh again there's there's a uh several towns that are way ahead of us on that um up and down the coast that that uh you know we we go to uh several of us go to a uh gathering of the shellfish in the in the January and uh it's like a big convention and and so every time members come back from that they've learned things and they want to start implementing things.

So you know it's water quality testing, it's managing you know shellfish beds.

Um and you know, in in Stanford that's not a big deal, but in in you know, other towns where there's a really vibrant shellfishing uh capabilities, it it's a big deal.

Oh, is over harvesting part of that or um yeah, we don't um uh we don't do a lot of harvesting.

There, there's only a couple of vendors that work in the city's waters.

Um and there there is, you know, occasionally we'll be asked to open uh transfer beds and that kind of thing.

And so we work with the Bureau of Aquaculture to to make that happen, but there's not a lot of shellfish activity.

Um, you know, again, because it it's the water quality has been you know so bad for years, it's getting better.

We're getting closer and closer um to uh uh to getting the beds open, but you have to have a certain number of uh two different types of water quality tests.

Uh, one is an adverse experience.

You have to have eight of those a year, um, where there's been half an inch of rain or more, uh, and then the boat has to go out within a certain time period and take the water quality testing, then they have to get it up to the lab uh for testing, and then there are regular samples that you have to take as well, and it has to be three years of good samples.

So, you know, you miss one year, and it uh even if you don't hit all let's say you hit seven of those adverse samples.

Um, you know, your your three-year window starts over again.

So it's um, you know, it's not easy, but uh it's a good thing that it's not easy because I don't want anybody eating shellfish out of our waters that is gonna hurt them.

Good idea.

Thank you so much for what you do and for what the whole the whole commission does.

Thank you so much.

And I'm pleasure.

Uh is there anybody else that wishes to seek the floor with respect to LR 32.020.

Seeing and hearing none, let's have a vote.

Let's attempt it by voice.

All those in favor of approving LR 32.020 and ordinance for publication amendments ordinance is article 12, delegating authority of shellfish commission to harbor management commission.

Please say aye.

Any attentions.

All right, item passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chairman Umartellian uh trying to rumor of your attendance.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Uh Representative Stone, if you could mute yourself, there's a little bit of feedback on our um, please.

Thank you so much.

All right, and before we move on, I just wanted to note we also have uh committee member representative Hyatt in attendance, excuse me, and also ex officio members, uh Representative Weathers and Clerk Johnson.

All right, moving on to the next order of business, LR 32.007, 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 applicants and appointees on the city's boards and commissions.

Uh we have a public hearing scheduled for this item today.

We have a number of folks that have express interest to speak.

So at this time at 7.18, I'm going to open this up for public hearing.

Please.

Uh Ms.

Halperney.

You are up first.

There you go.

You should be able to oh, we got somebody growing.

You should be able to unmute now.

Okay.

Hi.

Hi.

You've got the floor for three minutes.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Sue Halpern, and I live down the South End.

I am here tonight to support the appointments ordinance.

The people of Stanford deserve to know whether our boards and commissions reflect the diversity, experience, and talent of our community.

This ordinance is about transparency.

It does not tell the mayor who to appoint, nor does it take away the mayor's authority to nominate candidates.

It simply provides the public and the board of representatives with a collection of data about the appointment process.

So informed discussions can take place.

This ordinance asks that it be reported in an anonymous aggregated format.

So trends can be understood over time.

That benefits everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

Our volunteer boards and commissions make decisions that affect housing, parks, transportation, public safety, the environment, and the quality of life in every neighborhood.

Residents deserve to know whether vacancies are being filled in a timely manner, whether opportunities to serve are reaching people from across our community, and whether our boards reflect the city they represent.

I know.

Okay.

I respectfully ask you to support this ordinance.

My apologies.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I asked you to support this ordinance.

It promotes openness, accountability, and informed decision making while preserving the mayor's authority to appoint members to Stanford boards and commissions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And apologies for the premature interruption.

Okay.

Mr.

Papa.

You got three minutes.

And it's the real reason.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

You all know me right.

You know, I just want to mention that I, you know, this is uh it's something very important.

We're living a democratic democracy means the people supported by business, right?

Now the question is uh, you know, I do certain things I want to collaborate.

I collaborated with New Reverend.

I want to who and every stone when we build a big city, I have the support of the group in Stanford, starting from Spring Day, but I mentioned to the uh to the people there uh that done 20 years ago that we build we don't mandate, okay.

If I decide you'll be a volunteer and the estimate to be a volunteer, they know there's no opening we get back to you and never get victim.

And that means you don't want to, you're not exercising the democracy, but to people who participate in the process to make sure we turn all the stones and we save money for the taxpayer that we all leave it into a big business uh you know productive environment and we all benefit.

Otherwise, we end up uh spending every billion dollars for a school, another billion dollars for the regulation, which was not built, right?

I try to talk either.

I come this to meeting conflicting, I cannot talk to one and the other one or the other, you know.

I would say that the idea we are not really exercising democracy right here.

And this goes against it, it's almost shooting an all laker right here.

You know, we are really not listening to the people because uh we're thinking that some executive it could be to act like a Mussolinian type of side that we all know where to end up.

You know, when I don't care how bright you are, you're not gonna be able to succeed when you're when you're involved with the people.

You gotta get the people involved, and that there's nobody here today.

You know, we always are the same people talking about here, that's like talking to the world.

If we wanted to participate, you know, in the democratic process, we should participate then we should have four underrepresentatives.

We only got those you know, fourties show up with it that's it.

That is our portable, you know.

What are you gonna do?

You can throw it people manage 150,000 people, you know, and there is almost a billion dollar kind of thing.

They're talking about we are spending billions of dollars left and right.

I never I never see our least approach.

You know, how can we all basically every house the people the wording for the property?

I mean, it's a unless we have the courage to allow people to participate in the democratic process.

We're gonna fail.

When we fail, we're gonna see this three people in the white house.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Pump.

Uh next up, Mr.

Adams.

Uh, good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Uh uh, thank you for allowing me to speak.

Um I've spoken a number of times on this particular issue.

Uh and I think that everybody's pretty clear on where I come from it on it.

Um the there's two really paramount responsibilities for the mayor, and that is to um appoint people to the appointed boards and commissions and to hire people for personnel.

Uh those are the two paramount uh objectives that any executive uh needs to need to accomplish.

Um that being said, if that all that is being done sort of behind uh uh a veil or a cloak and there's no way to audit it, then how is it that the residents whom the mayor works for uh pay um have any understanding of how it is that process is going.

We've gone uh up and down this this road a couple of times.

There's obviously problems to the charter.

We've we've got that.

You guys are trying to uh tackle part of the problem right now.

Um but it's more than just demographics, it's more than just making sure that the people that are being picked are you know the right type of people.

And I did read uh attorney Lee's legal opinion on this and uh about how you know he felt that the you know it it would lead to making decisions based on demographics rather than uh uh whether or not they were married.

Um I can understand that.

I I really don't understand the rest of his legal opinion to be honest with you.

It doesn't seem like a legal opinion to me.

It seems like a psychological evaluation of uh, you know, the psychology of an uh uh, you know, uh an outpin.

Um I don't really see how that had to play with the legality of this.

Um, and if we do read uh section six, uh and we look at how that's worded to begin with.

It's very clear that there are uh very clear um uh deadlines that the that the that the mayor's office, whoever that may be, uh has to follow.

Uh, you know, it's something that's never followed is this uh, you know, right in the very beginning of section six.

We uh it's the obligation of the mayor to submit annually an entire slate of everyone who's vacant.

And that doesn't ever get followed.

You know, uh what we're trying to achieve right now is getting a grip on what's actually happening.

Are there applications coming in?

Are those apples being considered uh legitimately?

Uh I don't think this actually thank you.

I don't think this actually goes far enough to do so.

Um and I really, like I said last time, I really think names need to be in names need to be in there, where they live needs to be in there.

I think that if you're a government official, if you work for the government, uh you should be held to uh a much stricter standard than citizens, and you know, it anybody that's speaking, a resident that's speaking at any of these meetings that needs to dox themselves when they speak.

That being said, uh I support the ordinance as it's written out.

And um, I hope that there aren't any drastic amendments to the amendments.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

I have up next uh Miss Waldman.

Oh, perfect.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

You have three minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Paula Waldman.

I am a Stanford resident in the Bull's Head area.

And over the years, I've had the opportunity to speak before this board on a number of issues affecting our community.

One thing I'd come to appreciate is that good decisions are made when they're based on good information.

Transparency builds trust, and trust is one of the foundations of good government.

That's why I'm here tonight and supported the appointments ordinance.

As a resident, I as a resident, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how the appointment process is working.

Are vacancies being filled in a timely manner?

Are residents throughout Stanford aware of opportunities to serve?

Are we reaching people with a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives?

Those are fair questions, and having objective information helps answer them.

This ordinance does not tell the mayor whom to appoint, nor does it diminish the mayor's authority.

It simply provides a clearer picture of the appointment process while protecting individual privacy.

I believe that's a reasonable and balanced approach.

The boards and commissions that serve our city help shape Stanford's future.

They influence decisions about housing, parks, transportation, public safety, our environment, and many other issues that affect every single resident.

The more confidence the public has and the appointment process, the stronger those boards and our city will be.

For me, this ordinance is not about politics, it's about transparency, accountability, and public confidence.

Providing residents with a better understanding of the appointment process strengthens trust in our local government while fully preserving the mayor's authority to make appointments.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Ms.

Waldman.

Uh that concludes all the members of the public that have signed up in advance.

Are there any other members of the public in attendance that wish to speak on LR 32.017?

So you couldn't raise your hand.

I see no other members of the public here.

If there's any online seeing no others, I'm going to close this public hearing on LR 32.017 at 7.30 p.m.

Um and so that we can move forward in our review and discussion on this one.

Can I please have a motion to approve LR 30.017?

So I hear a motion and a second.

Perfect.

We also have an attendance attorney, Daniel Lee, whose issue, or excuse me, who's published a um uh a legal opinion on this ordinance and has also suggested uh some revisions as well.

Attorney Lee, I think I saw you were in attendance.

Yes, hello, thank you.

I am in attendance.

Perfect.

Thank you very much.

If you'd like to take a couple of minutes, uh, you know, to share any preliminary thoughts.

If not, I'm happy to kick discussion up here.

Yeah, I'd be happy to discuss the ordinance um that's before the board right now.

Um it's gonna my take is going to be consistent with my opinion.

Um, so if the committee would like to hear that, I will uh try to explain it to the public and to the committee right now.

Um so I guess I'll start from the beginning.

The the Stanford's charter is like the city's constitution, it's the government governing document, and so an ordinance is akin to a statute, and the ordinance must conform to the charter and can't add conditions to it, can't change uh the language and meaning of the charter, can't re-allocate authority that the charter assigns uh to the mayor or to the board, and and under long-standing Connecticut law, an ordinance that conflicts with a with a municipal charter is void.

Um our charter, so it's not a really a matter of policy.

I'm not getting into the policy of it.

Um, it's really that uh black letter law that I'm concerned with.

And the charter, our charter assigns two distinct roles.

Um, when it comes to the appointment process, there's a separation of powers there.

The mayor selects the nominees and submits them to the board, and the board's role is to approve or reject those nominees.

So, except in limited circumstances, expressly identified in the charter.

Um, the authority to nominate a prospective candidate to a committee belongs to the mayor.

Um with respect to the to the ordinance that's um up for uh the public hearing today.

The subsection A is probably the clearest legal problem.

Um it requires every person who uh wishes to serve on a committee to complete an application.

That requirement is not in the charter.

The charter does not say that a person who uh may be considered or nominated for a committee must complete an application.

And so what the ordinance would do is create a mandatory prerequisite uh to consideration and nomination that is not bound in the charter.

And um in doing that, it would also prevent the mayor, uh at least at times from nominating uh someone who would otherwise be qualified who does not wish to fill out an application.

Um a lot of times nominees for committees are identified through informal conversation through recommendations by officials or community members, they may be personally recruited by the mayor.

Um so there's a the mere fact that uh requiring someone to fill out an application um uh could have an impact on the mayor's ability to appoint uh who he or she uh wishes to appoint.

And the the legal legal concern is not whether the applications are good policy.

Um the applications may be helpful uh to address certain considerations.

The issue is whether or not they're lawful under the charter, and what and whether or not an ordinance can accomplish what is uh it seeks to accomplish in this.

Um there are other issues that are very related to this in subsections B and C, uh, there's board mandated contents of the application.

Those contents include specific demographic, political, educational, and occupational information, if I recall, and that could also have an impact on a mayor's, this mayor or future mayor's method of identifying recruiting or considering potential nominees, and it may also um cause someone who is interested not to um apply.

One thing that everyone should uh be conscious of is that everything that we write down, every document that we create is potentially subject to freedom of information.

So uh if there's an application, a written application that has someone's uh that has certain information on it, um that could potentially be made public, and the the notion that certain information could be made public uh is likely to to some people to decide not to apply and submit them their names for for potential nominations, and it's that chewing effect on both the mayor's um thought process as well as potential candidates who we may not never enter the nominee nomination pool because of that, which is why the the mandatory application is so problematic.

So I guess I'll conclude my uh comments there, but I am here to answer any questions that anybody has.

Thank you, attorney Lee.

Uh, I appreciate that summary.

Um I I have a couple of members that are seeking recognition.

I have a couple of preliminary questions with respect to the opinion that you issued in on July, no, let me say what it's June 24th, the June 24th opinion.

Um you had mentioned that in your opinion, it's would be impermissible to mandate the completion of an application.

Um, and some of the revisions that you've proposed to the committee reflect uh or otherwise address that by by making it permissible that the mayor may have an application.

Along that same train of thought, um, the collection of demographic information has been made permissible under the uh so my question is if there are reason why in your proposed revisions you've stated in the ordinance that no person's decision can to excuse me, no person's decision to provide or decline to provide such information shall affect that person's consideration, nomination or appointment.

Are we authorized to take that authority or to take that criteria away from the mayor's discretion?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

So let me let me say this.

I was gonna say I can rephrase it if that would be easier.

I mean, basically what I'm asking is if we're not permitted to mandate any question, can we also remove from the mayor any criteria that she may consider?

For example, demographic information, failure to provide is not a basis to not be considered.

Do we have the authority to do that?

The mayor so wishes to take that in general sense, um, not in a general sense.

I mean, I I think that there are civil rights laws that would uh prohibit certain decisions be made or because of uh a protected uh class status, but that's that's not something that um ordinance would ordinarily do.

Um but uh or no, I mean I mean, other than other than what um our federal law and state laws and constitutions already um prohibit, I don't think an ordinance could could uh could do that.

And the reason is is because the charter doesn't say that an ordinance can do that.

Understood.

So would the language you proposed in section B the last sentence specifically that would take away from the mayor the discretion to make it a condition for application that they provide certain demographic information, would that language not then therefore be permissible?

an ordinance could could uh could do that and the reason is is because the charter doesn't say that an ordinance can do that understood so would the language you proposed in section b the last sentence specifically that would take away from the mayor the discretion to make it a condition for application that they provide certain demographic information would that language not then therefore be permissible i we're gonna have to here's here's where i what you should understand is that if the mayor decides to do it then that's the mayor's decision so if a mayor decides to collect information and that's how they want to approach the nomination process if the mayor decides that they want to require people to fill out applications and call and the mayor decides that this information needs to be collected then that's the mayor's um a right to do that because that the charter gives the mayor that information there's nothing there's nothing else prohibiting that collection of data other than the charter says the mayor makes these decisions sure in the process it's all the mayor no i that I can appreciate I I guess where I'm finding some confusion is if the mayor has that discretion and so elects to require that as a condition to be considered the language you provide it says no person's decision or no excuse me no person's decision to provide or decline to provide such information shall affect that person's consideration nomination or appointment wouldn't that sentence therefore remove powers from the mayor to make the delivery that information a requisite for her nomination I don't know I do I don't uh agree with that you know if we have if we have the mayor deciding to put in information the so you're looking at at a draft of a of an ordinance that I propose that you asked me to do I don't think it's it's um it's part of the agenda so and I was also asked by the administration at the same time to come up with a version of the ordinance um that would be consistent with the law that would ultimately be pat could be passed and so that's what that language is I mean we're well respectfully the language proposed as then provided to the committee for consideration this evening so that the ordinance as it was originally drafted the item is up for discussion.

So what what section of the ordinance that's up for discussion are you referencing right now I'm referencing subsection B.

Okay.

5211 subsection B of your draft the final sentence of my draft so that of my draft correct which is proposed that was designed to engender discussion so and I that's not what I'm we're discussing right now.

So everybody should know that this was I was asked to come up with something that I thought could could um that that's correct and that's why I prefaced my question with the context that I was asking about the language you proposed this committee to dot in lieu of the draft that we have now okay but I understand your position you said that the language there doesn't necessarily remove that power from the mayor and and would and would be permissible yeah I uh it we if there a mayor shouldn't be making decisions consistent with federal law and federal constitution and state constitution uh based on protected class status understood they shouldn't they should applicate they shouldn't deny uh a nomination because someone is white they shouldn't deny a nomination because someone is black they shouldn't deny nomination because someone is uh a a woman so I mean that's that's the point of that under understood and and permission yes does I don't have the text in front of me does the text actually only prohibit uh protected classes because I thought it also prohibited um failure to provide demographic data the draft I have in front of me doesn't limit it to protected statuses or reference any other body of law that would otherwise define protected status it's strictly is limited to the provision of demographic information which is not right we we what ever what you guys are discussing now is something that I propose that isn't even on the agenda and it was designed we would we've addressed that though LR32.017 is on the agenda and what they asked me about and this is a draft that was provided by you as counsel for consideration tonight but again we don't need a believer no i want to correct the record there it was not for consideration tonight this draft is not for consideration consideration for the board but tonight is a public hearing on a specific um ordinance that was that was got through committee last month so I'd be happy to discuss um

And this is a draft that was provided by you as counsel for consideration tonight.

But again, we don't need to believe.

No, I want to correct the record there.

It was not for consideration tonight.

This draft is not for consideration.

But tonight is a public hearing on a specific um ordinance that was that was got through committee last month.

So I'd be happy to discuss um discuss the draft, but it's not this, it's not what we're talking about right now.

The committee tonight has the ability to amend this ordinance before it reaches the board, and that's why it's considering your legal opinion, which has addressed concerns that we can correct tonight, or am I on a misunderstanding?

That's not a legal opinion, it was a draft that I was asked to do by you and by the administration to come up with correct that would suggest it to us committee revisions we can make in order to make it legally permissible based upon the issues you highlighted in your opinions.

Yeah, and I think if you passed what I what I sent you, it would be permissible by the by the charter.

Understood that that's that's the nature of my question, and that's why it's relevant this evening, and that's why we're discussing it to see whether or not it should be passed in lieu of what we have now.

That being said, um I'll yield the floor.

I have further questions, but I understand there are others that have interest in speaking.

So uh representative blank, you've got the floor followed by representative paving up on yeah, no, I was recognizing the committee member first.

Oh, okay.

Um it it it dismays me.

Um that we are having this discussion.

Um, and apparently we'll be going to may have to go to a third public hearing on this uh effort.

Um and and mostly it dismays me because it seems like in one word or one sentence, the administration is telling us, well, we can give you all this information without any issue or problem because we collect it now anyway, and the second verse comes out that well, what we're doing is illegal, and that we have no right to request the information other than through uh freedom of information act attack, and and I'm a little confused why I'm hearing two stories from the administration, and and and I'm and I'm more confused on why this has become a sticking point.

The city is already collecting this information.

We have been told by the city by the mayor's office directly that the city already has an application process, period, and the story, and that the data coming from that application process is being processed through a specific system that allows them to aggregate the data anonymously to all of us at any given time, but yet Attorney Lee, uh and I'm not saying that you have you stated fully that the mayor has a right to do what she wishes if she wants an application, she gets an application.

I get that, but then why don't we have the ability to look at the information being delivered?

And and we're asking for an aggregate data stream that gives us not just for this administration, but but for forward administrations who may fall back into the bad habits that happened in prior administrations, not to provide us information on a timely manner in a concise way that would help us see any trends that might be happening or point to ask the mayor and the administration how to correct these problems if there are any.

But I'm not also not saying I'm also not understanding this.

If you're collecting the data, we're asking for that information, we're not asking for more, we're not asking for an abundance of information.

We don't we're not asking for names, we're not asking, we're telling the people they do not have to provide any of the the demographics that are listed if they don't feel like they have to.

And yes, the mayor can pick somebody out of the blue and say, I want to appoint that person without an application.

That could happen.

Yeah, okay, we get it, but that's not how this mayor is working.

You if your statement is correct, the application process is basically null and void.

And that we have no and that the right of the mayor to do that is up to her, but not to share the information she gets.

And and I really don't see that as a as a very transparent methodology to help the city move forward.

And I and I apologize if I'm rambling, but I I this is my question is if you're stating that the mayor can make have an application process, you're also stating that we don't have access to that information, and that is the way the world works.

Is that true?

No, it's not.

And I apologize if I have said anything or written anything uh to cause you to think that.

So let me try to explain um the position.

What is not permissible is simply this.

The board cannot tell the mayor what to do or how to exercise his or her pre-nomination selection process.

You can't in an ordinance tell the mayor what to do because the charter doesn't allow.

In turn, the mayor, whether it's this mayor or the next mayor or the 10th mayor down the line, can decide I want this information.

So I'm going to have people fill out this application.

Why is that permissible?

Because the charter gives the mayor the authority over pre-nomination selection issues.

So the mayor can do that, but the board can't mandate that.

Now, what the board can do is collect information that's being collected in the ordinary course by the mayor.

You absolutely have that right.

And why do you have that right?

Because it's relevant to the board's job, and that is to determine whether or not to approve a nomination, right?

So you may want to know how many applicants there were.

That's not a problem.

It's not about so you know the the policy of transparency is a is a good one, and it's a noble one, and it and it is uh it is something that is absolutely worth protecting, but you got we got to do it in a way that is consistent with our current charter, and so that's all I'm saying.

You have a right, and you you can request that information right now.

The charter has a specific ordinance that allows the board to uh to request that information.

Um so I've seen drafts, and and I know and I've seen drafts circulated uh as are as you know, even today that would um that would be consistent with the charter, uh, in that the mayor decides, the mayor has the discretion to to uh to uh require nominees to fill out an application, and the board would have access to that information through a report.

That's completely permissible.

So if I have said anything or written anything that that was confusing, I hope I've clarified it.

Uh yeah, all righty.

Uh representative pavy, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh um, thank you, attorney leave for being here.

I just I want to keep this simple.

Um so passing this would not be legal, correct?

Passing the ordinance that is up for um public hearing today would it would uh I mean the the ordinance would be void, would it be void is inconsistent with the charter, and you'd get that opinion from the law department immediately.

Okay, and just um one last question, thank you for that answer.

And um also any other job that you're applying for in the city, uh maybe this is a hypothetical, but um nobody has access to all that information that the employer is is obtaining during the interview process, right?

I'm actually not that certain.

I mean, there are it uh protections for personnel records.

I don't know if if applications for jobs fall within the freedom of information uh protection.

Uh I don't think so.

I I think that um that they would be uh subject uh to disclosure through freedom for information, but I'm not 100% certain.

Okay, thank you very much, Journalie.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Havia.

Representative, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I guess I don't fully understand the legal concern you have.

Um a lot of it seemed to focus around the existence or potential existence of a chilling effect.

Uh you used that phrase a few times, and I wrote down a quote, uh, may prevent the mayor from nominating someone who does not wish to fill in an application.

I I guess I don't really see how this could be an issue because this chilling effect already exists in the current process, right?

I have heard of several cases where there's been a chilling effect of people who did not wish to go through uh the 31st board's appointments commission uh committee, and their hours long interrogations of various people.

How is I I guess I don't see how an application could possibly be a higher chilling effect than the scrutiny of this board.

And um I guess furthermore, if you address that I will address that in a and then I'll address your next point.

Yeah, um, the difference is this.

If you put it down an ordinance saying the mayor has to do it, that's the problem.

I mean, it's very simple.

The mayor, this mayor, the next mayor, any mayor can decide to do anything that they want.

They can collect the information and they can chill the applicant pool all they want through through requesting that information, but at that's the mayor's prerogative.

I'm going to conceivably chill uh the potential applicant pool by requiring this information.

That's different than the board telling the mayor they have to do it.

So that's the it's a subtle distinction, and so I hope I'm articulating it correctly so that everyone understands, but there is a big difference between the board telling the mayor what to do and the mayor deciding to do it on his or her own.

Okay, so the second, I guess coming out of that, uh the mayor can do whatever he or she wants.

Um this board, as I understand it, has the power to reject any applicant that we want.

Um with the statute, would the ordinance be legally permissible in your mind if instead of saying that the mayor must do this, it said the board shall reject every applicant unless the mayor does this.

No, that's coercion.

That's just another way of coercing the mayor.

I mean, how is that different from us taking a vote on every single applicant to do the same coercion?

I mean, there's always going to be political coercion between the branches of government.

You know, if if that's what the board decides to do down the road, then I'm sure it would be addressed.

But but one but putting language in it in an ordinance that is coercive like that would make that ordinance void.

And it would just does the same thing that I'm telling you, you you can't do because it impacts the mayor's pre-nomination process.

There's a separation of powers.

And one of the things that I tried to inform prior boards about um in public and in private conversations is that if you're going about the nomination process and the desire is to influence the mayor's nominations, then um the mindset is likely going to lead you down a path that is uh not consistent with the charter.

If you are looking at the nomination process and want and from a perspective of how do we do our charter um uh uh given jobs um in other to determine whether or not a nominee should be uh should be uh appointed.

Um and so the collection of information, like I said, is absolutely something that the board and the committee should be getting.

If you're looking at it, how do we do our job better?

Uh then you're likely gonna end up in a in a path that and and with an ordinance that actually helps you do that and is consistent with the charter.

And so that's all I'm trying to trying to do.

Now, you may there may be policy reasons why the charter needs to be changed in this process, but it's the charter that needs to be changed.

We can't do it by ordinance.

It seems like this you're setting kind of an impossibly high bar based on this idea that there can't be any coercive pressures on the mayor and their selection process, but there's always going to be you know, some sort of bullet-hill coercive pressure to do this, that, or the other thing.

That's it doesn't seem possible to totally avoid any sort of coercion.

Well, that's politics, that's politics, and um to the extent possible that needs to stay out of uh out of our written laws and uh the interpretation of them.

I mean it what happens behind the scenes um where political pressure is exerted, that's politics, but that doesn't belong in a uh in a code.

All right, all you'll let on thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Uh Representative Weimer deal with the floor.

Uh thank you.

Hi, Dana.

Hi.

So I sense that that many of us are struggling to understand the legal principles involved.

So at the risk of exhibiting great hubris, even for me.

Um I'm gonna see if we can have if I can ask uh Dana a couple of questions to try to clarify the legal the legal principles involved.

It it sounds to me that what you are saying is that as per the charter, if we think of the appointments process, if we think of someone getting appointed to a board of voluntary volunteer board or commission, if we look at the process from the expression of interest by the individual to the confirmation by the board of representatives, everything in the process starting with the expression of interest up until the forwarding of the nomination to the board, the mayor owns and the mayor had is the mayor has the power to make the decisions on that part, that segment of the of the appointments process.

Do we understand that correctly?

Yes, that I mean subject to those limited exceptions uh that are set forth in the charter.

That is exactly the case.

Uh, and that happens that division of powers, that separation of powers um in our representative democracies is consistent um at every level of government, whether it's right.

And as per the charter, the legal principle is that since the mayor owns that segment of the process up to the point when the mayor forwards a nomination to the board of reps, the board of reps does not have the power to impose any conditions on that part of the process.

Do I understand correctly?

Again, except that's exactly the exceptions that are that are outlined in the chart.

That is correct.

That is correct.

Then once the nomination is forwarded to the board of representative, once the mayor forwards the nomination to the board of representatives, the board of representatives then owns the balance of the appointments process.

Yes.

When the mayor can't impose conditions on the board of representatives for the part that the board of reps owns.

representatives the board of representatives then owns the the re the the the balance of the appointments process yes when the mayor can't impose conditions on the board of representatives for the part that the board of reps owns that's correct the mayor can um uh cannot require the board to to path to uh approve a nomination or reject the nomination or um or decide uh what seat that nominee is going to take or what questions we ask in a you know an appointments in an appointments committee meeting or you know any whatever that's right and that is that really is the legal principle involved is that correct yes that is exactly 100% correct okay separation of of authority in the charter okay in addition what I heard you say a few minutes ago and I want to make sure I heard correctly um is that the so the mayor gets to decide what information about applicants the process um the process collects correct well under the the ordinance that's being considered that's no no no I'm talking about the legal principle yeah the legal principle yes that's correct the mayor can decide to approach that pre-nomination nomination process gets to decide what information about the applicants if any um the it the it is collects that's correct however once that information is collect once the mayor or his or her designee collects that information the board it sounded like you were saying that the board of refs has the power to receive that information in aggregated anonymous form so forth and so on but that the board if the mayor chooses to collect certain information whether it's about what districts people live in or um you know or their you know or uh demographic information and so forth once the mayor makes the decision to collect the information we as a board of reps have the power to uh to receive that information properly aggregated anonymized and so forth uh it etc is that correct that's correct and um so the there's already an article in our code that allows that's uh um this might be unknown to some it's 52 7 is the power to compel compilation and reporting of data that ordinance already exists um very interesting that's very so again just to uh that to to repeat odd nauseum if data so for example in the current application that that the mayor has chosen to use information such as political affiliation um you know political party are on it or on affiliated um uh voting uh voting district in municipal voting district um uh gender race all that information is currently being collected on the application that the mayor has decided to utilize so yes so that means that you know since the mayor has made that decision we as a board can then uh have in it can require by ordinance that the mayor provide us in a timely you know reasonable way um can provide our board of reps with that information properly aggregated and anonymized and so forth that correct that's that's correct okay and you have that current power just so you know right so that to me speak you know you know speaking to my my colleagues that to me is like a big deal and uh you know listening to um you know to the comments of representative blank who you know sounded understandably frustrated that this data is being collected why can't we have access to it it sounds like as long as that data is being collected as long as the mayor has made the choice to collect it that yes we can have access to it again you know aggregated anonymized and you know in it it etc um do I understand correctly yes that's that's correct that's a that's the procedure that is currently exists and um it's absolutely fine

It sounds like as long as that data is being collected, as long as the mayor has made the choice to collect it, that yes, we can have access to it.

Again, you know, aggregated, anonymized, and you know, in it, etc.

Um, do I understand correctly?

Yes, that's that's correct.

That's a that's the procedure that is currently exists, and um it's absolutely fine.

The distinction that that we're talking about here makes this proposed ordinance unlawful is your is the is the ordinance mandates the collection of certain data and certain information.

And that's so it's yeah, okay.

So it sounds to me like the gap between what our prior draft draft that's before us, and what we're being advised is legally permissible.

The gap is we would like to we would like to be we would like to insist that the mayor collect certain data and provide and and we're being told that insisting that the lay that the that the mayor collect certain data is not permissible, but once the mayor has made the decision to collect that data, we absolutely have a right to receive it.

Unless we're worried about a nefarious mayor who chooses not to collect data that would likely be very useful to that mayor um in this process.

Um it sounds to me like that that that shrinks or the gap uh very pretty significant, but you know, others may disagree, but that's that's how it seems to me.

Well, but do you heal oh must I?

So I'm whooper static.

President Shaw before thank you so much, Edmund Human.

Um so there was an ordinance was went through all the stuff last month, and we are the Tony Lee's concerns.

Obviously, it looks like the way the current ordinance is he already said it's void and it's not going anywhere.

So just in the interest of moving this forward and finding a solution, because that's what we do, right?

That's what I'd like to do is that um I want us, I want to have a path to discuss some of the uh the amendments.

There's an amendment that was hopefully circulated this afternoon.

So I would like us to at least consider it.

Yes, um if you're referring to what Mike might distribute earlier, correct.

The chat has contributed, yes.

Could it go on the screen?

I will I just first I would like to say it, and then I'm somebody needs to make a motion.

So I think so the surprise is I I would like us to maybe look through these one by one and see where we actually can abide by the law and and and come up with something that works.

I I feel like that is something that we worked on that might potentially meet that criteria.

So I would ask if someone would make a motion for me to move this amendment.

And Madam President, I I just had one additional question for attorney before we move on to that very organized way of doing things, which I appreciate, but I just have one more question.

Yes, but there's one person before you so I do want to recognize the last two people.

Um you wanted an additional stuff.

You uh go um do you yield I will yield for now, but yeah, I'm just uh majority more than you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um as I was when I raised my hand to speak and uh put down some notes of what I was gonna say, a lot of what I was gonna say has been addressed uh by uh attorney lee and by some of the clarifying questions that Representative Weinberg put forward.

Um the overriding principle here uh as I see it is and it remains the consistent principle that uh we try to operate by on the firm first board if it isn't if it isn't legal under the charter, if it conflicts with the charter, if it it tries to impose or or limit uh uh powers in the charter on on another entity, uh it's we just we cannot move it forward.

Um and uh it it it's analogous to uh if if we wanted to pass an ordinance that um exceeded limited or countermanded uh state statute, we don't have the authority to do that either.

It's it's really the same the same principle.

conflicts with the charter if it if it tries to impose or or limit uh uh powers in the charter on on another entity uh it's it we just we cannot move it forward um and uh it it it's analogous to uh if if we wanted to pass an ordinance that um exceeded limited or countermanded uh state statute we don't have the authority to do that either it's it's really the same the same principle so going back to and then the separation of powers all of those questions that's exactly what i was gonna uh say we we are entitled to the information but we cannot compel uh what kind of information is collected um um from whom it's collected in what manner it's collected um separation of powers it it just says that um but uh with what president shaw had had started to say by going through uh the amendments to find compromise i'd like us to consider that you know if we're going to pass an ordinance it has to do something has to accomplish something an ordinance that's full of suggestions and mays instead of shells and and might instead of must is it really necessary that an ordinance even be on the books so if we're going to come down to passing something let it have something that's actually legal for us to re to demand request uh put into effect and to it's the you know and it doesn't mean a whole lot if there's no consequence for uh the the person uh the office on whom these uh ordinances may be uh place if there's no consequence for not following it so I I need to see those two elements in order for me to support an ordinance in general so let's see if we can come down to the meat of something even if it's only one paragraph that means something otherwise I don't see the need for an ordinance at all given that information is being collected and we're entitled to it already and I yield.

Thank you majority more so I check amarelli give the floor followed by uh representative news thank you attorney Lee um the question that I have for you is I understand that you know the mayor is is creating an application people fill out the application that information can be aggregated um my question to you is is there a way to legally request the information that's not getting to the point of an application for example I have someone in my district that has in the past applied for the golf commission but he did so in an email you know to myself and and Lauren Meyer perhaps without filling out an application um because I think for many of us the purpose of aggregating this information is to see why there are certain demographics missing from our boards and commissions for example women you know an area that's important to me is that we have more women on our boards and commissions something that represents the the demographic in the town that we live in but we don't know if women are just not applying and if we need to do better outreach to the female population you see what I'm saying so is there a way to request uh to legally request um all that information that's not going to an application yeah yes you can request it um you can request information that is being gathered whether you can compel the mayor to actually write down gender and um ethnicity and religion and so forth that's not permissible so whatever information that the mayor collects this mayor or the next the board has the right to collect it now what makes sense to me um is passing an ordinance that that so under the current ordinance 527 the board has the board president majority leader minority leader and a few other people um have the authority to compel um the reporting and compilation of data if this is an if this you know if the board deems the appointment process need rather than making uh requiring someone actually compel and make that request you can make a regular every six months every three months three months probably doesn't make a lot of sense but six months annually um you can put that in ordinance and whatever information that is collected is um the board would be entitled to under that ordinance and then and why because it for it it furthers the board's legislative purpose just like any compelling any set of documents or compilation of data um but there is no under the current charter there is no way to force the mayor to collect certain data for uh potential nominees that part I got so would we so would you advise or could we put the mayor may collect data from other places that are not you know and I'm not wording this properly right now because I'm just making it up right now.

That part I got so would we so would you advise or could we put the mayor may collect data from other places that are not you know, and I'm not wording this properly right now because I'm just making it up right now.

Well, to make discretionary absolutely, yes, that's that's fine.

But I think you know, it goes to the point is what's the point, but that's up that's up to the board to decide.

Um, but yeah, it's well I well I think the point is to express the board's wishes in a formal way.

Since we're writing an ordinance anyway, we could we could make that part of it, and then the mayor would know what the board would like so that the board can do its job, right?

Yeah, that would be that would be the point of that.

I understand it doesn't have teeth because you're telling us we we can't do anything that basically well we can't we just can't do the the part that that mandates the mayor take an application forces an application, right?

Okay, uh I think that was my question.

Yeah, representative Hughes, and you chair McEwan.

Hi, attorney Lee.

I just wanted to ask real quick to expand on that point of uh so we can't compel a mayor uh because of the constraints of the charter.

But I guess my question is for this to become more legally sound, would all of the shells that are filled uh in this ordinance have to be changed to Mays.

Well, in in the version, my analysis of it, that doesn't simply solve the problem.

So, which is the reason why I um circulated a draft uh that I thought you know would would be able to be passed by and be consistent with the charter and and something that uh the board would uh benefit from and the mayor would sign.

So I don't think it's just that.

Um so I can't say that, but certainly making the application and the information uh discretionary is to whether or not to require an application and what to put on it, that certainly helps.

Um but there were other issues with the proposed ordinance that uh that go beyond that simple uh solution.

And so that's because may it means it's optional, just one may is discret, yeah.

It ordinarily signals that there that it there's a discretionary aspect to that.

Okay, thank you, and I yield all right.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Oh, Representative Landard, you know, I just want to uh follow up on uh representative Hughes's question.

Um where we can say shall again, Dana, tell me if I understand correctly, where we can say shall is if certain data is being collected, then we can say the mayor shall report that data to the to the board.

So it's not a you know, it's not a you know, a strict um you know, edit and pace uh every time that there's a shallow in in the document.

We still have the authority if the data is if data is certain data is being collected.

We have the authority to uh to receive reports that summarized that provide that data, correct?

Yes, that that is that's correct.

If if the the information is being collected, the board has a has a right to see it.

Uh under because it furthers you your legislative purpose, and that is to determine whether or not to approve a nominee.

And oftentimes it doesn't just come down to qualifications, comes down to other things that I think our members are concerned about.

Right.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Representative.

Uh would the chair look favorably upon propositions to amend it this time.

Yes, that would be helpful.

Um matter of fact, as a visual aid, there are a couple of amendments that I think would be appropriate.

Well uh prefer not to have yielded because the reason why I tried to jump out of front of this is because I actually have an amendment to make that is understood not consistent with the ones you have proposed.

Uh and it addresses a point that representative Morrison brought up that I think is is well around it.

Um so the motion I would like to make is to amend uh by striking um section 5211 subsection A and B.

Um the two sections that require the application and specify what may be in the application.

The text view had circulated, um, says that an application may be made available, but that seems kind of like pointless language to me, uh, given that the mayor already has that power, and we can't really legislate that power from what attorney Lee has told us.

Uh though I'm proposing that we strike them in in their entirety.

Um I'm not really happy about this as a change.

I the policy was thinking that we should have this, but it seems pretty clear based on what attorney Lee said that you cannot.

So I didn't make that motion.

Is there a second hearing no other second?

Um earlier today we circulated uh some potential amendments for the committee to consider that hopefully are more consistent with legal guidance.

Um Ms.

Montalbo, if you're on the line, can you share those amendments, those proposed amendments?

Uh Ms.

Montalli, if you're speaking, we can't hear you.

Oh no, I wanted to.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you very much.

Um these amendments will hopefully get us at least closer to um, if not fully addressed the the legal concerns that council has advised us.

Um specifically modifying sections A and B.

Uh well, excuse me, modifying A to make an application permissible and striking B in its entirety as to what would be required in such an application, uh, and kind of flipping uh some of the language with respect to demographic information to being may solicit.

One person approached yes, could we make that sorry?

Could we make that a little bigger?

Oh, actually, I can't.

Um maybe I can make it a little bit bigger myself.

Uh is that better?

A little bit bigger than that.

That that's better.

I hope people on those can be um the there we go.

Yeah, much better.

Thank you.

Um so I think to narrow discussion and kind of move us through quickly.

I think it might be helpful to tackle some of his amendments piecemeal, um, or at least they will kind of large swaths.

Um, so to that extent, uh, I think it might be beneficial to take the amendments from sections A through D in one go, which again would modify the requirement that there be an application to instead make it optional.

Um would not mandate any of the contents in that application and would require the same reporting requirements um on a six-month cadence uh with respect to any data that is collected at the mayor's election.

So what was that?

Oh, okay.

Um so to that effect, is there a motion to adopt the amendments A through that that would change sections A through D.

So thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

Um, so the question to the committee is whether or not to adopt the change you see on the screen with respect to sections A through D as amended.

Um wish to seek the floor.

Representative Boudreau, followed by Black.

What is the purpose of section A as amended?

That is a question?

Uh so in my opinion, I think it still has value largely because um it's referenced elsewhere, and so it gives context to the rest by well by giving it context.

Um so by saying that an application may be made, the rest of it that talks about applicants, etc.

etc.

has more context.

So I think there is some meaning there.

And you yes, uh Representative Blank, followed by President Shaw.

I would um uh uh suggest a minor uh uh addition or amendment to this whole thing and to quote or to pull out section of the Charter 52-7 as the basis for this request for data.

Um and since we don't make that statement here anywhere, um valid and still quote, and we're trying to avoid that, force the mayor to do something when we're not, but we are saying that we have the right to get that information, and we're not sure.

We're not stepping beyond our boundaries.

I don't know if uh before you move that amendment.

Yes, could be clarified what I am not quite realize is that's the records ordinance that's on the books already.

The powers that he's talking about 52-7 is the power to compel records.

So is Representative Blanc's intent to just reference that in that was my understanding.

Correct.

100%.

Umly two thoughts before you consider making your motion, and that's um number one, this ordinance would sit physically within the code immediately below that section.

It adds it as a new article immediately below that record section within the same chapter.

Um separately, even though it wouldn't be part of the code of ordinances itself, the whereas clauses that precede this ordinance or precede this section of the ordinance, um, talks explicitly about the powers enumerated in that section.

So I don't know if that alleviates your concern or if you still wish to make your amount of does not require my amendment.

Okay, fantastic.

And do you yield?

Thank you very much.

President Shockman.

Uh I was just only going to um just reiterate your point.

I mean, while I understand um representative's desire that, you know, if it's not serving a plus it, I would like that that is an option for us to get it when once it's collected.

And I I can't imagine, I mean, I would I would think that I mean, you know, I think even for the mayor's office, collecting some of this data will be more um useful, you know, whether it's only whether it's for you know demographic or whether it's the way they appointed, or whether it's even for legal reasons, eventually something might come up, right?

You could appoint somebody and something happens, and and so to me, I think it's it's a it gives an option to, and then it's probably a good thing to have.

So that's all I wanted to add.

I yield.

Thank you, President Sean.

Representative.

Oh, but attorney Lee, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I the only suggestion I would make is get rid of the word reasonable.

You could put in soul reasonable um suggests that there could be a contest as to whether or not the decision is or is not reasonable.

So I don't think that's the intent.

So the only thing I would say is change, get rid of that word reasonable and put it in uh sole discretion or get rid of that prepositional phrase altogether, because it's it's not necessary, but um that would be my suggestion.

Understood.

Thank you, eternally.

Uh representative Boudreau, you have the floor.

Uh like to make a motion to revive the question um because the motion currently before the committee combines legal changes and a policy change, which is the frequency of reporting, okay, which is not uh at least to my understanding, driven by any legal concern.

Um we should vote on this separately.

Got it.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh so the question before the committee now is just the amendments outside of the change in the frequency of the reporting, and then secondarily we will vote on the amendment with respect to the frequency of the reporting.

Is anybody that wishes to speak or see me?

Do you yield?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um is there anybody else that wishes to take the floor with respect to the changes in sections A through D absent the change in frequency of reporting?

Well, I'd like to propose an amendment.

Yep.

Uh so I am that we uh delete the words either in section A in the original discretion.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

The question before the committee is whether or not to strike um the words in their reasonable discretion from uh the proposed new language of section A.

So anybody that wishes to seek the floor.

Okay, because and I don't I don't know what it's appropriate here, but I would like to make that amendment asking for the other things, not just the application.

So I don't know if it's appropriate to ask for that amendment here so that we can take it all at once and it makes sense.

And and even if anyone on the committee is interested in having that in there.

So amendments, what was I I wanted to add something that that sort of asked the mayor to capture the stuff that's not on applications because there is a I would think there's a high frequency where people are just emailing and asking to be appointed to a board or commission and and never getting to the point of filling out an application because the whole purpose I think in aggregating all of this information is so that we can see who's actually interested in coming to the office, you know, with these requests.

So I don't even know if that's reasonable.

So I kind of wanted to talk about it before I recognize that.

Um in response to that, I just wanted to plug uh two things.

One um I think you know, I don't want to speak for attorney leave, but I think that speaks to some of his concerns about mandating new collections of information.

Um I won't explain beyond that.

However, um I will say that procedurally and probably would be the clean it for us to dispose of Representative Weinberg's amendment and the uh I forget to make motion with respect to the body.

Um but you would divide the question, yes, but I forget who maybe motion on the whole.

So yeah, wait, let's get down and then we can build back up if there's more.

Um sorry.

I was I wanted to ask if it's the understanding that whatever representative camp rally is asking is already in B.

Because I I think you clad if I in B.

In section subsection B.

I think already in there.

I will speak for representative campaign, but I think she was looking to include in that collection uh persons that might email or otherwise indicate interest, but are not formal applicants in an application.

Because she's not requiring people to fill out an application in order to apply.

Someone like in in my case, some people in my district were just said send an email to the mayor's office.

But if you are you are asking if they were collected, is that what may co make also aggregate that not shall got it?

And he did say that we could do that, and then we went into the whole thing.

So you're just asking for them to consider consider collecting.

Like it's not already there.

Thank you.

All righty.

So the excuse me.

So does that resolve your point?

I think yes, thank you.

Oh, I already yielded.

However, all right.

Um, are there any other members that wish to seek the floor with respect to the amendments in sections A through D.

Yes, we need to dispose of representative members to thank you very much.

Yeah, appreciate that.

You are correct.

Um wishes to seek the floor with respect to representative Weinberg's amendments and striking the words in their reasonable discretion.

Seeing none in person or online, let's hold a voice vote.

This is again just on the amendment to amend uh the rest of the amendments again.

This is actually not a passage, this is to amend the amendment.

Yeah, uh striking the words in their reasoning expression through section A.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed any abstentions?

The motion passes.

That's that would be okay.

All right, so now the question before the committee is the amendment amending sections A through D, except with respect to the frequency of the reporting as amended by Representative Weinberg's amendment.

Is there anybody else that wishes to seek the floor?

Seeing and hearing none.

Let's give this a shot at roll call.

Point first.

Yes.

Uh when we say section A through B, I assume we mean as amended.

Oh, yes.

Just for reference purposes.

So basically in the red line, yes, what would be sections A through D.

Okay.

With the exception of the not less than once every six months.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Um let's try it by voice vote.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

And it passes.

All right.

All right.

Uh the second question or the next question now before the committee is just the amendment with respect to what will what I guess what is now section C with respect to the frequence of reporting, moving in from quarterly to every six months.

Is there anybody that wishes to seat the floor?

Representative Boudreau, followed by Blank.

We'll be very brief on this.

We post this at our meeting last month when we change this from month to quarter.

I was at the request mayor.

Uh, I don't think there's any legal justification for why we would have to change to semi-annually.

So I don't believe it as a quarter.

Okay.

Thank you, Representative Blank, followed by Representative Weinberg.

Uh so sorry, I represent Blank followed by the first.

I've still I've still sleep time zone sleep deprived.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Um I I have to agree with Representative Boudreaux on this.

Normally I wouldn't come out with that wording, but it we No, because I've I had something else to add, but he already capitalized on that, and I agree with him that quarterly is a much more effective method of providing us insight and is uh to wait six months out of a year.

So that's my opinion.

Um representative Weinberg, followed by President Shaw, followed by majority Lear Morrison.

Yeah, I would strongly recommend retaining six months, the six-month uh reporting period.

Here's why it's it's not a legal issue at all.

Um it's um it's a it's a statistical quality issue.

Um very concerned that if we're looking uh at quarterly data that we have insufficient, particularly given all the different demographic categories and so much for that we have insufficient data points to be able to draw reasonable inferences.

Uh so if we have more data points, which six months obviously give us logically about twice as many data points.

Um I think that it will give us it'll enable us in our analysis of the data to draw much uh much better statistical inferences.

Um and I think that um this you know so that that is that's that's my sole reason for it for the six months.

Thank you very much, representative X and President Shaw.

Thank you so much.

I kind of mostly concur with uh the president of Weinberg.

And I think if you're part of the appointments um committee, you probably know this.

A lot of times some of those take a very long time to process since the time you know the application is being sent, and then when we get an even to be even asked questions like things you applied on like September, whatever, and we're interviewing in like January to February, right?

So each it just you know, whether it's the way it should be or not, some some of those applications take a long time.

So I do think that the data will be skewed, and we may not get any meaningful data, and we have the amount thinking, oh my god, six months has passed by or demons about it, there's nothing happening.

That's probably stuff happening in the background, but we don't know.

So I don't want this to be uh you know a frustrating part or anything.

So I I think that if we want something meaningful, maybe six months might be a better option.

That's all.

I mean, thank you.

We're gonna leave Morrison.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, again, I agree with uh uh Representative Weinberg and the point that uh President Shaw made as well over on my list.

Uh so I have a question through you, Mr.

Chair, to attorney Lee.

Um is the um is the requirement it is our request of required reporting on a time schedule.

Uh is this something we can codify and compel.

Yes, yeah, it is not it doesn't violate the charter.

It is consistent with the board's um uh right to information in order to further its legislative purpose.

So yes.

And I've heard other people say the timing is not um, you know, how whether it's two months, three months, four months every year, that's not a legal issue.

It's really data collection issue.

Okay, thank you for that.

I the conclusion I I agree with the uh six-month for the uh data point and uh time processing uh angles that both representatives uh expressed.

I yield.

Thank you for joining Lee Morrison, Representative Boudreau.

You thank you.

Uh I'd like to challenge the data collection and timing uh aspects because I think they're predicated on uh an assumption which isn't actually in the ordinance, which is that the report would only include one quarter's worth of data.

If there is a data quality issue with doing one quarter at a time, it could easily be a trailing 12 month report.

There's nothing that we're gonna say, it could be a semi-annual set of data.

So there's discretion to present the data in a way that is meaningful.

The only thing that we're mandating is the frequency at which we receive a report.

And I think there is validity in having that be more frequent than once a year, even if uh it's not you know the exact numbers for that quarter.

And I feel thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Um, in response to your remarks, uh, I think it's actually an important distinction.

The existing draft um does not prescribe that the data need to cover the period between reports to your point, uh, which is correct.

Um instead it actually states that the period that's covered by the report would be from the mayor's inauguration through the date of the report.

So we're updating and refreshing data on a quarterly basis.

Um to the points that there may not be insufficient data points.

Well, it's an aggregate and cumulative set of data points.

Um so I wouldn't necessarily agree that it would be insufficient data points.

Um potentially.

Um that being said, um we in my opinion, I I'm I could go either way on this issue.

I think that quarterly is not inappropriate or burdensome or without value from a statistical perspective, and we move from monthly to quarterly uh from what I recall at the at the quest request of the mayor's office.

Um, who at that time I think considered that to be more reasonable than monthly.

Um so with that being said, um, I don't think quarterly is inappropriate or or statistically invaluable.

Um that's that's all I have on that.

Yes.

Um this kind of brings up a good question for me, which is where do we begin?

Are we beginning in three months from when the ordinance is passed?

Do we want do we want to ask to look back at six months?

I mean, we can just do that as a board, right?

We can just we don't have to put that in the ordinance, but how do we how do we even begin to get information?

In other words, we just we just finished a ton of interviews, and those came from an applicant pool.

And from my understanding, going forward, we had filled a lot of the backfill positions.

So what are we really going to be looking at?

It would literally take a couple of years until we got you know what I mean, a decent amount of data to really draw any conclusion.

And so for me, the six-month thing makes more sense than the three months, especially to start.

Um, I don't want to make a big administration administrative burden on the mayor's office, especially since these are hand written applicants.

It's not, you know, they might want to consider starting to put that on computer, but I think it's almost I feel like a lot of the ones we see are just handwritten.

Well, there's a formal one.

But we should minimize the back and forth.

So yeah.

Um so I mean, for me, it's like six six months, yeah, because you're gonna need to to represent Weinberg's point, even for the beginning, a certain amount of uh a certain amount of information, but I would like to go backwards, not in this ordinance, but as a board and ask for the last six months.

When we get the first six months so that we can at least have a year to look at.

As it's currently drafted, once it becomes enacted, it would automatically look back to the day of inauguration.

Oh, it would.

So it would go back a year.

Well, January.

Okay, so it would be great.

Okay.

It would be six months.

Yes, representative Weinberg.

Yeah.

Um, so two points um in favor of those six months.

Um first, um, even if we're um even if if the report includes cumulative data, which I suppose it will, um the difference in the oh if if we're if we're reporting, if we're getting reports quarterly, uh the changes are going to be municipal.

Um so I think that argues in favor of a longer time period.

And second, I must represent the interests of my believer colleagues committee.

Who I suppose are the ones who have will have the responsibility to study and analyze uh of the data.

And I can't speak for them, but I'm at least speculating that they would prefer doing it once every six months.

How does it say the match words?

I don't need to talk.

Please um no, I think listen, I mean, I I also think that as much as I hate review items, at any point we can have them come give us an update, right?

That option is always there.

So it's I mean, it I like I said, I mean I don't know if our colleagues from the appointments committee, you know, having 10 applicants each time will lengthy, but you want to we have options.

We can we can request a a review and have them come give us a little bit more update, and maybe even to have them tell us what are some of the struggles that they're facing.

I mean, we've been with six months or eight months, whatever.

I mean, what is the challenge that they're facing, right?

Um, so I I do think that you know it's not so set in stone.

So we we we have options.

That's it.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, President.

Is there anybody else that wishes to seek the floor with respect to the amendment um relating to frequency of reporting?

Okay, seeing and hearing none.

Let's try the excuse me.

Let's do this by roll call, Miss Vontalvo.

Uh actually, no, I'm sorry, I'll call the wall.

Um Representative Blank, how do you vote?

Do you want to remember?

This is just the change on the frequency of reporting, which currently would change it from quarterly to six months.

No, it's the other way of no, it would change from quarters.

Okay, you've got my tip.

Oh, it's 10 three.

You want to come back?

No.

Oh uh, I um uh lead suede and I will uh say yes.

Okay.

Representative.

Yes, representative Hughes.

Yes, representative Hyatt.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Representative Le Pine is excused.

Representative Stone?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

Uh by Chair Camparelli.

Yes.

Yes.

That's unanimous.

Okay.

All right.

With that, yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yeah, I'd like to propose another one.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh, this is to subsection B.

So I would like to insert the after uh in subsection B, the may this gets to the concern, the issue of the carrier's race.

Um uh after um the words the mayor or his or her guessing me may solicit from applicants parentheses.

Here's the insertion uh the uh whether they have filled out an application or not, a close parents.

Uh and then it continues the subject delegation.

So just to repeat whether they have filled out an application or not.

Did you say parentheses?

Is that yeah, I think I make that I don't think you can do that.

That's a good question.

I don't know if that's okay.

Well, that that's the amendment.

Right.

So the point of third, yes.

I think it's uh point is the language was may solicit from applicants.

You said what the point of point of order.

Do you have a motion for that a second?

That's true, but because we have a point of order.

Okay.

Um so the um the um the words that would be asserted after may solicit for the announcements.

Yeah, is the following whether they have filled out an application on the question and then representative raised a very good question, which is does that require some um editing section D where we define applicant I hear your point of information.

Um which was directed at Representative Weinberg.

Um well, I understand your point of things creating more problems that it's but but that being said, I'm not going to recognize that point of information at the time and see if we have a second with respect to representative time.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

I can't put promo for real.

If you meant to say it before I just said that sentence.

All right, well, I intended to make it to bless it.

Um absent any objection.

The motion is withdrawal.

Yeah, I just I think it's still okay.

Um with that being said, um, Ms.

Montalvo, if you could scroll all the way down to section D.

Oh, excuse me, no, not section D.

We've already covered A through D.

Um, if you could scroll down to what would be 52-12 and 52-13.

A little bit further, so all of dash 13 is in there.

Perfect.

Up a little too far.

I'm back a little bit.

Yeah, a little bit more.

There we go.

Got it.

All right.

Um, so there are two additional amendments that um that I've proposed um to alleviate some of the concerns addressed by the legal department.

Um, I think I'd like to take them separately um to the extent I can entertain a motion.

So this time I'd like to entertain a motion to amend the ordinance by striking section 52-12.

So thank you.

And there's a second.

Second.

Okay.

Um is there any uh so some context here?

Um legal counsel, I think had expressed um either in their opinion or a supplemental no to the board to the committee, excuse me, um, that the events that are triggering this or otherwise triggered in the charter don't necessarily align with the text here and have advised to avoid confusion to strike this.

Um I think I think that um it's you know it's not while we could fix it, I think that we can do without it for the purposes of what we're trying to achieve here.

Um so that's the context here.

Um with that being said, Representative Wamber, you see before the this information about uh vacancies and expired and expired terms that have expired for more than every one day is easily it's already available online, very accessible, very clear.

Um it's so uh so the transparency is already is already there.

Um so I I think that even putting aside any legal concerns, it's just superfluous.

So it's uh I shouldn't really use it.

Um and and it was a big problem on the previous board and the one before that because you know nobody was bringing to our attention that they were expiring, and so what I would ask the president or the chair of appointments is for somebody on the board, whether it's our board office or whatever, just to keep an eye on.

I mean, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna argue tonight to keep it in the ordinance, but is there any way that as a board we can put in something that helps us keep track of that and launches it or somebody at charge?

That that was to the president.

Yeah, we could definitely talk and we can bring this up to the mayor's office and see how how they would like to handle that.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Yes, sir.

Do you need the four?

Okay.

Uh does anybody wish to seek the floor with respect to the amendment?

Um deleting section 52-12.

See nobody online or in person.

Let's try this by voice vote.

All those in favor of amending the ordinance by section, excuse me, by deleting section 52-12, please say aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions it passes unanimously.

All right.

Um, next up we've got a final amendment to consider the removal of 52 13, um, which is um a provision of the ordinance proposed that would create um essentially stupid, establish an ethics violation in the event that um an officer employee or department head uh willfully violates uh the provision of the article.

Um this was uh also flagged by the legal department um in their opinion.

Actually, I'm sorry, ms uh attorney lee, if you're still on the line.

If you want to summarize the concerns briefly with respect to 52-13, that would be helpful.

Yeah, I am still on the line.

Um so that section makes a willful violation of uh any part of the uh ordinance and ethics violation now.

It was attached to the ordinance which is being revised, a lot of the issues are being addressed.

Um but the problem that I see are is with actually uh not so much procedural due process but substantive due process.

What uh and I understand that this is taken from uh 52-7 those, but the issue is like what is what does impede access mean?

Um what's a reasonable amount of time?

Who makes those determination?

Who is it that is responsible for gathering this information?

Um and uh and so the way it's written right now, there's a there is the issue is how how would someone know if they're if they're violating the ordinance.

Let's say a request comes in and they're busy and they can't get to it for a week.

Is that impeding access?

Is that an unreasonable amount of time?

Who determines that?

Um and then the issue would be all right.

Well, what if it's the mayor?

Now is the mayor going to be brought up on ethics charges because of because of something like that.

I just think it's it's a provision that's not necessary that could lead to a lot of problems, which is the and I don't think it would survive.

Um veto, you know, I don't think it's would survive, you know, going beyond this.

So for all of those reasons, um I I recommended getting getting rid of it.

It's not a violation of the charter per se, it's just there is a separation of powers issue if it's if it's used against the mayor or mayor or somebody um who is taking direction from the mayor, um, but there is a major due substantive due process research.

Like, how would someone know what any of this means?

And who makes the determination that that they violated it?

I just um for those reasons.

I I think it's better off not being part of this.

Thank you for that, Summer.

That that is helpful.

Um you had mentioned that this comes from another portion of the code of ordinances.

Um, in fact, it yes, it does, it comes from um the same article that contains the powers of the boards uh with respect to records demands.

Do you uh you know, understanding that that ordinance isn't before us, you have any do you share these concerns with respect to how that applies there?

I do in isolation, absolutely.

I did not draft it, I would not have recommended that.

But one of the things, let me pull that up, because after you and I spoke about it, um, I looked at it.

One of the things one of the things that um that the other code has is that there's I think the board president is responsible for um setting forth um regulations or details of it.

I don't know if anyone has the code up or now, but I'm yeah, I think you're are you referring to the 52-7 that says that the power is exercised uh through a procedure authorized by the president of the board and the chair of the board of finance respectively.

Yes, yeah, yeah.

So that indicates that there should be some details now.

I haven't looked at those.

Um, and I'm I'm guessing that very few people have, if they even exist, but um, but you know regulations can like that can um can cure uh you know due process questions that come up in in statutes and ordinances and so forth.

But um, but yeah, it if it's not cured, I have the same, I have the same, I would have the same problems.

It's just it's just how would you know if you're violating and willfully all right?

Well, willfully that's intentionally, but and how do you intentionally intentionally violate something that you that you don't know how long you have to do it or what or what it means to impede?

Um, I don't know any of that stuff means so all of that would have to be fleshed out, and it's a lot of times it's done in regulations, but a lot of times it's not, and those those statutes get beaten.

In your recommendation, or excuse me, separately, in terms of who determines these things or whether or not the acts committed by those persons would qualify as willful violations or um acts uh of impediment typically, and you know, please correct me if I'm wrong, are any allegations of violations of the code of ethics?

Are those all determined by the ethics board?

Yeah, so wouldn't the body implicitly therefore be the ethics board that would make those determinations based on their fact gathering?

But you also have willfully violating impeding access.

What does that mean?

Right.

No, sorry, just to clarify one of the issues first, like who makes the determinations?

What did the answer to that limited issue be the board of ethics?

The board of ethics would make that determination, but or the code, but how would they how would they even go about doing it?

Because no, what does willfully mean?

What does impeding access mean?

What does refusing mean?

What's a reasonable amount of time?

Those aren't things that a board of ethics would ordinarily.

like who makes the determinations what did the answer to that limited issue be the board of ethics the board of ethics would make that determination but or the code but how would they how would they even go about doing it because no what does willfully mean what does impeding access mean what does refusing mean what's a reasonable amount of time those aren't things that a board of ethics would ordinarily I mean it there so especially when you're talking about code of ethics right it's an ethics so you want to know what you can and cannot do and so it's ordinarily very explicit I can't take accept a gift over 25 there's no there's no um you know there's nothing there to debate I can't accept it right but what does so to answer your question I don't like it I wouldn't have liked it in the other ordinance but I didn't have a hand in doing that and if it ever comes up you know I'll take a a closer look at it I just don't think it's necessary uh for this ordinance I think understood okay thank you and I saw some other members seeking the floor oh nine oh representative yeah through you to to Dana Dana if um if an individual uh believes that someone in in in the um in the administration and uh that I said the employee has um has done one of these grievous acts um then they that that individual can uh file a complaint with the with the board of ethics the board of ethics has its procedure the beginning of which is uh you know is sort of confidential like kind of like a grand jury hearing to see if there's probable cause and so forth um so it doesn't uh eliminate um so eliminating 5213 from this uh from this ordinance doesn't prevent an individual from uh filing um an ethics uh an ethics inquiry is that correct it doesn't but it does it does suggest that that um that in and of itself not you know violating these provisions impeding access or refusing the request for information it does suggest that that those uh questions alone can give rise to a to a a violation of the code of ethics so but yeah they don't it it's not gonna if there is otherwise a code uh an ethics violation certainly anyone you know um withstanding can bring that ethics uh complaint sure i just don't like that it's being tied to the collection of information um uh where it's not very clear as to what the terminology means so so excuse me so so it's there are too many squishy squishy terms in here uh that would that make it difficult for an individual to know that they're on the wrong side of the law so yeah let me give you an example let's say i i had to this came something i had to do something like this in in um in the law department and i had to collect information and i had to compile it and i had to um to to do some data compilation um all of that takes time and i've got a million other things to do so now i say okay to my paralegal uh amber who is swamped herself um and i say okay can you do this let's say she puts that at the end of the pile uh uh and the pile's two feet deep and it gets and it doesn't happen for a week or two weeks is she um is she violating the provision is she has she impeded it's not you know and so and even then so she now so you would say no well under those circumstances no but I've told you the facts so what would happen now is is the board doesn't get doesn't get the uh the information somebody who isn't who is not maybe um thrilled with the current mayor at the time or the person that has is complying right now says well I'm gonna file an ethics violation so now that person has to take time out and they have to face an actual charge uh and address it and it's so it's just it just raises a lot of issues that just I just don't think are necessary uh when we're uh for this thank you I know right seeing no other members up representative seeing majority leader morrison I just want to add that I'm absolutely not comfortable with codifying the squishy either technical stuff apparently it is it is not a body squish uh um seeing no other member that wishes to seek the floor uh let's do this by roll call so this is a motion to amend by striking section 52 13

Uh one word uh for this thank you right now ready seeing no other members up representative majority leader morrison I just want to add that I'm absolutely not comfortable with codifying the squishy either instead of technical stuff apparently it is it is not a body squish uh um seeing no other members that wish to seek the floor uh let's do this by roll call so this is a motion to amend by striking section 52 13 all righty representative blank yeah presentative boudreaux yes representative no representative by it yes uh representative stone yes representative weinberg yes chair camperelli i'm no that is in favor two and no abstentions the motion passes all righty so with that um is there anybody else that wishes to seat the floor with respect to l r 32.0 to zero as amended yes you mean zero one setting sorry thank you yes we're all chat bag everybody collectively and not just meeting wein really important it's a good it's a good important detail um all right there so thank you um we'll do this by roll call um with respect to lr 32.017 as amended uh for passage also to clarify for passage for public hearing yeah uh which will be the last one i promise uh if i have anything else don't promise maybe i did i'll check the notes on that one um representative blank yes representative boudreau yes representative hughes yes representative high yes represent i'm still asking representative stone yes representative weinberg yes about that yeah and i myself only yes that passes unanimously all right i see you packing up and yet we are not done we got number one so once like to make a motion oh no or maybe two does or one second definitely to the next meeting of defeat thank you can I anybody that wishes to seek the floor representative morsen I would advise against postponing definitely and send it back to steering for consideration okay uh president shaw i'm not unclear why we're sending that one to uh to postponing norms even committee is it because we're not still done with this coordinates that's right okay i mean i would think what uh majority of morsen but if the committee was just too differently that's how you miss the seat before uh it's just it's the the um we've established the principle that we're linking oh one seven and oh one six in terms of moving down the path in jump that's that's my understanding so that's my understanding uh yes present there might be one good thing in the cover if you're recommissioning you can reorder it so you're gonna have to think yeah sorry yeah the one good thing that may come out if they commit to sharing is you can reorder it instead so all the order of battle the best one I've heard um I the only remarks I have on the motion postpone as a response to um majority morsen um I I still think there's value in postponing this item um so that we don't have any oddities in steering uh in the event it is unsuccessfully put back on the agenda um and that's the primary reason and so now there isn't the potential that we would have that odd circumstance even if it is a low risk yes sir camber I just I I'm gonna vote for this but I just want to concur with President Shaw I am now not a fan of this because I feel like it was used against me in another committee so I in the future I will be voting for for postpone I would send it back to Sierra okay all right any other folks looking to seek the floor with respect to the motion or postpone seeing no other hands uh let's try it by voice vote all those in favor please say aye aye any against any abstentions all right that passes unanimously um and with that motion to adjourn so already I hear a move and a second second thank you we are adjourned at 916 p.m.

So already I hear a move and a second.

Thank you.

We are adjourned at nine sixteen PM.

Thank you very much, everyone.

And thank you, Attorney Lee, for your nuts.

I think we talked about Oh, do you want to write and wet?

Oh no.

I swear.

All right.

I will tell you why I prefer postponing definitely to recommend to Siri.

Okay.

And I'm going to be very blunt.

Okay.

Because I'm not on Steering.

And I don't want you guys telling me that my community can be a little bit more.

Oh.

Wow.

That's valid, valid.

That's commitment.

Are we still friends right here?

Yeah.

Hello.

How are you?

Oh.

That's toxic.

Yeah, no, yeah.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Well, I think that is away.

Yeah, I will listen.

That's a man.

I guess I can do it.

Listen.

I I understand.

But don't tell me we can't do it.

In this case, for example, it's I do something else.

But if that's the same, we have reason for the first time.