The special committee on red tape to order.

It is Wednesday, November 19th at 1232 p.m.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yep.

Altum and Browning.

Present.

Audible woman Velasquez.

Alderman Aldridge.

Audible McCart Anthony.

Present.

Present.

Audible woman Velasquez.

Alderman Aldridge.

We have four present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Am I not on the red tape committee?

Or was that last time?

I don't see your name on the agenda.

So we can come, we can check, but I don't think you are Alder ones.

I don't think I am either than that.

I think about it.

Well, great to see your face.

You're looking wonderful.

And uh guys have a great meeting because I truly did have something else I'm trying to take care of.

Go for it.

Thank you for being here.

All right.

Appreciate it.

Bye.

All right.

Accorum being present, we will move on to the approval of the minutes.

Uh I will accept a motion to approve the minutes from Monday, January 29th, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the fourth, seconded by the Alderman from the 9th.

Uh, Madam Clerk, please call the uh call the roll.

Other than Ryan.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Audible and Velasquez.

Alderman Aldridge.

Autumn Woman Cox Answee.

Aye.

Chair Sweit, sir.

Hi.

Audible Altuman Velasquez.

We have four I votes.

Wonderful.

Uh with that, we have sustained the motion from the Alderman from the fourth and approved the minutes from Monday, January 29th, 2025.

We will move on to item number four on the agenda, board bills for review.

We have one board bill for review today, board bill number 88, introduced by Alderman Browning.

Alderman Browning, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Or I can share my screen if that's more helpful.

Just let me know.

That would be helpful.

One second, y'all.

Let me figure out how to do this.

Okay.

Can you all see my screen?

Yes, we can.

Take your time.

It can be kind of hard with the Zoom.

Uh-huh.

Sure that we're not interrupted.

Okay.

All right.

Everyone see the title page.

Great.

Well, thank you all for being here today.

Uh, this is fun to have our um first meeting of the special committee on red reducing red tape for the year, I believe.

And uh, I think this fits really well within this committee's um purview in that we are revising the entire election code.

Uh, I think it's really important that we review the codes uh for our city uh periodically.

It's what we're supposed to do per the charter, and uh it's really important we do that so that we can make sure it's updated to current day and how we currently operate.

Uh so what does this bill do?

This bill.

Uh hang on, I'm trying to get my own face out of the way.

There we go.

Okay.

This bill uh cleans up language throughout Title II uh regarding political parties, uh, as we now have approval voting within the city.

And we have had that since 2020.

It also reorders the election code to be in chronological order of events, uh, so that it's easier to understand for regular folk and for candidates.

Uh it clarifies the process in case of a tie.

Believe it or not, right now we refer to state statute, which actually sends it back to the board of Alderman to decide, which feels a little bit inappropriate.

Uh and so uh we clarifying that.

We are also clarifying how an election is being called and how uh petition signatures are counted.

This allows you to uh have people sign more than one petition because we have approval voting and you can vote for more than one candidate.

This allows people to sign more than one petition.

Uh it also alleviates pressure on the board of elections to cross-check those signatures across uh petitions.

Uh, this also strengthens the process for the board of elections and the quadro revenue to identify if taxes aren't paid in full for any candidate.

And it also uh changes the filing fee, which is a bill that we brought before uh this uh not this committee, but we've brought this earlier and we tried to get this done.

But this time we went back and we really tried to pay attention to the whole code to make sure that it's all consistent and that we're really fixing a lot of the outdated and uh and really confusing sections.

So this changes the filing fee down to a flat fee, putting it in line with other elected offices.

This bill also uh codifies current BOE policies uh like ballot order.

It clarifies the process for special elections, uh saying that all the personal elections are to be carried out in a nonpartisan manner if the charter is changed.

Um I know that some of us may have gotten a letter uh or communication uh concerning that the vacancy section of this bill, but rest assured this is completely compliant with the charter and that the charter will continue to uh to be uh what we follow unless that is changed uh in the future.

Uh this also clarifies that there will be no primary with two or fewer candidates only in special elections.

We had an election like this a few years ago for uh a special election to fill the president of the board seat, and that featured a completely unnecessary primary where the two candidates who competed went on to just compete again uh with no changes in who was on that ballot.

And this also removes old language that's no longer relevant.

Uh this including removing state statute that hasn't been in existence since the 1970s.

So why is this important?

Uh our election code right now is incredibly inconsistent.

Uh the last time the entire code was rewritten was 1948.

Uh since we changed uh how we vote in recent elections in 2020, as I mentioned before, uh the code was not updated to reflect this revision.

So we added a bunch of things, but we didn't remove conflicting information.

Uh and approval voting, uh, the system that we went with works best if there are multiple qualified candidates to choose from.

The whole point of approval voting, the reason that people in that election voted to have this be how we vote in the city is to make sure that we get a candidate that more closely reflects the positions of the voters, and approval voting works to do that when you have uh multiple qualified candidates to choose from so that it filters up the person who closely matches voters' preferences.

Uh also uh we know that the filing fee as it exists right now, I think was intentionally, or I say I should say it was unintentionally uh raised to uh an amount that is wildly out of line with other offices, offices in the region.

Uh we know 37 Americans cannot afford a forage dollar expense.

Elections really should be about the quality of the candidate.

Uh and we believe the real test of a candidate is collecting those signatures, that time and effort and support from the community that's necessary to do that.

Uh as well as uh, you know, I've heard concerns in the past about skin in the game.

Uh candidates have to live within their ward.

That's the literal skin in the game that they have.

They also have to be up on their taxes.

Uh there's all sorts of things that really make sure that people are serious candidates that aren't directly tied to a filing fee.

Uh the filing fee also does not go to the parties anymore, and uh it cannot go to the parties because we're in nonpartisan approval voting.

Uh so we wanted to make sure that it's an appropriate amount that isn't being charged just for the sake of charging people a lot of money, but something that uh covers the uh initial entry into the race so that people can be uh on the ballot.

And uh when we were doing this bill, we engaged with several stakeholders.

So we wanted to make sure that we really did this right.

And when you're rewriting a code, it's important that it all works together.

So we worked closely with the Board of Election Commissioners on this, and they are in support of this bill.

We worked with the League of Women Voters, uh, which is also in full support of this bill.

Uh we met with almost every alder person, uh, and I appreciate each and every one of you who met with us and helped uh share your preferences for this bill and how we can make it better.

We also uh have the support of the mayor's office uh on this bill, and we also engage with the comptroller's office on this bill.

Uh so with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

And uh the Board of Election Commissioners is here as well uh to answer any questions you might have.

Um and uh otherwise just look forward to hearing from all of my colleagues.

Thank you, Alderman Browning.

Uh, I'm going to go ahead and let uh director Borgmeyer, if he's still on speak, just to give uh any feedback he might have.

I thought I saw him and now I'm not so there yes.

He's here, he has my name because I sent him my link to get on the meeting.

Fair enough.

Well, I know who he is, and I'm sure we all do.

Um thank you, Director Borgmeyer for being here today.

I would love to hear from you on the bill if you have a few minutes to share your thoughts.

Sure.

I'm I'm the uh bald Michael Browning on this call, so just to make sure it stays clear.

Um I do appreciate Alderman Browning reaching out to us, uh talking to us about kind of what our lived experience has been since Prop D has been passed.

Um, you know, ultimately it does make a lot of changes to the code, but as Alderman Browning kind of alluded to, a lot of those are kind of clean up of provisions that kind of are out of date.

I mean, any references statutes that haven't were repealed in the 70s.

I mean, that's accurate.

So there's there's a lot in the code that was kind of not relevant anymore to how elections work in the city of St.

Louis.

Um, but you know, a lot other than removal of kind of that uh extraneous information, um, a lot of it is just kind of codifying what has happened with elections in the last five years.

Um, you know, I think we at the election board appreciate our role as clerks.

Uh we appreciate the opportunity to run your elections.

Um, it's you know, it's the city's elections, it's not our elections.

Um, but I think that this code, what it primarily does it sets up a process for the way state statute requires elections to be run.

And I think it makes that clear.

Um, so I really appreciate uh Alvin Browning listening to our input on that and uh incorporating it into this this bill.

Thank you, Director Borgmeyer.

Um would the committee like to hear if there's any public comment or ask questions now?

If you have no preference, I'll just see if there's any public comment.

Okay.

Um Madam Clark, is there any any public comment?

Anyone waiting to speak?

Yes, we have two people with their hands up.

I'll go ahead and transfer them over.

Okay, wonderful.

If you can move Kathleen Farrell over to, I don't know if she has her hand raised, but I know she's here.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

If anyone who is planning on speaking today, could please turn their camera on.

I know we're waiting for one other person, but Michael, I can swear, or Alderman Browning, I can swear her in when she arrives.

Um if you could please raise your right hand.

Anyone standing on speaking?

Okay.

She's open now.

Okay, thank you, Madam Clerk.

So anyone who's planning on speaking, please raise your right hand and I'll get you sworn in.

Thank you.

Um do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Do indeed.

Okay, wonderful.

Uh Madam Clerk, we can call uh speakers and we will give you three minutes to speak today.

Uh Madam Clerk will let you know when your your time is up.

And thank you so much for being here uh to speak on this bill.

Madam Clerk, I'll pass it over to you to call the list.

Wally Price.

Hello.

Um I am going to, I guess uh table my time and allow uh Sean Faust to go first, as he's the uh president of the uh or the chair of the Democratic Central Committee.

So I'm sure he's going to address some of the same issues that I have.

So I'll I'll let him go first.

Okay, thank you.

All we'll pass it over to Sean and just remember, please to uh introduce yourself with name and and at least zip code of where you live in the city ward if possible.

Thank you.

You're welcome to speak.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

Uh Sean Faust, chairman of the St.

Louis Democratic Party.

Uh I live in the first ward, 6311.

Um, I would like to speak in opposition to the bill.

Um, one of the groups that wasn't consulted in this bill was the Democratic Party of the City of St.

Louis.

Um, we uh had no idea about the um creation of this, weren't included in it.

Um currently, the city charter is pretty explicit in the process of what happens in aldermatic vacancy.

I believe this legislation would conflict with the city charter.

Article four, section five, which outlines that process in good detail.

Um, in addition to that, last year Missourians passed amendment seven, which was the protecting fair and free elections act.

That act exempted our current nonpartisan system, but did not allow us to have additional ranked or approval voting.

So I believe that we also might come into conflict with the new constitutional amendment seven.

Um this said, um, we oppose this uh legislation on that uh front, but also the filing fees we believe should maintain at the current one percent threshold for municipal offices.

So we are uh standing in opposition to that, I believe.

Uh here uh whiley and myself, I'm not I'm speaking as chairman.

I'm not speaking as a whole committee right now, but um, I imagine you'll see something from us formally uh very soon.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Price, you're welcome to speak.

You're unmute.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead and speak.

All right.

Um my phone is ringing at the same time.

All right, I apologize.

Uh yeah, um, I guess my only opposition, uh, I'm definitely uh in favor of updating the election codes, uh, but just the portion that includes the uh Central Democratic Committee, our democratic committee.

Um I think the way it's written, it kind of uh circumvents the current body that exists there in the way that it's written, uh specifically the portion about replacing uh alderman if something may happen to the alderman.

Um so I think that that is a part of the foundation of what the Democratic Central Committee is put there for uh along with GOTV.

Um but also there's another issue here is that the actual institution of the Central Democratic Committee is a state entity.

Um so I'm um I'd be curious to know or have somebody explain to me how we can circumvent both the current government that's in that being the DCC and go around the state law that's already in fit.

If anybody can answer that, that'd be great.

Thank you for that testimony.

I always like to have uh the public go first because it gives us uh an opportunity to see if we can record the questions you ask, and then Alderman can ask them because you don't have um kind of a back and forth uh with the public and aldermen during the meetings, but we are able to kind of restate your questions for you uh during the time that we're asking questions.

Um someone else has raised their hand.

I mean wonderful.

And Miss Farrell, I believe you wanted to speak.

If you want to, if you can turn your camera on and raise your right hand, I can swear you in while we're moving the other person over.

You're muted, Ms.

Farrell.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

If you could raise your right hand, please.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Wonderful.

Please proceed.

You have three minutes and make sure to say your zip code um and whether your support or opposition of the bill.

I have answered here and my zip code is 6318.

And um I speak on behalf of the league to support the bill.

So when the league first was approached to work on this bill in 2018, we approached that task very carefully.

We studied approval voting and other forms of alternative voting.

Um, and came to the conclusion that for our city approval voting was the best one.

So we were very involved in this.

We were on the core committee to pass it.

I think it's also very important to know that you need to follow through because sometimes things don't get fixed, they don't get put in codes.

There are a few problems here and there.

So we tried to do that.

In 2023, we asked um Alder Purse and Shamem Clark Hubbard to introduce a bill so that we could deal with the tie and not have double elections where we had only two people or less running in a primary, so that there would only be one election, and we worked hard to get that passed.

Um I think it is important uh to look at the cleanups that they need.

First of all, gender neutral language.

Um, we stand for equity, and I think that this is critically important that this get done.

The second thing that we supported in terms of a change was changing the filing fees.

Uh, it didn't seem to make any sense to us that it cost more to run for alder person than it did to run for U.S.

Senate.

So we were glad that those things got changed.

Um, we also believe that the that the clarification of how to handle ties was extremely important.

And it is now crystal clear, and I think that a side benefit of this is getting people who are running for office to get out there and talk to their would-be constituents and get as many signatures as they can because now there's a serious reason besides just doing the right thing.

So those are the things that we think will strengthen free and fair elections.

And it will be wonderful to be able to give a clean bill to somebody who comes to our office or who calls me as head of the city league and says, how do I run for office?

Or how does somebody else run for office?

And I can give them a clean, clear um understandable uh bill to follow.

Um, I think that this bill also will get candidates to get their acts together.

They're gonna make sure that their bills are paid, they're gonna make sure that they're following all the rules, they're gonna think through conflicts of interest, and you just can't miss those things in this bill.

And so we think it's incredibly important to do that.

Uh, one of the last speakers just asked about time.

Yeah, new state law, it makes an exception for St.

Louis City.

So that is not in conflict with new state law.

We're glad to speak in favor.

Thank you for being here.

Um, Madam Clerk, you said there's one more person to speak.

Lucinda's two more people.

One person is in Tracy's office.

He's gonna he's gonna get on once Lucinda Frazier finishes speaking.

Miss Fraser, you can turn your camera on, please.

And I'll get you sworn in once your camera's on, ma'am.

I'm not good at this.

It's okay.

There's a little icon somewhere on on there that will be.

Yeah, I'm trying to.

I know I had it, I could see it at first, but it's not the worst.

It's not letting me do what I need.

Okay, do I want to join?

Okay, let me see if that brings it up.

Uh, an A in a camera setting.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, people.

Uh, because I did it the first time.

Now it is completely not allowed me.

Are you able to send your comments in writing?

We do require people to have their cameras on for testimony.

Stop.

So I'm trying to get it back out.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

So what I'm gonna do is go out and go back in.

Maybe I don't know what I'm doing right now.

Okay.

And if that doesn't work, we'll just have you submit your comments and in writing to us, but we'll move on to Mr.

Bell and circle back to you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bell, do you mind raising your right hand, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Uh I uh, you know, affirm.

Great, thank you.

And please uh state your full name and the zip code or ward that you live in uh for the record, please.

And you'll have three minutes, and uh Clerk Smith will tell you when your time is up.

Go ahead.

Uh I understand that this bill 88, which I'm speaking toward.

Could you see your complete name, please?

Is it Bill 88 that we would that we call it?

Yes, sir.

We're speaking on Bill 88, but we need your full name and zip code for the recording.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Anthony Bell, committee man of the 14 ward, which used to be the third ward for long time, I mean for many years now.

So uh my name is Anthony Bill.

Okay, you can proceed.

Oh, yes.

Uh I got a brief note notification on this just within the last oh two weeks or so about this bill called Bill 88.

Is that right?

And uh I think I have a little problem with that particular bill as far as being changed from the city, election official and having a runoff.

I think it would be better that the city continue to have that power and that putting it in the hands of the Democratic Party, which is which I'm a part of right now, would not be the best interest to us as a community and as people, not having the right to support a vote for something.

So I feel in very well in support of the city of St.

Louis continue to have control, if I'm not mistaken, of you know, appointing if not replacing the candidate that's running for office.

And uh I think that would be to the best interest of our our voters and our constituents that they have the power to elect a candidate in the city of St.

Louis.

Thank you for speaking today.

Uh, let's see if we have oh, it looks like we do have Ms.

Frazier back.

Uh, wonderful.

If I could get you to raise your right hand.

Uh, if do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Oh, yes, I do.

Wonderful.

So, Ms.

Frazier, you have three minutes and you could say your full name for the record and uh what ward or um zip code that you are in in the city, please.

I am Lucinda Fraser, commuter woman of the 14th ward and vice chair of the Democratic City Citizens Committee, 63107, the best zip code.

Please proceed.

Okay, I am definitely opposed to this.

Uh I feel that is our job as committee people.

So why would you all want to take our jobs away as committee people that on special elections that we uh bring those people in, those people come in and we decide on who the candidate for the Democratic Party should be.

I don't think no one has that right to do that.

That's what the people voted us for.

And uh for the woman to say before, I'm out of my ward, I know my people in my ward, I knock on doors, I do phone calling emails, uh, all of that as a committee woman that I don't have to.

You all have to understand we don't get paid to do this.

This is a passion.

This is something we love to do for the constituents in our ward, period.

And for you all to think that that it's okay to take that from us where the people voted for us to be their mouthpiece.

I think that is wrong.

It's like we take it away.

You are right as all the persons to do your job.

So I want you all to please think about that as you all decide this.

And I think uh it should not be you our responsibility of anyone else but us, the Democratic City Cities Committee to make that uh that decision.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right, do you have any other speakers, Madam Clerk?

That's it.

Okay, and do we have any written comment just to acknowledge it now?

We have no okay.

Um with that, we will move through the committee members uh for questions.

I believe the most senior member of our committee is Alderman Ryan.

If you could please um unmute and ask any questions you have.

Sure.

Uh I'll just uh share uh share a couple of thoughts that I have.

Uh I've I've been hearing concerns both from uh DCC as well as some other groups uh regarding various parts of this proposal.

Um I I think it's important that we get this right.

I I agree that we need to update things and clean up things, but you know, part of the reason that we're in a position where we're needing to clean up things is because of you know uh some really poor unintended consequences of proposition D.

Um, and I think if we're gonna take a second bite at the apple here, uh, we need to make sure that we're getting this right, and we need to address the concerns uh of these these various groups.

Um, and I I would request that we uh take some time in committee and make sure that we're we're engaging everyone.

A lot of people have come to me and said, hey, this just got on my radar.

Um I I think it would be a mistake to move too quickly on this.

There's no reason to to rush this.

I think it's important that we get it right.

Uh, and with that, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Um, next on seniority here is Alderman Aldrich.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

Um, I guess with an alderman from the ninth year for questions.

Go ahead.

Doesn't need to yield, and just can go ahead and ask him.

All right, I'm thinking one on the floor.

Uh and we're not it's this computer changed it up.

I thought we was.

I know it's it's a weird thing to be on a webinar.

Thank you all for your for your patience.

The baby went down literally moments before this hearing started.

So I appreciate you all letting me have it as a webinar today.

Go ahead, Alderman.

Thank you.

My guy baby gets it all.

So we will make changes.

One, I do want to uh say I do appreciate.

I want to thank the Alderman from the ninth for we did have conversations about this bill, uh, you know, weeks and months ago about kind of doing some of the cleanup of it.

And I know that you know our government is antiquated and outdated, and you know, there's a lot of things on our books that aren't uh up to date.

Uh I recently got um, I guess the email from the um kind of central committee leaders about this issue where they're saying is there like a conflict with the charter?

And I know you are staunch advocate of making sure that things are right in the charter.

Uh we kind of done a dance with that, but could you I mean in your bill, does it talk about if there's a vacancy uh who picks, or are we changing that?

Um, in Board Bill 88.

And is that if you could point to me where an 88 where we talk about the vacancies.

Yeah, uh well, well, thank you, Alderman.

Uh, I think that uh I hear the concerns from the DCC.

And uh while the bill has been introduced for over a month, and this also isn't the first by the apple to use um Alderman Ryan's phrase.

Uh we certainly didn't engage the groups that uh were overseeing elections, right?

Because this bill is not about political parties, this is about uh elections and democracy and making sure that we have a clear code that can be understood as well as fixing language that was conflicting.

Um so in the bill, uh on uh the it looks like the second page, uh we have uh uh it's a first and second page.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to municipal election city of St.

Louis uh to the extent not in conflict with the provisions of this charter or those chapter, the provisions of Missouri statutes and the City of St.

Louis Charter now enforce uh in relation to the holding of elections for solicitation of voters at the polls, the challenging of votes.

So it does say that not uh conflicting with the charter.

We do understand that the charter language would have to change uh related to vacancies.

It was uh frankly an omission of Prop D that it didn't cover special elections, and so that will require an additional charter change.

But this bill is written in a way uh that vacancies would still continue under the current system until that charter change is uh is affected.

So we're not really uh trying to conflict with the charter at all so much as we're just fitting with it until such time as that is changed.

Um did you have another part of that question?

No, so uh, and I'm looking at page three of 15 uh section C where it says when a vacancy occurs in the office, which it I got the charter also pulled up.

It looks like that's the same language.

It talks about the days uh 180 days prior to the general election, such vacancies should be filed through special election with a primary no sooner than that.

And as I'm scrolling, um just so I'm clear what you're saying, is your bill would not change the process of the central committee picking um, even though we don't have, I guess, uh part of you know, we were nonpartisan, but is it your belief that the central committee still would, I guess uh nominate a person?

Under the current way that special elections fill to fill vacancies do operate for the charter, yes.

That is uh we recently had an election for the eighth ward to fill the vacancy when the mayor was elected, and uh that's exactly how it was done.

Uh now after this bill is passed, that would continue to be the case until the charter is changed.

Uh and you know, I'll I'll say for what it's worth the the political parties will always have the ability to endorse uh their candidate of their choosing.

Uh it is never something that we would take away the voice of anyone.

I I deeply respect the committee people of this city.

Uh I I work closely with my committee people on the ninth ward, and I think that it's really important that we respect the voices that the voters have chosen.

Uh, but at the same time, we also need to respect the voices of the voters.

And they told us very clearly uh in 2020 that uh approval voting was the method they preferred.

We've done several elections since.

In fact, all of us were elected using that method.

And uh to also speak to the concern about uh uh state statute and in amendment seven that passed last year, St.

Louis was accepted.

Its method of voting of approval voting was preserved under that.

We're not changing that voting method.

Uh we drafted this bill in close coordination with the Board of Election Commissioners and their attorney.

Uh, and so we are confident in the legality of this bill.

Gotcha.

Is I guess not related to the bill a little bit.

I guess is the goal, knowing that we need to clean up the charter as a goal long term uh to do a charter bill that would eliminate the parties from nominating.

I can't speak to that.

I I know that um Alderwoman Velasquez has a bill that she is working on, but I I'm not involved with that effort.

Uh, but we did write the language aware that you know, if there's something that changes in the future, that we could make clear what happens because we didn't want to have to come back and keep updating the code.

So we left that flexibility in there.

Okay, thank you.

And madam chair, I know I guess since Ben was his uh his expert uh speaker, can I ask him a question?

Of course, please.

The ball, Michael Browning.

Yeah, that's right.

I do, Mr.

Berkmeyer.

Good.

Uh all the man, how are you?

I'm good.

Uh could you talk about I think which is uh kind of related to this bill in the eight ward race, I'm just I have the results pulled up.

When the ballots went out, uh, was there like D and I's next to the name of candidates?

There was not.

Okay.

So well, I guess would this uh language require you all, is even though even though we're not talking about um party change moving forward, are we all, I guess, in agreement if there is a vacancy that the central committee still and Republican committee, I guess would have the ability to at least uh nominate a candidate, which put I guess it gets tricky because we don't do the DR, but um yeah, they still can nominate a candidate.

That's correct.

I mean, I would say what you know, the there is a lot of talk in this bill about vacancies, and if Prop D would become the law of the land.

Um, but regardless of whether it's the charter that we file with vacancies or Prop D or what's in this bill, um, this bill does provide a lot of help, even for the charter provision.

So by the provision that you and the Alderman Browning were just speaking about, when it talks about how notices to be given and things like that on how vacancies are to be conducted, that language helps us, regardless of whether it is charter or if it's Prop D, because it it kind of clarifies the relationship between the city, which is the entity calling the election and the election board, which is the entity that essentially is running the city's election.

And so those those to me, it's like I, you know, uh we just run the elections.

Um, I don't have a uh stake, whether it's charter, whether it's Prop D.

What I like about this bill is that it provides clarity about what our relationship is versus the city.

And so, you know, as far as my expectation would be that if we would receive a vacancy election, you know, a month after this is passed, well, it would essentially be the same as we ran the ward eight, um, unless a judge tells us otherwise, that we ran the ward eight vacancy um this past summer.

But there's the additional provisions in here that talk about notice how we receive the election, how we um kind of just the nuts and bolts, like that holds it all together.

And that to me is what you know since I'd say, and to make another ball joke, I've been pulling out my hair since 2022 over this.

I mean, be when the first election we ran, which was then the old ward uh 28.

So, you know, it's this this this bill helps whether it's charter or property, period.

Yeah, yeah.

And I mean, I'm a big supporter of property.

I would uh continue to support property, I think.

Um, you know, I think Prop D brings a lot of advantages to uh the engagement of voters and getting out to making sure candidates actually do the work.

Um when we talk about uh the the runoff situation or if there's a tie, is your office prepared to let people know about that?

So, like, hey, yes, you're going out to collect signatures, but I want to let you know uh if there's a tie situation that the new policy would be that we go off of how many signatures is collected.

Um yes, I mean that that is a provision that you're right.

I mean, I haven't thought about that notice part to candidates, but that would be an important part in letting people know if that is the rule.

Um, you know, in the in the very unlikely case that we have something like that happen.

But it definitely is an important component that people understand what they're doing when they do it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, and not a question for you, Mr.

Uh Burkmeyer, but just uh to speak in general.

One thing I also um, you know, I will kind of look into the whole language and and talk with uh Berkmeyer and the Aldman about like the party stuff, um, just to make sure that you know we're not, I guess, in violation of charter or whatnot.

But one thing I do like about the bill is the repeal of one of the ordinates that is being repealed that I know uh the legal women voters actually advocate it for, advocated for is if there are only two candidates on the ballot in March and April, then they would not actually um be on the ballot in March.

This bill would actually uh appeal that or repeal that.

I know uh in my ward, a lot of folks were or in other wards, actually, I heard a lot of folks were confused when they didn't see their alder person on the ballot when it was two candidates, because you know, we've done a lot of election reform.

Um, and to be able to know who's gonna be on the ballot if it's two people or not, I think it is up to you know, candidates to actually do the work to get out the vote to make sure that people are aware.

But to change it where there was only two people, I think was a problem.

So the fact that we are repealing that ordinance that was um passed by Aldwan and Clark Hubbard, I think is a way to not confuse voters.

Um and I think at the moment, that's all the questions I got right now.

Yeah, no, if I could just say I think um Alderman, we did talk with Alderman Clark Hubbard about that and really explain the rationale, which is that uh there's an election happening anyway in a regular election.

Uh so it's not really saving the board of elections any money or manpower uh that that is something that would be occurring anyway.

We only in this bill change it for special elections because as we noted, when there's a special election, there really is no other thing on the ballot.

It's just for that office.

And so it doesn't make sense to have two rounds if there's only two candidates.

So that actually does save the money in that situation.

And that I think was always the spirit behind that.

So we we do really appreciate the work of the advocates and also just continuing to revisit things to make sure that we uh be as clear as we can with voters, because this really is about making sure that voters can uh make their voices heard and are not confused when they go to the ballot box.

Yeah.

And I'll and just to add to that, I'll uh I'll be leaning to support this one and I'll just uh be in conversations with you, Alderman, and just figure out.

I think some of the concerns that the people from the central committee are bringing up is valid.

So just to make sure that we know we're all on the same page before we get to the floor.

So uh we'll continue to talk before the bill gets to the floor.

Always available to talk.

Thank you, Alderman.

Thank you, Alderman Aldridge.

Uh Alderman Cox Antry, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, and thank you, Alderman Browning, for bringing this uh bill up for review and committee today.

Um, I think a lot of the revisions and notes for cleanup that you noted here make a lot of sense.

Um, and I appreciate you know, Alderman Aldred's note on making sure things are clear and understandable for voters.

I think that's always the priority in any election when you're wanting to make sure that voters can make the best and most informed uh decision about a candidate possible.

And there's just a couple of things that I want to speak to, just again to reiterate uh what I think makes a lot of clear and transparent sense.

One of the folks that testified talked about the importance of the filing fee not being higher than it is for a Senate race.

And I think that's very clear when it comes to uh just having a reasonable filing fee to make sure that again, the accessibility of public office is truly accessible to the most people and we're able to attract the most people.

So I think that note of cleanup um is really really important to highlight.

Um I know the other item that came up um specifically related to vacancy.

Uh, I myself am an alder that was elected through a vacancy process.

Um so I can personally, you know, note that experience, and I know my election was brought up here today.

Uh, what I can share from recognizing that is that I think there is an importance about making sure that uh our code of elections aligns with what the voters said.

And right now the voters have said they agree with having a nonpartisan election process.

And I think it was brought up that all the other aldermanic elections are conducted in this way.

Uh so I just want to reiterate my understanding of this legislation is making sure that a vacancy process can be conducted in the same way that other aldermanic elections are.

And that's my understanding of what you're trying to do here, Alderman.

Um, and again, I think that makes a lot of sense in terms of trying to make an election process that is consistent and clear to voters at all times.

So I also want to recognize and acknowledge some of the testimony from folks here today that raise concerns.

Uh, I myself fully agree that even though we don't have partisan elections here in the city, there is a very important role for partisan organizations and making sure that they can uh raise their voice and support candidates that they agree with and share their thoughts and feelings with voters.

I think that role is very important.

Um, but again, the understanding from POP D is the voters said the elections themselves are currently nonpartisan.

So my understanding here is we're just trying to align the code with um what you know the voters said when they passed proposition D.

Um, I don't think that takes away from any important organization's role in doing voter education, voter outreach.

But here we're just trying to align the code.

Um, and I appreciate that.

And I think it will go a long way in making sure that the elections process is clear to voters.

Um and I also appreciate the board of elections coming to testify about how that would be implemented because implemented.

Um, and I appreciate the alderman's notes of just making sure that candidates are aware and notified when these changes are made so that they are clear about the process and the rules.

I think that will be very important as well.

And I would like to see that done.

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh a lot of uh my questions were asked.

Um, but I just wanted to go through a few things um just to confirm.

I don't think we said it out loud yet.

If there is a charter change, it has to go to the vote of a people.

Just confirming that.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so if the this is a vote we can take at the Board of Alderman to set it up for a potential charter change, but this doesn't allow a charter change to happen without a vote of the people, as we have to do.

So I just wanted to clarify that piece.

Um the one thing um I had a question about well, two things.

The part around the the um candidate paying uh taxes, it says that um the day following the last day.

Then the Board of Election Commissioner sends a declared list, and then the collector certifies that every candidate is not delinquent.

If that, if any candidate is delinquent, the Board of Election Commissioners are notified.

And if they're delinquent, they're not placed on the ballot.

Um I agree that people who are delinquent should not be on the ballot, but I would hope that they would have a chance before the filing closes, closes to go back and pay anything.

And this is um, you know, the day after.

So I guess do you anticipate it's not in the bill, but do you anticipate that they would be notified in some way before it closes, or do you think that I mean, I I would argue it's their responsibility to know, but that was just something that stood out to me as something that would then prevent people from being on the ballot.

Yeah, that that is our understanding is that there would be uh notification.

And and uh Mr.

Borgemeyer might be able to speak to this, but I think it's very much in the case that the Board of Election Commissioners works with people uh to make sure that they're aware that uh they are not in compliance and and give them a chance to get in compliance.

Uh I think it's come up in years past where there's been cases where people have not been good on day one, but they find a way forward uh after it's brought it and into clarification for them.

Thank you.

Director Borkmeyer, is that generally your understanding?

So when candidates first file with us, they have to provide the tax clearance to us when they file.

And so that will only do whether it has to say yeah, so we won't accept the filing.

Um then what happens because filing closures usually around the first of the year, uh so after, and so then um, you know, that could change their status as far as whether or not they're compliant or not.

We wouldn't necessarily check on the candidate to make sure that they're in compliance.

I think the duty would be on the client and client, I say the candidate to um check that.

Um, but um if there's another procedure that we should consider, I guess we'd be willing to.

But right now, I mean, I think it would be the the what what's in place is exactly what you said, older women um is that we would simply forward the list to the collector revenue and then they would notify us whether the compliance or not.

And you know, I I don't know what I think it'd be incumbent upon the candidate to make sure that they are compliant.

Okay.

Yeah, that that makes sense.

Um, and I'm sure people would be checking and making sure they're paid.

Um let's see.

Um can you speak a little bit more, Alderman Browning?

Um, we talked a little bit about a conflict of interest piece, and I saw that a little bit in the portion of um, you know, when they're filing, uh if if they have a family member who might benefit, and then also with donations.

But I was wondering if if you think there's something deeper that I'm missing um that you could speak to about a conflict of interest uh clarification.

Yeah, um, so a lot of the conflict of interest language is in a a different part of the code, uh, but uh for this part right here, uh I think there's some brief language.

Uh I'm just trying to find it real quick.

I think it's just I think it's just what you talked about.

And and to go back to um Prop R, which created a lot of the conflict of interest things, uh we really uh we took a look at that for this, but we decided that that is probably best handled in a different bill uh because we really wanted to focus this on elections.

And so um other conflicts of interest that may arise when someone's in office are handled under that.

And uh that's kind of a separate separate category than this that we're discussing today.

That was my understanding, and then it was talked about a few times that I was like, am I missing something?

I just saw it here.

Okay, so I appreciate you uh you clarifying that.

Um let's see.

Uh before we allow the alderman to close, any other members have the committee have uh follow-up questions before we move on.

Just one quick question.

Um Go ahead, Alderman.

Following up on what uh I think what you brought up, and so I'm just clear or chairwoman's white, sir.

On the Alderman, are you uh looking to change?

So, you know, the process now is yes, when you go file, you have to have your your taxes paid, you know, and usually uh once you get your your tax clearance, sometimes maybe that's in January, uh, that your taxes are paid, you know.

Um is it your understanding if then if their taxes aren't paid after they were already got the waiver from the board of elections posts that in January that if they're not paid, then they can't um pay them.

Yeah, that's how it works right now.

Um, and we're not changing how it works right now.

Uh so uh my understanding is that they're still able to pay them.

Uh, but this is one of those, you know, speaking of candidate responsibilities and everything that we're doing for the office.

Um, it's one of those things that we all had to do when we ran for office is make sure that our taxes are all in line.

Uh and yeah, it takes a little running around to make sure that you uh, you know, the various offices of City Hall to get those check marks.

But um, anyone preparing for office has ample time to figure out whether or not they're they're paid up on taxes.

Um so again, we're not changing anything from the way it currently works now.

Okay.

And I'd say the cloud revenue is is probably involved in this conversation as well.

But it's um it's at the very end, basically, that we would have the cloud revenue check again.

So at the last day, the collector revenue would check again, and then that would go if their taxes aren't paid or something popped up uh that that maybe they thought they paid, let's just say a certain amount in January, and then maybe the assessment may be wrong and that they probably got to owe 50 more bucks, but they didn't know about it.

And in this case, the collective revenue would reach out on the last day to the Board of Elections and the Board of Elections, even though they got the uh clearance at first, the Board of Elections on the last day within have to pull their name off the ballot with no notification to the candidate.

Not no notification.

It would work the same way it works now.

So um, and I'll say this actually did happen this year.

It wasn't at the very end, but uh there was an issue where the comp troler had not deducted proper taxes, and uh a lot of us had to go up and uh through that office uh in order to pay those taxes on filing day.

Uh so we did have to work that out, but um it's not something that uh I think would change from how we're currently doing it.

So we're not trying to disqualify anyone without notice.

It's just simply that um, you know, sometimes things do happen and that hopefully there would be uh notice that goes out to people to give them a chance to correct it before uh disqualifying them.

Yeah, and I mean the the earnings tax thing, but you know, I wasn't on the ballot this last go round.

That definitely I think shocked a lot of uh shocked a lot of folks.

Is there uh I guess to Ben Um Commissioner, when it comes to, I guess, conversations that your office has with the collector revenue office.

Um, you know, when we come in and we file for office, we have to provide that form to get um that that we're clear on our taxes.

Would this be something new that there's a uh that the collector revenue within reach out to you the day of the last day of filing?

Does that typically happen?

So what the current, I mean, so typically now it's the it's on the collector just to notify us that that's it, that's all it says is that it says on the day immediately following the last day in which individuals may file as candidates, blah, blah, blah.

Uh the collector of revenue shall notify the board of election commissioners in writing if any candidates are delinquent in filing or payment of personal taxes.

Um it says it's kind of the same language.

So in that event, a candidate's delinquent um shall not be placed on the ballot, barred from participating.

So basically the same language now.

The only thing really different about this step is the affirmative step on our part and forwarding the collector the list.

Uh so it's like, you know, it basically kind of fleshes out the process.

So if the collector has this responsibility to notify us now, well, obviously the collector has to have some list to go off of to make that judgment.

So all this has is us forwarding the collector the list and the collector making a judgment based on the list that we send or her.

And that's in and already the way that happened is on the last day.

Yeah, it says currently on the day immediately following the last day of filing.

That's what it says currently.

Okay.

And that's the current process.

Yes, current process.

Okay.

No more questions.

Thank you, Alderman.

All right.

Uh seeing no further hands up or questions here, uh, Alderman Browning, you are recognized to close.

Well, thank you all.

Uh some really great questions today.

I really appreciate everyone engaging with this and also the conversations we've had over the last several months.

Uh I do want to be clear, this is not something that just came up really quickly.

This is something that we've really been trying at for over a year, but really ramped up the discussions about redoing the whole code over the last several months.

Uh, I want to really thank the Board of Election Commissioners for their uh the many meetings that we've had over this to make sure that it's all working together.

Um the whole point of this is to strengthen our democracy by making a clear code for voters and candidates to understand.

Uh this is about getting candidates that uh are qualified that are invested in in helping our city, uh, and also just making sure that um every change we're making is consistent with the rest of the code and the rest of what we do in the city.

Uh so because we are under nonpartisan approval voting.

Uh this is reaffirming that we are doing things the right way under that.

Um, you know, again, I I definitely think the parties have a part to play in our democracy right now.

It's very important, but uh we didn't consult the Democratic, Republican, or Green parties on on this because this is a nonpartisan approval uh voting method.

Uh and again, we're not changing how that is done right now.

We're just clarifying things uh and making sure that uh it all works together.

So with that, uh, I really appreciate everyone's time today and I ask for your favorable favorable consideration.

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh, with that, I will see if there is anyone who wants to make a motion for a due pass recommendation.

I moved to pass motion bill 88 with the due pass recommendation.

Second.

There's been a motion from the alderwoman from the eighth to pass board bill eighty eight with a due pass recommendation, a second from the alderman from the fourteenth.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Ryan.

No.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Audible Velazquez.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Anthony.

Sarah Sweitzer.

Aye.

Audible woman Velasquez.

We have four I votes, one no vote.

You have sustained the motion from the Alderwoman from the eighth, and we have passed Board Bill 88 out of committee with the due pass recommendation.

Uh, congratulations, Alderman Browning.

Okay, moving on on our agenda.

I do not believe we have any other, I know we don't have any other board bills.

We have no items for discussion.

We've already acknowledged that we don't have any written testimony.

Um, any any announcements anyone would like to make.

Okay.

I would like to excuse the alderwoman from the sixth for necessary absence.

And with that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Can I get a call for you?

Wonderful.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, a call from previous roll from the alderman from the fourth.

And we are adjourned.

Thank you all for being here.

Have a great rest of your day.