All right, we will now call to order uh the legislation rules committee for Tuesday uh July 21st at 214 July 21st, 2026.

Uh at 215 p.m.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Alderman Cole.

Alderman Orion.

Older woman Keys.

Here.

Alder Woman Son Yang.

Present.

I share the voting.

Here.

Chair Velasquez.

Present.

Alderman Cole.

Alderman O'Ryan.

For present.

Yeah, of course.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will now enter, seeing that we have quorum.

I will now entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes on Wednesday, July 15th, 2026.

Moved.

Second.

Second.

You can take devotees second.

Alderman Cole.

Alderman Orion.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Sanye.

All right.

Let's share the voting.

All right.

Chair Velasquez.

Aye.

Alderman Cole.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And with that, we have approved the minutes from Wednesday, July 15th, 2026.

Today we don't have any board bills to review.

Resolution 59, but before that, we are going to start off with our committee discussion.

We have one item for discussion.

And that is discussion item number one.

And the committee will discuss the engrossment process.

So with that, I will virtually hand the mic over to Madam Clerk Sharita Rogers to walk us through that.

And after she walks through, I'll obviously we'll take any questions from the committee.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman, Velazquez, and the entire legislation and rules committee.

As you know, during some recent, we had recent issues where amendments were not incorporated in the bill.

So my staff and I develop a multi-quality control process, if you will, um, to ensure that all the bills are the amendments are included.

We are ensuring that uh if it's any amendments that were passed, only the past the amendments are uh passed by the committee will be uploaded into the drive, passed by the full board, will be uploaded in the drive instead of confusing them and putting all the amendments that were put forth, right?

So we're now only adding the amendments that were recently passed.

Um we're adding a red line.

Let me go through.

And then this is in the enrollment folder.

So once let once legislation, like on the 23rd, I can share my screen in just a second.

But what we're doing, uh, we have a review process.

Like the first step is once the uh amendments are passed out, the bills are passed out with the amendments included.

Um, we'll have one member from my team to incorporate those amendments.

The next step would be um, it'll go to the deputy clerk to review them to make sure the numbering is correct, to make sure all the information, I'm sorry, all the amendments have been included.

It'll also go to our financial analyst.

Let me stop by saying she also the legal analyst, I'm sorry, the financial analyst and the legal council, they already get the bills once once they're introduced.

Um, so they'll see that before.

But once amendments are included and floor subs and any type of uh committee subs are included, uh, we also still send them that copy to make sure it's no further review that's needed.

If the um fiscal note needs to be updated, that's where I find our financial analysts will come in.

And also the last thing is for the clerk to review everything.

So I'll have in front of me what what the committee will have in front of them, which is the red line version, a clean copy of the combined bill.

The combined bill is the summary, the actual bill, any type of exhibits that may have been included or attachments, and to make sure ensure that all past amendments are um located in the bill, and then we're gonna upload a folder for each bill that the committee will have to engross.

So uh with your permission, I want to share my screen.

Yes, please go ahead, uh Clerk Rogers.

Please let me know if you've seen it.

Uh I can see it.

I assume the rest of the committee can see it if I can.

Okay.

So this is for July 3rd uh 23rd meeting.

So well, this is just the let's see what this is.

Okay, so chairwoman Velasquez, this is what we talked about with uh you and vice chair to voting.

So what we did, we just kind of put your uh checklist and this document here all into one.

So this these are the questions you're you know that you ask the committee or you ask myself or the chief clerk, I'm sorry, the deputy clerk, we're putting all this into this um form here.

So once we verify everything has been added, everything that's on your checklist is will be on here.

You know, myself or the uh deputy clerk, yes, do you have a question?

Well, I was just gonna say, I think for the the committees for clarity for the rest of the committee.

Um we have been going in the previous legislation rules, as you may be aware, we've been going through a checklist about each of the things to check about section numbering, accuracy amendments.

This is uh essentially a a checklist that the clerk will sign off on for each bill, right?

Is that am I correct, madam clerk?

Um, so we'll have each so there will be this form will be done for each of the bills um that we're gonna go back to in the folder, and before it gets to committee, uh the clerk's office should have um will have and is signing off that they have double check the accuracy, the section numbering, the formatting, um, double checked the exhibits and attachments, uh, and scroll up a little bit, madam clerk, and the amendments that all the amendments have been incorporated that are supposed to be in the rejected amendments are not in there, and then as the clerk was speaking about before that the financial analyst and the legal um council will have re acknowledged that they will reviewed uh this as well.

Is that correct, madam clerk?

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, so um, and this is a spot where the financial analyst once she review um the board bill, she'll sign it and date it, and this is also for our legal counsel.

And if you note it here where it says both the committee and floor sub bills will not have a red line copy as substitute bills act as a total replacement.

I think we spoke with that, so that will not have a red line in your a red line copy in your folder.

And then do you just want to walk us through one of the sample folders?

Yes.

Let me see what this is.

I'm sorry, I think it's just a checklist.

Okay, this is just what we were what we were talking about, the process actually.

So this is we'll go with 13 as amended in committee.

So um this is the folder will be uploaded into the legislation and rules committee for July 23rd under discussion.

Uh oh, that one that didn't have any.

I think we have 50.

Philip would Philip, if you can jump in, is it 50 that we oh 41?

I'm sorry.

So this is uh 41.

So we're gonna have the this is the combined clean version of the bill, which all the amendments were added and included.

If you want me to go through all that, we can do that.

So let's see.

No, I just think that a high-level walking through what people are gonna see in the folder, and then obviously the committee are gonna open it up for questions from the committee.

But I think you know, um, I don't want to take your words.

Uh, but the thought was that I mean the whole point of part of this is to that we should be able to individually verify, even though all of the work reflected in the most recent version of the bill with the items in the folder, and your team will have provided a checklist and an attestation that these have been reviewed.

But if somehow we wanted to go back and review it from beginning to end, that all the pieces will be there to review.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So, like with board bill, uh obviously we have the committee sponsor for this one on on online, but that we can see uh the changes here in the red line version.

Yeah, let me see.

Um on the um on the PDF, and I think we talked about that before.

So these are the two amendments that were adopted.

Right, we'll just have to figure out.

I mean now if you go to and I think we should because we just uploaded a the word document of that so we can upload the word document.

Yeah, so I mean all those things should be in in the drive uh 24 hours before our meeting and making sure that all those pieces are in there.

Yeah, here it is.

So I will be periodically making videos.

So the whole point of this is just to that we can have a process where multiple people are taking a look at it instead of relying on one individual.

We it's gonna be looked at, like I said, the person who's putting in the amendments, the person who's um looking, which will be Philip making sure that you know, Chanel incorporate those amendments correctly, and then myself to ensure that everything is um we haven't this it the engrossed copy.

This is what you know will print out on that purple paper when we are actually in um person that you can sign the date of the engrossment um, I mean during the legislation and rules meeting.

So this is what you'll be signing off on.

Um trying to think this PDF doesn't show the red line version of it.

It just shows the where we scratched it out.

Yeah, I think I'm gonna open it up to the committee for questions, but I the however the clerk chooses whether it's in a PDF version or the word version that you can see the red lines.

The most important thing is that a version that we can see the changes is in there 24 hours in advance.

Yes.

Um so there's no questions about so there's no questions.

It just that's I mean, uh, so I uh I mean we just need to make sure that before Thursday that that is, you know, again, however you choose whatever format you choose with the format that is chosen reflects that.

Um so with that, I will open it up to members of the committee.

Uh starting by order of seniority, committee, please ask your questions.

The reason uh we are having this discussion today is so that uh we can all have clarity before uh our next meeting.

So with that, I'm going to uh uh check in with Alderman Naryan.

Uh yeah, just a couple questions.

Um did uh the financial folks and uh legal folks have they reviewed their their roles on this checklist.

Yes, actually they came up with the verbiage um that's on this um sheet that they'll be signing off on.

Okay, thank you.

They came up with the actual verbiage because what um I think all the woman what the woman belasquez had sure wasn't comfortable with it because that was outside of the scope of her job, so we just kind of fit it to their description and where they'll feel comfortable with signing off on it.

Okay, perfect.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

And clerk, just while we're on that, and then I'll move on to you, Alder One Sunny.

Um, I think it may be helpful after this meeting to just send the two sheets the check, the attestation form and the process form to the I know they're in the drive, but it to help everybody just to send them to the committee.

Got it.

Um, Alderwoman Sanye.

Uh I don't have any questions.

I'm just um, you know, I thank you all for doing the work and putting a process together and look forward to seeing it in real time.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Sure.

Thank you.

Alderwoman Keys.

Um, no, I don't have any questions, but if we're going into order of seniority, I should go before Sun Yay.

Oh, you were correct.

My apologies.

I read that wrong.

No worries.

Uh Alderman Devotee.

Yeah, I don't I don't have any questions.

Uh clerk and deputy clerk, I would uh I just like to echo the comments that have been made.

So thank you for your time and your efforts on this.

Uh look forward to the process on Thursday and opening the drives up and being able to see the documentation that we've talked about.

I think this will significantly help these engrossment uh proceedings move forward smoothly.

So uh uh appreciated.

I would like to echo uh the chair's request that I think it is important that we have a red line version.

And I think you mentioned the other day that that it's most probably gonna need to be a word version that shows where the uh amendments are actually added into the final version of the bill.

So that would be my I'd like to reiterate that.

I think that will again as folks are reviewing materials, preparing for these meetings.

I think being able to see that red line very clearly ahead of time will aid us significantly.

But but again, thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Note.

Thank you, Alderman.

I I see we have two of our other colleagues who are not on this committee on this call.

So um I am just going to ask if they have questions as well.

Alder Woman Boyd, do you have any questions about uh Madam Clerk's presentation?

No, ma'am, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Um, Alderman Aldrich.

I see you on uh do you have any questions about this process?

Anything you'd like to ask the clerk and her team.

No, no questions just thank uh you all from the committee working with the clerks and the clerks pulling this together so that there's a process laid out um as we be doing these engrossments a little bit more.

So thank you, madam chair, and thank you, uh Madam Clerk and Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Alderman.

Thank you, Alderman.

I don't have any questions.

I do want to echo my thanks.

I know that this is um uh double checking uh for small things that can be big things, uh like errant commas and words and things like that is uh tedious and uh unglamorous, the unglamorous part of governing.

Uh and so we know that your team uh puts in a lot of work and sometimes under uh under not a lot of time, uh I don't want to say under duress, but sometimes it is a lot.

So uh we recognize the amount of work that you're not only putting into this process, but the amount of of work that the clerk staff does.

And so I want to just say thank you.

Um I'm glad that we've been able to that we that we're collaborating, that we continue to collaborate.

And I, you know, like Alderman Devoty said, I mean, our intention is just to have a smooth process for every everyone and to make sure that um, you know, everything is as accurate as our humanness can allow with these these bills.

Um so I don't have any other questions.

Um just one more for the committee, no questions.

All right, well, we both we both want to thank you all for this opportunity.

It meant a lot um for us to be able to put something in place um to maintain the integrity of the legislation to also be transparent in what we're doing and to uh build back the confidence, you know, in the legislation process.

So we uh came up with this process so it can add multi-layers and uh multi uh steps to ensure that everything is done correctly.

And I'm not saying everything is gonna be 100% because we're all human, but I think the mistakes that were made in the past should have been caught.

You know, so with this process, I'm very confident in my team that you will be more than impressed with the new process we have in place.

And I thank you all for your patience and grace as we um embark on this new uh uh engrossment process with you, Anna.

We we look forward to working collaboratively with you, though.

We we look forward to working collaboratively with you though, and we will be walking it together, absolutely.

Well, thank you.

I don't have anything else.

I don't think the committee has anything else as far as this.

I know that obviously some of the clerk staff is going to stay on the call for uh the other portion of this meeting.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, with that, the next item on our agenda or flipping our agenda is resolution 59.

Uh introduced by older woman Boyd.

I'm going to ask the clerk to read the summary and then pass the virtual mic on to Alder Woman Boyd.

Resolution number 59.

Introduced by Audible Pamela Boyd.

Now, therefore, it'd be resolved by the Board of Alderman of the City of St.

Louis as follows.

The Board of Alderman respectfully calls upon Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor, to promptly commence a performance audit of the city of St.

Louis consistent with the intent expressed by the citizens who supported the petition effort.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Madam President, Madam Clerk, and thank you, Madam President.

Uh Chair, is did the uh guests that were gonna speak, or they did they get on?

What is the name?

Is it Felice?

What is the name of the individual?

They don't have their name up.

So I know you have a Tanya.

Because I don't hear it has uh April, I have Felicia Roba, Tamika, Stinger, those people, they want to speak.

Oh Clerk, I see uh yeah, Felice because April is obviously Felice.

Uh-huh.

L F-E-L-I-C-E.

Okay.

And then uh Roba.

Okay.

And then Tamika Stinger.

Okay.

Mm-hmm.

And then uh it was a Teresa, I think it's Steve's treaty.

Yeah.

Now, um, uh Alder Woman, are these co-presenters or is this public testimony?

Or these are the presenters because uh just FYI.

This uh petition, this resolution was resident-led, and so the people that's on here, they led the charge to get the petition signatures for us to take it to the next step to ask for an audit.

And so when they had sat down and talked to me about what their concerns was, and I told them that I didn't have a problem working with them because this is what the residents asked for.

So they got signatures from all over the city.

It wasn't just one certain area, it was all over the city.

They collected signatures and turned them in so they can make sure that people heard their voices.

And so I think what the concern is the amount of money that has come through St.

Louis City since 2022, and nobody seems to understand and or know where these dollars have gone.

The residents are saying we don't see where the money has gone.

And it goes from the uh Rams money to the uh COVID dollars to the North Quarter dollars, all of this money has come through our doors, and then they just all they're asking is the auditors to do an investigation to find out where are these dollars so they can get a report to know this is where the dollars would went to.

All right, so we have to swear everybody in.

Is that right, Madam Clerk?

Miss Oura.

Everybody that's speaking, you probably do, uh, madam chair.

I'm trying to uh Felice McClendon keeps denying Robux is continuing to deny, and so is Trinity Stern.

I've tried to pull move them over several times, uh, but they keep denying.

So I'm gonna try it again.

So, but you do you do have to make a stink stirgers, right?

Yes, she she accepted.

Okay, and see if the other ones uh uh accept.

Oh, they said they don't want to speak.

Okay, all right.

So that's why they kept denying.

All right, so uh Miss Tamika then is going to speak.

Miss Steggers is going to speak.

I think she says she doesn't want to speak as well.

No, okay.

I do.

Okay.

All right, Miss Stegers.

If you could not want to raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

You can hear me.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

So first of all, uh, good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for allowing me this time to speak.

Um, I just want to speak for the group, the other people are on, just as uh the collective to support um to be a part of this discussion to listen in.

Um this is a very important issue that we are dealing with.

Uh in 2023, we started this uh citizen-led petition to have the city of St.

Louis uh have a performance audit led by the state auditor.

Um there is like the alder woman uh stated, there are a lot of funds that are disappearing in front of our eyes.

There is a lack of transparency from many of our departments.

Um, and we need, as the the residents of St.

Louis, we need to feel that we have a government that is efficient and effective in its operations as well as um its finances.

And so that's what this audit is for.

We hit the streets during the cold months to get the the signatures.

Um, and this is one way that we are trying to move forward with getting the audit done, um, is coming to our legislators.

I'm not sure if everybody is aware of what a performance audit is and the differences in the the various audits um that are available for organizations and city governments to receive, but a performance audit is not a typical audit process.

Um typical audits that organizations receive are typically internal audits as well as financial audits on a periodic basis.

A performance audit, um, it can happen several ways.

One of the ways is by the petition of its citizens, a certain percentage based on voter uh information from the last election.

Um we collected enough signatures and re and and submitted it, and we are going through another process to have the um the signatures verified.

We're in a legislative legislative process, no, not judicial process, um, because some of the signatures were thrown out inadvertently, and we're fighting that.

So this is another way that we have to compel the auditor to move along with the uh performance audit.

We think that it is necessary um for the betterment of city government.

Thank you, Miss Steggers.

Am I saying that correctly?

Yes, Stegers, like the animals.

Thank you, Miss Steggers.

Um, I'm uh I was gonna ask the have the committee ask questions, Alderwoman.

Yes, okay.

Uh going in order of seniority correctly this time, uh Alderman Narayan.

Uh yeah, do we have any idea on how much uh uh a performance audit will cost and and who will bear that cost?

So yes, the city of St.

Louis will bear the cost.

The initial uh estimate that we received was somewhere close to two million dollars, but I would say that it would be less.

And the reason I'm saying it would be less is because one of the departments that would be included in this audit is already being audited, which is the building division.

The building division is already having a performance audit underway because if you guys are well aware of the fraud and things like that uh that has gone on in the building division, and the former mayor called the federal government and asked for some investigations to occur.

And so that initial investigation happened, and the state auditor um is underway with a an audit.

So that would decrease the amount at this point with the amount of money that has disappeared in front of our eyes and money that has gone to different cronies and friends and who else we don't know.

This is money that would be well spent to uh basically have some transparency.

Understood.

Um, I'm just trying to think uh practically speaking.

We just finished the budget cycle.

So I'm trying to think of where we would come up with these funds at this point, but um we can certainly have that discussion as we move on.

Uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh Alder Woman Keys.

I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alderman Sonier.

Thank you.

Um first I just wanted to uh thank the Alder Woman um, you know, for bringing this forward.

I do think this is an important discussion.

Um I think that there are a lot of questions that we have, and I know uh, you know, some of the conversation around it started around Rams uh funds.

And so I do think this is a good time for the board to start engaging in accountability and oversight discussions.

Um I think this is a great time to do that.

And I've even talked to Auto Woman Boyd and um kind of spoken about my interest to kind of have some follow-up conversations in regards to Bar Bill 22, the RAM settlement funds that might tighten up kind of oversight and accountability and things of that nature.

Um, my only question specifically tied to the resolution is there is um one of the last whereas clauses that says that the Missouri uh Missouri Secretary of State reportedly requested the Board of Election Commissioners to reexamine aspects of the signature process.

Um I was just curious, is there somewhere where I can go to that that's just news to me.

Is there somewhere I can go to see that or read about that, or was something sent to the board, or was that just indirect conversation to the petitioners or any context that could be provided around that part of it?

So the with the signatures, the way the the practice has gone, the board of elections is supposed to verify that all of the signatures are from uh registered voters.

Yes.

And so during that process, they threw out signatures that were actually valid signatures.

So when I talk about we are in the judicial process of fighting that, that's where we are.

Um, but like I said, this is another route to get the uh the performance audit done.

So there were signatures that were thrown out, and I'll give you guys an example.

And I put it in an email to all of the alder people.

One of the signatures that was thrown out was from Yolanda Yancey, who is a candidate for recorder of deeds.

So if we have someone that is examining the signatures that had the audacity to throw out a a known registered voter, everything that they do is called into question.

And so we are going through the judicial process to fight that.

So that's just an example of why that process that could have gone that route has stalled to this point, and we are um we have a lawsuit filed.

Understood.

Thank you.

No further question.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

Uh Alderman Devotee, Vice Chair Devotee.

Yes, Chair.

Uh, first, uh Alder Woman Boyd, thank you for for bringing this resolution.

It's much appreciated.

And it brought something to my attention that frankly uh I was ignorant of.

So I I appreciate the uh the bringing of the resolution.

Uh I do notice in uh in paragraph three, with respect to the resolution, uh, that there is a request that all relevant city departments, agencies, boards, and commissions cooperate with the audit.

Again, I'm I'm unfamiliar with the underlying ask.

Um Ms.

Sagers, you mentioned um the building division.

What other agencies, departments, boards, commissions are you are you requesting being audited?

So in our original petition, there are 22 departments that answer to the mayor.

And those are the 22 departments that we would like to have um be uh audited by the state auditor.

So the building division is one of those 22, and they're already underway.

So that would that's why I said that will reduce the amount uh that would be paid out.

So and ma'am, what is what is the scope of the request?

Uh, how far back?

How does this work?

Please educate us.

Yes.

So it would go back.

We would be able to specify once the auditor is starts the process, he comes back to the the original petitioners, the group of us, and asks what are the priorities um to look at first.

So those priorities would be most of the departments that had COVID money.

This came about because of the influx of the almost half a billion dollars of COVID money um and how it just has dwindled down and we don't know where the money has gone.

So most of the departments that got a heavy amount of COVID funds, uh SLBC, CDA, building division, and so forth and so on, uh, the police department would be one of those as well.

So basically, from the time we received the the COVID funds, which was at 2021 to present.

So it's mostly under the uh previous mayor's administration.

And then finally, ma'am, if you would educate us about it, and you mentioned judicial review, but it is the is the issue that the petition was initially a rec uh rejected by the board of elections because of a signature issue.

Is that what we're understanding?

Yes.

So the number of signatures that were required to turn in was somewhere in that 6800 range, 6700.

I don't have it right in front of me.

And when they threw out a certain number of signatures that re that made us now, you know, be lower than what the the minimum number that we needed.

So it made the process stop, if you will.

But because we knew uh we had enough signatures, we wanted to challenge what the the Board of Election Commissioners uh detailed, and so we're fighting that in court because, like I said, we have proof that one of the signatures that was thrown out is a registered voter.

Why was that one thrown out?

We went back and got affidavits from a certain number of the names that were thrown out, and they signed and said, This is my signature.

You know, sometimes people don't actually sign because they never were taught that in school.

If we think about the number of people that are old enough to vote, they don't have a signature.

So their print and their signature are the same.

Some of those were thrown out.

So we went back and got affidavits to say, no, this is the signature, and we just happen to have a very slow judicial process.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Uh all the questions I did have my colleagues asked.

I it sounded like uh you were looking, you're trying to get five percent of the signatures right of citywide voters.

Is that um correct, Miss Digers?

I can't remember the exact percentage, but I do know that the number changed because we had an election in 2023.

So, and that had a lower voter turnout.

So I think when we started, we needed let's say 8,000 signatures, but based on that election, the turnout was lower, so it reduced the number of signatures that we needed to something around the 6800, and we turned in maybe like 6900 or something like that.

Okay.

So we did exceed the number that was required from the state auditors process that we went through.

Yeah.

And uh several of the alder people signed the petition.

Um, we went around the full city.

We went from South City to North City, um, the central corridor.

We re we uh got signatures from all across the city.

And so the residents of the city are looking for some transparency.

We're looking for our legislative body to help spur that on so that the state auditor can come in and take a look and see what's going on.

And I know a lot of, like I said, a lot of the uh legislators aren't satisfied with how things are moving as well.

So we just want this resolution to come before the full body and receive a vote so that the residents can see what their legislators think about transparency and accountability as well.

No, thank you, and thank you to the to Alderman Boyd for uh bringing this to our committee.

Um, I don't have any other questions for you, Miss Uh Stegers.

Um, so I'm gonna pass again the virtual mic back to Alderman.

I have my hand raised, Chair.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Alderwoman Sanyer.

Uh I just had one final question, and it was a follow-up to Alderman Devotee's question earlier.

Um, in regards to selecting the departments, if the audit, if the audit was to be approved by the board of Alderman, is it the auditor themselves who selects which departments, or is that at the request of the petitioner, or who would be the one to decide which departments would actually um have the performance review?

It's the request of the petitioners, but as uh a petitioner, we would we want your input as well.

We don't want to just say this is what we think and it's right.

We want it to be a collective uh process.

So if, for example, if some of the legislators think there are certain departments that you definitely would like, you know, there's certain things going on and you want to have a deeper look into, um, we're open to that discussion because we want it to be from the people, not just a couple of people.

Uh I'm not sure if maybe uh what I'm reading wrong, what I'm reading isn't correct, but what I'm reading on a petition is that the state auditor will conduct uh performance audit and will determine the scope of the audit.

But that's what I see on the petition.

But I know you are actually the one submitting the petition, so I wondered if you had any information, but that that that is just my question.

If it if it's not gonna be us or the petitioner, but the auditor who determines the scope of it and the performance.

So that is just a small snippet of what the actual rule is to be put in that small amount of space, but there's a um a booklet for government auditing standards that you could get and take a look that goes into more detail.

And from the meetings that we've had with the the small group that started it, the auditor would sit down with that small group and determine the prioritization of where to start.

And what I'm saying is that we would look to our legislators if you want to be part of that decision making.

Thank you.

I think I'm gonna piggyback on a follow-up question to Alderman Sonier.

Uh and I just need clarification.

It's been my understanding.

I don't know if anybody else on the committee has a different understanding that the state auditor, regardless if we do a resolution, don't do a resolution, want a resolution, want them to audit.

They have the I think they have the power to audit to choose to audit whoever they want to and with whatever scope they want to.

Um they've been doing it, like she said, like with building.

So they've been doing it, they've been auditing departments.

Right.

So I mean, we I mean, they can choose whether we want one, you know, whether we want to or not, that that's the state.

I mean, that's the auditor's job is to audit whomever, wherever across the state.

Um so the the difference here is a performance audit.

So that's the thing that we have to be clear about.

The state auditor will not just go in without any warrants and this do a full performance audit.

It there are certain things that will trigger a performance audit that have happens.

And so one of the ways that is triggered is by a citizen-led petition, and that's why we chose that route.

Um, a state legislator, a state legislator could uh also submit, I don't, I'm not exactly sure of the the route, but a state legislator could do something to trigger um the state auditor to compel him to do a performance audit.

But general audits happen, of course, on a regular basis, but there's something there's different, uh, there's a different process for a performance audit because of the the scope and the detail and the the getting down into the weeds of everything.

Great.

Thank you for the clarification.

And just uh just one more clarification.

We we said that it might estimate at $2 million and that the city uh would have to pay the cost of that.

Is that correct, Alderwoman?

Or Miss Diggers?

Yeah, that's the one number she quoted.

Yes, that's correct.

That is on the petition itself.

That's an estimate.

Um, but like I said, it shouldn't, it shouldn't be that much because like I said, the building divisions um audit is already underway and the city is paying for it.

I'm not sure where and how, but it's underway.

Uh Vice Chair Devotee.

Yes, uh Alder Woman Boyd, I I apologize.

I'm gonna put you on the spot here, and I'm gonna apologize ahead of time.

I'm kind of doing some research and uh as we're talking.

I am seeing, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

And I I know we just established this that the state requires the city to pay for the audit.

But my understanding, at least with a little bit of research I'm doing on the fly, is that the petition will be rejected if we don't acknowledge that in our resolution and acknowledge that the city is picking up the tab.

Um I know I again I know I'm hitting you from left field on this, but do you have any understanding?

I just I don't want us to go through this process and and have the essentially have the petition rejected on a formality or a technicality, if that makes sense.

Right.

That's that's uh to my understanding when I spoke with the auditors office, what they told me what what I sent them, they said that they would do uh the research to see if the audit is justified.

But as far as the payment, I didn't hear anything about who would pay.

But I know in the past when we asked for audits, the city had to pay for those audits.

I do yes, ma'am.

Uh yes, older woman.

I just I again I and I admit this.

I am looking at the resolution and looking at the language on the fly.

I don't see anything that acknowledges or that states or commands the city to pay for audit within the resolution.

I just, if we're going forward with this, I I would hate for the resolution to be a nullity because we miss first base.

And that's I'm just and we probably need to look at and and I appreciate that uh Alderman uh devotee and probably we need to look at the finance piece to add into that.

That it might need to be looked back, revisited and be amended.

That's what I'm hearing.

Yes, ma'am.

Well, it or at least make sure that I'm reading things correctly on the fly.

Right.

Right.

No, you correct.

And so we can do uh I can work with them to do more research.

But just let me be real clear.

I've always uh pride myself on listening to residents because that's how we do our job because we hear what they say.

We have a lot of people that have campaigned on transparency.

And so I don't want to be us to be looked at as talking out of both sides of our nick and saying, oh, we want transparency, but then we say, no, we don't want to do this.

And so that's contradicting what we say that we want.

We want transparency for residents to understand more the processes, where the dollars go, how the dollars are distributed.

And so I agree with that.

So I don't have a problem with amending it and going back to do some more research to amend this to ask for it to come back around.

But I just want to make sure that residents aren't felt like they're not being heard.

But understand and very much appreciated.

And that's why I brought it up as I as I saw it, because I know that means a lot to you.

And I don't want us uh, you know, essentially making what would be a show of something if we're missing again to use a bad analogy if we're missing first base, right?

So I I get that point.

Thank you.

Um Miss Steagers, you have a response to I think Alderman, what Alderman Devotee just said.

Yes.

Um, thank you.

He said that uh the resolution is missing the part that says that the city will pay for it.

Is that what he's stating?

Vice Chair, I think I mean, yes, I think that it's basically well correct, at least as I read the resolution.

Okay, so the I don't see that language.

Okay.

So in the the citizens led petition, it's in the language of the petition.

Does that matter?

I uh I I wish I could answer that question definitively.

Um this is outside of my wheelhouse, and I admit that uh I I don't know, ma'am.

I don't because the language of the resolution states that your support of the citizens led petition, right?

So if you're in support of the citizens led petition and said petition states that the city would be responsible for paying for the uh audit, then you're it's covered on the way I'm I'm looking at it.

That's all I wanted to add.

Sure.

Uh understood.

Thank you.

Um, Alderman Boyd, Alder Woman Boyd, how would you like to proceed?

It does seem like we do have some outstanding questions.

I was gonna say I'm not a lawyer, but on this case, the lawyer, uh, I know Narayan's a lawyer too, but we've got some, we've got some legal questions as well as I think some I think uh there are some other financial implications, as Alderman Narayan also pointed out that we just concluded budget season.

Um we do have a host of audits investigations and lawsuits about some of these 22 departments.

Um so it does seem like we've got some outstanding questions here, but um, Alderwoman, this is uh your resolution, and obviously it is uh up to you and how would you like you would like to proceed next.

And so uh what I'm asking is like I had said earlier, we can uh me and the uh resident can get together to look at that and then look at what she has and to make sure that we're on point to have that piece included in there, and then we can bring it back to the uh legislation committee and amend it.

All right, so you would like us to hold this this resolution in committee for now while you go back and work on it.

Yes, if you like okay, um, I'm okay with doing that.

Um just gonna take a quick tally here and see if any of our other committee members have any questions on this uh resolution.

Second for hands up.

I don't see any hands up.

So with that, Alder One Boy, we're gonna hold uh resolution number 59 in committee.

Uh and we'll come back uh when you're ready, um, after uh, you know, while you have some time to do some more research and uh answer some more of these questions.

I do want to echo my colleagues uh and saying thank you to Miss Stegers.

I know it's uh public testimony and being an expert uh witness are not always things that uh people are used to doing.

So we thank you for taking time out of your day to uh come talk to this committee.

And I want to thank her for being content continuously diligent to keep focusing on trying to get answers.

And so I I advise her not to quit, but now she's understanding how this whole legislation process works.

And so, and truthfully, her and I have been going back and forth with this resolution for a while.

So we kept redoing and kept adding and taking away.

So she's understanding to get it perfected so we can make sure that when we take it to them, it's correct and and as uh vice chair said it won't be kicked back out.

Great.

Well, thank you, Alder Woman.

Uh appreciate you taking time out of your uh schedule, obviously, to uh have your resolution heard today.

She put up two thumbs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't think we have anything else for you.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, that uh wraps up our committee discussion.

Uh Clerk Heggs or Miss Aura, is there any written testimony?

We have not.

Does anybody from the committee have any announcements?

I'm gonna take the silences.

No, um, I will entertain um uh a motion to excuse uh we had almost all the members, but I'll entertain a motion to excuse the members who weren't here today.

So moved.

Second somebody.

Have they left already?

No, we do need second second previous role.

That was uh I will the hearing I will not object to previous role this time.

Hearing no objections to previous roll.

That was uh moved.

Uh motion to excuse is moved by all the alder woman from the 11th, seconded by the alder woman from the fourth.

Sorry, Narayan.

Um, and then with that, I will tell a motion to adjourn at 3 07 p.m.

So moved.

Second.

Hearing no objections for previous role, uh, we are adjourned.

Thank you all.