I'm calling to order this hearing or round table.

This is a public round table of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia.

I'm Phil Mendelson, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Today is Monday, March 30th, 2026.

The time is 3 55 p.m.

We are in room 123 of the John A.

Wilson Building.

This hearing or round table is being recorded and will be available on the Council's website, which is WW.dccouncil.gov.

The subject of this hearing is consideration of four resolutions that are council appointments to three different boards or commissions.

More specifically, PR 26-575 entitled the Board of Directors of the Washington Metroil Safety Commission, Brad Belzak Appointment Resolution of 2026.

PR 26 576, Commission on the Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of the Administrative Hearings, Laura Hankins Reappointment Resolution of 2026.

PR 26 577 Citizen Review Panel, Whitney Miller Reapointment Resolution of 2026, and PR 26 578 Citizen Review Panel, Carolyn Woods Reapointment Resolution of 2026.

All four of these resolutions were introduced by me earlier this month of March.

The stated purpose of PR 26-575 is to appoint Mr.

Brad Belzak to the Board of Directors of the Washington Metro Safety Commission.

The Washington Metroil Safety Commission is the independent entity with oversight and enforcement authority to ensure continual safety improvements in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metro Rail System.

The WMSC Board of Directors is comprised of six commissioners and three alternates who serve four-year terms.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia each appoint two commissioners and each appoint one alternate.

Each member must have expertise in transportation safety or related fields.

Mr.

Belzak was previously nominated by the mayor, confirmed by the council as an alternate member of the Metro Safety Commission.

And with this resolution, he would become, assuming it's adopted by the council, would become a full member of the Metro Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission.

The stated purpose of PR 26-576 is to reappoint Ms.

Laura Hankins as on the Commission on the Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings, otherwise known as COST, COST, Commission on the Selection and Tenure.

This measure was introduced by me earlier this month.

It do uh cost was established by law in 2002 to appoint, reappoint discipline and remove administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

COSC's mission is to ensure the recruitment and retention of a well-qualified, efficient and effective core of administrative law judges at the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The cost is comprised of three voting members who serve three-year terms.

The stated purpose of PR 26-577 is to reappoint Ms.

Whitney Miller to the Citizen Review Panel.

The stated purpose of PR 26-578 is to reappoint Ms.

Carolyn Woods to the Citizen Review Panel.

With historical roots stemming from the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Citizen Review Panel was codified into district law in 2004.

The panel serves as an independent oversight body for the district's child welfare system to evaluate the district government agencies involved in child protection as well as services provided by vendors.

The panel consists of 15 members, all of whom must be district residents.

The panel is required to be broadly representative of the community and must include members who have expertise in the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect.

Panel members serve three-year terms.

Today is March 30th.

The record in this matter for some reason is is open for longer than three weeks.

The record in this matter will close at 5 p.m.

on Monday, April 20th, 2026.

So anyone who is watching and wants to submit comments or anyone else, welcome to do so.

We have to follow record with all legislation.

And so the record will close Monday, April 20th at 5 p.m.

The way we've organized this hearing is uh we we have one witness who is not a nominee, and then we will take up the Metro Royal Safety Commission, followed by the Commission on Selection and Tenure, followed by the Citizen Review Panel.

So let me ask if Lucusha Spencer is here.

She is not here.

All right.

Well, then the first uh witness will be Mr.

Belzak.

You want to come to the table?

And when you're ready, please uh begin.

Did you when you were appointed or nominated to uh be an alternate?

Did you have to appear before the committee on transportation and the environment?

No.

So this is the first rigorous view you're getting.

Yes, sir.

Excellent.

Please proceed.

Great.

Chairman Mendelson, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to be here to be to appear before you today.

My name is Brad Belzak, and I am honored to be nominated for the Commissioner, for the full commissioner on the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission.

I appreciate your consideration, the responsibility of serving in the in this oversight role on behalf of the district.

I am a 25-year resident of Ward 2, former chair of the district's Homeland Security Commission.

I currently serve as an alternate commissioner on the Washington Metro Rail Safety Commission, where I have been actively engaged in safety oversight efforts and have developed a strong appreciation for the work required to ensure a safe and reliable system for the public.

If confirmed, I look forward to serving as a full commissioner expanding my contribution.

I bring 23 years of professional experience across transportation safety, infrastructure protection, and government oversight.

I began my federal career after the September 11 attacks at the Transportation Security Administration, monitoring threats to mass transit systems and helping establish national transportation safety security capabilities.

That experience shaped my focus on protecting critical infrastructure and strengthening resilience.

I later supported transportation oversight in the U.S.

Senate, working with federal agencies and transit authorities on safety standards, funding, and modernization.

Over the course of my career, I've held senior roles at the Department of Defense, now Department of War, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Export Import Bank of the United States, leading efforts in crisis management, infrastructure protection, and operational continuity.

In the private sector, I worked in Big Four consulting, advising organizations on risk management and audit remediation to strengthen controls and accountability.

At the export import bank, a government agency, I oversaw large-scale operations, including workforce budget, and the financial portfolio.

I led modernization efforts, aligned leadership teams, and introduced tools to improve performance while maintaining strong governance.

Throughout my career, I have focused on improving system performance under stress, strengthening coordination, and ensuring decisions are grounded in data and risk.

If confirmed, I will prioritize rigorous safety oversight and transparency, and the strengthening of relationships between the commission and WAMATA and other key stakeholders.

I'm committed to serving with independence, discipline, and a clear focus on safety.

Thank you for your time and I welcome your thoughts, your questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Belzac.

Thank you for your service so far as an alternate on the the uh commission and thank you for your willingness to serve.

Um there are three questions I ask at these hearings of all nominees.

Uh do you have a sense of how much time is required for to serve on the commission as an alternate?

You've been to some of the meetings.

Do you have a sense of how much?

I do.

I do.

And it's roughly five, ten hours a month, and I have I have the time to do it.

I was gonna ask if you have the time to participate fully.

And you said yes.

Um do you know of any potential conflicts of interest that would uh that could arise while you're serving on the board?

No, sir.

If a conflict came up, how would you handle it?

Uh I would first seek guidance with our general counsel on the in the agency in the Washington Metro Safety.

Um be my first point just to say, hey, you know, this is what's before me.

Can I do this?

Or should I recuse myself?

What's your recommendation?

So that would go to her first as my first line.

And then if she said, yeah, you have to recruit yourself, whether it's you can't do that thing, whatever that that conflict is, or you can do it with these parameters.

Um I would listen to her because she's kind of the guiding voice of Washington Metro Rail Safety Agency.

I think that makes sense.

Okay.

Do you have any outstanding liability for taxes fees or other payments to the district federal government or state or local governments?

No, sir.

In your service thus far on the commission, what are your observations of the commission?

My observations are you have the oversight body that I'm being renominated for, cares deeply, the commissioners, and then the staff, right?

You have the commissioners that act as kind of the last line of the safety defense of the regional transit environment.

And then you have the staff that we helped, we help along with the CEO conduct the actual operational oversight of safety over WOMATA.

And then you have Wamada actually implements that at a very rubber meets the road, right?

I see in the last three, four months that I've been there, very dedicated commissioners, right from Maryland, Virginia, and DC.

Extensive experience in this sector.

I've seen the CEO who just gave his notice of departure, effective June 1st, stood up the first agency to oversee safety oversight, did an incredible job.

He hired a team of about 25 that comprises the Washington Metro Safety Commission staff.

They're so talented.

They're impressive.

They care about leaving it better for the next generation.

And then I've gotten to know some board members on the Wamata board.

Incredible people, very sharp, care deeply about the same things, right?

I've not yet met Randy Clark, but in my 25 years, just an incredible leader, has transformed the Metro and continues to do so.

And I think you know, we're on di we're two different organizations, but we we must be on the same team.

And so one of the big things that I have seen is you have two caring bodies of people and and they and they both care about the mission.

And my goal is to get us closer, right?

Um and that's that's one of the things.

And I think the other the other area that I saw is um just the just the amount of complexity with the region's transportation due to the aging infrastructure.

That is outside a lot of our control day to day, right?

Um but it is our control to work together to focus on it, right?

Like I think they're gonna start closing tracks down this summer, every summer, where they close parts of the track down to to fix it.

Um that there's also a technology component, right, that I would like to bring into the commission.

Um, looking at how we use AI, the gentech AI safely, right?

But helping us look at safety differently, right?

More looking at where the puck's going, where could the safety issues happen that we don't see today?

Um and that's something that I haven't seen yet.

That's not a criticism.

That is just something that I would like to help bring as part of the oversight focus.

You kind of touched on this, but why are you interested in serving?

I've spent my whole life serving.

Um I've you know, I started my career almost 24 years ago, right around 9-11.

I love helping people.

I love stopping bad actors.

I love improving things, like leaving it better, right?

I have two young girls.

I'm here with my wife, Avery Alpha, um, spent a whole career at the CIA, right?

So it's in the family.

Um we both love leaving it better, helping helping the country.

I'm also a 25-year resident of DC.

Um, I don't have any plans on move.

You know, I've I've seen it evolve, right?

The city grow, lots of change, right?

We've had man-made, natural disasters, we've had things that I would love to contribute to helping us prepare for, right?

Um so I really it's a passion.

Um and so while I'm not in the federal government right now, it's something that um allows me to keep you know, keep serving, right?

And I again it's something I've just done for 24 years, crisis management all over the world.

I've been to over 40 countries.

So it's it's in the blood.

I think when I'm when I'm sitting on my couch, my blood pressure is high.

When I'm actually solving a problem, it sounds funny, but it's true.

It I'm relaxed.

I I I enjoy helping someone, you know, we never like bad things, disasters, but they're gonna happen.

And I love I love feeling like I can help further the ball, helping save someone.

Um and I I enjoy being part of that team.

Um it I don't need to be the head of it.

I don't need I can work behind the scenes.

I just enjoy um I enjoy that.

I think I'm gonna leave it at that in terms of questions.

Um if so we have your statement, and we had sent pre-hearing questions, we have those answers.

Uh if there's do you think of anything else you want to submit?

I'll just do it before 5 p.m.

on Monday, April 20th.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Belzag, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh and it was nice meeting you, talking with you before the uh this round table.

So your excuse, I'm gonna turn to, and you don't have to stick around.

Okay.

I'm gonna turn to the next witness, Laura Hankins, who I believe is participating online.

I can hear you.

So please proceed.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon.

Thank you, Chairman Mendelson, for nominating me for reappointment to the commission on the selection and tenure of administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

And thank you for this opportunity to explain my interest in continuing to serve as a member of COST.

And thank you also for allowing me to um uh testify uh uh here at this hearing virtually.

I appreciate that.

In my first term on the cost, we have filled a number of vacancies and approved the reappointment of a number of judges.

We gave edits for amending the regulations and work to respond to complaints.

I've worked with two different designees from the Office of the Attorney General, which is a non-voting position on the cost.

The mayor's appointee also recently changed.

Though the cost is a small commission, I've nevertheless been impressed with the 100% meeting participation, even with the slight changes in membership.

Every voting and non-voting member has attended every meeting we've held during my term.

Perhaps because we are all lawyers, but also I think because we all care about the mission of the cost and the work of the Office of Administrative Hearings.

My fellow members and I have at least robustly discussed and sometimes actually argued about every piece of business that has come before us.

The attendance at each meeting of OAH, the attendance at each meeting of OAH's general counsel has been invaluable.

My fellow members and I strive to act only where we have legal authority to do so, and the general counsel helps us to stay in our lane.

Within our lane, my fellow members and I work hard to make sure we are fulfilling with careful deliberation the duties with which we have been entrusted.

I'm interested in continuing to serve on the cost because I know that the work of the OAH is important and that I and my fellow district residents need and deserve to have well-qualified judges carrying out that work.

I understand the heavy responsibility of the cost and appreciate the opportunity to help carry out that responsibility.

I'm also interested in continued service because my experience during my first term has been so positive.

I have high respect for my fellow members.

We don't always agree with each other, but I think we all know that we are each engaging in the process in good faith and always with an eye on what we think will best serve the OAH and our fellow DC residents.

Thank you again for this opportunity to explain my interest in continuing to serve as a member of the COST.

And thank you in particular for nominating me for reappointment.

It has been an honor to serve my community in this capacity, and I hope I'm able to continue that role for another term.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Miss Hankins.

It's good to see you.

Um I appreciate your service.

I appreciate your service thus far and your willingness to continue with the service.

Um I ask uh three questions at every hearing of nominees.

Umce you've served on the commission, you have a sense of what a time commitment it is.

Could you describe that and then tell me if you have um have the ability to commit to fully serve fully participate?

I'll answer the second question first.

I I have the time and I'm willing to commit the time to to fully participate.

Um the time varies, certainly a month or so can go by and and and we don't have any work.

It sort of varies depending on if there's a vacancy, and so then we're reviewing applications to fill a vacancy, scheduling time to talk about the applications, and then scheduling time to interview applicants and to interview them.

And then when people have to um uh uh when their terms and judges' terms are expiring um uh then and we have to do reappointment, uh there's time for that as well.

And so it's just sort of all the timing of filling the positions.

Um I would say our meetings are an hour and a half, a couple of hours, maybe consistently when we're doing interviews, it can be you know, perhaps um, you know, all afternoon or all day.

Um, but it's not it has not at all been a problem uh whenever those commit time um commitments when I've had to sort of serve, it hasn't been a problem fulfilling the commitment, and I'm happy to continue to do so.

In your service, has there ever been an occasion when there was a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest that arose for you or any other member?

No, no.

No.

Okay.

I was just pausing the thing for a moment to be sure.

But no, no one's raised a conflict of interest.

Um and there certainly hasn't been one for me.

But if one were to arise, what would you do?

Um that's my day-to-day job is looking out for conflicts of interest, so it's something I'm sensitive to.

Um I hope it's something I would spot on my own.

I think it is.

Um, but I would consult with a general counsel who does attend um every meeting of the OAH's general counsel who attends all of our meetings and and follow the guidance from her.

Um, probably knowing me, I'd also sort of probably read any regs um or laws that that sort of pertained just because whatever I'm geeky like that, um, and I would follow uh uh what that guidance was, which I assume is that I would recuse myself from from whatever the decision was or the piece of business was that presented a conflict for me.

Third question uh do you have any outstanding liability for taxes fees or other payments to the district, federal government or state or local governments?

No.

Um so let me just ask you more generally.

Uh I know that in the past, from time to time, there have been issues that have come up with regard to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

I haven't heard complaints about any of the current judges or the chief judge, but there have been in the past.

And I know that there have been some labor issues in the past.

Uh some of the ALJs were quite unhappy, and I remember going to the commission about uh an issue involving ALJs in the workplace.

Um how would you describe the commission's functioning at this point in terms of just whether I'm talking well, I said commission, the office, the administrative law judges.

How would you describe the functioning at this point?

They're all getting along, does it seem to be well functioning?

Um where you see problems.

How would you describe that?

So I would say that I have a pretty limited view on day-to-day function of the OAH.

Um, because our mandate is really specific.

Um so, for example, if if ALJs or staff are uh have a problem with the chief judge, for example, that's not the cost.

We don't appoint the chief judge.

Um so um so I my sense is it's a regular workplace where not everybody always gets along.

Um but I don't have any reason to believe that it isn't being handled um appropriately and in accordance with laws and and regs.

I do have a sense of the administration and feel like they are doing their best to sort of to follow along with the laws and and the regs.

And certainly the applicants um the people that we have put on that or the judges that we've that we've um appointed during my term um seem well qualified.

I understand from the chief judge that that everyone is trained and doing really well, which obviously makes me happy since I was uh part of the decision to um uh to make uh those persons judges.

Um so I do hear a lot of good things about how OAH is is going, which isn't to say that it's a perfect workplace because uh no workplace is uh so that's uh among other things what I'm taking from your answer is that there haven't been judges who've been coming to the commission and complaining.

We we are dealing with uh complaint taking a look at it.

I sort of alluded to that in my remarks.

Um I do that is also part of what I meant um uh about being appreciative that the general counsel attends because it is um really important um for us to stay in our lane and not to sort of weigh in on things that we really don't have a the jury that's not in our jurisdiction and not in our mandate.

Um but I but I will say within that I I really really I am so sincerely impressed with how much when we it is like here is your lane, how much people are really really trying to be thoughtful and responsive and deliberative.

Um does that answer your question?

Yeah, it does.

Um I also have the impression that the um OEH is understaffed with judges.

I think that's more of a budget issue.

Have you been seeing any of that?

Um I know the budget's been discussed.

There was some concern last year of um, you know, sort of going into the new fiscal year of the timing of how we were filling um uh um there were vacancies and and when we were gonna bring people on.

That ended up not being a problem in every all the vacancies, at least as far as I'm aware, uh, that we were hiring for were filled, and all those people were able to were able to onboard.

I think we have three vacancies uh that we're filling right now.

There might be a fourth that's just coming up.

Um and there is a a little oh let's see what the mayor's budget is, and and you know, there was some of that sort of conversation at the last uh meeting.

My sense is that's maybe more of a timing issue than uh we will not be able to fill.

I haven't heard or I don't I recall it as a timing issue.

I do believe we are filling all the vacancies that there are.

Um I haven't heard, oh wow, I wish we had more spots, or um we have vacancies and we don't have the money to fill it.

So I can't, I don't want to speak to that.

I'm not saying that there that the chief judge wouldn't say, man, I wish I had funding for more spots.

Um that's just not that that's not something that's been brought to my attention.

I I do want to raise one thing that I that I um that I have learned that is not a comment on any specific person because I just I don't have the information, but uh, but I but I have learned that there's no um sort of um what's that called like mandatory retirement age for any of the ALJs um which is different than for associate judges on the superior court, DC Superior Court.

Um that would be a legislative change.

It's not my place to recommend it, but I do wonder if it's something that's worth thinking um about for the council to you know, I don't know, toss around, think about whether that would be appropriate at all.

Um not again not weighing in in on it, but it but it was something pointed out, and I did think that was sort of an interesting issue.

All right.

Uh I don't have any other questions for you.

Is there's anything you think that you want to uh submit in addition?

Please do so before the record closes again, April 20th.

Uh Ms.

Hankins, I appreciate your service.

It's good to see you again.

And um you're excused.

And I'm gonna turn to the next two witnesses.

Thanks again.

Uh we're gonna turn now to the two nominees for the citizen review panel.

Uh in person is Carolyn Woods.

Right?

No, yes?

Yes.

And online is Whitney Miller.

And I think we'll start with you, Miss Woods.

Turn your microphone on the good afternoon.

Um, Chairman Millenson and the DC Council.

I wanted to first say that thank you for reconsidering me for nomination for the Citizen Review panel.

I have been on the panel as a member since October 2024.

I'm also a um licensed resource parent with um DC Child and Family Services.

I have such a passion for the being a member of the panel because we're actually helping seeking for children who are coming out of um foster care.

And we're trying to help them get housing, seeking housing for them and what other resources that they may need as they start on a new journey in life.

I have such a passion for anyone.

Anyone uh I've always worked in the community, um serving others, whether young or old, which I'm old as myself, but that's something to have the type of resources and being able to go to someone and not be um judge for what question that may come.

Uh trying to make sure that with our youth today, that they be the best in life that they can be.

Encourage them to do have a different outlook in life, maybe before they came into the system.

So again, thank you so much for um really considering me to be reappointed to the review panel.

Um thank you, Ms.

Woods.

So I will have some questions for you.

Uh Whitney Miller.

Miss Miller.

Mr.

Miller, I'm sorry, Mr.

Miller.

I'm here.

Good afternoon, thank you.

Please proceed.

Uh well, my name is Whitney Miller.

I um have been on the review panel now, uh, citizen review panel for um a year.

I'm excited uh to be reconsidered again for this role as there's much work to be done.

But in DC now for 25 years.

Uh my spouse and I um have adopted um two young kids, two boys, babies, um, to the CFSA foster care program, um, and who now live with us for seventeen years.

And so I work on the bench team and I look forward to continuing that work and improving on some of the transparency um that can lead to better outcomes uh for these cases.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

You broke up there a little um but that's okay.

Uh I do not have uh Mr.

Miller, your pre-hearing questions, the answers to the pre-hearing questions, and I don't know if you had a prepared statement.

If you did, if you could submit that as well.

I did not have a prepared um statement, um, but we'll submit it for the closing.

Please do.

Um Ms.

Woods, uh, I did get answers, but not to all of the questions.

Okay.

Um your answers seem to have stopped with question eight.

Okay.

Well, I will make sure that you get submit to answer the other questions.

Please.

And then I don't know if you wanted to have a written statement.

That's up to you.

I submitted a written statement as well.

Uh Mr.

Washington says he has it.

Uh so both of you have um served.

You're these are reappointments.

So you both have a sense of the amount of time that's required.

Yes.

So let me ask each of you, Mr.

Miller.

Do you have the time to serve and you commit to serve the time?

I do.

And yes, thank you.

Miss Woods, you know the time.

Yes.

My second question is do you have any outstanding liability for taxes, fees, or other payments to the district, federal government, or state or local governments, Ms.

No.

No, Mr.

Miller?

No.

Third question.

In your service, have you seen where there might be a conflict of interest and whether you have or not?

Do you have any sense of whether there might be a conflict of interest that could r arise?

And if so, how would you handle it?

Um Ms.

Woods.

I haven't seen a conflict of interest, but if it arises, um, we would have would actually go to the source and speak with that person or the head person and find and see if there's a way that we can resolve the issue.

And Mr.

Miller.

Yeah, no, I I don't see um a in this particular role a potential conflict of interest at all.

I think if somehow there were to be a conflict of interest, I think my first um line of thought would be to probably get with Margie uh Tlowski and sort of figure out um some of the background um what the issue might be that's before us.

Uh she's got quite a few years um experience doing this.

So that would be my first resource and then try to figure out uh what the next steps are depending on what the potential conflict of interest might be.

Okay.

Um let me just add that besides uh consulting with uh either the chair or attorney for the commission.

Uh if there is a conflict of interest, of course you disclose it and you recuse yourself.

Um so let me ask a final question of each of you, and that is in your service, what is the biggest challenge you see that uh the commission needs to deal with?

Um who do I want to start with?

Mr.

Miller?

Yeah, sure.

I think first what I'd like to do is talk a little bit about um why I um chose to continue on this service and how I'll con you know what contributions I think I can make.

And that is uh because the panel I think plays a really important role um in oversight.

Um but I don't think it's reached its sort of full potential in terms of the driving like system level change.

I think you know, as we move forward, if I'm you know reappointed, I think in my next term I've had to put some more sort of discipline um outcomes, um, focused uh on approach.

Um, you know, trying to make sure that the work that we do results in clear um actionable um recommendations that and that there is some visibility really um into whether those recommendations are implemented um at the agency.

I think I also want to incorporate um some real-time feedback um from mandated reporters um to ground our work um and how um the system is actually experienced.

Um I think the panel's function um as a meaningful accountability mechanism and not just an advisory body.

At least that's is sort of my perspective.

I think on the challenges side, um chairman.

I think the panelists have struggled at times um to consistently translate the work and that we do and insights into action.

Um I think there's limited transparency into whether his recommendations lead to sort of meaningful change.

I think it also lacks consistent uh real-time input from those interacting with the system.

That's a huge um challenge.

And I think to address this, um my perspective, I think the panel needs some stronger structure around prioritizing and tracking recommendations, clearer feedback loops, but CFSA would be great on especially on like implementation, and then more direct input for mandated reporters and community stakeholders.

Um I think without these changes, uh the panel risk limited impact.

Um strengthening accountability, transparency, and follow-through, I think will be critical moving forward.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

And Ms.

Woods, how would you answer the question?

Of course, you know, challenge the challenge, the biggest challenge is housing for the children that are coming out of uh the foster care.

So again working with CFSA, child family services in helping us to help the children.

And as far as housing and I guess the making sure that there are vouchers that are available for our youth that are coming out because that's at the age of twenty one.

And um as far as our team, it's just like the team that I'm on, I'm working with with the housing.

But as a whole when it comes to the panel, um citizen review panel.

And that and that's wonderful.

Um giving ideas, making suggestions.

So that's I look at us more as a family working together for the same goal for our youth.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh I think I'm good with questions.

Uh as I said at the outset, this hearing is in part an opportunity to for the public to weigh in if they want to.

And but also a little bit of oversight on our part asking about the commission and challenges.

So um again, if anyone wishes to submit uh any additional comments or submit comments, uh they have until five PM on Monday, October twentieth.

With that, what'd I say?

I said October, no.

Uh April.

Okay.

Oh, if I said October, that's a problem.

I'll repeat.

The record will close at five PM on Monday, April twentieth, twenty twenty six.

With that, I'm going to close out this hearing.

Uh Mr.

Miller, thank you, and Miss Woods, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin Middleton.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Uh the time is four thirty-eight PM and this hearing a round table is adjourned.