AI-generated transcript of City Council Committee of the Whole 05-16-23

[Nicole Morell]: Three does your 99 community the whole meeting Tuesday, May 16 2023 at 6pm is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Present.

[Zac Bears]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I was trying to present five present to absent the

[Nicole Morell]: There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole on Tuesday, May 16 2023 at 6pm in the Medford City Council chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss three proposed amendments to the city charter papers 23-09723-098 and 23-099. For further information aids and accommodations contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425 sincerely yours Nicole Morales City Council President. So as the notice says, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss these proposed charter amendments that were brought forth in a regular meeting. There has been a subcommittee meeting to discuss these and hear from the public, and the intent is to meet and convene the whole today to also discuss these a little bit more and hear from the public. We also do have a representative from KP Law for any questions the council may have. I'm going to hand it off to Vice President Bears, who introduced these papers, to share anything you would before we get into the discussion.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um, you know, as as you just said, this is a committee of the whole meeting intended to get some public input or input from city staff on the proposed charter amendments that I have. that I asked the council to start considering potential charter amendments. We met in committee of the whole discussed potential amendments. We then put them on the council agenda at a regular meeting and had another discussion. We had a committee meeting last week we had for public comment, and now we're having another one tonight. these amendments just in quick summary again. There are three of them. Essentially they would one adjust the budget process by mandating specific deadlines in the city charter for when a budget has to be submitted and when the council would consider it. it would also allow the council to adjust the budget beyond just making cuts. The council could also suggest alternative places for funding to go in the budget, which is something we can't do right now. All we can do is approve, reject or cut. This would allow us also to amend. The second amendment would focus on allowing the council to bring on its own staff. for consultants, which we currently don't have the power to do, but it would allow us to have our own legal counsel if we needed it and to request appropriations for that amount. And then the Third Amendment would make sure that the council approves the appointments of the mayor to all city boards, commissions and committees that are created by ordinance. And the general thinking here is that this would encourage a more collaborative process of decision making around the budget and around appointments to boards, commissions and committees between the City Council and the mayor. The process would be after tonight, there is a public hearing scheduled for next week, which is part of the requirements under Chapter 43 B Section 10. If the Council if two thirds vote of the Council moves forward. then the mayor would have to approve of these amendments, after which they would both be reviewed by the attorney general and voters would then vote on them at the next election, which would be, I believe, in November. But one reason that I'm, one of my questions I have tonight is I would like to confirm all of that with Attorney Goldberg from KP Law. And I also have a couple of questions as to the form of the amendments as proposed and if there should be any to the amendments at our public hearing next week, but I will hold off on those to hear from other Councilors first.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. It's embarrassing. And just for those watching the full language of the amendments proposed amendments can be seen in the April 25th agenda. I'm also just going to put that link in the chat as well. So if folks go to the drive and go to the April 25th agenda, they can see all the language as well as the link in the chat. Any questions or discussion from other Councilors at this time? Seeing none, we'll go back to Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And so, Attorney Goldberg, thank you for being here today. I just had a couple questions just to confirm that my understanding of the process outlined in Mass General Law Chapter 43B is correct. At this point, my understanding is that there would be we've scheduled a public hearing as required by the provision of state law. And then I just want to confirm it says that both if the mayor approves, it would be submitted to the attorney general for review and that it would go on an election at least two months after the public hearing was concluded. And I just wanted to confirm that that's accurate. And if you have a better understanding of the exact sequencing of that, I would certainly love to have that knowledge as well.

[SPEAKER_05]: If I may be recognized, Mr. Thank you. So, the 43 B section 10 as you indicate is a one process for requesting charter amendments, and it, it's available for what they call minor amendments, which means nothing related to the manner of selection or term of office of the mayor or city council. The process is that once those, assuming that the council were to pass proposed amendments, they would need to be also approved by the mayor. And then it would be submitted to the attorney general for approval, and it would appear on a ballot at the next regular election, which is more than 90 days from the date of submission, essentially. And that's two months after the order takes effect. It takes effect 30 days later. So that is the process if approved by majority vote at the election, then those amendments would be would be official. And I'm sure as you know, especially with regard to anything involving elections, all of the requirements identified have to be complied with to the T in order for the amendments to move forward.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And just to confirm, so next regular election would be like, if we were to approve them next week and the mayor were to approve and the attorney general would approve, that would be our November election?

[SPEAKER_05]: I believe so. I didn't do a search to see what the number of days would, but I'm gonna do it right now, sir.

[Richard Caraviello]: Great.

[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. To the attorney, if the mayor were to veto this, How fast does it have to come back to us to potentially override a veto?

[SPEAKER_05]: For you, Chair, in fact, there is no ability to override the veto. It has to be with the concurrence of the mayor. And so this is the same whether you do it under Chapter 43B, Section 10B, like you're talking about now, or you do it just under Article 8 of the Home Rule Amendment, amended Article 89 of the Massachusetts Constitution. In both cases, it's required that the mayor concur in order for the proposals to move forward.

[Richard Caraviello]: So if the mayor doesn't agree that it's a dead issue, is that what you're saying?

[SPEAKER_05]: Well, if the mayor doesn't agree, it won't be reviewed by the attorney general, correct?

[Nicole Morell]: To follow up on that, so does the mayor have statutorily essentially a shot clock when this gets to her, or could she sit on it and take no action to the point where we couldn't it wouldn't be able to move for a November ballot.

[SPEAKER_05]: Um, so let us look quickly. Um, so it says, um, final action on a suggested amendment shall be taken by the council not later than six months after the filing. And then it says, um, never order. No, it doesn't. It doesn't say. Okay. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you. So essentially the deadline would be for it to come back from the Attorney General in time to appear on the ballot. Does it, I guess, just to clarify, thank you, Madam President. Is there a time limit on the Attorney General's consideration of the amendment?

[SPEAKER_05]: For you, there is. It's 30 days from the date of submission.

[Unidentified]: So, okay.

[SPEAKER_05]: The election, I believe the 7th, is that correct?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Okay.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_05]: Wednesday, August 9th would be the last day that it could be signed by, approved by the council, signed by the mayor and forwarded to the attorney general in order to appear on the November 7th ballot. That's a Wednesday.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I have one further question that actually relates to form of the specific amendments, so I can hold if anyone has any more process questions.

[Nicole Morell]: Any more process questions from the council? Seeing none, back to you, Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Attorney Goldberg, did you have a chance to actually review the substance of the proposed amendments?

[SPEAKER_05]: I did, sir, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: and just general question, how do they look? And are there any suggested changes you would recommend? I tried my best without counsel and the language included is included in other charters or proposed charters, but I wanna get it right. So I'm interested in any suggestions or thoughts that you have around the form.

[SPEAKER_05]: Madam Chair, through you. Yes, please, Attorney Goldberg. Thank you. So I read through each one of these. They very clearly set forth what they're trying to do. I think there is some vagueness, and especially the one on the budget, because shall hold budgetary powers together is kind of a difficult concept to understand compared to how it's typically dealt with, at least in my in my, excuse me, experience. As you know, the budget is addressed in the charter, also addressed in state law. That process is used by most, most cities, and it is unusual for a council to be able to increase amounts that have been recommended by a mayor, not this mayor or any, you know, but, and this council, but any mayor, any council. And the reason for that is that the council is the, I'm sorry, the council is the legislative branch of government. It acts on proposed appropriations, and the mayor, excuse me, is the executive branch of government, which is responsible for running the city on a day to day basis and so, in my opinion and I, you know, I obviously I. I don't have a case that's backing me up in this, but in my opinion, the reason for that for the mayor setting the limitation on the budget is that the mayor is most closely aware of our proposition two and a half levy limit and on what is necessary in order to operate the city as compared to what might be useful or desired. So it is, it is a definite change from the existence of the current existence of state law and of the charter and in my mind, even were this to pass, there would need to be serious. You know rules established by the Council on the mayor to ensure that this can be carried out as proposed.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and just to clarify on that point, just so I understand your interpretation of the language as written. that language is pulled directly from the Boston Charter Amendment from 2021. And my understanding of it is that we could not, as written, increase the total appropriation amount for the whole budget above what the mayor suggested, just that we could amend specific line items to be different amounts than what the mayor proposed.

[SPEAKER_05]: So to clarify, and through you, Madam Chair, the total amount would be an upper limit and the line items could be increased or decreased within that upper limit. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Zac Bears]: That's what the intent of it as written is. So I just want to make sure that that's how you're reading it as well, because I agree that if we could just say we're going to spend $300 million instead of $200 million, that would be entirely realistic, unrealistic, but it's more, more of the intent was that instead of just approve, reject or cut, we could also reallocate or essentially shift.

[SPEAKER_05]: Well, I, I can, I understand and can appreciate your, your comments. I do think I would, I would probably revise this a little bit because I tend to want to revise. As you know, the city of Boston operates on its own statutory, not statutory, on its own special acts, including this, the one that you're discussing. And sometimes they have a history with certain aspects of things, so there's a different kind of understanding. But where this would be the first time this would happen in this city, I would try to make it somewhat more clear that the total appropriation is the upper limit and that certain lines could be increased or reduced. under the authority of the council.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I as one Councilor, and I'm happy to make this motion now or later, I would appreciate a suggestion to adjust the language to accurately reflect the intent that we just described. So I'll write that down, I'll make it later.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other discussion from the council at this time? Any members of the public who would wish to speak, seeing folks on Zoom? Seeing none, President Bears? Looks like Attorney Goldberg.

[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. That was the budget proposed ordinance. I can certainly talk to the other two as well, depending on what the council desires.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, please, if you could. Thank you. Okay.

[SPEAKER_05]: All right. I know that the appointments by the city council section looks similar to me. I'm wondering if maybe it's from the Watertown charter. I know they did something like this recently and it was approved by the attorney general and acted upon by the voters. And so, again, I think as long as there's some clarity in regard to what kind of staff There's nothing in here that says subject to appropriation that's something to be thoughtful about. And the estimated cost of legal services presented to the mayor in writing by the council. That's essentially the council setting that appropriation order. And so, you know, maybe some thought to the process for that as well. And I do think, you know, it's useful to ensure that the city is represented by the city solicitor and not by various special councils. And, you know, that can get really tricky and I know that from experience. And then the last one was appointments by the mayor. And for that, You know, I guess one of the things that I would just point out is that the, it says heads of department shall be appointed by the mayor without confirmation. And then it says that the name of each person the board, the mayor desires to appoint as a member of the board committee or commission gets forwarded to the council and then the council has 45 days to act. And I would just note that in today's, economy. And in my experience with the availability and willingness of employees that a lot of employees aren't willing to wait that long. And so, you know, we've actually been recommending and charter amendments that we've worked on that it be reduced from, you know, let's say 30 days to 15 days, because that's two weeks that doesn't seem to be particularly burdensome on the applicant. But if you know if the council is looking at a proposed appointment, that person's name qualifications, etc. will be out there, immediately, and then they'd have to wait 45 days and in theory, or more 60 days to be approved. So, my, my suggestion would be that there be some thought about that. And perhaps, you know, there's a different way to address it meaning if The council hasn't approved within some shorter period of time that the person, you know, is given a preliminary appointment or something of that nature, so that the city has the benefit of the talent that is able to locate.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you and really appreciate the thought and the analysis. Just starting with the staff and legal counsel amendment. It sounded like the main two concerns there were one that under the advisory legal counsel section that because the council would be presenting an estimated cost to the mayor in writing, and it says that the mayor shall provide that some that that would be the council basically being able to make an appropriation on that matter. I just want to is that I don't want to misinterpret what you were saying.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, through you, Madam Chair. Yes, sir. It says the mayor shall annually provide. So it's, it's, it appears to be mandatory. And I'm not, I'm not suggesting that it would necessarily be interpreted like that. But I do think it would be good to clarify. And the other thing and I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President. You know the kind of again the, the executive and legislative branch of government issue shows itself here as well, you know, subject to appropriation that council may employ staff so you know if there's, if the mayor, if we had the current budget process and the mayor hadn't assigned any money for that purpose the council wouldn't be able to employ advisory legal council. However, even under the current charter, the council can request permission to do that. So I do think that that's out there. And so typically, except for the council's direct employees, which would include the clerk and in some communities as well, the auditor, I'm not sure if that's the case here. Those are the only positions that they appoint and because of that, you know if their support staff that's needed etc. That would come through either the clerk of the council who could or could not be the same as the city clerk, or kind of in an agreement with the mayor as to how that would work. So this, this shifts things a little bit.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just on the specific question around the city solicitor, there is the line here that the city solicitor shall remain the only authorized officer of the city and all legal matters involving the city's government. Does that address the any concern about if we were to have advisory legal counsel, they may, you know, I think that makes it pretty clear that the city solicitor would still be representing the city's position.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I have I have two comments on that. The first is there are times when you want to bring in city council special counsel. So I would say, unless the mayor chooses or the city solicitor chooses to appoint special counsel for a particular purpose because that is something that comes up from time to time, either because of conflicts or because of subject matter, and especially in cities, I think that that's been something we've had to to really pay attention to. The bottom line, though, is and you know, I know people tease about lawyers, you know, ask a different lawyer, you'll get a different answer. That really isn't the way that that we anyway, work. And I am certain that other council don't either. But if we were to have a different position than the Legislative Council, I think it's easy to see that that could cause discord, and that, you know, it would be difficult to resolve. So, I guess, if someone was being, excuse me, appointed to do research, and to, you know, come up with ideas, I can see that as kind of one thing versus providing opinions to the council on matters that you know, need to be determined one way or the other so that the city can move forward and do what it needs to do.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And again, I think the intent here as written is, you know, legal service will be solely in service of the council may include research analysis and drafting assistance and that the legal services provided the council will not include representation of the council or any Councilor in any court matter or related litigation or the issuance of formal legal opinions on behalf of the state is really intended to avoid that conflict, but still allow the council to have advice and research and analysis independent in some cases of the, I can see a potential conflict. I think this is structured to try to minimize that conflict as best as possible while respecting the separation of powers essentially in this situation.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, so Mr. Vice President, I agree. I think you've done a nice job here conveying that fact. My concern is really more about the implementation. How would it work than anything else?

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_05]: And if the council and the mayor have the same idea about how it would work, then it seems like that would probably be an okay thing. If they don't and there's no guarantee that any mayor and council in the future would necessarily agree, I can see that that could be somewhat disruptive.

[Zac Bears]: Got it. And just lastly, on the confirmation question, and again, just because I want to make sure that the language that we move forward with is really matching the intent that we've been discussing these amendments with. The intent here was really just to, you know, there is currently a section in our charter under the acts of 1986 that regards appointments by the mayor. it basically says that the council will not have the authority to confirm unless otherwise stated by ordinance or by state law. And this is trying to kind of turn it from a you know, flip the script on that to say that the council, unless otherwise stated, will have the authority to confirm appointees to boards, committees and commissions. But the question you brought up about heads of departments, the current charter says heads of departments shall be appointed by the mayor without confirmation by the council. And this would also be that heads of departments would stay the same, that the council would not confirm appointees, heads of departments. So really this is This section is more around essentially volunteer or stipended positions for city boards, committees and commissions and definitely not intended to be for like hired staff appointments of employees where where I really, you know, what you said about, you know, no one's gonna wait 60 days to take can confirm that they have a job. This is not intended to get into that at all.

[SPEAKER_05]: Well, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I'd still say 45 days is a long time. When people are finalists for appointment, they expect that information about them will get out there. So, for example, in one of the municipalities we represent, there is a very accomplished person who put their name in for an appointment, and for whatever reason, they were not appointed, and they found that to be very embarrassing. So, you know, I think some thought about What's the difference between discussing the appointment of someone who is going to either be a volunteer or work for a small stipend? What's the likelihood they expect that their name and their experience, et cetera, will be discussed in an open session? And how is that going to act in terms of, you know, having people choose to apply or not apply? Again, I don't think there's a one right answer. Under a charter, you have the ability to vary those things. But again, I do think in terms of implementation that there's some issues here that may be thinking further about, may be worthwhile thinking further about.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Got it, those are my questions. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_05]: Madam Chair, I have one more thing also, where it says, the mayor shall appoint subject to confirmation by the city council by majority vote. I would probably want to see that clarified if possible. So by majority vote of those present and voting, assuming a quorum is present, or a majority vote of the entire council, we've seen a number of these interpretations cause some situations in the past few months. And since you're at the beginning of the process, you certainly can think about addressing it differently.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. A quick question about the appointments of committees. If someone is sitting on a committee and they haven't been reappointed in say a year or so, are they still allowed to vote? What is the status with that?

[SPEAKER_05]: So, Madam Chair, through you, I would say in theory, yes, they're called holdovers. And under state law, and I have to look more closely at the charter for this, a person who is elected or appointed for a term holds that office after they're sworn until their successor is either elected or appointed and qualified, again, which means sworn. So the concept behind that, and for this, there are some cases, is that this is intended to be for the convenience of government and so that the government can continue to function even if a new appointment hasn't been made.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any other questions from the council? I'm sorry. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, not not so much a comment that I've tried to stay fairly quiet during this meeting because I was a member of the rules committee, which held another public hearing on this last week, and we've met on this a couple times before. But you know, just as a general takeaway from this discussion, um, it seems to me like we're pretty close in terms of making sure that the language of the proposed you know, what makes me feel optimistic is that this language was borrowed really closely from cities that have already enacted it as amendments to their charter. Certainly, I think if we're discussing these as, you know, would potentially be new amendments to our charter, I think it's very important to make sure that, yes, the language is as clear as possible, because if they go into effect, you know, a new council or, you know, the next term of council and mayor, whoever that may be, will be interpreting them together for the first time. At the same time, you know, I think that it sounds like we're very nearly there I think if there's ways that we can make that more clear, just like tightening up words and languages to make sure that you know that intent around. this legislative body, not, you know, just stuffing money into the budget is not what's going to happen, that it's very clearly appropriations having more of a collaborative approach to the budget, but not changing that overall ceiling. You know, and again, sticking to confirmation of appointees, just if there's ways that we can make it more crystal clear in the language, I think that's great. And I really appreciate Vice President Bears for getting us what I think is very close to the finished product for this already. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to thank the rules committee and in particular, Vice President President Bears for all the work that he's put into this. Um, I would like to echo Councilor Collins sentiments in that, um, it sounds like what we have here is, um, aligns very well with our goals as a council, which we stated when we initiated this process. Um, and, um, it seems like we're very again very nearly there. Um, with with this. It also seems to me like some of the concerns that were brought up are maybe less to do with the text itself and and maybe more to do with how they're going to be interpreted by the mayor and the council in the future. And so, um, I personally don't think that's as much a question about the text, although the clarity, maybe there are places where clear text would be helpful. But I would, I know Vice President Bears's motion was proposing to motion earlier in the meeting to have some clear language be drafted for those few small sections, and I would support that if you were to introduce that. But I think we're in a pretty good place, and I think there's consensus on this council about what we need to do and what the intent is.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. I have two questions. Should a committee member be required to live in the city of Medford that's appointed by the mayor? I don't know if we have a rule. Is that a requirement of being on a committee that's been appointed?

[SPEAKER_05]: Attorney Goldberg? Yes, thank you. I was trying to unmute, I promise. The short answer, sir, is that that is something that can be determined by ordinance or by charter. And there are several provisions in state law that address this. There's a provision that says that, you know, that an ordinance or bylaw could be adopted to require that all new persons so appointed be residents. There's things out there that say all persons must be registered voters who are appointed to committees. I think the concern on the other side of that is that sometimes there really is talent available who are willing to be helpful and contribute, and perhaps they lived in the city and then they move, and so you lose some of the benefit of their expertise by kind of ruling out them as potential members.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Did you have another question?

[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears? Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to my fellow Councilors. Thank you to Attorney Goldberg. This is for Attorney Goldberg through the chair. I appreciate Attorney Goldberg reminding me that we should do that more often. We tend to be a little free flowing here. Just two things. One in terms of I will make a motion as Councilor Tseng kind of outlined. I kind of have some thoughts on that, but we have scheduled a public hearing on these for our regular meeting next week. you know, I would love to see maybe some suggestions and I'll make a specific motion a minute from you to better clarify some of the language in here that we've discussed tonight. I'm guessing that seven days may not be enough time for that to happen. I just want to check with your capacity on that.

[Nicole Morell]: Attorney Goldberg.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I can do that in seven days. I will do that in seven days. Let's put it like that. If that's what you all need to be able to feel good about going into your public hearing. But I also want to emphasize that these are significant changes. I know you also have some chart like a charter review committee or commission. And there are parts of the charter that wind up being interrelated. So I don't know what your, excuse me, what your experience has been with that committee, but it's probably worthwhile to look at the charter holistically and say, what changes here? And you guys have identified several provisions that you would like to have changed and to see how that kind of fits in and other areas of the charter. So I would just encourage that it is, hard to make charter changes that are independent of one another. And, you know, again, in my experience, this kind of a change is a bigger picture change. And so it may have a, you know, a more significant impact on the charter as a whole.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we, we, and I appreciate that we, we were, we basically when these language was proposed. It was immediately sent to the mayor and the chief of staff as well as the co chairs of the charter study committee appointed by the mayor. And they did send their comment back basically saying that they view these as entirely separate processes. And you know they're doing charter review, while we are doing some targeted charter amendments to address specific issues that we've seen in our experience as a council. And so they basically said, we're not going to take a position on this. And then we've also said in our discussions, of course, that while we may do this now and through this 43B section 10 process, these could be in effect in January of next year. Their process, obviously, is more comprehensive and will take much longer. We're probably looking at 2026 or 2028 at the earliest. And that's if there is that broad political consensus on whatever they develop. We've been very clear, though, that you know, they are free to further amend these provisions as part of their process, and that essentially, you know, while the council nearly unanimously thinks these are good ideas, that, of course, implementing them, we may see implementation, things that may need to be adjusted, and that actually doing this now would give us a way to test these reforms out. And then the Charter Commission or Charter Study Committee or an elected Charter Commission in the future or some other body looking at a special act charter or an elected charter commission charter could make further changes to these down the road. So that's kind of where all the parties on that have settled, at least between the Council and the Charter Study Committee. We read into the record at our Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee last week the statement of the Charter Study Committee on these proposed amendments. But I appreciate that, and we are definitely very aware of the you know, difference between this and the more long-term holistic look at the entire charter that the Charter Study Committee is doing, which, you know, we generally refer to as charter review, and this one we are not calling charter review very specifically because it is not intended to be that kind of process. I just have a question in terms of the public hearing appreciate hearing that you could get some stuff back to us by next week. At that public hearing, say that we wanted to leave it open and have it extended to a further regular meeting or are we allowed to do that if we open it at our meeting next Tuesday. Could we leave the hearing open for additional meetings? Will we have to notice the future meetings that the hearing is going to be extended for? I just want to make sure that I understand how that works.

[SPEAKER_05]: Certainly, Madam Chair, through you, the The, in my opinion, the public hearing can be continued. It needs to be continued to a specific time date and place however that's it, you know, at least 48 weekdays our week day hours after the posting on kind of the normal, you know, how do we, how do we schedule another meeting thing, and then that it can be left open. I don't believe it requires additional notice. Anybody who's interested would, um, additional notice to be mailed or published or things like that, because, um, the notice would be under the open meeting. Great.

[Zac Bears]: So I'll move at this time to request that Attorney Goldberg send back some suggested changes to this language, and if possible, kind of in two buckets, one of them being, and Mr. Clerk, you let me know if you want me to slow down. Sure. Yes, and then it would be in kind of two in proposed changes to these amendments in two categories. The first category would be clarifications for legal purposes and clarifying the intent of the amendments. and the second would be maybe some would be policy or implementation suggestions to improve the implementation of the amendments if passed. And basically, and this is not for the amendment, this is just for the discussion with Attorney Goldberg. Basically, I'm saying, if you have suggestions that make sure that the intent that we've discussed tonight that you think will better clarify that intent, um, and or are necessary changes to make sure that the legal form of the amendments is acceptable. That would be kind of one category. And then I think we also had some discussions tonight where you were suggesting maybe some policy changes around shortening timelines, um, or, you know, you're suggesting something around the balance of powers, and I just think that if you could possibly split your suggestions into those two categories, kind of things that we really need to do to make sure that it's clear and meeting legal muster, and then some things that in your experience you've suggested may be better, but that are really more kind of policy type decisions for the council to consider. That would be really my preference if it's possible for you to send those over to us that way.

[SPEAKER_05]: Madam Chair, if I may. Please. So, I can definitely do that. Sometimes I think they might be the same thing, but I can do track changes on the, you know, with the bubbles on the side and say, you know, with a comment. This is, you know, a policy recommend or this is a policy consideration, which is what I would normally do. For example, I wouldn't change your 45 to 15 or 30 or anything, but I would point out that 45 is a significant number of days and that it may impact people's willingness to become candidates. And I would leave it at that. And that's up to you all to decide on. So I just try to highlight places where I thought there could be some discussion about how to best achieve your goals.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: So we have a motion from Vice President Bears. Would anyone like that motion read back? Second, do you want to read back? All right, Mr. Clerk, can you? I want to read it back. All right, great. You guys, your opinion counts.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears moved to ask Attorney Goldberg to send back proposed changes to these amendments in two categories. The first category will be clarifications for legal purposes and clarifying intended amendments. have passed. Sure.

[Nicole Morell]: Great. Thank you. So on the motion of our system bears a second by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I suppose motion passes.

[Zac Bears]: Do you have an additional motion or did that cover it that that's it I think you know we'll get those back and then we can have a discussion next week.

[Nicole Morell]: Any further discussion from the council. Any members of the public wish to speak. Seeing none. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

[Zac Bears]: A motion to report the papers out to the regular meeting and to adjourn.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion by Senator Bears to report the papers out to the regular meeting and to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned. Thank you, Attorney Goldberg.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_05]: Thank you for having me, take care.