Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I would like to call this planning commission work session to order for Thursday, 02/19/2026. My name is Jack Haroun, and I am the vice chair of the Clark County Planning Commission. Before we begin begin tonight, I would like to announce that our planning commission work sessions are hybrid both in person and via Webex. For the virtual and in person members of the Planning Commission and staff, please ensure that your microphones are turned off or muted unless you are speaking.

There will not be any public comment during this work session, but members of the public can watch or listen. This evening's agenda is planned as follows. We'll call to order planning commission rules of procedure, comments from members of the planning commission, and then we'll have adjournment. Did I miss anything? There was something else.

Alright. And that being said,

Oliver. Yes. Good evening, planning commission members and vice chair. For the record, my name is Oliver, community planning director. What we have before you is a proposed amendment to, your rules of procedure.

The last time your rule of procedure was amended and became effective was February, seventeenth twenty twenty two. And, the changes to that. Led to that amendment has to do with public testimony, both oral and written testimony. So, what is being added to your rules of procedure is section 12 appointment by council. This is the same process that the Clark County Council used in appointment of new members or reappointment of existing members of the PC.

So I will quickly just go through that and highlight. What is being proposed as I indicated, this is, just straight out of the. Board and commission appointment as some of you are aware. The county council appoints, the planning commission members. It's not and this is consistent with the county's charter.

It's not you're not a body that the county manager approve appoints. It's the county council. So this is really the process that they go through. First of all, if there is, expiring term, the we will notify the and all of you knows when you're appointed, when your term runs, and when it ends. So some of you are appointed by four or six years.

So when that approaches, we typically will let the 6th Floor know, and the county manager's office will publish a press release soliciting letters of interest, a resume of vacant position, sometimes even existing position they have to do so. And then the office will send all letters of interest and resume received to the county council. And within two weeks after sharing candidate information, the council executive session will schedule. A council meeting to discuss the qualification of applicant. This is all straightforward.

So that is what we are adding to your rule of procedure so that. The public, those that may be applying when a position comes up will know what the process is all about. So that's really what this is. And because your rules of procedures typically will have a work session, and this will go to a hearing on March 19, for you to deliberate on and make changes. We we are not proposing any other changes.

If this is adopted or approved following your March meeting, you can see, from section 13 what we added there, and then the numbering will change based on this new addition. So I will stop there and see if you have any questions. This is really self explanatory.

Sorry.

Okay. The interview process a public hearing process prior to this?

The interview process is typically public. But I know it's done through Webex, but it's public. The public can watch. There is a web Webex link where the public can listen in and watch. Yes, it's public. But the council will make a determination probably in executive session or who to call for an interview because we got a a laundry list like this says they will go through and, review the letters of interest and resumes and then decide on who to, to interview.

Yeah. Thanks. I just didn't recall that when I went through the interview process that it was a public process. It seemed more like it was a closed door executive session, But maybe I was wrong.

There's typically a part that's executive session, and then typically after that, it becomes public. They can't vote on anybody in executive session. The vote has to be public.

Thanks.

Yep. Sure.

Is there any other questions from the

Okay. Oliver, I just wanted to ask. Is there a reason that the interview questions needed to be determined in a public meeting? Is that the way it was before as well? Because I I don't recall having access to those questions prior to going into the the interview.

I believe that that is up to the council. I don't think they shared that with the the, the applicants. That is what the council determine what the question would be. I think they probably do that the last time I watched, they did that in a in through the Webex. If you tune in, they determine the question and agree to that and who is gonna just like a job interview, how many questions that they agreed to, who's gonna ask the first one and so forth. So that's that's my experience. But you don't see the the applicants don't see the question ahead of time.

Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you.

Yeah. To follow-up on what Kyle was just asking, I think, in 12 e one, it says interview questions will be determined in a public meeting and will be the same for all candidates. So it almost seems like they must if they participated in the public portion of it, they would understand what the questions were.

Yeah. They do that before they call you in. So if you if someone from outside is listening in, you will see where the the council will go through the questions before they begin the interview. So that technically is public. Go ahead, Chris. Mhmm.

But that also means that the applicants can see them.

I'm sorry. If the applicants are online, they can see. Not that they can see the questions. The council will probably say question one, question two, question three. I have observed them. Sometimes they read that, and sometimes it is within the discussion of the council or what the questions are before they determine who is going to ask one, two or three. But I know that is that are caused through their Webex before they started calling in the applic the candidates to come in for the interview.

But it's public?

Yes. Okay.

This is commissioner. I have a question. Is this the same procedure for all commissions or any other, body like us throughout the county? Do they do this?

This is only, applicable to the the boards and commissions that the council appoints. For example, the historical preservation commission, the board of equalization of assessment, those are the only three and the planning commission that the council appoints. So it's a normal process that they follow for those three, commissions at that point. The other commissions, whether it's commission on aging or veterans and any other bike and pedestrian, that is the function of the county manager. Okay.

Thank you. You're welcome, sir.

This is commissioner Haroun. Question on I I guess the question on the questions. Is there a legal reason why we're asking the exact same questions? Is it

Yes.

Would you I get I I would love a little more color to that. I I think because my my concern is, let's say you're picking between you know, you you had a couple of opening spots and you had a you maybe you were developer heavy or you're something and maybe wanted, or maybe needed a builder type person, but then you also wanted some agricultural type people on there. And then the the questions and maybe there was, like, two agricultural people that were great candidates, but you wanted to ask, like, some questions specific to ag and their knowledge of of what they're bringing to the table. And then the builder, you're gonna ask maybe some very specific you're not gonna ask them about sprinkler systems or water rights or, you know, the issues there. And so it kinda seems to put everybody into a very rote, like, formulate box versus having some real color and in-depth insight into what each person's experience is.

So I guess that would be my thing. So

Well, the purpose of the planning commission is not to have experts on sprinkler systems or whether they're from developing sprinkler systems or from using sprinkler systems or whatever. This is a group that advises the county council on issues relevant to the entire county and for all sorts of personnel related interviews, whether it's folks like you all or whether it's employees, we ask the same questions. And it is up to the county council to ask some really good questions. And they typically do, like, what do you bring to this? And then it's up to you to talk about your expertise if you think that that is relevant and valuable, which it probably is.

Okay. No. I was just yeah. I I guess it does make sense from keeping everybody on the same exact track box. But from a interviewee box, like, oh, I'd really like to follow-up with what they just said, but I I can't. So

Yeah, so that's all I have. We're here to take question. Like I said, this is. Really to provide the public. A knowledge of the process and, you know, so and as as well as you planning commission members when your term comes up, you know, the procedure that the council uses to go through the process of appointing new members or reappointing existing ones. But it starts with the press release and folks submitting their resume and interest. That's really what it's all about. The the rest is what the council decides to do, and this is the process that they've been following.

This is Ron Barker. I I guess, Oliver, the only thing that I see is still I'm kind of stuck on that that 12 e one about determining the questions in a public meeting and having it be the same for all the candidates. I can see the aspect as, Christine outlined about the idea of giving everybody the same questions, the aspect of having them ahead of time and being able to prepare for them doesn't seem to me to be as, enriching as if they hear the questions for the first time and have to be able to formulate an an answer based on that moment in time. So I I don't know whether it's a requirement somewhere that we feel like we have to, make the questions public ahead of time. It feels like there'd be a variety of ways of coming up with the questions without having to have a public meeting for the council to do that.

As an example, I guess, you could ask any one of the counselors to bring three questions that they want to ask. They only get to choose one at that time, and whomever hears one, the next candidate will hear that same question from that same counselor. But it would be eye opening, I think, to not have the person have an opportunity to prepare.

My thought is that because there is some serious question about this that we planning might want to think about it, that one, and, think about how it at least might be clarified. I don't know. Maybe it's totally clear, and I just think it's

odd. It does seem clear, and it is odd.

It does seem clear, but odd. Like I said earlier, this is, you know, being adapted from the board and commission appointment. Oh, my god. Yeah, we are just adopting this from I won't call it, but this is just the exact language from the board and commission appointments. And I wasn't planning to change anything, but because any change in this will also require the council amending this that have already been approved.

Yeah. Because, like I said, this is just verbatim. You can have it. It's verbatim from the board and council. The the goal. Yeah. Look at section three. This is just what it is and we just try. The goal is to make sure that the public. Have an idea of what the process is that the council goes in appointing, new members because we typically post this on your website, your rules of procedures, and the public knows what it is just like when we amended your public and public testimony and oral, both oral and written.

The public knows and, again, went to submit given an example of when to submit written testimony. Often, when we make that change, we were really getting to folks, submitting comment five minutes to your hearing. You wouldn't have opportunity to read them. We wouldn't have opportunity to react to them. So that's why we made those changes. Any suggestion that you can make, that's fine. This is your rule of procedure. I didn't change anything out of this, board and commission appointment. We just want to make it consistent.

This is commissioner Berthold. I would like to see that someone in county human resources be consulted because I know having been in charge of classified personnel, there are some standing rules and procedures and see how this aligns with the way the county does regular interviews, picks picks questions, I I would like to see it reflect that, personally.

Sure. I will pass that on to the county manager and see where we go from there. But I know that I'm not sure what role the HR plays in the council interview of candidates for various commissions.

Don't think HR is involved in that as a rule.

Yeah. Yeah. But there are some basic procedures that they use. That's what I would like to see applied here, which I think would probably cut out the public selection of questions or selection of questions that the public can observe. Yeah.

Well, right now, this is part of, as Oliver said and he showed to me, the counselor's business processes, which are adopted by the council or written down, so forth and so on. Now it makes sense to me if someone has large objection to them that, we talk to the county manager about it, but that is what is kind of set in stone at the moment, though it's not unchangeable. That is what it is, which also, by the way, has the ask the same questions to everybody part in it. And I can tell you that that is absolutely a process that is followed when employees are being hired.

Correct. Are those questions, determined just before the interviews, or are they the same question for all interviews that have been going on forever so so that the questions are always been public knowledge?

I don't know. So I cannot really say for certain whether that is have been the practice of the commissioners or now, counselors. But, I will suspect that based on the resumes and they have they they have reviewed an interest shown that the council will likely come up with question that they would like to ask. Often, I hear them ask your knowledge of GMA, for example. And like Chris indicated, what qualifies you for, the serving on the planning commission.

So but Chris is correct that in my observation, they asked the same question of each of the candidates that they chose to interview.

It seems in that process then that most of these candidates are have going to have a an idea of what they want to say. And and if you've been through interview processes before, they the questions are generally very similar, and knowing something minutes ahead of time before you walk into the room may not have changed the way that they're gonna respond to questions anyways. I I suppose another scenario could be that the candidates are isolated so they can't hear the public debate on the questions before they walk into the room or through the Webex now. Okay. That's just a scenario.

You eliminate them from a public open Yeah.

So there's there's, like, no no good prospect nothing no good scenario around this as a and accept that the questions generally are are very can be very general, and they would be prepared to answer them and and have their statements anyways.

Yeah. That's true. But as you know, intuitively, no one will answer the same question the same way as someone else depending on what they bring to the table and the expertise and the and the nature of the question being asked. I've gone to job interview knowing that those that were interviewed before me will answer differently, have different experiences. So I can't speak to that, but I know that the same question I asked of each candidate, it might be phrased differently and follow-up and all of that, but it's almost the same question either way you look at it.

Usually, not even framed differently.

The same. Yes. It's the same. Yep.

So the the the scenario here would be to be the last candidate to be interviewed so you've got to you've had more time to formulate your answers based on what you've heard from the other candidates.

Yeah. What if you if you take, for example, the fact that we now use Webex, when an interview is conducted, the the panel meets, go over the questions, and determine who is going to ask what questions and what are they looking for. And before they call the candidate in, sometimes the candidate don't see and know what the question or how many question or how many pan people would be on the panel. But as I indicated, if the council decide that you do not want this to be public, as Chris indicated, this will still be the business process that the council follows. The only difference is that the public and those who apply wouldn't know.

This is the only reason why we're proposing to amend your rules to make this very clear for the public to know how the council goes about choosing the board that they appoint. The other commissions that the county manager, I don't have that in front of me to see whether this is similar, but this is, like I said earlier, this is just out of this board and commission's appointment only relating to those that the county council approves. Just like, you know, the planning commission, your other bylaws and everything is based out of the RCW that requires appointment of a planning commission. And your the planning commission, for all I know, was created by ordinance dating back to 1959 following the RCW that we're operating under. And as you can see, we haven't changed anything else.

What is in front of you as was adopted, and became effective, 02/17/2022. So nothing else is being proposed to change. But if you do not want this to be part of this amendment, we will certainly take that into consideration and, but I'm not prepared yet to make any changes to this because it is consistent with what, the council adopted by ordinance.

Is there any other questions on the section from the commissioners?

So, Oliver, just hearing the way you phrased hearing the way that you phrased that, are you asking us to give you specific direction that says you would we want a change, or has this discussion been adequate enough to take the, the question that we're we're posing, take it back to staff or county manager and ask if this is still the appropriate way to do it?

My response will be, yes. We can certainly ask this the county manager that question. All I'm saying is that because this is adopted by council and by ordinance that I'm not proposing that I change what I'm putting in front of you because that is consistent with what was adopted. But I'm hearing what you're saying. I can take that to the county manager and say, we we wanted to add this so that the general public and then future applicants to serve on the planning commission knows the the process that the council takes or undertakes in appointing new members or reappointing existing members.

I can take that back to the county manager. The council often looked at their procedures and rules of procedure or bylaws and amend them as new things come up. Yeah. Yeah. So this may be an opportunity to take a look at this and see whether they want to amend it. And if they amend it, we can take this back. Like I said, we can hold off on this until I ask the question. So there may not be a hearing on this on March 19. So we can pull it. It hasn't been advertised. We can take I can take this back to the county manager and said, propose this. Like I said earlier, it's just the intent is to help the public future applicants to know the current process that the council undertakes.

Alright. That that seems very fair to me, and I think then it just airs it out for everybody. And if it comes back in this format, then we know that that's the desire of the council and the county manager. Thank you. You're welcome.

Commissioner Herron, along the lines of procedures for meetings and workshops and stuff, one of the things that has has always kind of bothered me is that we we don't allow public testimony in our workshops. And I understand after spending several nights hearing public testimony of while you it's not necessarily the most functional of elements, But oftentimes, go through several iterations of something, and then we get public testimony right at the hearings level where we're being asked to make a decision. And you go, wow. That's a really good point. I don't think any of us considered that.

But then you're kinda forced into a box of making a decision, and it really limits the impact of of some of that public testimony that had it been months prior. Okay. That had had it been months prior, maybe we could have incorporated that in some of our decision and policy making guidance. So I guess my my thought is maybe not necessarily, like, some way of encouraging written testimony or something some aspect of that. Because I know we always accept written testimony, but it's we kinda have this there is something there is, like, there is no public testimony at these hearings, but I think maybe if we, like, change something that said, we encourage written testimony or you could even say a video testimony or something that, that could be included, that that we would have them to preview and go, oh, hey.

This, you know, person has brought a great point, and we haven't and we should discuss that. So that's kind of my thought process there.

Jack, knowing that at some point in time, we have to move from testimony into deliberation, It it has always felt like, if we feel like we're rushed into deliberation, I think that motion can come through us. We can pose questions back to staff. If they don't have the answer, we can keep the public testimony open. We can postpone the aspect of going to deliberation without staff being prepared to give us an appropriate answer. I I think some of that pressure that you feel, we have the ability to alleviate even though it's not popular to not get to the deliberation and and to pass emotion.

I I think if we don't feel prepared or concluded as a group as to whether all of the data or or necessary information is in, I think that's on us to kind of speak up to that. And so I understand about the idea what you're saying. It's like all of a sudden somebody brings a a thought process forward. I I think that can become a a very strong part of the deliberation. Even if public testimony closes out, we don't necessarily have to conclude with a motion that ends that if you don't feel like that's there or we're ready. Does that make sense?

No. That that that makes sense. But what I I think what I'm trying to get at is I think there's we have a smart public out there with a lot of experts in a lot of areas with a lot of insight. And I I would just like to just add I I completely agree with with what you're saying, but adding that layer of just encouragement of, like, a written or a video testimony during the work sessions, like, when we're early on in the process. Because sometimes you get you get down so far down the road that a decision is made sometimes just because we're we are kinda pushed into the box.

Or maybe we could have crafted better policy with a little more thought and research and time and then leaning on staff expertise. And, so that was the only thing. I'm not trying to I'm not trying to blow anything up. I'm just trying to encourage. Yeah.

Question. Do you want like, would you like a statement to be made at the work session saying, you know, get your testimony in early. We really encourage you to submit it in writing or by sending an email or by putting it on the county's website. Is is that what you're asking for?

Yes. Yeah.

That makes sense, I think.

So something that if if somebody's like, hey. I have a really I'm really concerned about x parcel of land of of wetland or something, and you guys are looking at rezoning it, and they might have some real subject matter or something. But that they could that we're just encouraging them instead of saying there's no public testimony at hearings, saying we accept written and video testimony.

Have have you ever read the public notice that we post in its entirety?

Well, clearly not. Apparently, I'm missing something there. Yeah. So I just I I just it

more times than I need to, I guarantee you, because the people who write it are very good at writing them, and they they get a form that conforms with the law, and and then they just, you know, fill in the blanks kind of. But I I think there is a fair amount of encouragement to send in testimony. And it's like, send it here. Send it there. Send it to the other place. Do it on this do it this other way.

And I'm not I'm not disputing that that's not there. I'm just but when you if you look at the, I I think, the website instead that it's like that there's no no no public testimony during work session. Uh-huh. Right? It would be nice for me to see, there's no in person public testimony during work session. However, we would love to you know, we encourage written testimony, to be submitted, for for the commissioner's review.

Having said all that, there's a particular person that I know that you all know who appears frequently before this body and the county council who is and I cannot condemn anyone for this, for submitting testimony on time, but there are a number of folks who submit it on the last day, no matter how long they've known it was coming and what their position was.

No. I'm again, I I'm not trying to open up Pandora's box. I was just saying that, like, maybe if they're, like, on our website, if if there was if it was an appropriate mechanism to say just encourage. I I just had said several conversations with different people after the fact saying, well, you know, I wish I could have said something sooner. Like, well, you kinda could have, but you know?

Yeah.

Yeah. So that that was it. Not trying to make a huge thing of itself.

Yeah. We are we are hearing you, and, you know, even we have considered anytime we had a workstation. And as you know, the workstation is supposed to be between the planning commission and staff. And following that, you hear me always say that here is the staff in my shop who is working on this project. Reach out to him or her if you have questions.

And the public hears us because this is also uploaded on your website, and they have ample time to respond. We have two weeks prior to a hearing on a particular subject, so they have ample time to submit comments. What I often say is that I believe the planning commission have read read all the comments. This is tremendous, you know, challenge because you can get, you know, hundreds of comments coming in on a particular issue. I can only say I hope you have read them.

But all those comments is posted, and it's also submitted when we go to the council so that they see all the comments relating to that particular item. I hear what you're saying, and we are listening. If we need to amend the notice we put out for the work session, we'll do that. But I think this is an opportunity for staff and the planning commission, and we do the same thing at the council. And, you know, it's an opportunity for you to ask us questions to help you prepare for the hearing or the subject matter.

We we we don't claim to be experts on everything, but on matters of policy, we don't make policy. We help the council and you to develop policy that in your recommendation to the council, they can modify. As you know, they can accept it. They can reject it. That's their role. But we do give the public an ample time to, provide comment depending on what

I'm sorry.

Yeah. I'm done.

Okay. At the same time, we could add that encouragement to the script for the chair of the meeting. Mhmm. And it could also be added to the website where comments where people look if they're interested in the matter. Right?

Sure. Yeah.

I mean, it it's not very long.

No. We can't add that. It

it could show up somewhere on the agenda that everybody downloads or looks at.

Mhmm.

And then it would be a matter of whether it's work session or hearing. It would still say the best way to get information in.

Is there anything else from the commissioners?

This is Oliver again. I wanted to, just briefly touch upon, you may have received emails from the, the Polk County policy analyst inviting you to appear or attend the work session on March 18. We, staff transmitted your recommendation to the council. We had a work session with council, I believe, on Wednesday, the eighteenth, whereby we were transmitting your recommendation, including the minutes, your motion, and the table that you helped you and how you voted. And, there was a request to have, the planning commission be present at the next work session.

So that's why you received that email. Feel free to attend that March 18. We're not going I don't believe the council wanted to have another work session on the documentation, but if it comes up, I don't know. What I told them is that I will that I'm having this work session today, and I will bring it up to the entire PC members, and the email went out to you individually. So you're welcome to attend that March 18.

That work session is slated to be on TDR and the IR led that the city of Richfield and other cities are asking the council to to consider. So I just wanna make that observation. I did make an observation, which is true that often what we staff do is transmit your recommendation to the council. And that is all what we do, including the minutes, so there is no difference in what we transmit to the council and what you acted on. And I can't recall any time that the planning commission members or the chair have appeared before council to give the present to to give kinda, like, here's what we recommended.

You know, it's it's different from other boards and commission when they do, like, a report. The chair or whatever of that board will come before our council to present that, but the planning commission is a little bit different. If going forward, that's what you would like to do at the end of your recommendation, you can appoint or vote on one individual or someone to go present your your recommendation to the council. You know, that's up to you, but I'm just sharing with you that that request was made, and that's why you got the emails.

For example, the planning commission hears does a work session on it and then hears applications for

Plan amendments?

Plan amendments, annual reviews and dockets

Right.

Before those go to the council. Y'all don't appear as a board as a body or send a representative to council to explain your recommendations on them. That just doesn't happen. And what happens is that staff sends your recommendation to the council in a staff report and then appears before the council to provide that recommendation before them in a hearing. So it's interesting to me.

The the current council is rather short, has a has a shortish tenure. And some of them haven't done the annual review and docket procedure, so they don't understand that it's not normal for y'all to come there and explain yourselves. But, anyway, I I don't know whether there was it sounded like there was a a major misunderstanding of typical procedure, but it might not have been. Anyway, that it is it was a request made by them. So Oliver's passing that along, and we all know that that is not typically what you do.

But you can. On the other hand, I don't I don't know that anybody on the planning commission is authorized to speak for the planning commission on any particular matter. So these are things to think about.

Alright. If there's anything else.

Jack? Yes. This is Mark. Along the lines of what Chris mentioned, how, you know, the recommendations we make, they go forward. I don't recall ever getting any feedback on what the actual eventual decision was. Is that something that we could get on a regular basis when we make a recommendation? Some feedback? Yeah.

Commissioner, you certainly could. On the other hand, it's also, the decision occurs in a public hearing that is televised, and the video is available to anybody, and there are usually verbatim minutes and so forth.

I was looking more, Chris, towards something that would like just a brief synopsis so we didn't have to go spend three or four or five hours watching the the here the action.

Yeah. Planning commissioner, Mark, I do, from time to time, like, this work session in the past share with you the outcome of what they canceled following their hearing, how they acted on your recommendation. I do provide that. And at your hearing during old business or new business, if there are anything to report that is different, I do share that with the planning commission for those that have been here long. Okay.

Mark, to your point on the the city of Vancouver, when I was on the planning commission, every recommendation that we had sent forth, we got a report back on what the council's action was on our upon our recommendation. So I I do get where you're coming from. It is not, uncommon.

K.

Anything else?

Yeah. This is this is Kyle. I sat in and listened, to the the council meeting yesterday. And, kind of what I what I gathered from it was that the the some of the counselors may have almost been looking for a synopsis of some of our discussions. And kinda like you mentioned all of her, I the the timeline doesn't seem to really match up because they they wanted it almost seemed like a summary of of of some of the the discussions and the decisions that we made, in order to guide their their choice on the alternative.

But my understanding is that hearing is taking place before this work session that they're wanting us to, attend. And, I I guess I'm I I'm also a little confused on how the whole timeline of this might play out and then what they are ultimately looking for from us. And if we need to maybe, if they're looking for a statement from us, somebody to represent the planning commission, you know, kind of what our steps forward are for for meeting with them.

Thank you, planning commissioner, Carl. Good question. I am not sure because we did share with the council that they are we had originally scheduled to have a hearing on March 3 on the preferred or for them to consider the recommendation of the planning commission on the preferred, but that meeting was canceled. You know? So there's no way that they would have had a hearing on the third, on the preferred, and I did share with them that that hearing was not going to occur.

But I think the question really is, from my perspective, it would be I have not done so in the past. I do not summarize or have been asked to summarize how the planning commission voted because as I indicated to the counselors, which is the case, some of them participated in the joint two joint hearing, so they listened to the same testimony. We made it very clear that the council is going to go away, that they don't deliberate with the planning commission. You deliberate a loan and make a recommendation to them. You have a for about two minutes.

I don't know how much more I could offer in the form of a summary of your deliberation, if you if you will, because that would be me interpreting your thought process. That is not my role. Yeah. And that I think I think I think the the fact that they participated and watched, if some of them did, your deliberation, as well as is posted online, as well as the minutes. If there is anything different from what staff presented, which is also on the website, then I could see a discomfort from any of the counselors, but that is not the case.

I'm not being defensive, but the your motion, your plaque, who records that motion, and who made that motion, and who seconded it and how you voted or did the deliberation is all part of the minutes. So if you read the minutes, you captured what your deliberation and your I I don't know what is on your mind. So for me to be summarizing that, I will not be doing so. It's not part of my role to summarize, you know, how you voted or your thinking process for that.

And, yeah, I I share that concern. That was kind of what I was thinking that, you know, if if one of us was to go up and try to summarize, our discussions and our our decisions, you know, each of us are gonna have a different interpretation of of what occurred. And so it's tough, I think, for any of us to go up and try to, describe the thought process behind each of our decisions.

This is Commissioner Bergvold. Has anyone tried putting the minutes into AI and see what comes out?

Oh, please.

You don't go easy way to summarize it. Let's go ahead.

Please. Don't know if you can see me shaking my head, but if I can verbalize that to what what Oliver said. The county is in the process, which it has been for quite some time now, of developing an AI process. All I can say about AI is that there have been way too many attorneys who have been disbarred or otherwise rightfully penalized for using AI in creating legal arguments before the court. I mean, our office has encountered some of these people in litigation against the county.

You know? And they they come up to the court and present a bunch of case law that doesn't exist. But AI really thought it should and made up the names for it, and it looked great until somebody tried to find these cases and read them. So I am not, at this point, willing to, give my trust to AI in anything with legal significance.

Now, Chris, I was just thinking that maybe using the minutes would come up with, you know, a reasonable synopsis. So nothing legal.

Not as long as those minutes are evidence, which they are.

And Chris said it very well. You have a court reporter, and she does we have had Cindy for since I've been with the county. She does a very good work, and the verbatim minutes speaks for itself. There are some minutes or meetings like this where you can have AI summarize or write the minutes, but AI doesn't know my or can't spell my last name. Okay?

So it's not a tool. I know some organization that uses just to summarize minutes, but yours is a little bit different because what we do, as Chris indicated, is collecting an evidence. You know? We do submit the minutes throughout this process in our index of record. So AI generating that will not be a true representative of your discussion and how you voted and things like it may get how you voted, but it's not a good tool that we want to use.

As you can see here, this meeting says AI assist. Sure. But I have used AI also in meetings and board that I sit to summarize that, but it it doesn't do a good job. You still have to go in and rewrite.

Okay.

Thank you. Anything else for the good of the order?

I don't have anything else. This is the what we wanted to present before you and, you know, see your thoughts, giving your questions and issues you raised. We might pull having a hearing on this for March 19 until I share your thoughts with the county manager and if it doesn't rise to the level of them making changes to this, I can really pull it. I can't change it if it's not consistent with the cancel practice.

Alright. Well, thank you, everybody. And that we're adjourned.