County Board - Regular Meeting

Alright. Always new adventures. Alright. With that, I'm calling, let's see, calling the county board meeting, the

Danceler here. Danceler here. Doolin here. Downing. Downing here. Downing here. Downing Here. Iker here. Engelberger. Engelberger here. Engelberger here. Erickson. Erickson here. Freese. Freese Freese here. Fermin

Furman here.

Furman here. Glazer. Glazer here. Glazer here.

Gray here.

Gray here. Hussleman.

Hussleman here.

Hussleman here. Jackson here. Jackson here. Kemp. Kemp Kemp here. Crowning.

Crowning here.

Crowning here. Larson. Larson absent. Lewis.

Lewis here.

Lewis here. Marin. Marin here. Obesee.

Obesee here.

Miles. Miles here. Miles here. Alright.

With the quorum being present, we shall move on to our inspirational message tonight delivered by supervisor Posler. I'm sorry, Peterson.

Show over to him.

That's right.

That's right.

Come on. Impromptu. Thank you.

Happens all the time. No

worries. Posler's next. Sorry.

One of these days, we should switch and just

see if anybody notices. All right.

I'm genuinely honored to be the one asked to offer these words at the start of a new term, not because it's a prestigious assignment, because it means getting to set the table for two years of work that actually matters. That's not something I take lightly, so thank you. There's no ribbon to cut tonight, no groundbreaking ceremony, no press conference, no announcement that will trend on social media. In fact, if this meeting does trend on social media, something's gone very wrong. We can probably call somebody.

What we're doing tonight is something quieter, and I'd argue something a bit more important. We're taking an oath. That word oath gets used so often in public life that it can start to feel like a ceremony without substance, a formality, something you do before the real work begins. But I wanna sit with it for a moment because I think it actually contains everything we need to remember about why we're here. An oath is a promise made in public to the public. It's accountability made audible. When we raise our hands tonight and speak those words, we're not performing a ritual. We're accepting a constraint. We're saying, my judgment, my time, my decisions belong in a real and specific way to the people of Dane County. And that's not a small thing.

The work ahead of us is not glamorous. We'll not often feel heroic. Most of what we do happens in committee rooms with bad lighting. In conversations with constituents who are frustrated and need someone to actually listen, the headlines, when there are any, rarely capture the hours behind them. But I want to suggest that the unglamorous nature of this work is not a flaw.

It's actually the point. Local government is where policy stops being abstract and starts being real. It's where a decision about a road or a budget line or a zoning variance or a public health program touches someone's actual life, Not as a statistic, not as a constituent category, but as a person a parent, a small business owner, a retiree on a fixed income, a child that depends on what we fund and how we fund it. Most people don't have lobbyists, they don't have PACs. Most of them are not in this room tonight, but they are the reason this room exists.

Starting a new term is an opportunity that does not come often. The last term's unfinished business is still real, and we will return to it. But tonight, before we get back to all of it, we have a brief window to ask ourselves the question that can get crowded out by the urgency of day to day governance. What kind of board do we want to be? Not in terms of policy outcomes.

Those will be debated, and they should be. But in terms of how we work, how we treat each other when we disagree, how we engage with the public when it's inconvenient, how we hold ourselves to the standard we claimed when we asked people for their votes. I do not think inspiration comes from speeches. I think it comes from behavior observed over time, from the supervisor who does the reading before the meeting, from the one who picks up the phone when a constituent calls, from the one who says, I was wrong about that, when the evidence changes, from the one who stays in the room in the work through the frustrating parts because the people they represent do not get to opt out of the consequences. That's standard I'm asking each of us to hold ourselves to, not perfection, not consensus on every vote, but seriousness of purpose and genuine service to the people who trusted us with this.

The ribbon never gets cut on this kind of work, but it gets built quietly, consistently, over two years of showing up. Thank you. And now if you're willing, please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice for all.

Thank you, supervisor Peterson. Before we move on to the administration oath, I just wanna cover a couple housekeeping matters. I know a number of you had the opportunity to take a get a photo with judge Genovese and thank I wanna extend my thanks to the judge for coming early to give people that opportunity. But normally, we don't allow anyone else on the board floor other than board members and staff. But if there's family members during the oath that are wanting to take a photo, you can move, you know, into a position that's where you can get a sight line to your family member or whomever you wanna get a photo of.

And, also, after the oath is administered, you'll fill out the oath the official oath form that should be at your place. And once you've done that and signed it, pass it into the middle. Dylan will collect those and take them back to judge Inovese to sign yet tonight.

Don't don't sign the judge's spot. That's the bottom. I know some people do that.

Okay. So, yes, your place to sign is immediately after the the text of the oath. And then just a quick reminder, there's gotta be at least one email from board staff that provided the link to survey for committee preferences. Think most have completed that, but there are some outstanding. So please complete that as soon as you can. So with that, under someone got one. What's that? Somebody missing one?

Everyone should have one of these. Right? Everyone got one? Okay. Okay. Good.

Okay. So with that, under special matters and announcements, we shall move to the administration of the oath delivered by administered by judge Genovesi. Oh, judge, could you use the mic so it can get picked up? That way the folks online can hear as well.

Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I. I. Please state your name.

Patrick Piles.

Having been elected.

Having been elected.

To the office of Dane County Supervisor.

To the office of Dane County Supervisor.

District, state your number.

District 34.

Swear that I will support.

Swear that I will support.

The constitution of The United States.

The constitution of The United States.

And the constitution of the state of Wisconsin.

And the constitution of the state of Wisconsin.

And will faithfully and impartially

And will faithfully and impartially

Discharge the duties of said office

Discharge the duties of said office

To the best of my ability.

To the best of my ability.

Congratulations.

Okay. So next, while you're signing those and again, them into the center aisle, we shall move on to organization of the twenty sixth, twenty eighth Dane County Board term, which begins with election of officers. So for this part, if there's no objection, I am going to step down and ask supervisor Erickson, being the most senior in more ways than one, to preside over this part of the board, please. Because you're getting old. The hearing goes. I I understand.

Here,

can you hear me? Oh.

Good evening. Good evening. Can everyone hear me? Excellent. So just wanted to say a couple things before we get started. I just wanted to congratulate everybody on being elected to this term. I'm really excited about working with everyone and looking forward to the new term. And also just wanted to say thank you for running. Thank you for putting time into this. This is something that's very important.

Think supervisor Peterson's inspiration hit it hit it on the head, basically. This is really important work sometime under the sometimes under the radar but I think local government is where it's at. And it's also, in times like these, sometimes it gets discouraging listening to the news, so it's nice to have cool things going on locally that you can have an impact on. So I found that in my tenure here being the longest serving but not oldest supervisor, just to clarify that. I always have to do that.

So, again, everyone I think knows me, but my name is Chuck Erickson. I represent District 23. Before that, it was District 13. This is the twelfth time, I think, that I've gone through swearing in. So just a lot of times I like to bring up historical things that kinda get lost or forgotten about but just wanted to mention that the last longest serving supervisor was, not this last term, but the one before, was supervisor Dave Ripp, and he served for forty years, and I don't plan on going for that level. So, okay. So with that, I have a script here. They each like to keep me on task. Otherwise, if I deviate from that, who knows? So, alright.

So the next order of business is election of the board chair. I open the floor for nominations. Are there any nominations for county board chair? When I press this. Supervisor Smith.

I'd like to nominate supervisor or chair Patrick Miles to continue serving as chair.

Okay. Okay. Are there thank you, supervisor Smith. Are there any other or any further nominations? Sorry. Do I have to press? Okay. Supervisor Trujos?

I accidentally touched my button.

Oh. Okay.

That's never happened to me. Just kidding. Alright. Okay. So are there further further nominations? Are there fir there further nominations? Are there further nominations? You're supposed to say that three times. Alright. So there are no okay. So we've confirmed that. And, so with that, with without objection, I'd like to declare the nominations closed. Right? And pardon?

I didn't say anything.

Okay. Alright. The one thing I did wanna say, before we start voting no. We we we don't have Okay. So before we get to the next step, I just wanna say is is there does anybody wanna say anything else or are there any questions for anybody? Nope? Okay. So what am I supposed to say? Okay. So with that, I'll ask for a unanimous ballot for supervisor Miles to be elected chair. Okay. Engelberger. Do we need a second? Second? Glaser.

I just saw him first. Okay. So with that All in favor. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Nope. Okay. We have a winner. Wow. Great. Congratulations.

Okay. Well, before proceeding, I wanna take a moment to make some remarks. First, I wanna just say thank you for your confidence and trust in me to lead this this body. In my first term as chair, much of my work was to remind the county executive that the board's voice matters. That wasn't to be contrarian to the executive.

It was to position us as the co equal branch of county government that we're supposed to be, where we set the direction our constituents elected us to pursue. In my second term as chair, after navigating the transition of several county executives, I focused on building on the work of the first term, strengthening our voice. I accomplished that by building a strong county board office team. They are the muscles that enable us to accomplish the hefty lift, the heavy lift of representing our constituents' interests. I'm very proud of how strong they have become.

Know this, their success is your success. In this short synopsis of my time in this role, I hope you see that I don't presume to lead with a heavy hand dictating our course. My leadership is about setting the stage for the strength and merit of the ideas to rise through debate. And that is what will set our course to make a meaningful impact. So again, I thank you for the opportunity to set that stage.

I wanna congratulate each of you for being elected or reelected to the County Board. We have challenging work ahead. Some of it will be exciting and some inspirational. Other parts of the work will involve making decisions where there are no good choices. I wanna share with you what excites me and inspires me.

I was an English major, so I like to look at things through analogies and metaphors. I see each county board term as a chapter in a long unfolding story that began long before us and will continue long after. I'm inspired by the co authors of that who wrote the foundational chapters before us. Some whose names are documented in the board's histories found on our website and others who remain nameless. And if you can imagine, at some point in time, there were 99 county board supervisors that basically filled this room.

So times have changed but some names in more recent times may be familiar. In the hallway is a portrait honoring Dick Wagner, who served in this seat for a time. He was one of the first openly gay elected officials nationally and a champion of social justice. But he led in many other ways, including being a mentor to many others. And supervisor Chawler, there's something about your district.

You're filling some big shoes. As Dick was succeeded by Tammy Baldwin, who was succeeded by Mark Pokan, he was a mentor and friend to this guy, to my left, who is accomplished in his own right. One of Scott's greatest accomplishments, I will say, is appointing me to the county board. Seriously, he he turned the tide in the board's composition by helping develop the leadership skills and the skills needed to engage our constituencies. In supervisor Smith's district, it was once represented by Mark Miller.

Mark went on to be a state senator and in 2011 led the fighting 14 who left the state to delay a vote on Scott Walker's act 10 that was so destructive to organized labor. I could go on, but I will close with this. We are the stewards of the legacy of those coauthors and I'm excited to see what we what we, the coauthors of this next chapter, will write together. So thank you. And so with that, we're moving on to election of the first vice chair.

So I open the floor for nominations. Are there any nominations? Supervisor Kemp.

Thank you, chair Miles. I'd like to nominate supervisor Yogesh Chavla.

Thank you. Kemp supervisor Kemp nominates supervisor Chavla. Are there any other nominations? Okay. Are there any other nominations? Alright. Well, hearing no other nominations, without objection, I'll declare nominations closed and, pause and see if there's anybody that wishes to make any remarks on the nominations. Supervisor Kemp.

I'll say something really quickly. As as the individual that served in this position in the last term, there's quite a bit of work that goes into it. Supervisor Chavla has been a good person to ask questions for when I first got onto the board. He's been serving since 2018. And I think the thing that comes to mind, when I think of him is he's someone that actually has a servant's heart. He knows the issues, but he actually cares and wants to provide the best possible outcomes for individuals in this county, whether it's his service on Einar, just as a leader and someone that you can go to and speak to when you have questions. So I have my full confidence in him, and I will do everything I can to support him in his new role. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other remarks? All right. Then with that, there being only one nomination for first vice chair, I'll accept a motion to cast a unanimous ballot for supervisor Chavala. Moved by Weldren, seconded by Kemp. Alright. And that's not debatable. Yep. Okay. Alright. And with that, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Supervisor Chavala is our first vice chair.

And now we're on to the election of the second vice chair. I will open the floor for nominations for second vice chair, Supervisor Brower.

Yes. I'd like to nominate Supervisor Andre.

Alright. Supervisor Brower, nominate Supervisor Andre. Are there any other nominations? Any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations without objection, I declare the nominations closed. And other, again, being only one nomination, I'll accept a motion to cast unanimous ballot. Moved by Smith. Second. I'm so sorry. I I think I heard Truscio second. Is that right? Okay.

Who's first?

Smith. Okay. We have a motion and a second to cast unanimous ballot. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries and supervisor Andre is our second vice chair. Alright. Next we have election of the sergeant at arms. There's two, so, I will open the floor for nominations. Are there any nominations? Supervisor Welsh.

Thank you, chair. I would like to nominate supervisor Henry Freeze.

Thank you. Supervisor Welsh nominates supervisor Freeze. Supervisor Obese.

Thank you so much, chair. I would also like to nominate supervisor Lewis.

Okay. Supervisor Vizi nominates supervisor Lewis for sergeant at arms. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Okay.

Hearing no other nominations, I if there's no objection, I'll close the nominations for sergeant at arms. Hearing no objection, I will then accept a motion to cast the unanimous ballot for supervisor oh, I'm sorry. Did you ever did you wanna make remarks? Oh, I'm sorry. Motion to cast unanimous ballot as moved by supervisor Beruschik.

Is there a second? Seconded by Engelberger. So with that, we have a motion and a second to cast unanimous ballot for supervisors Fries and Lewis as sergeants at arms. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. That motion carries. And they are our serge new sergeants at arms. Congratulations. Okay.

Before moving on, I also meant to mention earlier, at the conclusion of the meeting with so many of us here, maybe Supervisor Heusman wanna turn on her picture, but I thought it'd be nice if we all gathered up here for a photo of the board if we could. So and then maybe photos of leadership as well. So so we'll do that at the end of the meeting. So so with that, we're on to two e twenty twenty six o a one, amending chapter seven of the Dane County code of ordinances revising the county board rules. What is before us is sub one to o a one.

So discussion, questions, comments on o a one. Supervisor Wegleitner.

Thank you, chair Miles. I'd like to move an amendment and that amendment is, there's two different places. So at line 82, we're gonna the amendment would amend as follows Section 7.61A and B. And the existing language of seven sixty one a has roll call and then one, inspirational message, parentheses limited to three minutes, and then two, pledge of allegiance. The amendment would insert, parentheses, if invited by the supervisor delivering the inspirational message, parenthesis, and then at line 100, the same language would be inserted after Pledge of Allegiance if invited by the supervisor delivering the inspirational message.

And if I get a second, I'll speak to it, and I'll bring it to the clerk.

Seconded, moved by Walsh. Seconded I mean, I'm sorry. Moved by Wegleiter, seconded by Walsh. And then those two lines. Go ahead, Wegleiter.

Thank you, chair Miles. So I know for folks who I've had this discussion with before, there's sort of a range of of opinions and feelings about standing and reciting the pledge of allegiance. Myself and a growing number of supervisors over the years opt not to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But I know good friends of mine, including my colleague to my right, like to do that. And so this amendment, I think, puts us in a less compulsory state and a appreciation for the fact that there's a range of opinions on this.

And when we recognize a supervisor at each meeting to deliver an inspirational message that speaks to them, that that inspires them for their, you know, civic responsibility and in their oath. Let's let them choose whether we stand and state the pledge right now. Let's let's so we will people will do it sometimes if the supervisor delivering the inspirational message wants to invite people to stand and say the pledge. But for the those of us who, prefer not to do that, we don't have to do it on those nights and there wouldn't be an invitation extended. It it it is a little awkward right now when this occurs, when we don't say the pledge because, or when as somebody who doesn't say the pledge and when I give an inspirational message, I just sit down after my inspirational message and then Chair Miles or someone will will lead the pledge.

And I just think this would be more consistent with the diversity of opinions, be more inclusive of folks who, you know, don't feel comfortable reciting the Pledge of Allegiance for various reasons, one of which is because it says one nation under God. So anyway, I hope folks will appreciate the intent of this, which is somewhat of a compromise I think in our approach, to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Any other discussion on the Weggelietner amendment? Supervisor Engelbert.

Thank you, mister chairman. I'm gonna vote against the amendment, and I'm would encourage all of my, colleagues to do the same. I believe there was either three or four of our members that were sitting during the pledge. The meeting is this the county board is meeting is not the person who does the inspiration. That's just something that we do.

It's not their meeting. So I don't believe that they should decide whether we should do the pledge or not. I I just think it's tradition. It's a patriotic thing, and I just don't agree with it. So I'm gonna vote no, and I'm hoping everybody else does. Thank you.

Supervisor Chavo.

Thanks, chair Miles. I I wanna talk about the pledge a little bit. You know, when you come to this country, just those first lines, I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America. It's a big choice that we make, you know? There's a country that's in our blood. There's cultures and traditions that are in our blood. There are things that we leave behind when we say those words. And, you know, when I think about things like my parents getting their citizenship, growing up, it seemed trivial. It seemed something that would just be expected. And now it seems something that's turning elusive.

Every time it'll be my opportunity to stand and address the board, I I will always say the pledge. I won't say the words under God, but I always say the pledge because it shows our commitment to the ideas and the foundation of this country. Just as important as the way I feel about that, I feel there is deep disappointment in what has happened to our democracy. If we look at some of the stark turning points that we've had 01/06/2020, how our government has been weaponized against our own people, how a lot of that flag has been used to to divide people. And in moments when our country and our flag is at distress, sitting down and looking at it without saying words is just as important as standing up and saluting it.

So having those choices in front of us, I think, are very important, and we can always express our love for our country in different ways. The way I will do that is by reciting those words because they they take me back to a time when I had a choice to make of am I an Indian? Am I an American? Am I a citizen of this country? And that's a deeply personal thing to me. But just as personal as that is to me, I think it's just as personal to those who feel that their country is slipping away from them. So I will be voting yes.

Supervisor Yang. Thank you, chair. I just wanna echo my colleagues, supervisor Weg Leidner and and supervisor Chavla. You know, I I grew grew up I was born in a different country, and I'm an immigrant and a refugee. I never really realized the impact of the Pledge of Allegiance until a lot of things that have been happening in our country that I feel like the pledge is sort of like, it's hypocritical what's going on.

And I don't feel comfortable saying the pledge at the moment. And I don't feel like it represents a lot of the pluralistic views we have that exist in Dane County. And I think that compromise that supervisor Wegliner is putting out would make our spaces more safe and more inclusive and create belonging for people who don't feel that same way. And to give that opportunity to whether they want to not say it or not, I think that would create that space for people who are going through that kind of tumultuous understanding of what it does it mean to be in this space right now as an immigrant and a former refugee. And so I think that you guys will support this because it will create safe spaces for those who don't feel like they are protected protected at at the the moment.

Moment. So So thank thank you. You.

Supervisor supervisor Balik.

Thank you, chair Miles. I stand. I agree with supervisors Chabla and Engelberger. I'm an honorably discharged member of the military. My father was a, excuse me, a World War two veteran, and my mother was a grew up in Nazi Germany.

So I know full well, excuse me, I know full well what can happen to a country if it slides into fascism. And that's why I have to speak against changing our pledge in any way. And I thought what we did before had merit because if you didn't wanna stand, you didn't have to. If you didn't wanna say the pledge, you didn't have to. There was nothing forced in it at all. And, I will support, continuing that practice. Thank you.

Supervisor Witt.

Thank you, chair. I rise in support of this amendment. It increases diversity. I proudly served my country as a Peace Corps volunteer. And I don't think it's fair to judge anyone, based on their patriotism, feelings for their country based on whether or not they stand and recite a religious paragraph. So, I thank supervisor Wegleitner for, offering this option for more diversity.

Supervisor Velder. Mister chair. Thank

you mister chair. Here we go. I just have a question. So if the person who does the inspiration all the night, they don't say it, does that mean no one is able to say it, is precluded? I don't think that's really the intent, but it seems like that might be the intent.

Let me invite supervisor Weggelietner if she would just to make sure that we're clear on her intent. But the way I understood it is the person giving the inspirational, if they so choose, can invite board to recite the pledge. Otherwise, there wouldn't be recitation of the pledge. Is that are you

Chair Miles, your understanding and interpretation is accurate. It's the option of the person delivering the inspirational message.

Well, I appreciate that. And I appreciate what Supervisor Choplin said. And I've heard him say many things like that before on this floor. And there's other folks here you know, we have been maybe are excuse me. Sorry. Let me just switch gears. Sorry. It's important that the body this is the body. And when folks don't want to stand, that is their prerogative. But what they are saying then is they are dictating to others that we shall not do that.

That has precluded the entire body from their decision to say it. Will we come up standing randomly? And and what we've heard earlier about being a a body that rep that has hard decisions or a thing this is a this would seem to me set a bad tone at the beginning of of a meeting. And I understand that this like I said, there's folks that that have issues with this. And it shouldn't be that the issue changes from administration to administration.

And that kind of concerns me. I like like the the I like who's in office. They have done many things that I believe in. They have done good things to to people in this country and for people, so I will stand. I consider myself a Christian, but I don't like that Under God is in there either. It was put in there in the 50s because of the Red Scare. It was never there in the intent originally put in. Sometimes, if I'm if I think about it, I just skip that as well. I don't think it needs to be there. I don't consider this a religious poem.

This doesn't bring up folks who will say this is something that happened in Nazi Germany, where people were taking oaths and pledges. I think this is We are a representative body of people. And yes, while very diverse, absolutely. The choice should not be of each person. And changing from one week to the next, where supervisor Chaco said, he will always stand when it's his turn, that's once a once a term, maybe twice.

So we're not so he would not have that choice more than one term. We have a lot of folks here. We just had some new folks. And my son, I'll start with, my son just got back from Namibia doing his two years in serving in the Peace Corps. He was here just earlier, but his love of government ended after the oath. But I think it's important that all of us either look at that and not take it for granted. I think when we've been born here and raised here, we've had so many freedoms that we take for granted. And that's the strength of folks that were, you know, some say it's just the military. It's not just the military that protected those. It's all of us.

As citizens, voting is very important. And I think this is a reflection just of that. So I because of the way it is worded, I have to I would encourage everyone to vote no because to have it silent on certain nights and not, that choice has been taken away from others. So with that, I would just encourage everyone to vote no. Thank you.

Supervisor Welsh.

Thank you, chair. I stand in support of this amendment. Supervisor Peterson, in his inspirational message, I actually wrote this down because it struck me, ceremony without substance. And that to me is sometimes what the pledge feels like, a ceremony without the substance behind it. I would stand for any one of the supervisors in this room that asked me to.

I would sit with those who asked me to. I feel like it's an important time in our democracy where we are standing with others, and I I feel that this adds an element of the substance back. If this is something that is, you know, deeply important to someone that they ask me to stand with them, I will do that. I just feel that this, adds a little bit of substance back that, can kind of get lost when we just do things and turn it into a routine. So that's one of the reasons why I will be supporting this.

Marissa Branmeyer.

Listening to this, I think the way we have it currently works because you have people have the option to sit, to say God, to not say God, and those who wanna say the pledge can say the pledge. I I'm a vet myself, and I think it's important to say the pledge. And also, I mean, I'm like everybody else. Don't let I see a car with a flag on it these days and I have a certain reaction and it's not a good one. And I'm like, wait a minute.

Don't let them take the flag away from me or don't let them take the pledge away from me because that's supposed to be important for all of us as Americans. And if you do that, if you give in to those feelings, then you're kinda letting the other side win and take away your country and your democracy. So I feel like the way it is right now, if you if you don't wanna say it, don't say it. If you don't want to say God, don't say it. If you only want to say part of it, do that. But if you then do not say the pledge at all, you're unduly hurting the people who do want to say the pledge. So I think it would be best just to leave the way it is now. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Supervisor Peterson.

Hey, chair.

I said I was hoping we weren't gonna end up on social media, but clearly we are

tonight. Thank you.

I had to cut the tension.

It's a

little tense in here. Chair, I'm trying to get some clarification. And I think supervisor Velgren asked the question, I think I need to sometimes I'm a little dense. Is it the way it was worded, the amendment, is it if you lead the inspirational and you choose not to do the pledge, you don't have to lead the pledge. However, as a group, if you choose to say the pledge, we can? Or No.

There would be the if the person providing inspirational does not invite so it says, if invited by the supervisor delivering the inspirational message. So it won't be said at all if that person delivering the inspirational does not extend that invitation. I

guess when we talk about diversity of thought and diversity of opinions and diversity in general And keep your remarks this way. Yep. When I think about diversity of thought, I I mean, I think that that pendulum swing swings both ways. Right? And so I personally, have no problem with anyone not standing and not saying the pledge or not saying, god, that doesn't bother me because for me, the pledge is is a deeply personal thing. But I think given the I would like still like the opportunity to be able to say the pledge if for nothing else, you know, it's part

of history.

And again, it's important to me, and this is that's part of the oath that we take in a lot of ways. So I I guess yeah. I don't know if I wanna make a motion, but it's just it's it just I would like to have the ability to say the pledge before a meeting. Chair, would that mean I would have to make an amendment to the amendment, or would we have to wait for this amendment and then

Wait. There can be a second amendment. There can be an amendment to amendment.

Scott's face is telling me, don't bother

me. Well, it's I think he's stating where, you know, he wants things to go.

Okay.

By Robert's rules, we just had this lesson the other night.

You don't

By Robert's rules, there can be two the the main motion plus two amendment. An amendment Okay. To the main motion and an amendment to the amendment. Right? Correct.

Thank you. Still learning every day. I hate complicating things. I I'd like to make a motion then, and I didn't bring can I borrow a paper again? Never fails. I thought I was never so I'd like to make a motion. I'm thinking as I I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Point of order.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Your point of order? Okay. But it I I understand what you're asking, but what I'm hearing is from supervisor Peterson. He's wanting to amend not the main motion, but to amend the Weg Leitner amendment. So so supervisor Peterson, if you'd like, I can read back to you the Weg Lightner amendment, if that would help you formulate your thoughts.

And again, I hate doing this on the floor, people hate it when I do this. And I do, too. Guess, ultimately, what I'm trying to say here is that if the person leading the inspirational doesn't want to lead the pledge, then the chair can lead the pledge.

Okay. So so are you moving to amend the Weg Leitner amendment to read, if invited by the supervisor delivering the inspirational message, Otherwise, the county board chair can lead the pledge. Is that right? Well, is that what you're trying to get at?

In spirit. Yeah. I mean, ultimately, again, I I wanna give space to to be able to say the pledge. And if the person leaving the inspirational doesn't wanna do that, I I then there has to be a designee for that. And so I'm, again, trying to figure this out on the floor, but it you know, this is what I'm trying to trying to come up with a compromise here.

What the clerk is telling me here is without the Weglerton amendment. That's basically what happens now. But it but if somebody given what happens now, if the person delivering the inspirational does not wish to say the pledge, they can invite somebody else to do it if they so choose. So so that's different.

What I'm hearing though is that with this with the Weg Leitner amendment, there would be no pledge is what I what I asked, and I and I receded the response that there would be no pledge on those Correct. During those meetings. And that's hence, my my attempted emotion here to try to come up with codified compromise.

Okay.

I guess to the clerk's point that the compromise is what we have now. Sorry. By what the clerk just to the clerk's point, and he's whispering over here. It's what we have now is the compromise that that the person delivering the pledge, if they I'm sorry. Delivering the inspirational if they choose not to deliver the pledge may invite somebody else to do it.

Totally agree. I think, however, with this new amendment, that changes.

Correct. So if the so if the amendment were defeated, if the amendment was defeated then revert back to how is this now. Is that Yep. Okay. Alright. So no no motion. Okay. So on the amendment, supervisor Kemp.

Thank you, chair Miles. I I rise tonight and I'm gonna ask my colleagues to vote no on the Weigleitner amendment. A couple of things. First of all, I respect Supervisor Weigleitner. I count her as one of my better friends on the board.

I respect her position. However, I do think that this is something that we need to carefully consider. My ancestry, I think probably out of just about everyone in here, has some of the bigger beefs with our country and can point to a lot of hypocrisies going back to before this was even a nation. But growing up, my parents exposed myself and my brothers to a lot of different things. And one thing I wanted to point out is I think that the pledge of allegiance is about despite the issues that we have had in this country, whether in the past or what we're having right now, for me, what it feels like, how we can try and strive to the actual ideal of what the country is supposed to be.

And the thing that I think, at least for me and my experience growing up, it crystallizes that and just bear with me because I'm kind of a history nerd. But on 07/18/1863, there was a regiment, the fifty fourth Massachusetts Regiment, that was the first black regiment in the Civil War. Those men were comprised of former escaped slaves. There were free men in the North that formed a regiment that was deployed to Morris Island in South Carolina. And their job, they volunteered to be the first regiment to essentially go through a defile of sand where you have the ocean on one side and a marsh on the other with essentially hellfire raining down on these men.

And so that was eventually produced in a movie that many of you maybe have seen called Glory. And that's the ideal that I think we are striving toward, right? These were individuals that were slaves in a country where half of the people wanted to keep them in that position. The other half that they were fighting for, not many people cared to treat them as humans either in the North. But those men charged the ramparts of that fort, and over half of that regiment lost their lives.

So for me, the Pledge of Allegiance is is important for that reason. There's a higher standard and a higher ideal that we should be aspiring to. And I don't judge or look down upon anyone who chooses not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that that's their right, and I would encourage that. I mean, if anyone was going to give Supervisor Weigleitner a hard time about it, I'd be the first person defending her. But I do believe that we should have the opportunity to say the pledge. You choose not to do so, That's your prerogative, and I don't think anybody in here would would pass judgment, on anyone for choosing not to. So for tonight, I would, vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Supervisor Downing.

Thank you, chair Miles. Please restate the amendment before us. Okay.

At line 82, amend as follows. And it says section 7.61 a. And it says roll call inspirational message. And then it would say that says limited to three minutes. Pledge of allegiance, parens, if invited by the supervisor delivering the inspirational message, close parens. So that's basically the first part. And then on line 100, amend as follows, same language under pledge of allegiance because there's the budget meeting and then there's a regular board meeting. And this says pledge of allegiance if invited by the supervisor delivering the inspirational message. Does that make sense?

Thank you.

Okay. Supervisor Weigleiner for a second time.

Thank you, chair Miles. I just I wanna be really clear that what this amendment does does not prohibit anyone from gathering in that hallway or in this room at 06:55PM and citing the pledge of allegiance. What this amendment would do is respect the difference among supervisors on this board regarding reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and indicate to the public, some of whom watch these meetings on city channel or on Zoom or in person, that sometimes the county board at the invitation of a supervisor who likes to say the pledge of allegiance does that. On other days, when there's a the supervisor's leading inspirational message, they respect that choice as well because this board believes in freedom. And, you know, it was interesting because I we had a a debate about this when a prior proposal before this board that I made would would have just taken it out completely from the county board agenda, which actually is my preference because it feels very compulsory.

It does not feel very inclusive. And as a couple of supervisors spoke to, the origins of adding that one nation under God are very political. And this idea of uniting Christianity and God with our country is highly problematic and and has shown up in very scary ways for lots of people throughout this country's history. And it's it's showing up right now in that way as well. In fact, I don't know if you know this, but president Trump has a new has unveiled new renderings for the triumphal arc arch in Washington DC and emblazoned.

On this arc will say, one nation under God. So it is about respecting diversity of opinion. It's about respecting the freedom of religion and and the freedom not to have religion and not to establish a religion. And I think, you know, this, again, symbolizes a compromise that respects and honors the diversity. Because I will say, while while many of you have said you respect the right to to sit down or to have, you know, to not for those colleagues that choose not to stand for the pledge, you respect that.

I I appreciate that, but that isn't always easy to do. It's not always comfortable, and it hasn't always been. And, you know, it it never really happened until the pandemic. I mean, it it it became more common the more people did it. But I think, you know, opening this up a little bit and respecting that choice, I think, sends a signal that we are a diverse body.

We are an inclusive body, and we we respect each other enough to defer on that day as to whether we're gonna say the pledge of allegiance. Because this is our county board agenda, and you can say the Pledge of Allegiance as many times in the day as you want outside of this meeting. So anyway, I hope you'll you'll understand that perspective and be open and and vote in favor of this pretty minor change.

Supervisor Yang for a second time.

Thank you, chair Miles. I just want to thank supervisor Kimp and all the others who shared about, you know, the importance of ritual and ceremony and how nostalgia is deeply rooted in that. But I also wanna recognize where our values lie and I think sometimes we don't even realize it, but we put ceremony and ritual over our values. And if our values are really inclusion and belonging and equity and creating spaces where other voices can thrive and have that moment, I I think that this amendment will do that. For those who are the minority who do not, say the pledge, they have never had an opportunity given to them where they don't have to hear the pledge.

So we are in the in minority. And in order we've never had a board meeting where we've never said it. So I think this will open up an opportunity for us to try something new with different voices that exist in the space and honor that holistically, not just verbally, but give that space for that person who is doing that message to kind of share what they wanna share and have the autonomy to do that and make that space theirs. Because when we come to the board, we not only bring, you know, our knowledge, but we bring our culture, our identity, and our history with us. And sometimes our history, you know, doesn't really align with the pledge.

But first of all, you know, I was never given a choice to say the pledge or not as a kid in public schools. So we were always forced to do that until we realized that, wait, there is some problematic stuff in the pledge. So I think this will give us the opportunity to open that space up for folks who are kind of grappling with what the pledge means to them and give that space to them to offer inclusive and a space that is will make them feel like they are valued. So if you guys value, if we value inclusion, identity, and different cultures, I think that this will be able to implement that into our board meetings a little bit more. And that's that's all I'm asking is for a safe space for those who don't want to say the pledge.

And give them the opportunity actually because they've never been given this opportunity to choose something else. Thank you.

Supervisor Andre.

Thanks, chair. Try to do my second vice chair duties here tonight a little bit. So I've been on the board for six years now. You know, we always have debates at this time around, how the structure of our meetings go. We had a big debate about, prayer at the beginning of meetings a few years ago, so that was a big change to, remove those components.

We've discussed the pledge a few times, and I think we should continue to make changes over time, which are always warranted. Just to confirm an an eye on this amendment tonight changes, whether the pledge is said at all based on the the preference of the person providing the inspirational message. People could still say the pledge in their own times and places before the meeting, afterwards, whatever it would be. And, a no would remain status quo where basically the pledge is set every night, but people have the option to say it or not, to stand or not. I think either way this is kind of a topic that can be othering.

You know, people are gathering in the corner, people are sitting down, people are saying it, people are not. And, I do appreciate the multiple calls we've heard tonight from folks basically think not only of your own mindset in this decision, but how saying the pledge or not having the pledge said could harm or support people in this room. So, that's how I'm trying to make this decision. I don't have strong feelings about the pledge, but I'm trying to think what this whole body and not just these people sitting in our seats today, but future county boards might feel about that. And kind of weigh that option relative to the harms or the benefits of the recitation of the pledge.

And I think there's surely trade offs both ways. But I think it's a relatively simple question. Do you want the pledge set every night or do you not want the pledge set every night? Is how it comes down to it. And I don't have a strong opinion on it so I've been appreciative of the voices tonight.

Okay, Supervisor Boettcher.

In my previous life to being here, I've had to say the pledge many, many times, like most of us. And I know a lot of people I've served with who don't say the under god part. And it's been called out once or twice in my career. But when I look at the pledge and what it is and what it isn't, it's changed over time just like the rest of our country. But when we came here tonight, the first thing we did was swear an oath to the constitution.

The pledge is a mild extension of that in a sense. And when people don't say the under god part, I always remember what that sentence becomes. One nation with liberty and justice for all. And that's what we should be trying to do here. And saying it that way doesn't seem like a burden on anyone who may feel that the country isn't going in the right direction today.

You're saying where you want the country to go. And to say that we're gonna come here and have one person decide whether we're gonna say that or not seems to be going away from individual choice and going into one person making the choice. And I don't think that's where we wanna go. If that person doesn't want to say that pledge that night, that's fine. And that's where we are today, and that's what we allow. But to sit there and say one person decides whether 37 people say the pledge or not seems to be going in the actual opposite of liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Alright. With that, the board is clear. I'm gonna, take a moment just to explain my vote. I don't normally enter debate, but it's our board rules, and I just wanna respect extend my respect for the difference of opinions here. And my no vote is no is not a reflection of disrespect or it's just I think we're gonna be disagreeing to disagree.

And I echo some of the sentiments that supervisor Kemp offered in that, you know, we can be unhappy about certain things that are happening in our country, but it doesn't necessarily define our country. Just like a child who might be misbehaving, you can say, their behavior is naughty. They're not a naughty person or a person that's makes bad choices is not a bad necessarily a bad person. And our you know, I think many of us ran for office because we believe we can make things better. And that's you know you know, at all levels of government, that's what people are elected to do.

And and and then when it comes to whether or not somebody says one nation under God, I choose not to do that. I think what we do now is respectful of people's diversity of thought on this issue. I choose not to say under God, not because I it's not about whether or not I believe in God. It's just we are a nation of laws, and those laws start with the constitution. And so I say one nation under the constitution.

So anyhow, that's just my explanation of where my vote is. Yes, sir?

Don't wanna interrupt.

I just

want especially I don't wanna interrupt. For the new the new folks, when the chair speaks when he's at the chair, that sends a specific message that the chair's not supposed to do that. But I do not want to stop you because I think what you said was important. But I think for the new folks to know that when you wanna in a future debate, that it's important that the chair leaves the chair, that everyone understands how that works, so there's not a useful, oh, the chair's gonna speak. I understand what you did, and I appreciated it.

And I'm sure it's a formal debate on another issue, and you have a strong feeling on it, you will do what how how the rules call. But just so folks understand that the chair should always speak from the from the lectern or from the the chair. Usually, the second vice chair would then chair the meeting.

Fair enough. Thank you for the point of information. Alright. Sorry. Somebody Roll call. Oh, supervisor. Roll call has been requested. Clerk will call the roll, please.

Okay. On the Wegleiter amendment, Peterson. No. Peterson, no. Postler?

Postler, no.

Postler, Ritt? Ritt, I. Ritt, I. Rhylander?

Rhylander, I.

Rhylander, I. Smith? Smith, Smith, no. Trusius?

Trusius, no.

Trusius, no. Weldrin? No. Welder, no. Wegleiter?

No. Brandmeyer, no Brower. Brower, no Chawla. Chawla, I. Danceler? Aye. Chancellor, Danceler, I. Doolin?

Doolin, no.

Doolin, no Downing. No. Downing, no Iker. No. Iker, no Engelberger. Engelberger, no. Engelberger, no. Ericsson? No. Ericsson, no Fries? No. Fries, no. Fuhrman? I. Fuhrman, eye. Glaser.

Glaser eye.

Glaser eye gray.

Gray, no.

Gray, no. Hussleman?

Hussleman, eye.

Hussleman, eye. Jackson? Jackson, no. Jackson, no.

Kemp? No.

Kemp, no crowning. Crowning, no. Larson Larson?

Larson, abstain.

Abstain. Lewis. Lewis, Lewis, no. Marin? Marin, no. Obese?

Obesey I.

Obesey I. Miles?

Miles, no.

Miles, no. 12 to 25 to one.

Okay. With that, the motion fails. So we're back to what is before us, which is sub one. Supervisor Dewan.

Thank you, chair. I'd like to propose an amendment. I move to propose an amendment to sub one. I would like to, on line 65 to 66, remove the period and the strike through and restore the text and a minimum of one board or committee. And then on line 66, strike the words the and chairing the meeting.

Is there a second?

Second. A

second motion by Duhl and second by Witt to amend at line 65 through 66. Remove the period after I'm guessing that's after public, word public, and restore the text and a minimum of one board or committee.

Removing the strike through.

And then line 66, remove the strike through of the words the and chairing the committee. Oh, what? No.

I'd like to have it restored to what it was with the one exception of the a that's in front of as.

Did I

do that wrong?

Strike through is through the word committee. So you want that word back in.

Well, okay. So I gotta look at this.

On line 66.

Okay. So I wanna basically put the remove the period and and a minimum of one board. Or? Or. And it Strike the word

the is what you want.

Strike the word the, restore the word committee. So open to the public, committee member and a, oh, add the word a, a committee member shall be physically present for the entire meeting.

Well, let's look at how it exists now.

Yes, I wanna restore what it was.

Just reverse everything that was changed in that paragraph.

Okay. Yes. Simple enough. Thank you.

So that so it's to undo the edits to lines sixty five and sixty six.

Correct.

And I will read the entire sentence for clarity then how it would read from starting at line 64. Hybrid meetings shall be held at a physical location open to the public and a minimum of one board or committee member shall be physically present for the entire meeting.

Is that your Correct.

Okay. And that's what supervisor Ritt seconded. You may speak to your motion.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you chair and colleagues. I'm going to be direct about this. This rule change is unnecessary. It's exclusionary in its impact and it solves a problem that does not exist. We currently conduct hybrid meetings. Members participate remotely. They debate. They deliberate. They vote. And that and then the work of this board gets done. So let's be clear about what's happening here. We are not fixing a broken system. We are adding a barrier because exact that's exactly what it is.

Requiring the chair to be physically present says that leadership is contingent on the ability to travel to this building at a specific time under specific conditions regardless of whether the job can be done effectively without that requirement. And it can be. And it has been. The duties of the chair are to run the meeting, recognize speakers, maintain order, and ensure procedure is followed. None of those responsibilities require sitting in a specific chair a specific room.

They require competence, clarity, control of the meeting process, all of which can be exercised in a hybrid format. If the technology works for every other supervisor, it works for the chair. So when I hear concerns about control of the room, running an orderly meeting, let's call it what it is, that is a preference, not a necessity. And preferences should not be written into rules when they create barriers because the impact of this rule is not neutral. It falls hardest on people with disabilities, people with chronic or episodic health conditions, and people who cannot easily, reliably travel, especially from outlying areas of this county.

We all know that accessible transportation to the city county building is not a given. For some, it's difficult. For others, it's not realistically possible. So what this rule says, whether or not anyone intends it, is you can serve, but only if you can physically get here. That is a barrier.

When a public body creates a barrier that disproportionately affects people with disabilities, we should be asking serious questions about our obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which includes including whether reasonable accommodation are being allowed when the solution is already sitting right in front of us. Because in this case, the accommodation isn't theoretical. It already exists. It's the hybrid system we are using currently. Denying its use for the chair of a committee while allowing it for everyone else is not about function.

It's about drawing an arbitrary line. An arbitrary line that it that excludes people from leadership are bad policy. Now, if the concern is logistics, then let's solve the logistics. If someone needs to be physically there to manage the room, the vice chair of the committee or staff can do that. If there are procedural concerns, we can formalize them.

If there are technology concerns, then we should invest in better technology. But none of those issues require us to restrict who is allowed to lead. That is at the core of this. This rule narrows who can serve as a committee chair. It tells some people based on circumstances they may not control that they are less able to lead even when they are fully capable of doing the job.

That is not about improving governance. That's about limiting access. We should not be in the business of making public service harder to perform or leadership harder to attain when we already have the tools to make it more successful accessible because we're already doing it. The standard should be simple. Can the chair effectively run the meeting? If the answer is yes, then where are they physically located? Where they are physically located shouldn't matter. Anything else is a step backwards. So I encourage you to join me in voting yes for this amendment. Thank you.

Supervisor Weglietner.

Thank you, chair Miles. I have a question for Corp Counsel. If the chair could not attend in person And let's say there was an item of significant public interest on the agenda, a lot of in person participation was expected, maybe even demonstrations. This happens in our meetings and has happened several times this year and in the past at various standing committees and other committees of board and other government bodies. If that was expected, would is there a process?

What would be the process to would it be through suspension of the rules? Or could the chair designate another committee member? Or could the committee opt to have somebody in person facilitate chair that particular meeting if it was the wisdom of the committee that might be helpful because of the amount of in person interest, attention, and potential issues that could arise?

Can I interject? I'm sorry. The proposed amendment basically contemplates that if a if the elected chair of a body isn't able to be physically present, somebody else can be asked either vice chair or another member designee or the county board chair to be present to chair slash facilitate the meeting. I

would agree what chair Miles said. Even under our current rules, the vice chair will obviously be the first choice that could step in and actually run the meeting. If the vice chair is not there, the committee could vote for a chair pro tem, if necessary, unless they they could do it by unanimous consent, just having someone else physically be in the room during that during such a meeting.

Okay. So under current rules, that could happen. Right? Yes. And under the proposed change, that would just require the person chairing the meeting to be in person.

Yes.

But it doesn't mean that the chair of the committee, the the elected chair of the committee, can only be the chair of the committee if they can be there in person.

Yep. It doesn't mean that.

Yeah. Okay.

I I guess I'm I I appreciate the sentiments of my colleague about, you know, accessibility. And I think that's incredibly important, and and I love how we have used technology to make our processes much more inclusive and accessible. I have seen within the last six months a couple of meetings, where I'm participating on Zoom and I am not the chair of meetings that I think were challenging for a chair. This is a I'll I'll speak specifically. The Board of Health, there was a Board of Health meeting where the chair was chairing via Zoom.

And there were a lot of people in person in attendance. And it was very difficult for the chair, I think, to see what was happening in the audience of that meeting. And And that added a layer of complexity, I think the meeting got out of order, got a little out of control. And one of the factors in that, not the only one, but one of the factors was I think the difficulty of the chair to actually see what was taking place in the room and where people were and where they weren't and how people were approaching the table and the in person attendees at the committee. So anyway, that is the the challenge that that I see with this issue.

And I think I'm I'm not necessarily opposed to the existing rule, which is what supervisor Doolin's proposal would be, But I do think chairs, should be very mindful when, they're not able to be at committees in person because it might be a good idea to have somebody else who can be there in person chair that meeting. Because, we need to maintain, decorum in order and make sure everybody is able to feel safe and everybody gets to be heard, whether they're on Zoom or whether they're in attendance in person. So just something to think about.

Supervisor Andre.

Thank you, chair. I will, ditto supervisor Weigleitner's comments here. Only missed one meeting at PP and J in the six years I've been on the board and for that meeting I was gonna be remote so I asked someone else to chair it just for that exact fact that there's slips coming into the meeting and people coming up and lots of questions and stuff going on in the room that it's very difficult to tell is happening behind the scenes. And since someone else can chair a meeting without being the formal chair, I think we kind of deal with this issue proactively as much as we can. I think that it's also a really big challenge, frankly, for staff of standing committees to manage a lot of moving pieces.

If whoever is actually facilitating the meeting is remote, there's, I think a lot of back and forth that could happen there and create additional chaos. I do respect Supervisor Doolin's intent here. I'm, you know, very pleased that, you know, the county facilities are ADA accessible. We should still do more to make that the case and plan ahead wherever possible when there are unexpected situations going on. But I do think that we control for these issues already under our current rules and ordinances, and therefore I'm not supportive of making any changes. Thank you.

Supervisor Chabla.

Thanks, Chair Miles. I'm going be voting no on the amendment. One of the things that standing committee chairs get is they actually, they get, obviously they get elected by their peers on the committee, but also those positions receive extra compensation. So those standing committee chairs get a little bit extra compensation because they have to do extra work there. And I've seen many times when we've had meetings, we've had folks who have arrived late who want to register to speak.

You have attendees who are there in person who have questions. It might be their first meeting. And handling that remotely is difficult, so I also, when I'm not able to be in person, have deferred the chair to the vice chair. And I also think it's a good opportunity for different folks on the board to have an opportunity to learn how to chair a meeting, to get an opportunity to do that, to kind of try it out and see how that works in their shoes. And I think having that close relationship between the chair and the vice chair and all committee members allows it so we can have that fluid sort of leadership on a committee where if a chair is unable to be there in person for whatever reason, the vice chair can step in and we've had that happen many times with Einar and LCC, that's standing committee that I've been on throughout my entire tenure on the board.

So I'll be voting no on it, and I encourage my colleagues to vote no as

well. Thanks. Supervisor Ripp.

Thank you, Chair Miles. I rise in support of Supervisor Doolin's amendment. I think anything other than that is textbook ableism. Thank you.

Supervisor Engelberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate supervisor Doolin's attempt here on this. But I disagree with with how how we should do that.

I I believe we should be in the in the room cheering. I I've had one meeting where I where I was out of town on vacation, and I I was on the meeting, but I asked somebody else to chair because to chair in the room. She also mentioned about the people with disabilities. I'm disabled myself. And, you know, I guess one question I have for the chair is prior to you've been on the board since 2014 or '12 or something like that, 2006. Long time. Congrats. That's great. Twenty years.

It was me that time.

Prior to COVID, did we have any meetings that were online? No. We had none. I think we should really go back to that. I mean, looking at this room tonight, we've got 35 out of 37 supervisors in the room. I think that's great. We don't have any people in the galleys hardly. We have a few, but I've I've seen meetings here where we've had the galleys full. 75 people in the room on the sides. Nine people. Nine of us in the room. Crazy. And we had people speaking all night. I I just I'm I'm gonna vote against the amendment and I think, the rest of us should also.

Thank you. Supervisor Dolan for a second time.

Thank you. Well, the chair has different responsibilities. But that doesn't mean there's not different rights to access the role. A barrier doesn't have to be intentional to be real, and this one is entirely avoidable. If higher grade works well enough for every member to debate and vote, it works well enough for the chair to maintain order.

And if the chair needs to control the room, control of the meeting comes from rules and the chair's authority and not their physical proximity to a microphone every single time. Difficult isn't the same as impossible. And, you know, equating a vacation to a disability, not the same thing. Harder is not justification for an exclusion. If someone can do the job effectively, even if it's harder, we should be removing barriers, not codifying them.

Respectfully difficult isn't the same as unworkable. We are already running high meetings, members are participating, and if it works for the body, should work for the chair. The standard shouldn't be what's easiest under perfect conditions. It should be whether someone can do the job effectively. And if the concern is that it's harder, don't talk to me about harder.

Everything is harder for me. Everything is a 100 other tasks to do the same thing everybody else gets to do in this room. Everything. So because when harder becomes the justification then it stops being about logistics, it becomes the barrier and we shouldn't codify that in our rules. So that's all I have to say about that.

Supervisor Obese.

Thank you so much, chair. I rise to support this amendment, and the reason is because in my day in my day life, I am a human resource professional, and I deal with making accommodations and making sure that individuals with disability have the same equal rights to perform duties. And this meeting I saw, it says hybrid, so I don't see why we as a body should determine who if the chair should be in person. I I believe that decision should be left up to the chair to decide. Thank you.

Supervisor Weigleitner for a second time.

Thank you, chair Miles. And I appreciate the discussion. And when I rose earlier, I wasn't exactly sure where I was going to land because I was still trying to figure out the mechanics of the existing rules versus the change. But I think, well, I would encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment because I think, there are procedures in place for a majority of a committee to remove a chair if a chair is not doing their job. And if a chair can do their job remotely, they should have that opportunity, if they need it.

And I guess my concern that I stated earlier was with particular circumstances that are definitely outside of the normal committee experience. And as those circumstances arise, the chair could be, you know, conveyed to an in person supervisor as long as we have one in person supervisor like current rules provide. If that became a necessity, that could be handled within the committee process. So I guess I worry that the change is too big to address a very limited problem that can be addressed in a more inclusive and accessible way under the existing board rules. And I think if there is regularly a chair that is not physically present but sharing the meeting and the meetings aren't being run well, they can get the boot from a majority of the committee members.

There's democratic process for that. So I don't think we need to require the chair in all meetings to be physically present because I think while it is something I do and try to do because it's my preference, and also I live in a mile and a half from the the City County Building, and I bike to most meetings. And, you know, like I I don't have the accessibility issues that some other folks do and and I recognize that privilege. So I think the current rules allow us to address the sort of special circumstances and and we should, maintain it. So I support the, supervisor's amendment.

Okay. Supervisor Batra.

Thank you, chair. I I think there's a difference of what can happen at a meeting based on the size and the type of meeting it is and that expected public involvement. Having been to a couple parliamentarian conventions, there is invariably a breakout session on how to chair and run virtual meetings. It's a difficult process. But it's mainly a difficult process when you get to committees or meetings that have large public input.

That's where the problem comes. Our meetings, because of how they're set up, generally have a closed chat feature and have closed participation. Because of that, chairing a meeting remotely is much easier than chairing a meeting where you have active public participation. Participation in most of our meetings is extremely limited to the very beginning of the meeting. I would suggest to most of you, if you're gonna chair your meeting from home, best thing is during the public participation, let someone in the room handle it.

That's what needs to be done because the people in the room are trying to make something that you can't see. Most of our meeting facilities don't have active tracking cameras. Or if they do, they're sometimes not working. That's a plug for the Alliance Center Conference Room, which has issues. But going beyond that, when you're running meetings like this, if they're small enough, if they're remote enough, and if the participation is limited like our meetings are, which means only members can really speak, then chairing it isn't too bad.

Chairing this meeting? Probably a bad idea to do it remotely. So I hope the people, if this motion passes and I'm kind of neutral on it because it can work both ways. But if you get into one of the bigger committees where you have a lot of people in the room who are the public, don't cut them off from what the discussion is. Which if you try to chair remotely, you're cutting off a lot of the discussion due to the way that person is receiving information and putting it back to the room.

So I'd I'd love to sit here and actually do something about small meetings can get away with it, but larger ones shouldn't. But I'm not sure where you draw that line. But I do think we have a problem just generally saying the chairperson can always be remote. To me, that's too broad and does not reflect a lot of the bigger meetings where the public is here and wants to participate in the meeting, you're cutting them off from part of that.

Hey. Supervisor, do you have a question or something? Okay. So Duan requests a roll call vote. Supervisor Kemp.

Yes. Really quickly, I'm I'm not sure. Maybe this is a question for Carlos just to get some clarification on what supervisor Weidleitner just stated. She mentioned that there was a way to democratically remove chairs if they couldn't run the meetings properly. Is her description something that would rise to the level where someone could be removed? Say, for example, they they weren't able to to run a meeting properly?

Chapter seven does have a procedure for members of a standing committee to remove, the, the the chair of that committee. It would be up to those members to decide what would be sufficient reason to remove that that chair.

Okay. Do you

It's permanent removal

of the

chair, not for that meeting.

Okay. So it it would be what we're talking about is a permanent removal, not just for that that individual meeting, correct?

The process I'm referring to is permanent removal.

Okay. I don't think that that's necessarily what And maybe I don't want to speak out of turn, but it seems to me that the point of this initially was there have been some meetings recently that have gotten out of hand where, and we've probably already said this, where things have gotten out of hand and the person that was chairing the meeting was not available to control what was happening. My understanding is that everything that we have here in the building is ADA compliant. If there's issues with that, we should be addressing those certainly. The way I look at this, quite frankly, is everyone should have access to be a chair and to participate.

If, for whatever reason, the chair of that committee could not attend, if they have the authority to allow someone else to chair the meeting that can be present, they should do so. I had to do that multiple times with Chair Miles in the last term. So I don't necessarily think we should be limiting people from the opportunity to chair any of these committees. However, I do think that it's important to have some presence there. And it seems to me that at this point, right now, I would have to vote no for the amendment. Thank you.

Supervisor Yang.

Thank you, chair. I wasn't gonna say anything, but I will say something. In the past two years, I have lost a lot of my mobility and health privilege. I had three surgeries. I didn't really understand what accommodations really meant for people who have health issues until I personally had gone through that myself.

And I think a lot of people who don't have health issues, and I hope they never ever have to go through that but they don't really understand the need for accommodations as much as somebody who, if they don't have that accommodation, they can't do the work. And I think this amendment allows us to fight against ableism and to create spaces that are more not just accommodating but reflective of other people's abilities because we don't want to limit the type of people who have a chance to become a chair of committee. But if somebody has a health issue and they're like, I'm concerned that I might not be able to chair because I might not be able to come to those meetings as much as I can, we do not want to limit somebody from that space. And this will eliminate that for them. And they don't have to worry about that.

As somebody who's had a lot of health issues, I worry about accommodation a lot. And I think this is a great way to to eliminate that worry, and allow for different voices to also chair and allow for our values in inclusion and equitable practices, to exist in our policies and the way we chair. I understand that it's not, ideal to chair a meeting, virtually, and there can be a lot of logistical challenges. Absolutely. But I think that that we are smart enough to provide pathways or changes that we need to make sure that the meeting is handled properly.

But to not give this accommodation to to folks who want to chair, I think, is diminishing those who are struggling with health issues significantly. And I'm glad that most of us don't have to deal with that, and I hope none of us will ever have to deal with that. But for those who do and we can't, and that is our reality, we don't have a choice. So I would, encourage you all to consider that and put yourself in that person's shoes and, be kind. Thank you.

Resurrect for a second time.

Thank you, chair. Several supervisors have mentioned that this building is ADA accessible. It is. There are wide doorways. We have elevators. There are special bathroom stalls. There are buttons that open up doors. But outside of this building, life is not exactly ADA accessible. And chairing a meeting, it's not just about being inside this building. It's getting from your home inside the building. So just this building, it's not enough. So I encourage folks to support the amendment. Thank you.

Supervisor Weigleitner, you have a question.

Thank you. Yeah, question for Carlos. I just want it clarified for the supervisors. What would be the process under current rules if I was chairing a meeting remotely and halfway through the meeting, you know, 20 people showed up and started to create a ruckus. And, there was a member, perhaps, you know, a vice chair present in person.

What would is it possible then to, I don't know, through a vote of the committee or a designation of the chair, have the in person committee member start chairing the meeting at that point?

Yes.

Okay.

You just do it by, for unanimous consent given the circumstances of the meeting.

Right. And then separately, if I was chairing from home, and I that did not happen effectively and there were continuous meetings that were not being handled well and were out of order, could the committee I was chairing decide that they don't want me to chair anymore and, you know, remove me as chair by majority vote of the committee?

I don't know what the vote count is. Or by Yep. Voting There is a specific process that you could engage to remove the the standing committee chair permanently.

So one provision relates to in the event there's an emergent need to hand over the chair to admit another person to chair just for that meeting, there's a process under current rules that exist and there's also a different process and ability to ensure that, you know, the chair is in the long term acting in the best interest of the committee and leading the committee because they could be voted out if they don't, correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Supervisor Andre.

Alright. On this one, after debate, Supervisor Specher and Weg Leitner have me convinced. So I I think it just someone should be able to chair the meeting remotely in 90% of our typical cases in the event that it's not going well and they're cheering remotely. Just being really cognizant of passing it over for the meetings that someone in the room and planning ahead to make sure that someone else in the room can do that is all happening. My concern is the public getting their input heard during the process, and doing that I think is best facilitated by someone in the room, but that does not have to be the person who's chairing the whole meeting.

So as long as people can do that functionally and plan ahead to have someone in the room, I'm open to supervisor or dualism amendment. And I think this is for a very small number of cases where, as noted, very few meetings get to the level of raucousness, I think that's a good word, that would require switching around and making sure someone in the room is doing it. So if we can be more accessible, I think it's worth trying and adjusting if we need to along the way.

Reservoir, Toussios.

Thank you, chair. It's not

lost on me. This is my first meeting in this body. But I do simply want to point out that it might be worthy considering this, amendment as a bar for participation as an elected member of the body. I do think that keeping the language as it is without the amendment might send the message that some people are more worthy of being chair even if the bar that's being set to be chair, would not impact the function or ability to have the meeting progress normally in the aggregate case. Thank you.

Alright. With that, the board is clear. So a roll call has been requested.

I. Smith I. Trusius. Trusius I. Trusius I. Valdrin. No. Valdrin. Wegleitner. I. Wegleitner. I.

Blazewitz I.

Blazewitz I. Betcher. Aye. Bally I. Bali guy, Brand Meyer.

Brand Meyer I.

Brauer. Brauer I. Chavla. Chavla no Dansler. Dansler I. Dulan. Dulan I. Downing. Aye. Downing I. Iker. Aye. Iker I. Engelberger. No. Engelberger. Erickson. Aye. Erickson I. Fries. Aye. Fries I. Fermin

Furman I.

Furman I. I, Glaser.

Glaser I.

Glaser I, gray.

Gray eye.

Gray eye. Eye. Hussleman.

Hussleman I.

Hussleman I. Jackson I. Jackson Kemp. Kemp I. Kemp I. Crowning. I. Crowning I, Larson. Larson, absent. Let's see. Where am I?

She's there.

We can come back. Lewis.

Lewis I.

Lewis I. Marron. Marron Marron I. Obizi. Aye. Obizi. Aye. Miles.

Miles, no. Miles, no.

It's thirty two to four right now.

K. And and then one absence Yeah. And Larson absent. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Alright. With that, the motion passes. Larson put in the chat, she abstains. Sub what? Abstain. So so with that, the motion the dueling motion passes and sub one is amended by the dueling amendment. So that's what we're back to. Any further motions? Otherwise, discussion on the main motion.

Okay. This is the one time. It will be by simple majority vote to change our board rules. Supervisor Eicher.

Thank you. Just had a quick question. Oh, goodness. It's line the section on abstentions, I don't actually need a line number. I am curious what our definition of personal interest is.

Did we have a definition of personal interest? I think financial interest is pretty clear. But I'm very curious as to the definition of personal interest. As to what application that's going to have, what's that what does that mean? I mean, I have a personal interest in a lot of things. Is that going to preclude me from voting on certain items, or will I need to disclose that? Just curious.

Okay. I'm gonna invite court counsel, if you wanna I can try. Do that or otherwise.

So the phrase personal interest, you're correct, is not defined in chapter nine. The language, however, has its origins from the City Of Madison ordinances. City Of Madison ordinances define personal interest as something to the effect of it's not very helpful, but it means any interest greater than nominal, direct, or indirect arising from family or business connections, political connections, or other associations. So when if I were to give you guys advice if this were to pass, my advice would be that if you have a connection that is concerning or beyond just a passing interest, that you would just def you would definitely disclose it in the first place because it's safer to disclose it rather than to try to, interpret it or negotiate it away because for for whatever reason. Now when you talk about abstention, you know, the abstention is always a personal choice that supervisor has to make.

The personal interest there, however broad it is, is further kind of defined to be a personal interest to the extent that such interest conflicts or appears to conflict with their with your official duties or impair or reasonably expected expected to to impair impair their independence of judgment or actions. So that discussion that, if someone were to approach me, would be a much more in-depth discussion, right, as to what is the nature of the personal interest? Is it a familial one? If so, how close to it? If it's a political one, definitely, we'll talk about what that means in relation to whatever the subject matter might be before the supervisor.

A lot of these discussions are gonna be pretty fact intensive, but you are absolutely correct that it is, I think, intentionally broad to catch, things that might slide through the cracks. And the only kind of I think the abstention, section of it will require a lot more fact intensive inquiry before someone to say, well, if if you have this type of interest, you definitely have to abstain versus, one that it's gonna require us to sort of investigate it together.

K. Anyone else? Questions, discussion?

Alright.

What is before us now is sub one amended by the dual amendments is the main motion. So all in favor of approval, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries.

The board rules have been adopted. So let me get back to my agenda. Alright. So with that being taken care of, we're on to on two f, entertain a motion to designate the official newspaper for the twenty six twenty eight board years. Is there a motion, I think, are present Present newspaper of record is the Wisconsin State Journal.

So I would welcome that motion. Supervisor Beldman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'll I'll move that the official paper record is Wisconsin State Journal.

Moved by Beldren. Was that Peterson? Seconded by Peterson to designate Wisconsin State Journal as our official newspaper for the board term. Any discussion? And on that motion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. And the motion carries, and Wisconsin State Journal is our official newspaper. Alright. On to other such such other business as the county board authorized to conduct by law, which I I have this echo in my head that that there is no such thing.

But this is But here we go. We're on to our ethics training tonight presented by our corporation counsel. And we ask that any questions you have for Carlos that you would hold them to the end of the presentation. Thank you. Oh, oh, sorry.

Good evening, everyone. I realize that I am what stands before you and ending your evening tonight. So I will be as thorough as I can and as efficient as I can with the ethics presentation that we're about to undergo here. The issue of ethics is always, unfortunately, never black and white. And it's going to require a lot of discussion, either internally with yourself, if it's something that you want to take on yourself, or if you have questions about may be an ethical issue, reach out to me or someone else in my office.

These questions can you can tie yourself up in knots about them. But there's a kind of a quick test I will show you at the end that should kind of help you guys kind of go through them as we as we proceed. But let's just go ahead and get started. So ethics, again, the purpose essentially has always been to prevent undue influence, self dealing, and disappearance of impropriety. It's also helped help the public, the constituents believe that they to have some confidence in what we're doing here, right?

That the decisions are being made based upon what they want, what they have asked for you to sort of look out for, rather than for something more provincial in your own interests. Ethics ordinances that we have come from state law. And then we've also added additional ordinances ourselves. They're straightforward, but again, modern day experiences really change how they apply to your specific case, given all coming from different backgrounds, different employers, different connections in the community. You know, Madison and the Dane County area is not very large, so there's going to be a lot of kind of crossover effect between your role here and your personal roles at home.

Alright. Who? So ethics rules apply to all county officials. That includes you as as elected supervisors as well as county employees. We're only gonna talk about those rules that apply to you, though, tonight. So what? In general, they seek to prevent the county officials from using your office or position to gain to for any personal gain. They try to prevent you to ignore. They want to prevent you from ignoring any conflicts of interests. And they don't and they want to prevent you from being inappropriately influenced.

All right. So Wisconsin Statute nineteen fifty nine is the code of ethics ethics for local government officials. These apply to everyone statewide if you're in a municipality. And the number one that falls underneath it is that you cannot use your office for private gain, right? The language here specifically says you can't use your office for personal financial gain or for anything of value, quote unquote, or for gain of your immediate family member or for an associated organization.

That's state law. You cannot offer or receive anything of value, which means you can't solicit or accept from any person anything of value if it could reasonably be expected to influence a vote or an action. Our ordinances has gone so far to define what it means to be anything of value. And essentially, it breaks down to something, anything at all, that has a value of $13 and and above or $39 yearly. So this bar is extremely low.

Right? And so this goes back to kind of we talked about originally. Actually, I I surprised that Iker kind of brought up this idea of disclosures, right? And this idea of it's better safe than sorry to make sure that if you do feel like there's something of value out there, that you just recognize it as such and you take the action that's required. You also cannot take action on a matter which you have a financial interest, right?

So you can't take you can't vote or take any official action if you or your immediate family member, an affiliate organization has a substantial financial interest in the matter. We define substantial financial interest as anything that you have to disclose in your disclosure forms when you'd when you have filed on the county clerk's office. You cannot use your office to create a substantial benefit for yourself or your immediate family or an organization you're associated with. Immediate family means a spouse or domestic partner or any relative who receives half more of your of financial support from the officer that's in question or provides half or more support. And then associated with an organization is actually somewhat limited.

It just means you it implies to you or your immediate family that serves as a director, trustee, or controls at least 10% of a business' equity or if you serve as an authorized representative. So that's one of those rare situations where your membership in an organization isn't necessarily going to be triggered as something as you have you being associated with under the statute as long as you're not a board member, a director, or someone that's authorized representative in it. You cannot take action on a manner which you have a financial interest. So if you're faced with this, you must not, a, participate in any discussion, deliberation, or vote, and you have to ask to be recorded as abstaining. What often gets missed when there is when an elected official realizes there is a conflict, they believe that, well, I'm gonna go ahead and abstain.

But before they do so, they're jumping in and talking about the the matter, you know, and put putting their 2¢ in, and that's not really what the statute contemplates. The statute requires it contemplates someone making the decision, Okay, I have a conflict here. I need to sort of step back and not get involved. But you have to do that from the beginning. You can't just assume that your abstention is in and of itself sufficient to avoid any potential ethical conflicts.

We're going to shift to now our Dane County Chapter 9. It's local ethics code. It incorporates what we just talked about under statute. But it also adds a few other things. We've added a few years ago a requirement under our ethics code to prohibit elected officials from engaging in sexual harassment or discrimination on various bases.

An interesting quirk that many organizations have is that those sexual harassment policies or that those policies that prohibit sexual harassment, the laws that prohibit kind of discrimination, they tend we the organizations tend to focus the application of those, the implementation of those on employees, and often forget that elected officials don't really have a direct connection to it. So in order to remedy that a few years ago, we actually added that as part of the ethics code for county officials. You cannot use or disclose information that you gained in the course of your service unless it's already in the public record if it's going to somehow result in you gaining something of value. Again, more than $13 You cannot use your office for influence or gain. This is very common through a lot of ethnicity schools throughout the country.

That's kind of sometimes called the don't you know who I am rule. That someone's going out there saying, I think you're going to want to do this for me because a very important supervisor on the county board. So that's unlikely perhaps, but it is something that a lot of jurisdictions have adopted. You cannot use this sometimes comes up you cannot use any county property, for either partisan or nonpartisan political activity unless that property is available to anyone else in the public. There is not a specific list of property that we have in our ordinances, but it is there is a list of specific property we have in our ordinances, but it's not inclusive.

Sometimes what comes up is the use of email, like counties provided email for parson or nonparson activity. That tends to be an issue sometimes, and that should be avoided because that would be considered a county resource. Anything that you are be able you can access because of your role as a supervisor is a county resource. Section nine twenty eight deals with a kind of specialized situation with supervisors who happen to represent private interests before a county entity. If anyone falls in that camp, please reach out to me individually.

I can sort of guide you through it. Our ordinances kind of acknowledge that that might be a possibility, and there are certain exceptions that where we could sort of investigate to see if whether or you can take advantage of, to still sort of meet your private, responsibilities, but also not run afoul of the ethics code. This is sometimes called as log rolling. You cannot trade your vote for or against an item for the vote of another supervisor on a different item or for a modification to an ordinance amendment or resolution or in exchange for a veto or non veto of an item by the county executive. Similarly, you cannot accept anything of value, like fees or expenses, for an activity unless you can demonstrate the activity is not related to the use of county time or materials and that there's no relationship to your office.

That second one is the big exception to that one are actual and reasonable speaker fees, like honorariums. The our ordinances recognize that in many ways, those kind of assist the county those are for the county's benefit, not necessarily for your own personal benefit. There's also an exception in our ordinances to reflect that certain political committees regulated by Chapter 11 can provide such fees to you. You may not accept anything of value which consists of transportation, lodging, meals, food or beverage, or reimbursement. But again, you can accept these items if you can show that it was received primarily from the benefit of the county, like I mentioned.

Example a good example or a good sort of category of those exceptions would be if you were to receive the benefit, if it would actually prevent the county from paying the expense, instead. So a good example would be if someone were to say, we are going to we want you to attend a conference. We're gonna, make sure your meals are paid at that conference. The county has a per diem that they would have to pay otherwise. So often, our employees kind of take advantage of that so that the county itself doesn't have to pay out for the per diems.

That would be permitted under the ethics code. There's also an exception here for payments from political committees, kind of similar to the one we just discussed. Now disclosures. Section 9.36 explains the requirements you must follow if you receive anything of value in how to disclose. I will tell you that the process is somewhat wonky.

It requires you, if you decide I think there's a provision there that says if you decide to keep it, you need to submit the value of whatever the thing of value was to the treasurer's office, and the treasurer's office then needs to keep a record of it. My editorial statement of that is it just looks bad. So really consider whether or not it's worth taking advantage of that process and talk to me or someone from my office if you are considering that. The Incarnate Ornstein's nine point six zero and nine point six one deals with the statements of economic interests, which I think many of you have already completed. And then this last one is in red because I wasn't sure that the body was going to adopt the changes we just made to disclosures.

So we're going to go to breaking news here, thanks to all of you, and spend a little bit more time, about this new ordinance that everyone has passed. I'm going to read it just kind of I don't want to bore everyone, but I think it's helpful just to sort of read it out loud and then give anyone a chance to sort of ask questions about it. I will be upfront and say, this is new to us as well. Oftentimes, these ethics rules, we get a good sense as to how they're going to be applied after some unfortunate first issues come up. So but I wanted to sort of be able to sort of address any kind of generalized questions tonight and then sort of focus my research afterwards if there are some questions that we should kind of look into after we discuss them today.

So, as we mentioned before, so section one deals just with disclosures, right? And it's basically, in your case, is a supervisor who has or whose immediate family member has a substantial financial interest, right? Let's take that separately. That one we've already discussed, right? That's anything that you've already kind of disclosed in your economic interest. Or a personal interest, we've also discussed this. That could be anything above a monocum of a contact between a business, political association, family member, or whatever. So it's really low bar. That in a matter pending before you, right, then this ordinance requires you to disclose it. And again, and I really I can't stress this enough.

I think the practice should be better safe than sorry, right? Because even if it's not a real story, the the failure to disclose might make it a story, and it's better just to disclose it if you if you can. I I know as this kick gets kicked in, once this kicks in, and many of you are gonna have questions about it because we haven't had to do this before, I'm happy to discuss those with you offline. And if there is some kind of general guidance that comes from those discussions, I will provide it to the board. Number two deals with abstentions.

And as we talked about before, this one requires kind of a higher bar, a higher level of inquiry for members of the body. So the county official shall abstain from discussing, deliberating, and voting on the matter under consideration if they or an immediate family member has a substantial financial interest, again, we know what that is, or a personal interest. But here's the qualifier, right? Both of those, or either of those I should say, need to be to the extent as judged by you as a supervisor and again, if you have questions, please reach out to me or someone from my office that those interests you believe conflicts or appears to conflict with your official duties or would impair or reasonably expected to impair their independence of judgment or actions. Again, this is a brand new rule.

I invite anyone that feels if there's something like in the agenda that's coming up for your first meeting after this one that you feel, hey, this might be something that I need to abstain on, please contact our office. Quite frankly, these discussions have been occurring for many years with me. A lot of members kind of reach out because of their employment or they just want to make sure what should I do here. So I'm happy to answer those questions moving forward. I will invite questions afterwards, I guess.

But let's move on. But please write them down if you have any. Okay. No private interest in public contracts. So our ordinances say you cannot participate in the making of a contract in your capacity as a board member if you have a direct or indirect financial interest in the contract.

So essentially, if you have any skin in the game about a resolution that authorizes the contract, then you abstain from voting on it. Now, the flip side of this one is a little bit more complicated. However, you cannot, in your private capacity, negotiate, bid, or enter into a contract which you have a direct or indirect financial interest if you are authorized or required by law to participate in your public capacity in the making of the contract. So what the example that comes to mind is one that was written in an AG opinion many years ago, where there was a town member, I believe, who was a member of a committee that ultimately kind of would vote on recommending whether or not land should be purchased. Right?

This town member owned some land that the town was interested in purchasing. This town member negotiated with the agency, or not even agency, like the member of the town board that was kind of in charge of kind of soliciting and acquiring that land. Then when the deal came up before the committee that he was in, he abstained. He thought he was fine by doing that. This statute, which is a criminal actual felony statute, does prohibit you from doing that.

So the way I try to think about it is that whereas the one previously comes into place when you just happen to see a contract that you have some direct or financial interest in, you can abstain and step away because that is affecting you in your public capacity and your official capacity. What you can't do, though, is be the initiator of the negotiations or engage in those negotiations at all. And by the time and if you do, by the time that contract comes back to you as part of your official duties, it's too late. You've already committed the felony violation, honestly. You know, I don't I can tell you that this probably criminal statute hasn't been used in many, many years, but it is puts it will put you at risk.

So my big takeaway here is if you have something that you want to negotiate with the county, you you should really think whether or not that is something you want to pursue. Because the minute you start negotiating, if it ends up coming back to you, the violation might have already occurred. And again, if this ever is a possibility, please, please, please reach out

to me.

I am happy to go into a lot of discussion and a lot of inquiry with it about it. My office is here to sort of assist you with all of these. There are other provisions that other state laws can come into play, too, which is one is you cannot be employed or appointed to a new position or an office that was created during your term in office. So if this seems unlikely given our budget constraints, but if we were to create positions in the 2027 budget and you thought to yourself, I really wouldn't mind doing x for the county, You would not be eligible to apply for that position and hold that position under state law. This other one is a that's another federal stat sorry, criminal statute.

You cannot intentionally fail or refuse to perform a known mandatory non discretionary duty within the required time period. You cannot take any action that you know is forbidden by law to do it in an official capacity. And you cannot either act or by act or by omission and exercise discretionary power inconsistent with the duties of the office in order to obtain a dishonest advantage. That language is kind of broad. And again, it will have to be a situation where we look at what the circumstances are, and then we kind of go over that statute together to see whether or not it applies to your specific case.

But it it's essentially trying to prohibit the misconduct in office. And it goes requires sort of investigation to your intention as to why you took action or you didn't take action. So it's really fact intensive as well. So I imagine all of you are sitting back saying, like, I've heard a lot of words being thrown at me, and I still don't know what to do if something were to come up. And that is a fair, fair criticism.

There are a few things that we kind of I can try to point to you to sort of guide you a little bit, at least in your initial inquiry. One is, what's the nature of the decision that you're about to vote on, right? The reason why that's important is if you are going to make a decision that's a little bit more quasi judicial, one where you're a specific set of facts to whether or not you're to take an action, that's a bigger deal. That's a situation where I think you should really reach out to our office sooner than later and so we can discuss it. Because there is more of a possibility that's going to be an ethical issue for you.

Ask yourself, does the matter involve a public contract in which I have a direct or indirect financial interest? Again, on the side of being careful. Reach out to our office. We're happy to answer those questions. And then simply, does the action affect myself, a member of my family, or an organization with which my family member or I are associated?

Again, all of these, you know, in many cases, if any of these are yes, that I think should inspire you unless you're confident in your decision to reach out to our office to have a discussion about it. Now, I promised you there is like one piece of practical advice that I always tell people, and it's this one. Does it pass a smell test? Right? Are you would you be comfortable if you were to imagine maybe a political operative or maybe a political candidate you don't necessarily care for doing what you're contemplating doing and reading about it in the paper, right?

If it makes you feel, ugh, or makes you feel like, well, I'm not sure if I would like that person, or consequently, I'm not sure if I want people to know I did x if that were to come out, that is pro that's the trigger to sort of follow. That's your decision right there. That's your decision to abstain. That's your decision to avoid any further, discussions about that matter. And at a minimum, that's your decision to reach out to our office.

Again, key thing here is we are here to help. We can provide confidential advice for you. Otherwise, the Dane County Ethics Board can handle complaints, And they can also provide an advisory opinion to you as well. And with that, any questions? A lot of words, no answers. It's lawyer's favorite thing, right, to answer a question as, well, it depends on the facts. And in this case, I think that's I guess that would be my last lesson to everyone here is, well, number one, reach out to us. Number two, it will depend on the facts, and we're happy to look at those facts together.

Okay. We're good.

Okay. Okay. Supervisor Hillsman, you have a comment or question?

Yeah. When we're talking about personal, let's say, our a child or, elderly parent or c or, you know, ourselves, whoever within our immediate care, receives services through the county or that are handled through the county such as, like, CCS or even disability or aging and disability services. Is that something you need to abstain? Like, when those contracts come through, you need to abstain from those, or is that not considered a personal?

I'm sorry. I really couldn't couldn't understand you.

Your supervisor I'll try turning up the volume, but your your audio is sounding a little garbled.

Okay. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. So my question is it would let's say ourselves, a child in our care, or an elderly parent, receive services that are, you know, come to the county such as CCS or aging and disability or similar, would that be considered a personal one?

It it would be considered a personal interest. It it would probably, depending on the circumstances, not be one where abstention would be required, but that would be something you would have to sort of look at the nature of what's before you. Like, I give an example. If it's something like, if there's a specific service that a supervisor is enjoying that they're receiving under human services, and the question before that supervisor is, shall we terminate this service, that might be an issue where abstention is appropriate.

Okay. But what if it's like a contract, like CCF we get CCS contracts for example at HHN and then at the board. And let's say we or our children or somebody in our care received services through CCS, is that something that we would move along and save them?

It would be something you would want to disclose, but it's not something that I I given what you just described, not something based upon the facts you presented, something I would say necessarily would require an abstention.

Alright. Thank you.

Supervisor Beldron.

Thank you, mister chair. Carl's real without opening a big camera arms.

Yep.

Can these be challenged by other supervisors at meetings? Or if, like, I know this person, and they're not saying anything? Is there a is there a proper procedure? Or is that in statute or in ordinance? I mean, these are new. Right? Part of this is new. It's like, I know this person does has that or something.

There's a couple of things that we could point to. Right? So Robert's rules and our own County Board rules require us to be respectful in our meetings. So standing up and saying, Supervisor Veldrin didn't disclose x may be problematic. I believe it would be appropriate for a fellow supervisor to challenge what should it's essential, at least definitely for the disclosure and actually for the abstention, challenge what should be a personal decision of the supervisor who's making it.

Thanks.

Supervisor Nguyen.

Thank you, chair. So for example, under supervisor Hussleman's example, when would be the appropriate time and place to disclose such information?

I believe the ordinance I believe we've added to our agenda a I think this is right. Sorry, I didn't see what

Yeah. It's Yeah. We just adopted tonight places it in two agendas as declared or codified in ordinance. The ordinance for our agendas for board meetings and for the budget deliberations. They're under announcements.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yep, we just updated the agenda with that.

So from a practical standpoint, that's an opportunity to declare that at the outset of the meeting. But I would recommend for the ease of record keeping and minutes and so forth that you would repeat that disclosure and or abstention at the point of that particular item on the agenda.

Okay. Thank you for clarification.

Supervisor Weigleitner.

Thank you, Chair Miles. I should know this because I was involved at least in early stages of drafting. But do does the disclosure and abstention provision, isn't it in one that also applies to committee agendas? Or is that a housekeeping follow-up change that might be?

My review of the OA1 is it does not apply to committee agendas. Okay.

Then my other question oh, it's just in response. You had information that a colleague not that this would ever happen, but that they did not disclose and abstain and they had a substantial financial or personal interest that impacted them, you could file an ethics complaint with the ethics commission, correct? That would probably be the right direction to go if you chose to do that. Not like

Yep. 100% agree. That that's the purpose of the ethics board and the ethics complaint process.

That's explained in 9.7 of the ordinance. Supervisor Welch.

Thank you, Chair. This might turn into a question, but I think it's maybe a comment to start with. If I'm understanding this correctly, under the personal interest, if any of if I or my family members are receiving any county services, that would need to be disclosed not necessarily abstained, but disclosed.

If there's a matter before you like, again, the example I gave. If there's a contract that you're benefiting from or your family's benefiting from, that would be something that the supervisor should potentially air on disclosing?

So my concern here is and why I'm really concerned about the personal interest thing is so say, you know, being on Health and Human Needs, there is a contract for the county to expand their children's long term support waiver, I would then have to disclose potentially that my child has a disability.

Potentially, yes. Or if,

you know, I needed to seek services at the Rape Crisis Center or Days, then I would have to disclose that.

Potentially, yes. Okay.

That sucks. Can a person abstain without disclosure? Horrifying.

I would say, yeah, they could. Other

questions or discussions? Discussion? Supervisor Trusios. Yeah. I have

two two items. As far as trading votes, my understanding was that you can trade a vote if it's the same item with another supervisor trading a vote on the same item that's coming before you at the same time, not different items. Is that is that correct? No. No trading at all? No. No swapping? No. Great. It did say different. And then for anything of value, what about family, significant others, or people who you have commingled finances with?

So what's your question in terms of how

If I go out to dinner with my significant other and they pay for dinner?

No. No, it's related to your position as county board supervisor. So if it's outside of that, then it's fine. Okay, great.

Supervisor Abizi.

Thank you. So when you say family, immediate family, is that like my wife, my daughter, or does that include brother, sister, mother, father?

Yep. So immediate family is defined in our county code of ethics. It means individual's spouse or domestic partner, individual's relative by marriage, lineal descent or adoption. There's a whole list of definitions here, which I can go over with you.

Anyone else? Oh, supervisor Hilsman. Go ahead.

So with this going back to the disclosure questions. Are we going to impinge on any HIPAA laws possibly here with having to disclose like possible mental health or disabilities or other things that people might receive services for that then they'll have to disclose, which are protected under HIPAA laws.

It it is definitely an issue that we will have to research going forward on this one. Thank

you.

Okay. With that, I hold on a second. Okay. With that, I'm seeing no one else with a question. So I'll just open my agenda. So, thank you, Carlos, very much for Sure. Our inaugural ethics training during organizational meeting. So

Sadly, you will see me again.

So with that, that takes us on to adjournment. Moved by Posler, seconded by Obese to adjourn. All in favor adjournment, aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Those online, stay online. Let's not shut the meeting off because we're gonna bring everybody up here to do a photo. And so if you can, those of you online, if you can and are willing, please turn on your cameras for the photo.