Charter Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright, Peter. Let's go ahead and kick this keep going here with Okay. The roll call.

Jennifer's here. Chatters? Here. O'Donnell? Here. Cass? Here. Decker? Here. Here. Here. Here. Dodd? Here. Mencky? Here. K Mink? Here. McGee? Here. Eslick? Here. James? Here. Gaily? Here. K. Everyone's here.

Okay. Great. Roll call. We got everybody here. And with that, before we do approval of the agenda, Peter, can you give us the constraints of the evening? Do we need to be out by a certain time, all that sort of thing?

09:00.

09:00? Yep. Let's pray we don't go that long. Okay. Can get an approval of the agenda, please?

I'd I'd like to to, add something to the agenda if I could.

Okay. So if we could do

long enough.

If we get a motion to approve it, and then we'll do an amendment, with any additions.

So moved. Second.

You have a motion to approve the agenda and a second discussion. Any amendments?

Yeah. I'd like to add, public hearings, to it. Ideally, before we get into the proposals because in our rules and procedures, we have we're supposed to have three public hearings, and we don't have any on our calendar.

On the agenda?

We do have pre public hearings like that.

No. There's meetings on the website.

Will the public hearings be at thirteen twenty and twenty seven? Is that the idea, Peter?

As of right now, we've noticed those as public hearings. Yes.

Okay. Posted on Is county website. Yeah.

What's the difference between a public hearing and a meeting?

Ben? That's a Ben question.

Okay.

Well Is what?

I mean by

Oh. Discuss it.

Hello? Yeah.

So the public meeting, just just like this, we take public comment, do regular business. The public hearing, there's a specific portion where we take comment on specific issues for the specific record. So here, when someone makes public comment, that's great. You know, we hear from them or you as commissioners hear from them their ideas. The public hearing is a very specific record about those specific things for the public hearing.

In this case, it's likely the public hearing was noticed something about amendments to the charter or something along those lines or discussion of the charter. So that is a very particular record. And when decisions are made, typically, the public hearing is the record that is used for those decisions. In this case, it's it's not set up necessarily that way, but it does have a very particular record for that.

Robin, does that satisfy your thoughts?

I mean, it answers the question of what's the difference, but we're not having public hearings. And so if we're not going to have public hearings, then we should decide that we're not going to have public hearings, and we should change our procedures.

Well, the public hearings will come up on the thirteenth, twentieth, and the twenty seventh for the topics that are moving forward towards the ballot as I understand it.

Could could we get a description of the difference between how a meeting is noticed when it's a meeting versus a public hearing? Are there different notice requirements?

Typically, yes. For this commission, there are not. So for this commission, the notice for a public hearing doesn't have the same standards that it would, for instance, for city council public hearing. If we're going to do land development or make some decisions like that, it's typically somewhere like seven days or twenty one days depending on what the the issue is. With the Charter Commission, there are no set there's no set guide for what those specific time periods are that it needs to be noticed.

So Peter has decided and and we decided that it would be a good thing to get it earlier rather than later. So we notice those now so that that folks know that there is a public hearing, the thirteenth, twentieth, and twenty seventh. And those discussions will be about the the items that are moving forward for from this commission. So

it's it's as simple as basically on the thirteenth and the twentieth and the twenty seventh meetings, noting in the noting in the agenda that they're gonna be public hearings held at the meetings, and then we put that notice out there if it's need if we need Yes. So we just add it to the agenda and make sure

it's That's great. That's great. Thank you.

Amanda, go ahead.

Thank you. So I'm readjusting because you said it's different from city council meetings, and that's the bulk of my experience. So, you know, as the city

of Bothell, we have a

paper of record. It goes out on our social media to our mailing list. What is our notification process for this commission? I don't think we have social media set up or anything.

I can take that. A press release went out to all of the major news publications, and I know a few of them ran with the story. The Herald, unfortunately, did not. But I sent it to my Edmunds News and they've got a bunch of little entities throughout that I know they ran it there as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Any other discussion? So with that, this the the only thing I have on the floor is the approval for the agenda. All those in favor? Aye. And any opposed? Okay. We have an agenda and let's go to public comment. Is there anybody, online who wishes to provide public comment?

If you'd like to provide public comment, please raise your virtual hand. I see Abby Ludwig. Abby, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, great. Okay. Hi. I'm Abi Lubig. I'm cofounder of Standing for Washington who sponsored Everett Initiative for

Hold on sec. Here. Here. Is she gonna go get some external speakers? Why don't we why don't we hold on public comment? Because we wanna hear Mhmm. And we can't hear her.

One second, Abby. We're gonna get some speakers.

Okay.

Abby, can you say something again?

Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Yeah.

See if the remote mic will broadcast you better better.

Hello? Hello? Whoop. We got an echo. Sorry.

Yeah.

Okay. So here we wanna make sure we hear the public comment.

She's on

the phone with IT right now.

So Okay.

Can Jennifer talk? Jennifer,

can you talk, please?

Yes. I will gladly. Oh. Now more echo maybe.

Is there an echo?

No. I was Oh. There was just

We're in business.

Okay. Sound. I think it was you saying, oh.

I was very excited. Thank you, Elena. Okay. Abby, you're up.

Okay. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. Oh, perfect.

Okay. Great. Thanks for working through those issues to make sure you guys could hear me. Okay. So I'm Abi Ludwig. I'm cofounder of Standing for Washington who sponsored Everett Initiative twenty four zero three, which we Everett passed in November 2024 to protect the Snohomish River watershed. So I'm here as a voice for the 25,000 Everett citizens who wanted to make sure that their government prioritizes that protection. Okay. So at the last commission meeting on April 22, commissioner Toyer asked for the full list of proposals that came before this commission to me made. He wanted to view that, and the commission coordinator said that there was a spreadsheet on your SharePoint drive.

So we know that that list exists. Quickly, commissioner Chatters followed up, and that's at minute thirty in the in the recording. It's not in the meeting minutes. And had a very strong request that that list be made to the public. A comprehensive list of all proposals that came before this commission that were considered, including who voted, what it was about, and especially as you guys are having public hearings coming up, I I think that's even more important. So now has that been done? No. It hasn't. That comprehensive list available is not available to the public. And why not?

So that was a request made by an elected commissioner of this Charter Review Commission to its commission staff. Is that staff person not serving this commission and each commissioner on the commission? If the staff does not do what is requested by a commissioner, how are they held accountable? I'd also like to get on record that I requested that information on March 25 as we were nearing the deadline to submit public proposals, and it would have been very helpful to know what else had been submitted and what else the public was asking for. I also made the request on April 2.

I made the request on April 8, and I've made it several times in public testimony. So the commission staff is not responding to public requests, to information that he admit exists, nor the commissioner's requests to make that existing information available to the public. Because why? He's choosing not to. Does he have the authority to do that?

Lastly, I'd like to remind everyone listening that the hiring of this commission coordinator was questions with an ethics complaint by One Voice Snohomish because they had concerns about his employment with a political consulting firm in Everett, Washington, which has ties to developer interests. And it sure seems we can say now that those concerns have been validated. The staff hired by this commission needs to be held accountable to the public as well to its commissioners. And I'm asking who's gonna do that? Who has the authority to hold him accountable and to make that list, that one request that was made to make that list available? Thank you.

K. Do we have anybody else, Peter?

Yes.

Catherine Catherine Lewandowski, you should be able to unmute.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. Great. Thanks. Oh, yeah. Catherine Lewandowski. I am a semi retired registered nurse here in Arlington, Washington. And I just wanted to make some comments on proposal four and eight, both. One, yes, I do feel like the citizens of Snohomish County need more representation and that the county council should be increased to seven members. So I don't really feel we're getting the adequate represent representation that we really deserve right now. And, also, on proposal eight, that's another proposal that I think is very important, specifically for me.

You know, I I'm sure you guys are all aware that I'm a registered nurse, and I'm concerned about health care. And I have patients that I have taken care of and have been concerned about. And it's been really frustrating, to see how we don't really have adequate representation when when some of our elected officials are holding two offices. The other thing, I think, too, is that when you've got them holding two offices, and that isn't being like the the it seems like it's being encouraged rather than discouraged rather than trying to find more, like, younger represent representatives to handle these different positions. Because the more diversity you have, the more people that you have, the more experiences you have.

And because just one person, whether, you know, many people think that, you know, I was I've been around the world. I'm I know everything, and we don't. We don't know everything on how it affects other people who are living in different situations in Snohomish County. So I think it's really important that we try to do whatever we can to minimize because it doesn't seem like it seems like this is an intentional thing, and and I feel like it shouldn't be. We should be intentionally trying to have more diverse representation and trying to spread those those positions of of being able to put input into how we live and work and, you know, in in our county, in our state.

It needs to be spread through more people, not less. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Catherine. Anybody else, Peter?

Let me

If you would like to speak, please raise your virtual hand. I don't see anyone else.

Okay. And do we have anybody in the audience?

Yes. I don't.

Okay. Alright. So with that, we'll move forward with the agenda. Can I get approval of the April, please?

I'll make that motion. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve those minutes. All those in favor?

Aye.

And any opposed? All right. All right. Let's move forward then on our agenda and we'll take up first, sorry. I guess I'm getting the wrong piece of paper. Proposal number four, proposal related to expanding the county council to seven members. Peter, a couple of things refresh. So at the at section one, these ones need a seven?

These one so I'll kinda give a lay of the land here. So we've got two sections of our agenda tonight. We have the first section labeled proposals reviewed by legal counsel. Ben will review all of these ones with you guys. They're proposals four, eight, fourteen, twenty one, 22, 23, and 24. So that's a first pass for for legal. If you are all comfortable with the language on these, then we could vote to send them to the ballot tonight.

That

That takes eight. The second section is proposals ready for final language and final vote. These are the ones Ben reviewed with us last week. He has sent an additional memo with proposals for final language on this. So if we're comfortable with that language, these ones are also ready for an eight vote tonight. It's just up to what how you guys wanna do it. So as far as proposal four goes, I have nothing additional to add to it. So I'll I'll let Ben speak to his portion

of this. Peter, I wanna clarify. Section one proposals would need a seven Eight.

Vote? Eight. Everything now needs 8.

Okay. Need needs 8 to get to final language and final vote.

No. So the the three at the end, last week Ben had mentioned that there were some issues with the language and he would like to propose better language, which has been done in the memo that he that he sent to you guys and is linked.

Okay.

Okay? Yes, Ben.

Proposal four. Ben, you have the floor.

Yes. And and to go to just really quickly the last three proposals in section two, five, nine, and thirteen, that those went through the comprehensive legal review rather than just the preliminary. So there are other issues that have been brought forward. So that's what we're going to discuss on those rather than the exact language because there are some significant possibly significant issues in in those three proposals.

Okay.

So And and on I guess on that, with the ones the first section of the agenda tonight, I think you could recommend too if they're ready to go with language that you're comfortable with or if you want more work on it. Correct?

Yes.

K.

Yes. Because because these have this for topic of topics of discussion six a and then, one through seven, those have this is all a preliminary legal review. So this is simply me going through to see what we have, what what has been proposed, and will that actually be something without spending a lot of time and resources going into all the the legalities of things. I think there's one that I did only because it matched up with one in the second section where I was able to to kinda complete that deep dive review together. But the other ones, it's it's a it's a preliminary legal review.

The second section has been a comprehensive legal review where those issues that I'll bring forward tonight have come up, and that's what I'll bring forward. So in most of these first seven proposals here, there's there's still a lot to be said or at least some to be said in how that language would go on in the charter. Some of them much more simple than others because they will be it'll be very minor changes if we if you decide to move them forward. Others, there may be some significant changes in order to move them forward, at least from from a legal standpoint. But that decision is always up to you.

Okay? Of information. I didn't see a preliminary legal review for proposal four. Was there one that I missed?

Yeah. I didn't see the other, Ben. Mhmm. You started with eight.

Well, I I can

It's redlined, however.

What's

that? It is redlined. The actual number four is redlined. That might have been the preliminary legal review. It's just a matter of changing numbers, which is really all that

is Yeah.

I agree. Involved in that particular one.

Did Yeah. And I I think that's why because there's in order to move that further well, I can get into that right now since we're on number four. I can just kind of go through that that piece. Yeah. Let's go through

number four here.

Okay. So that is the proposal to expand the county council members to seven, which has been done in other jurisdictions. So in the legal sense, there aren't issues with that. The issue would be the way that it is written out and the year that those would start. Because when someone is elected, that is a quasi contract, between the citizens and that person that has been elected.

So for the commission to say, starting in 2027, all of these are going to be, you know, either three years, four years, and then we'll start. That is breaking that contract. It's breaching that contract, which then means there is legal liability that the county can take on either by the candidate or by citizens. So the way that that would work is if this were to move forward, those dates would have to be shifted. So those that ran in 2025 for a four year term, When their term ends is when the the next batch would start.

And same thing with those

Say that again?

Aren't you

talking about even year elections?

Yes.

You're not talking about seven council members.

I'm sorry.

It sounded much more complicated than I expected. Thanks.

Yes. So the the expanding the council members to seven, it's basically the the same the same scenario, if you will, that the seven member council one one of the things that that this body would have to decide is how that's going to take place. Right? If you're going to vote for it to be districts or if you're going to vote for it to be at large, The legal issues, it is there are really no legal issues in moving from five to seven members as long as the representation qualifies, which similar to what two other I believe it was King County has done that recently and Whatcom started and then changed. But so the process of actually completing and moving from five to seven council members, that that is something that is absolutely up to your purview.

The language of that that we have currently, as long as it reaches, which which when I went over this, it went through most, if not all of the sections in the charter where we'd need to change that language from five members to seven. The other the other consideration that is noted is the minimum of four alternative affirmative votes for an emergency ordinance, that would be something that that this body would have to decide. If not, then it's left up to the county council to decide how that piece is going to go. So whether they're gonna require a super majority, if they're gonna go for six out of seven, five out of seven, whatever, that's up to the to purview of the commission.

Amanda.

Thank you. Just reading the proposed language, it looks like Commissioner Gregerson submitted it with districts. It says nominated and elected from districts. So do we need more than that to to firm it up?

No, not necessarily because what will happen, I mean, if if that's the way that this body wants to move that forward as it has thus far, those seven districts, then it will not be up to this body to determine what those districts are.

Of course not.

So at that point, then it's it's done by other county officials that would that would take that piece on.

So would we have to put something in the proposal that that it gets voted on that calls for a like, I I can't remember off the top of my head, thankfully, I guess, when we would up be up for district redrawing. But would it happen at, like, the next time that would happen? We have to say, like, and now it will happen now? Or how do we

Yeah. So so that piece, again, would have to work with county officials because of elections. So it wouldn't be able to start for a period of time just because of the election cycle. Generally, it takes at least one election cycle for changes of this magnitude to start, which from from the commission, once that process is complete, which, in this case, amending the charter, then it goes to the county, and they basically take the reins on that process. When when we bring this if this were to move forward and it's brought to the public before that moves on for the ballot, that's where I have the communication with the county to say this is what, we've proposed to move forward.

What does that look like for the county in terms of redrawn districts, adding the districts, you know, all of that to make sure that we have the requisite number of representatives and representatives in each district and how that's done. The proposal may require at that point that the county then look to see, you know, in the map where the urban districts, what are the more rural districts, you know, and kind of dicing it up that way to make sure that those that are represented are are, for the most part and as much as they can, equally represented by each of the the soon to be at that point council members.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions for Ben? Jennifer.

It's not really a question, but it's just other information, I guess, if it's helpful or appropriate. I was just gonna add that the county does redistricting after the census. So maybe if we advance it, we'd make an effective date of, like, post 2031, districting process. So this change could happen. I think it would be, like, in 2032. So it wouldn't be a new redistricting. It would allow for needed renovations and budgeting for that, and it could slot into the districting that they would do anyways that year. That's all.

Yeah. So would that make I I might have missed it. Would that make them at large until that point in time?

The proposal is districts. So that we'd have to amend it to make them at large. This is elected from districts

in text. Districts right now?

No. Because we haven't we'd have to wait for redistricting or somehow pass something that says a special process would happen. I like what commissioner Gershon said about waiting for the next regular one.

Any other any other questions for Ben? If there's no questions for Ben, can I get a motion on this proposal?

Sure.

So moved. Oh. I got a so moved. Do I have a second on the so moved?

I'll second and then I have an amendment.

Okay. Okay. So we have a motion to proceed with proposal four, and we have a second. And we're looking at an amendment, Jennifer?

Yeah. Can I clarify, just based on what, how Peter started things off? A motion an action tonight would be to advance it for drafting a like, what is when you say, like, can I have a motion, what's the motion? Is it to put it on the ballot? Is it to ask for more legal review?

The motion is to give it to Ben for formal drafting legal language for the ballot. Okay.

And that's different from my motion two weeks ago, which was to ask for a legal review.

Which is what he did.

And Just now. Not if I can. Well, yeah, if if I if I can, I would also say because this particular proposal has something that has already been done in numerous counties, The furthering legal review would I think I would I would say it's unnecessary to to do any more legal review due to the language that's contained in here matching up with the proposals from the two other counties that have done the same thing with no legal concerns, no successful legal challenges? So if we were to move forward, I would feel comfortable doing it that way.

Point point of information. I I know a lot of the public is going to our agendas, they are clicking on those links. And there was not a written legal review for this one. And I think that is necessary. I think it will be a glaring omission to have this one not have a written legal review. I'm wondering if we would consider tabling this until it could at minimum have a written legal review that's accessible to the public. Even though what you're saying obviously makes a lot of sense, that still is inconsistent in what the public will find when they go into our system and look at how each amendment has been treated.

Don? I

think too that if before it gets to the final review and stuff, I sort of agree with Demi that get it out there, but I'd like to see how Jennifer brought up the thing, the 2031 dates. And so if we add that, that that's this is being added to the charter now, but it will go in effect to these dates once this has happened.

Chanel?

I guess my question is procedural for all of the proposals tonight. If there isn't some kind of in between stage where we're not necessarily eliminating it from the ballot, But, I mean, now that we know that the next few meetings constitutes our public hearing, some of these I'd really like to hear the public's input on before I vote to, you know, avoid putting it on the ballot or to put it on the ballot. So I don't I want some in between middle So purgatory phase, I guess.

So at the at the next meetings, at the during those public hearings, you would have another option to push it forward to the ballot or kill it at that time depending upon what you heard from citizens. Does that answer your concern?

Well, I wasn't sure. Like, I feel like on this one, mean, maybe it'll be tabled, but then it or it seemed like we were about to vote if it's gonna go or not go. But I'd like to hear from the public.

Yeah. Amanda.

Yeah. So I I agree that just a legal memo, even if says this has happened before, would be good information. But the the public hearings are gonna be one component of our future meetings. So that they will we will okay. Typically, would I expect them. I'm gonna look at Peter because he'll be doing that They would be noticed as on these specific proposals. That is what we're having a public hearing for tonight. So if this one isn't ready by, the next meeting, it might be that it goes I can't remember the dates, but, like, this the second meeting after this one. So we can still get it to where it's ready for one of public the hearings. I can't imagine we're gonna do one big long public hearing for

all It'd

be a

public hearing on each proposal.

Yeah. So and the other thing is I kind of strongly feel that our public hearing should be on the final legally firm language that we're gonna put on the ballot. Like, we might get public comment from, like, a doctor or political scientist, like, no, don't do that. Right? And then we might make a change, but it should be pretty final by the time we do a public hearing.

The other thing I just want to call out is the draft in front of us has two instances of three question marks for the minimum votes for things that take four of the five current council members. And I think we should firm that proposed language up tonight so that we don't we're not moving forward with anything that's a three question marks. So I'm I was hoping we could discuss that as a commission. So this so, David, it's this proposal on page the second page and the third page. There's parts of the charter that talk about for emergency ordinances and amendments to the charter by the county council, it takes a four out of five majority. So I think we need to just figure out what's 80% of seven or how many you know, if we have a seven member council, how many votes is that?

Okay.

I was going to propose that we change both of those to both of those that currently say four to five if we're upping the number of council members to seven in this proposal in both of those instances.

So that's

what I was going to call out as well. So that would be my proposal.

And I don't have a a strong preference at this point. Five, six, whatever. I just we should figure it

out.

Okay. Patrick? Thank you. I believe the vote on this issue last time was that it'd be sent for legal review, and that past. The charter voted for it to go to meet the legal review. Procedurally, that aligns with what we told the public we were going to do. At the next step, it would go for public, for legal review. Nothing in the procedure said that that legal review required a memo or comment or something from, from legal. We only said it would go for legal review. Our legal review has said they have conducted legal review on this.

So we have completed what the charter decided, which was to send it for legal review, and we've completed what procedurally we said we would do, which was to send it for legal review. In this case, it's just not very much for legal to do, and I would hate to spend very expensive time of which we have a limited resource on further legal review here or a memo from legal that really isn't necessary. We fulfilled our obligations. We fulfilled what the charter voted. I think this is ready to clarify the question marks, whether it's four or five, and then ready for this commission to decide whether or not, we want legal to draft the final language on this, not go back and do some more legal wrangling

on it. Okay. So how about if we do this? Can I get an amendment to change the four to five?

So moved. Second.

K. I have an amendment, to the original motion to change four to five where the question marks are in the document. Is there any discussion on that amendment? Hearing none, all those in

favor? Aye.

Aye.

And any opposed? Okay. Is there any other substantive changes that we need to look at and propose? Okay. Hearing none. Go ahead.

Guess I'd like I'd like to make sure that the amendment happens. So I'd move to amend that, the effective date be after the next redistricting cycle. It's in 2031.

In 2031? So just for clarification, you'd set so are we saying that redistricting happens in '31 and, therefore, the '32 election begins the cycle?

Well, you know, maybe there could be legal review of it. But I would anticipate they'd redistrict in '31, and then it would impact the districts for the following elections, would be in, like, '33 and '35

Okay.

Unless we've moved to even years. Although, I think that died. I don't know. Hard to keep track.

Yeah. Maybe we Yeah. Maybe we can

leave it legally vague and just say after the next census. Okay. And then they can decide.

Yeah. And then we'll leave it up to legal to figure out the the synchronization.

Fine.

Okay. I haven't noted.

Okay. So that's an amendment. And did I have a second? And a second. Any Jennifer?

No. I was just was making sure. All good.

Yeah. Okay. Any discussion on that amendment?

Could could we clarify that a little bit and and say, effective the the county council elections following redistricting in 2031. Because regardless of if they're even year or odd year, it's very clear we're saying at the next one, not sometime after when they feel like hitting around to it.

Okay. I'm I'm good with that.

That makes my intent. That sounds great.

Yeah. Okay. Any other? All those in favor of that amendment, aye.

Aye. And

any opposed? Okay. Amendment passes. We're back to the original motion of, proposal four moving forward. Any discussion on the original motion? Let's go with, Dale.

So I voted for this first time. And, after looking at the current status of the Stoneridge County budget and the expenses that are involved with this addition of two members, I think I'll be likely changing my vote.

Good. Patrick? Just for clarification, the vote we're discussing is for this to go to legal for the legal for our legal team to create the legal draft. Correct? That's correct.

It needs eight votes. Sean?

Yeah. I just I'm continuing to be adamant that I'm not in support of this. I'm surprised to see it in support, and and that's cool. But, we gotta thank you, Dale. Budget crisis, the treasurer said $11,000,000 shortfall, and now we're gonna ask them to spend over $3,000,000 to accommodate two more, four more because you got they each have assistance.

And then we're gonna hold the county, let them absorb the cost of a million plus for an annual thing that will grow with time, all the while that we're restricted to a one percent increase. So 1% increase in the budget each year, it's quite a burden. And and I don't think that I I don't know I I don't think that more government is better government. King County has 13 council people, and and I'd say that we're doing a better job up here. And so

nine? They they did, and they moved it back to nine.

They had 13.

They went back

to nine. Okay. Well, maybe they'll go back to seven and then five, and things will really go well. But I'm just I just you know, as a small business owner whose property taxes are outrageous every year, and I'm I'm not saying I think Snohomish County actually operates fairly efficiently, and it's voices like this that have made that happen over the years. And so I'm gonna continue to be a voice for fiscal responsibility, and I think it's what the voters want.

I would hope that if this ends up on the ballot that the voters would say no. There's a pretty good chance that they will just because the nonstop news cycle about bigger government, bigger government, bigger government, and then one scandal after another about that money not being, used in a responsible manner. So there you go.

Thanks, Sean. Any other comments? Demi.

I have heard broad support about this in particular from countless community members. So I'm just really shocked that the commissioners at this table haven't heard that because I have heard broad support in the community. Many, many folks are in support of this. I think that it should none of the amendments should be treated differently as they are advanced. This amendment has been treated differently and that there was no written legal review.

I do not agree that it is sufficient to not provide that written legal review. The public does access that through these links. It is not accessible. And I think there is already enough concern in the community about disenfranchisement processes that have occurred here that I would caution this commission about treating this amendment, which is such a big issue differently and not at minimum treating it the same.

Okay. David.

I had said this at a meeting prior that, kind of the history of this current council, we have two members that are also state representatives, so they have plenty of time to do other stuff. So it just seems like there was good enough representation. If if the public wanted to get to them, they could have got information and had meetings with them. I I've actually heard more I I haven't heard anybody say what you just said, commissioner Chatters of other than when I've asked people or mentioned it to people, they're like, why would they do that? So that's

Okay. Amanda?

I have heard a lot of support, but I think it's notable that we have commissioners representing different areas who have different constituents who hear different things. I I said this in the last meeting, so I guess I'm gonna repeat myself. Sorry. I think it really is our job to put forward well formed amendments, necessarily to decide what the voters want. They will vote on it, and then we will know. So I would love to let the voters vote, and then we will have an answer. We can all say what we've heard, but none of us knows everyone in the county and certainly not only registered voters in the county. So unless there is something deeply flawed with this, I would just love to let the voters decide what kind of representation they seek. Thank you.

Do you have someone? Yeah.

Yeah. I just wanted to add, keeping the council f five members ensures prudent, efficient, and accountable local government that prioritizes core services over structural expansion. I really appreciate the folks that addressed fiscal responsibility. Government efficiency is another big point with five and effective representation. I also have not heard anything positive about seven. On the contrary, five has been more than sufficient, and we have that institutional stability with five.

K. Any other discussion? Robin?

Yeah. Thank you. So as somebody who, you know, I like my council member just fine. Yeah. I live in District 5. Sam Lowe, really nice guy. But Sam Lowe's district is huge, And the same with council member Nearing. It's huge. And I would imagine, like myself, a lot of folks who live in these, especially geographically larger areas, do not see or hear from their representative who could be helping them out on county council. They don't hear from them.

I don't hear from Sam, and I live in the same city as the guy. He has a very big territory. Maybe maybe not a great example because he's also in the State Ledge. But it but that but even outside of those times, when he is in the State Ledge, I don't hear from him. And I I do believe I I like how commissioner Dodd put it. Like, let's allow the voters to say if they want this or do not want this. And I think if if they look at the numbers and they go, I'm not willing to pay to have two more council people people. That's that's fair. And they're gonna say no. And maybe it will be an overwhelming no.

But but I do believe that they have the right to to raise their hands and say, would like to have, more representation and not less. Thanks.

Jill, you have a first comment?

Yeah. I really appreciate that because I know the territories are are a little bit different. I am in council member Peterson's district. He lives around the corner from me, and we're in a kind of a denser space. I don't hear from him either, so I don't know that that's gonna be solved by increasing the number of people. That could just be maybe we send them more notes and say we'd like to hear more from you or, you know, let them know that this is this is going on. We're we're feeling a little bit neglected in our districts or something, but adding more probably isn't gonna solve that that issue.

Patrick, thank you. Great comments all the way around. I am also the constituents that talk to me, steadfastly smaller government, less taxes. We're in budget crisis, virtually all levels of government, increasing government and law and the associated costs. Clearly clearly is not the direction that the individuals who speak to me, are interested in.

To your to your idea about the larger districts having additional council members, I'm fairly certain, correct me if I'm wrong, but the districts are a portion based on population, not on the square footage. So it is very unlikely that those larger districts with a smaller population would see an additional person. And in fact, they would see their ability to sway the council decreased because the districts with higher population would have additional representation. So all of the larger area districts, they're gonna see their voice decreased, if we make this decision to do this because there will be more individuals from the other districts. They'll have less representation in that way.

Also, the idea that we should simply put this in front of the voters and let them decide, if we follow that logic, we actually wouldn't exist because our job is to decide which of these go before the public. If we wanted to say that was what we would do, we would have to resurrect essentially every proposal that's been put out here by any individual that passed legal muster and put all of those before the voters. And this county, in its wisdom, for decades now, has said that's not the correct approach. The correct approach is to have a commission formed that vets those proposals and brings proposals forward to the public. So I can't really agree that we should just give this to the public just because it has been proposed to us.

And finally, I would comment that public is available to create a public initiative to put something on the ballot if there is enough interest. If this charter chose not to make this change, then the public could create initiative. If there was such passion around this for this change, I'm very surprised there isn't a public initiative and hasn't been for a long time about this. I don't think there's as much passion in the public to go to seven as some corners of this particular county field there are. Otherwise, somebody would have raised this already, and it just hasn't. So I don't I don't think the public is beating down the doors for this particular one.

Okay. Any other comment? Amanda?

I just had a question. Given that the county council members represent an equal amount of people, can you walk me through the logic of having more council members means some people would have less representation? I'm not following that.

The well, you really have to look at as a senate versus a house of representative type of representation. We currently are more like a senate type of representation rather than a house of representatives. House of representatives based on the population. Our county districts currently are area, so it's more of a senate rather than a house of representative type of government.

But this right now represent the same amount of people. It's still based on population. That's why I'm not following.

I don't know that the I don't know if that's correct. I don't know that every district has exactly the same population or even similar populations overall.

No. That's why we do it after the census so that we have the updated population numbers, and then we redraw the districts so they're equal because people move around in the ten years.

So the correct. The populations are equal. That would mean, like, a city of Everett would have more representation than a city of the combined cities of Stanwood, Arlington, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, because they would have more more council members on the council.

If we say there's a 100,000 people, each council member represents 20,000 people. It's not that Everett has more representation. It's that we have the boundaries drawn to include the exact same number of people.

The City Of Everett would have more representation.

Or get split into multiple districts if they're a high population area.

No. By by if you do it by

or if everybody represents the same number of people.

Because the City Of Everett has more people, so the City Of Everett has more representation. I Again, it's a senate versus a house of representatives form of government, and this is more similar to a senate than a house of representatives form of government.

We are not mathematicians, so I'm good.

Okay. Alright. Any other comments?

Just a comment. I I just wanna clarify. Are you saying that it's inherently problematic for the city Of Everett to have additional representation?

No.

Can you can you help me then understand your comment about if it were redistricted, the City Of Everett would have more representation?

The city Of Everett would have more representation because it would have more representatives.

Okay. And so is that problematic?

It would disadvantage these cities that don't have as much representation.

But this is not city based. This is county population based, and so it could fall at any point across any number of city boundaries. So I guess I'm trying to connect the comment that this wouldn't be determined by city boundary. It would be determined by population. And, I mean, there's so many rules around districting. And, of course, this commission doesn't have the competency to recite those full rules. But it's not based on city. That's not how it's districted currently.

Correct. That's why my comment is the current the way it's currently set up is more of a senate style than a house of representative style. Carolyn.

I'd like to call for the question.

Jennifer's hands up hands have been up for a

little bit.

Peter, can you do a roll call vote?

Yep. Toyer?

No.

What was that, Rob? We couldn't

No. No. Okay. Manny?

We're voting whether or not to that this goes forward or dies tonight.

Manny? Gregerson?

Yes.

Chatters? Yes. O'Donnell? No. Cass? No. Decker? No. Preston? No. Dodd? Yes. Mankey? No. K Mink? No. McGee? Yes. Eslick? No. James? No. Galey? No. Four yes votes.

Okay. Proposal four dies tonight. Let's go to proposal eight. Ben?

Okay. Proposal eight. There is a bit of an issue that was brought up, and it has to do with this. The, one proposal that we have is an amendment proposal to section 4.3 qualifications of holding public office. The one that was forwarded is an amendment proposal for consideration to section 4.4 conflict of interest.

The the problem here is if we move forward proposal eight as of most recent, that is section 4.3, which also has proposal number nine for section 4.3, if I'm not mistaken, which would mean we would make this adjustment, but then there would be another adjustment to be made to that same charter section that we just forwarded. Does that make sense? Is everyone following me here?

Because nine would have to have an extra duty of enforcing eight.

They're they're both set right now for to amend section 4.3, qualifications and limitations of holding public office. So at the very at the very beginning, when we very first started this process, proposal eight was for section 4.4 conflict of interest. When it was forwarded to me this second time for legal review, it is proposal eight is an amendment to proposal section 4.3, qualifications and limitations of holding public office, which is also at number nine is amending or proposed to amend.

Okay.

It was a proposed amendment one that proposed modifications to the conflict of interest standard. This was always proposed around 4.3. That was and there's also an updated version. Peter, I don't see it in the packets, the updated version. And it and it was to be combined with 17, which

And so when that came forward, this time, it now the limitations on holding public office, 4.3. Yeah. If we do that, Proposal number nine, if I'm not mistaken.

Duties of the auditor.

Also says section 4.3 qualifications and limitations. So in essence, we're doing two proposals for the same section or same article in our charter, 4.3. Patrick.

Thank you. Looking at the agenda, we will be off agenda topic. However, proposal nine, as I read the legal memo on it, the legal guidance seems to say that proposal nine wouldn't pass legal muster. So I might propose that we hear from legal about proposal nine. If it doesn't pass legal muster, we kill nine, and then that removes this conflict of two different amendments addressing the same section of the charter.

Hey, Ben.

If if that's the

Yeah. What is desirable?

Let's go ahead and do that if that helps clear up the mud. Okay. So

I will move to jump to proposal nine. Proposal nine in the comprehensive legal review, the issue came as I spoke with the deputy civil prosecuting attorney, and we looked through the auditor's duties. Because the auditor is a function of the state, the state has very specific duties that they've appointed to the auditor. Those duties can be adjusted and changed between, for instance, auditor and treasurer or any other of those elected bodies, but this commission does not have the authority to add additional duties to the auditor, to the treasurer. So because of that, if we were to move this forward, it would be ripe for legal challenge and be voidable by the courts for the commission trying to add to state created function duties from the county.

Okay. So sounds like nine is a hill too far. Patrick?

My question is for legal counsel. Reading what you've said here as I examine this over the week, I was like, I don't see any creative way around this. I don't really see any way finagle this or to do something slightly different that would make this palatable because you're essentially saying, it's kind of a flat no. This commission does not have the purvey to tell the auditor that the auditor, you shall start doing this. We just don't have the the right to do that. If we even if we put this and even if the voters voted for it, it would be very likely challenged and found to be, no. You can't actually do that kind of a waste of everyone's time. And you're nodding?

Correct. And and I'll also say at our meeting two weeks ago, commissioner Chatters brought up she asked the specific question. Could we compel the auditor to do that? I said, yes. We could. I answered that without having all of the information, and that's why we go through a comprehensive legal review after the preliminary legal review. To be sure, I I I was very confident in that answer after I spoke with the deputy civil chief attorney, and we went through this. That has changed drastically because of the

Okay. Given that, I withdraw the proposal. Withdraw nine? Nine. We can have discussion on it, but he's basically saying, you can't do it. You can't do it.

Okay. Janelle, go ahead.

I mean, is there anybody else who could serve in this capacity? I mean, is there not an ethics commission within the county government?

Certainly, there's an ethics commission, but we're too far down the road for this commission at this point to really make that kind of a pivot here. And and having dealt with ethics commission and Iran ability to hold Ashvaz and eligibility, etcetera, etcetera, that just gets punted from group to group. At the end of the day, it really is a court function. The court is the final arbiter on something along these lines, and a court action would have to be taken. So there is a solution. It just is an expensive lengthy process and fraught with a lot of problems solution.

That goes through the county prosecutor in order to get to the court piece.

Yeah. It's it's tough, but I don't think we can pivot.

Hey, Ben. Just a point of point of order. Can the original proposer withdraw the proposal, or do we need to vote on it?

Because it's moved to this process and it's already been voted on to move forward Right. It would need to have a a vote on it.

I agree

with you.

Okay. Okay. So let's keep that in mind for proposal nine, but we are on proposal eight. But ignore proposal nine. But ignore proposal nine for the future.

Can I I make a motion to move, proposal nine ahead so we can all vote it down?

You can.

Great. I'll make that motion.

Okay. I have a motion and a second to, take up proposal nine now. And, is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. No. Any opposed?

Wait. Wait. Wait.

I

We're voting on the agenda

to move it forward.

Move forward. We're voting yes.

Pull it forward in the agenda.

Everybody should vote no.

Right.

Proposal is to move it forward

Move forward.

To to put it onto the ballot. So we all wanna vote no.

Your proposal your your motion is to talk about proposal nine now.

Correct.

Right. Or o. Okay.

That's what I understood.

Chair, point of order, I thought if no one motioned to advance, it just fizzled.

We can do that, but it but but what we can do, let's move it to ahead. We're moving it to the agenda now so that we cannot get a motion and kill it. How about that?

That sounds great. That's what I meant. Sure.

Voting the change in the agenda. So right now we are changing the agenda to take on proposal nine now. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. And any opposed? Okay. We are now talking about proposal nine. Is there a motion to move proposal nine forward?

So moved.

I have a motion to move proposal nine forward. Is there a second?

Second.

Robin is a second. Okay. So discussion on that proposal. Anybody? K. Call for the vote. All those in favor of moving proposal nine forward. Paul, Peter, roll call

vote. Toyer? No. Fanny? Gregerson? No. Chatters? No. O'Donnell? No. Cass? No. Decker? No. Preston? Dodd? No. Mankey? No. Kimink? No. McGee? No. Eslik? James?

No. Kaylee? I'm gonna say yes because why not?

14 no's and one yes.

I don't I don't know what that was about.

Anyway Could could we could we ensure that it's noted in the meeting minutes that it the legal advice was that this was not permissible?

Yes.

So it is clear, that, you know, our hearts were with the people. But if it the law doesn't allow, the law doesn't allow.

Okay. Noted in the notes. Back to proposal eight. We, have had the legal review on it. Can I get a motion on proposal eight?

So moved. K. A motion has been made to forward proposal eight. Is there a second? Second. Can I have a second? Discussion on

the motion. The new language has been Yeah. Passed

I think we still have a problem with it moving forward with the the numbers, 4.3 o and 4.4 o because 4.3 o as is presented that we're gonna vote on in a minute, has to do the heart of it is with dual office holding. And if you look at section 4.4 o, that's what addresses that conflict of interest. No county elected officers, this is existing language, shall hold any other office or employment within county government during the officer's term of office. That's served us well, over the years, and I think that is where if just technically is where this should be under four four point four o rather than, qualifications and limitations. That was number one.

Number two, that has served us well. I spoke with one of the two people that I know that are currently holding two offices. I know Sam Lowe, and I spoke with him, at least by text. And, he has not missed one single vote. He enjoys doing both. He represents both very well. He's highly regarded. I kinda like why would you wanna, you know, hinder a racehorse? Somebody who's doing a great job. He's representing two different aspects of the county, and he's doing them very, very well.

He's not taking something away from somebody else who wants to run against him and beat him. That's what elections are for. We're not stopping that. And the county already has a limitation on county to county type. So he's a county and a state, and that's permissible. If you can do that and you can do it well, why would I say no and get in the way of that? He's done it well. He's proven it works well, and I don't think we should have this proposal go through.

K. Other discussion? Robin.

I'd like to propose an amendment, and I didn't get the the wording down correctly. But could we possibly for for, you know, folks who are who are doing it well, well regarded, etcetera, currently, could we grandfather those folks in so this would take effect after their current terms? So we're not saying you can't run for state rep again. Like, Sam, you can't run again. If you if you hold this, you can't run next time. He gets to keep doing doing what he's doing. And so we're we're you know, out of respect for our current elected officials, we could allow these folks to continue

Okay. Can you put that in an actual amendment.

I would second that.

Can can we just put that in an actual amendment wordage for me, Robin?

Can I can I jump in before

you make the motion real quick with the thought? Sure. So as you craft it, I would rather see instead of people in current terms, just pick a year. That's when it takes effect. There's a good ramp up to when it takes effect, but just set a start date. Because I I mean, you run for state rep every two years. So is it he gets to run forever or they get to run forever? Or is it, you know, as of '20 whatever?

How about a 2031, would that be the right year? Gives us no?

Hey. Sorry. How how about if we make it I

think if you're grandfathering a person, you're grandfathering a current person. And whether they I mean, they're already termed out.

Right.

The two we're talking about are already termed out on their county. Right?

Are

One of them is for sure.

But what I I should say, we'll eventually term

out. But if we just let it go till when they term out of the county position. Let them complete their opportunities to term out.

We could perhaps is there a way to exempt sitting council members, which meaning at the time that this advances, any sitting council member is is Exempt. Is exempted. But then you wouldn't want them to open the door to the other three. But any if this condition applies to any sitting council member

Who is who is currently holding two offices. Right. If there are any.

Yeah. Because this I mean, this is this is not a commentary on the job that any of our council members are Right.

Yeah. I will say I

will say from a legal standpoint, if I may, the the concise language will work best to make to lessen any ambiguities. Right? So if we said a specific year, 2028 and on, that's how it is. Because as was mentioned, if we say any sitting council member or any sitting council member that has another job that they're right. There there are all these ifs, ands, or buts that could be brought up or discrimination against one, you know, anything like that. So having a set date, the the dates happen. Right? There those are not discriminatory. Those are not vague. It is a a a solid set period.

So Jennifer.

Just keep that in mind.

Well, I think 2031 achieves the goal in, like, a clear way. Just making it effective after that date.

Okay. Amanda?

I was just gonna say too. I

in in the in the

spirit of encouraging good governance, we should not be crafting our policy around specific people. We should be crafting a policy that applies to everyone equally. So just

k.

Whether we like them or not, it shouldn't be a target or an allowance because we like the person.

Okay. Can we get a formal shot at you?

Yeah. I just wanted to say, I don't think we have that big of a problem to to want to amend this, charter over this specific thing. I think Sam, his his other council person, Peterson. Right? I wanted to make sure I got the right one.

It is very unusual. I asked chat GPT and it said it is not done anywhere else in the state. I do not think it has not been common in this county even though it technically is loud. I think in reading through the legal review of it, this is a can of worms legally if we were to do this. And I think the default for the for the commission needs to be if it doesn't show a clear and resounding reason, then let's just walk away from it. And and so that's kinda where I'm at. I actually originally supported this because everything sounds great, but with further review, I think it's a bad idea.

K. Do we have an amendment?

Yeah. So I would, we could just add to the end and say, this shall be effective in 2031.

At the end of 2031?

During the twenty thirty one election cycle.

Okay.

Second.

K. That's the motion. That's the second. Any discussion on the amendment? Janelle?

I think if philosophically we're against our county council members or any of the other elected body elected county officials holding dual elected paid positions. Extending this to 2031 seems maybe a little too far out there. I mean, obviously, we've got an election season right now for you know, 2026 is the state rep elections. I think it would be more reasonable to say, like, 2028 so that that gives people decision a decision point, like, they're gonna run for state ledge again or they're gonna run for city council or county council or whatever the other positions they might have with the county. But stretching it that far out, I mean, you know, kind of with the other commissioners, if we feel that this is too much power vested in singular people, then we should correct it now and be done with it versus making all of these exceptions.

Okay. Any discuss any further discussion on the amendment?

I I don't know if we finished the legal review. So perhaps that would be helpful if Ben could go through the full legal review before we start adjusting language. More force, Ben?

Well, we have a motion on the floor. Can dispose of that first.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Alright. Call for the vote. Peter. Toyer.

No. Vanny. Gregerson?

This is to make it effective 2031?

Correct. Correct.

Yes. Chatters? Yes. O'Donnell? No. Cass? No. Decker? No. Preston? No.

Dodd? Yes.

Mankey? No. K Mink? No. McGee? Yes. Eslick? No. James? No. Gailey? No. Or yes.

Okay. We're back to the original motion. Ben, do you have additional that you

wanna give us on the original proposal? Yes. So there there was there may not be much to go over because there was a question previously and some confuse confusion as to whether the employee piece was removed. With that the employee piece being removed, I really have no further comments or issues. If the employee piece is left in, and I'm I'm almost positive that commissioner Preston did say, make that motion and it was removed, if if I'm not mistaken.

Yep. So I I won't go into all of the the employee stuff except to say, with that, the the concerns about employees in general would be a a violation of their First Amendment rights to to say that an employee of the county could not also run for public office unless that employee was an employee of the county and was running for an office in the county. That would just be considered a conflict of interest. And that's pretty much set already.

Amanda.

Thanks. Kushner James brought up an interesting point about which part of the charter would need to be amended for this to happen. You would firm that up in the final legal review, I'm assuming? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that was addressed. Thanks.

Any other discussion, Patrick? Yeah. Very quickly. One,

if we're saying no to publicly elected offices, I don't know why we're calling it carving out for the PCOs. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense. It's either either nobody holds to elected offices regardless how far up and down the food chain because, you know, if if the precinct officer is here, but there's a water commissioner, for example, I mean, that's a pretty low impact. There's really not a whole lot of conflict there. It's very low time.

So why why not move up the chain a little bit more to a to a water district or something along those lines? So I'm not comfortable calling out excluding the precinct officers because I don't think there's a valid reason. And second, we have added in red where it says and registered voter in the county. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe our intent was that they be an active registered voter in the county, not just a registered.

You can be a registered voter and then let your voter registration lapse for years and years and years, and it it becomes a bad litmus test because it actually doesn't mean anything at all. So I thought we asked for an active registered voter in the county, but but correct me if I'm wrong on that. If not, I would simply move, that we amend this to read and active registered voter in the county. So moved.

Go ahead. A county resident and registered voter in the county for the three years immediately prior to filing for appointment. So that would be That to me is active, isn't it?

No. That's not the definition of an active registered voter.

The definition of an active registered voter?

You have to, you have to go to the the registration the voter registration auditor, and you have to take action to remain an active voter periodically. This I know this because of what happened in the city of Lynn where we had an inactive registered voter. He simply hadn't done anything with his voter registration for some time.

So you could be a resident, but doesn't that mean you're a registered voter?

You can be a resident and registered but not active.

What act not active? Would just wouldn't that just mean you have not voted in the last several elections?

You may not be registered as a voter. You might

No. Registered. You you you register. You just kinda stay registered forever until something happens that makes you no longer be registered, which usually is you register somebody someplace else. But you could move out and still be registered. I can move to wherever I want and still be a registered voter in Linwood, albeit inactive.

Can I speak to this? Because commissioner commissioner Preston and I did some some work on this together between our last meeting and this one. Mhmm. And so that language is taken from the existing language, and the purpose was to clarify that the standard would be both a county resident for three years and a registered voter in this county for three years. Because as you know, you can say you live here, but maybe you're registered to vote somewhere else, and that's that's where you vote.

So so we actually took the existing language, and we just clarified that you were to both be a county resident for three years and be a registered voter in this county for three years. The other piece is with regard to PCOs because we did have some discussions around this, and then we did review Ben's legal findings, his preliminary legal review findings. And so our thoughts were that is more of a community organizer type position, whereas we're talking about elected roles that are policy making policy decision positions. So there is a distinction. And then when we read Ben's analysis that seemed to support that, where he said that PCOs have been kind of recognized as a separate class from other elected positions, and that exception has been extended in other areas where where these types of regulations have been put in place.

So we were thinking that it was in alignment with the findings of the preliminary legal review, and it also made sense because of the difference between policy making and community organizing political work. Amanda.

Also and I'm I'm gonna look at Ben, who is the lawyer. Precinct committee officer is not like a position that exists like county auditor or county executive. The political parties pay for those elections, and they are to run the party. It's not a regular office. It's not the same kind of office as the rest of these. That's why there's only Democratic and Republican not run as an independent PCO.

Good. And it's the only other elected position that you can have your name on the ballot twice in the same year. So it is a different animal.

I I was gonna ask one more thing too. Okay. Is active registered voter, like, a legal term? I feel like we'd have to define that. I haven't run into that before in state law. It is so there's a definition.

Have to define specifically have that defined in there. Yes.

Okay.

Well, I We don't have to. That's actually in the voter days. Was gonna say yes.

Database already says you are registered, inactive, or active voter. So it's already a defined term.

But to put it in the law, it has to be a legal term. It can't just exist on a website somewhere. That's what I'm saying. We'd have to define what that is here to enforce that law.

It would assume that the voter registration database is a legal document that governs who can vote and who can't.

So I can assume that. I'm asking the lawyer.

I I I'm not familiar with that specific thing. I mean, I could take a look at that. But, yes, if it if it is in the the legal voter database as active or inactive, then there is a specific definition of what an active voter is and an inactive voter. I don't know what that is off the top of my head, but when they have when they being the government, the election body Secretary of State, when they have a definition, active or inactive, there will be defined what that means. Similar to the legislature and all of the I shouldn't say all because they unfortunately don't do this every time.

But in the statutes, where there's a specific term, you will find that definition on the definitions page.

Okay. Let's keep this show rolling. So we have a motion and a and a second to move proposal eight forward. Do I have any other concise discussion about proposal eight? Go ahead, Janelle.

Am I just missing was there supposed to be a carve out for a charter?

There currently is. I don't think we need to it's not I don't know where that is, but there is a carve out for Charter specifically in existence now. Do you know where that's found?

Well, this only applies to county elected officials.

Yeah. That's what allowed us to run.

Isn't so is a charter commissioner not a county elected official?

No. But what I what I'm saying is that this would this the county elected officials currently, I don't even know if they can run for charter. That'd be an interesting legal question. I don't know if we've ever had a county council member that has attempted to run for charter review commission.

Based on the existing language of, of 4.4 o, it it would say on the surface that they cannot. They're county, and they're running for another county office. Yeah. County the county is not allowed. It's already that's already in the law.

Yeah. Okay. So, Mark, you got Mark?

I do. I just, I would like to propose an amendment to this that we drop the whole dual office holding part off and just go with the the first paragraph that addresses, the, qualifications and limitations.

I'll second for discussion.

Okay. So your amendment, state it again, please.

Well, I guess I don't know if the best way to

say it is

the exclusionary. Drop the dual office holding part of this proposal completely. I think it's addressed in section 4.4 o adequately. I don't think there's a problem with that. The first part of this is has relates specifically to qualifications and limitations, and that that's fine. That's what we've been discussing.

Point of order that the proposal is about holding dual offices as a county official. Doesn't that functionally change the proposal to be something different? I don't know if that's an amendment. That's Yeah.

I I would agree.

If you doesn't your amendment change the whole purpose of the proposal?

My proposal lead, an amendment proposal to the section qualifications and limitations to holding public office is addressed in the first paragraph. And in in in light of being concise and and having less verbiage and have it be, you know, less challenged in the future, we stick with the very basic. What the title says, paragraph says that, done. The dual office holding actually is even in the wrong place. It's not even supposed to be in 4.3. It's a 4.4 issue.

Okay. I do have an amendment, and there is a second.

So Is that is that just existing language? So it's just removing the change to, like, revert to the existing language.

Unless the word active registered voter is put in there, then it would change that. Otherwise, yes, it is the existing language if we remove the dual dual office hold.

Yeah.

Jimmy?

So that actually just kills the whole thing basically because the first paragraph is essentially the existing language and the existing language does address eligibility to be elected in terms of more than three consecutive terms. So it does actually deal with limitations. So I think it is appropriate to include a limitation on dual office holding in the section called qualifications and limitations. So I think 4.3 would be the right spot. But again, as Commissioner Dodd mentioned, legal would determine that in the end, whether or not it should appropriately be under 4.4, 4.3.

David. Section 4.4 just has to do with Snohomish County, and the dual office has to do with Snohomish County and other elected offices outside of the county or other places in the county. So it's a big differentiator. And the I think the intent of what we've been discussing is having a county council member being elected to another office.

So you wouldn't even need 4.4. It would have to be amended out. It'd be double speed. Okay.

So I have a amendment.

Get rid of 4.4. Is that what you're

saying?

You would have to if you're gonna accept this one. You have no reason to have four four.

We're not gonna solve the lawyer. Are debating.

I'll say it in the microphone. We're not gonna decide that now. That's what the lawyer will do. That's why we have him. But are we gonna entertain an amendment to kill this or we're gonna vote whether it moves forward? I don't think it's appropriate to have an amendment that completely changes the purpose of the proposal. I don't think that's in order.

Okay. Let's call for the vote on the amendment then.

On the amendment or on the what are we voting on?

So we have an amendment on the floor.

And we're gonna vote on that?

And restate the amendment for me, Mark.

Delete references to dual office holding.

Out of 4.3.

Out of four.

Can we get a weigh in on whether it's out of order from whoever our parliamentarian is?

What do you think there have been?

If if what is out of or to

remove an amendment that changes the substance of the proposal? Like, we don't do strikers typically in these kind of meetings.

If I mean, if if this if the amendment that is being made to strike this goes through, then effectively, it reverts to the same unless commissioner Decker's active registration stays right. So it does change it and it effectively makes it the same thing, which would be redundant to try and and do, which I mean, that's it's a motion that can be made.

Okay. I wasn't I thought it was out of order because it changes the purpose, but I don't think we've agreed what form of Robert's rules or whatever Reid's rules, whatever we're doing.

Okay. So let's call for the vote on this amendment.

K. Coyer? No. Vanny?

So we're deleting it, so that'd be yes. I'm voting yes.

Okay.

Gregerson? Yeah. Chatters? No. O'Donnell? Yes. Cass? No. Decker?

Yes. To strike all language after dual office holding in the current

amendment. Preston? No. Dodd? Yes. Mankey? No. K Mink? Yes. McGee? No. Eslick? Yes. James? What was that? James?

There you go.

You voted yes? K. Galey?

Yes.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine yes votes. So that passes.

So No, sir. The amendment pass?

Yes.

K. So now we're back to the original motion. It no longer has the dual office clause in it. That one has is that what we're saying?

Take it to the curb.

Well, we're just back to how the county charter reads.

Yeah. But now it's pointless.

But Yeah.

One go. Is there a

point for it? Yeah. I

would move to permanently table proposal eight.

Permanently table?

It it might it due to it doesn't need to be addressed now. It's not changing anything.

Well, why don't we just take a vote on the motion then either kill it or move it?

Okay. I'll

roll call vote on that.