Oversight Board Committee - Regular Meeting

This meeting, will be recorded. The Zoom application will notify you that this meeting is being recorded. Please press continue on the Zoom application to stay in the meeting. Use the raise your hand feature in Zoom when you would like to speak on an item and to also lower your hand when you're finished speaking. Please unmute when called to speak and mute yourself when you are done speaking.

If you are calling in by phone, identify yourself by name before speaking on an item. Press 9 on your phone to raise and lower your hand. Press 6 if you are participating by phone to unmute. This is the call to order for the April 15 meeting of the Charter Review Committee. Will staff please call the roll?

Ali Roberts?

Here.

Pat Nikolai? Bernard Tanzi? Mohammed Naveed?

Here.

John Brooks?

Here.

Joe Sisinski?

Here.

Eric Crutchlow?

Here.

Bert Field?

Here.

Steve Kelly? Here. Lauren Diamond? Here. Eric Jensen?

Here.

Mark Beckman?

Here.

Susan Peters? Here. Thank you.

You. Good evening. My name is Joe Susenski, and I am the vice chair of the Charter Review Committee. On behalf of the committee, welcome to today's meeting. At this time, please turn off or mute all electronic devices, including cell phones that may interrupt the meeting.

Flynn, remind me. Do we get all going on the agenda, or is there more of this?

I think you've done all of your preparatory remarks. I do want to note, though oh, no. He's not I don't think that is Pat. Yeah. We were gonna have just to explain, chair Nikolay was hoping to be here. He got held up like he feared he might in Oregon on some family business up there. So while he's indicated that he will be participating remotely, he's not able to either participate remotely or or be here. And so I might when we get to the item suggested that he be excused, you know, from this meeting given those circumstances along with member Crutchlow from last meeting.

Certainly. So we should shall do the excuse the absences before we move on to the agenda.

You can do that separately, or you can do it with minutes. Let's have a

motion to excuse the absences this meeting of chair Nikolay and last meeting of Eric Crutchlow. Move.

Thank you. Beth, could we please call a vote?

Need a second.

Yeah. I'll second.

Thank you. Seconded. Beth, please call a vote.

Holly Roberts?

Yes.

Pat Nikolay? Absent. Bernard Tanzi? Absent. Mohammed Naveed? John Brooks?

Yes.

Joe Cisinski?

Yes.

Eric Crutchlow?

Yes.

Bert Fields?

Yes.

Steve Kelly?

Yes.

Lauren Diamond? Yes. Eric Jensen?

Yes.

Mark Beckman?

Yes.

Susan Peters?

And, mister chair, I might recommend, depending upon whether member Tansey is able to occur, or attend tonight or not, we can handle that, excusal at the next meeting.

Alright. Thank you. Move on to business then. We have an action to approve the 03/18/2026 charter review committee meeting minutes and excused absent members. Absent members have been excused. Recommendation is to approve the minutes of March 18 Charter Review Committee in the form presented with such modifications as may be required or requested by committee or the excused excuse me. Think we've been a little rusty in my second time out here, Glenn. Are we moved to approve the minutes?

Yeah. We do have to solicit public input if there's anybody here to comment on that. There's no one in chambers. Is there anyone online? No one's raising their hand, mister chair, so it would be appropriate for you to entertain a motion to approve the minutes unless anyone has any comments or proposed changes.

Does the committee have any comments or proposed changes to the minutes from the March 18 meeting? I see none. I have a motion to approve.

Second.

Alright. We have a vote to approve the minutes, please.

Yes.

It's not on.

Holly Roberts. Sorry.

Yes.

Pat Nikolai absent. Bernard Tansi is absent. Mohammed David?

Yes.

John Brooks?

Yes.

Joe Susinski?

Yes.

Eric Crutchlow? Yes. Kurt Field?

Yes.

Steve Kelly?

Yes.

Lauren Diamond? Yes. Eric Jensen?

Yes.

Mark Beckman?

Yes.

Susan Peters?

Yes. Excellent.

Thank you. Next

item of business, report outs from the ad hoc subcommittees, groups one, two, three, four, five, and six. Len, do you have a presentation? Or I

do. And and I'm gonna tell you kind of in advance as we're getting closer and closer to actual recommendations coming out of those committees. As you will see, my report the report out, so at least the part that I'm doing is getting more and more detailed just to kind of prepare everybody for the kinds of things that are coming all you know, coming your way. And if I might suggest, mister chair, I can do the report out that's on the slide and then ask whenever there is a secretary available and intending to report out for those meetings, they can add, you know, comments to the presentation that that I'm able to give for those because I, as usual, attended every one of them.

That sounds good. Thank you.

Okay. Very good. Here are our subcommittees. Of course, as you're all familiar, color coded in the way that I still am amused by. Next slide with, the report out for group one.

Group one, has had a number of meetings. They have had a meeting, since the last report out on 04/09/2026, and they have another meeting already on the calendar from 05/12/2026. We had almost full attendance with that group and a good substantial couple hour meeting because we went over a lot of things. The staff presentation included a recap of the subcommittee issues and activities and a summary, which I'm gonna provide you again tonight of the since it had just happened, the April 7 report to counsel on the charter project progress and proposed reorganization. There was a lot of language drafted for this group's review that included proposed reorganization and language to consolidate existing articles one through five into an article entitled essential terms.

We're still struggling a little bit with the appropriate title for for that section. We'll get it right in the end, or this group will get it right in the end. Some pretty significant revisions and additions to that section of essential terms, and then an initial update of the elected officials sections all within this group one's purview. Specifically, the issues presented and discussed included what to refer to as the definitive authority on city boundaries. We we looked at that.

It was just that the current language was just a statement that the boundaries of the city were its existing boundaries, and we thought that we should do better than that. There's there needs to be a, you know, reference of what the the city's boundaries are. Boundary issues and disputes do arise, so having a legal reference in the charter is recommended. Member Cisinski did some research while on the fly while we were looking at that and, referred to a site that may end up working. It's the LAFCO site, as a lot of you know, local, area formation organization commission, is the group that entertains proposal to change, you know, city boundaries, either to increase them or to shrink them.

Or when areas of unincorporated territories want to form a city, they go through the LAFCO process. So LAFCO is a pretty, authoritative, keeper of that information. And so we're gonna do some additional, digging into that and make sure we've got the proper reference, for the city boundaries so we can properly refer to them and assert them if we need to. We also talked about the ability that we're confirming to eliminate the article the really, in the entire article three of the charter. As you'll all remember, there's a number of sections there, old sections 300 through three zero four, that talk about different provisions of law in the city and contracts within the city that, notwithstanding the adoption of the charter, kind of remain in effect.

We think those are antiquated and unnecessary, and they were more related to the establishment of the city as a modern charter city in the first place. And so consistent with the charter project where we can eliminate, right, surplus sections, we do that. I think I'm going to suggest and draft for this group's review a sentence in one of their sections that incorporates all of those concepts because maybe they shouldn't go away entirely, but we're able to eliminate, we think, a good number of surplus language as part of this effort. There is a number of discussions about our continuing effort to convert unnecessary legal language into layperson's language. You know, throughout this section, there's a lot of legalistic terms.

Sometimes they're necessary. Sometimes they're not. We're still wrestling with, you know, how to properly reflect that. There were some proposed language that was appreciated by the group, especially the lawyer in the group, to make a broader statement about the city's authority as a charter city, including, as you remember, this concept of municipal affairs, which was missing from this charter language, but adding an explicit reference of the, to the city's ability to make and enforce all laws and regulations with respect to municipal affairs. So that that's being discussed and will end up probably part of the recommendation and coming back to you.

Another very wonky addition, but that's important sorry. Some of this stuff's self serving for the lawyers who have to interpret this when people ask is a provision that really talks about very explicitly, again, the relationship between this charter and other laws. Didn't have that before. There are some common common law standards of in interpretation of charters and how they relate to other laws, but it's not the kind of thing you wanna leave to chance because frequently charter rules are different than the rules that apply to general law cities. And so being very purposeful and explicit about that is important.

I won't read you the section. That might be too much for this group. But if people have questions about that after we're done with the group one review, I'm happy to read that or explain that in greater detail. There was also a a discussion about in the section where we state what the general powers and authority of the city are, where there are limitations to that, which right which currently are kind of spread in different parts throughout the charter, let's con let's consolidate those, right, and put them all all in one place. Here are here's our assertion of authority, and then here are the limitations that we've decided to place on ourselves that the voters have decided to place, you know, on the city and to assemble all those.

And those are listed here. All of those are under review by different subcommittees. Once we get that language finalized, either tweaking them, deleting them, whatever it is, the thought is to consolidate them here kind of under the authority section in in the beginning of the charter. Those were my under my recollection of the matters that were discussed with that group. I might ask now, Mr. Chair, because I'm forgetting who the who who might have been designated to the secretary is to report out if there's anything to supplement my description of what went on there.

I think we have members Kelly and Jensen. Are they I

believe that was I believe it was me. But yeah. Sorry. Member Jensen.

Thank you.

Yeah. Pretty good version of it.

Yeah. I believe it's sufficient. Thank you.

Good.

Yeah. Very good. So this group's one of the things we're being especially purposeful now, as you all know, at the end of subcommittee meetings is to get another meeting on the calendar as we're we're getting to the finish line here. So this group's got a May 12 meeting that's been scheduled with the hope and aspiration and necessity of of my group putting together all the language that that this group has assigned to them for their review all in one place with the hope that after one more meeting, which may be one of the longer ones, that they'd be in a position to make a recommendation to this larger group at the next report out. So that's the group one presentation there.

Any thoughts or comments or questions from the the committee about the the group one sections?

I have none. So I think we can

Very good. Group two has had a number of meetings as listed here. They have met since the last report out just a couple days ago. So I don't think we've got those minutes, you know, prepared or uploaded yet or even the PowerPoint, but we'll make sure those get added and uploaded as as kind of an after agenda, you know, materials and posted on the website. And then there is already a next meeting scheduled for that group as well from 05/06/2026.

The had good attendance from that group too. That's everybody who attended. Appreciate that. And a a especially solid and and long meeting that people were begging out of at the end. That that's not true.

They were the the everyone was eager to keep going even some, I thought, if I'm remembering correctly. The as usual, we had a recap from staff of the the previous subcommittee activities from their March 9 meeting and their report out to the March 18 CRC meeting. We also reviewed their proposed reorganization and updated language in a number of sections assigned to this group, the terms for elected officials and term limits, elections sections generally, some of which were assigned to group two and some of which are assigned to group three, the district elections, a redistricting section with which we've added for some clarity, mayor's powers and duties, and then a review of some modifications based on the group's request at their previous meeting to the council members' powers and duties section. So on the next slide, a little bit more detail from the things that were talked about. Really, a lot of this meeting was a a discussion and debrief amongst the group of the of the of the qualifications and requirements for the chief of police.

As you remember from the previous month's report out, there was a good presentation and robust discussion. I was not there for that, and I know there was a lot for people to absorb. So it was good to get the group's, you know, feedback and discourse about the qualifications of the chief of police section. There was also a discussion about the clarification of time for commencement and expiration of elected officials' terms. Again, kind of wonky, but it's not clear in the chart of the way it's drafted now.

I think the proposed revisions make that clear. There is clarification on the term limits. They really are drafted this way, but not as clearly as I think as is useful to folks. There's proposed language now to make it clear that elected officials' term limits are lifetime, you know, term limits with, again, some clarification on existing language in the charter that talks about service, that occurred prior to December 2016 as not counting towards the lifetime term limit. In other words, if you were a council person or mayor before that time period, that time would not count against you for purposes of of evaluating whether or not you'd reached your lifetime, you know, term limit in in being able to consider running again.

So, again, some just some clarification of language there because we have gotten questions about that. And when I look at the language, it's just I wish it were clearer. And and now I I think it is. We also were are proposing to add because currently, there is no provision in the charter that does this, nor would I recommend consistent with this group's purpose. We we change that as there are no currently proposed term limits for the chief of police or the city clerk.

Those are not term limited positions. And so to the extent that's true as opposed to having people look around and going, wait a minute. Where are the term limits for the chief of police? I'm proposing to add a sentence that says they're not. You know, there aren't any term limits for the chief of police.

That could be something, certainly if anyone wanted to consider that outside of this process that that could be proposed but not being proposed now. One of the things we wrestled with was the, the challenge of the reorganization of the the sections that were, assigned to group two and group three. There there's basically a a based on how the charter was is currently organized of the allocation of those sections. So each sec each group is working through their assigned sections, but, ultimately, both groups probably need to look at all of the sections that they've reviewed altogether in one place before the final recommendation can be made. And our next presentations to each of those groups will make that all a little bit more clear.

There is now some added clarity along the lines of the section that I just described to you for group one, the relationship of the charter to other laws. There's some clarity within this section about what laws govern the the elections here locally because currently, it's kind of a hybrid of laws. Right? The the the charter dictates certain things as a municipal affair about how the elections are run, but our elections are consolidated with state elections that are run by the registrar of voters. And there's rules and terms that apply to that as well.

And so this section now makes it very clear that the charter rules are are going to govern, but that the state elections rules, as necessary, are incorporated into what the charter rules are. And to the extent there's a conflict, the charter rules will govern because we're intending that to be the case. There's some a little bit of leeway, in there to make sure if there are rules that are necessary to run the consolidated election, those would apply as well. But that language, I think, is important and has now been proposed. There's also some language drafted and still a little bit of more work to do for me that I'll bring back after some discussions with the city clerk and the assistant city clerk on how these elect our elections are administered.

Again, because it's our charter, but the the registrar of voters is actually running the election. There's a lot of cooks in this kitchen, and there's a substantial role for the for the the registrar of voters. But there's a substantial role for our elected city clerk who, as one of the groups will recall, is our designated elections official. And the however, their the expertise in that office on elections typically, because most elected city clerks aren't ex you know, aren't professional, you know, city clerks, is from the assistant city clerk who is hired, you know, and trained in in a full range of clerk responsibilities. So this charter now basically acknowledges all those things and parses, you know, the appropriate administration of of of elections so that there's no, as little ambiguity left as possible in that.

Another interesting section that we're wrestling with that I have to draft some language for this group's consideration is what right now is a very blank or or very direct emphatic statement of the city council rule. It essentially says it's the city council rules to judge election returns and member qualifications. And when I read that to the group, everyone said, what does that mean? And I and and my response was, that's a great question because I don't think it's clear what that means, and it warrants, you know, some additional, you know, drafting to make it clear what that means. And so the next go around, I'm gonna come back with language to make that clear.

Again, not to change the way things are supposed to work and that other laws provide for them to work, but just to make sure it's not a mystery. Right? Things we should be eliminating mysteries where we can in the charter if we can do that with simple language. And so that's on me to bring that back. There are some additional language and work that was done in the district and redistricting, you know, provisions, including now a section that was missing that basically outlines the redistricting process and how that might work.

We are coming up on now, since we've had districts, our first redistricting process, and it really is a very elaborate exercise. I've done it twice now. I worked in my old city, facilitated the original districting, and then have then did a redistricting, you know, process when the the 2020, you know, census came out. And there are some things to think about and time periods, you know, to think about that can't possibly be resolved in the charter. But the charter really should, little more expressly, I believe, imagine the the at least in broad brush terms, what that looks like in order to set it up so that when it comes time to do that implementation, there's some direction on that.

So I've drafted an initial version with some feedback from the group. We'll have a revised version of of how that outlines what that process would be. Again, again, filling a gap, right, that's in the existing charter. There's also work to to consolidate all the mayor's powers and duties in one place just like any number of other things where there are limitations on powers over the all over the place in the charter. With respect to the mayor, there's also mayor's powers that are spread kind of throughout the chart charter.

They ought to be all in one place. Right? So there's some clarity as to, you know, what those powers are. So without really substantively changing, you know, those powers, the language that this group is looking at kind of really puts them all in one place in the same context that the other powers of the elected officials are presented on. Also, at the request of this group in relationship to now new language that makes it clear in the charter what constitutes a vacancy.

In other words, what what events that that that occur might result in an elected official being disqualified. And another group is is is working on that. I think maybe it's this group. But there was an idea about what the that a city council person's responsibility also ought to be to self report if an event that might that that might result in the vacancy of their position occurs, they should be the ones who reports that because based depending upon the nature of the thing, it might not be, you know, obvious. And so there's now a duty on a council person if one of these things occurs within a certain period of time to report that to the city council so they can evaluate whether or not that has triggered a vacancy and declare the vacancy and go through the process as contemplated by this charter of filling that position with an appointment.

So that's also now been added and will ultimately be part of this group's recommendation when they come back. Member Kreschlow, I think you were gonna report out on this, and please add to my somewhat exhaustive presentation.

You did very well. Thank you very much for doing that. I think the only everything was basically trying to clarify things that were kind of questionable, which is great, and then consolidating. I mean, the probably minor, but the only one point, there was a phrase in there about the mayor's powers and recommending, about finance and budgeting, which seemed kind of odd the way it was written, and and that was probably the only one that you know, you you did a very good job of covering everything. But that would be, like, the the only other one that was there.

But, again, it's all you know, anybody reading it and looking, it's like, what does this mean? And why did they put that in? We're trying to get rid of that, and and Glenn's been doing and staff, has been doing a great job in helping out and getting it clarified. So that's the only thing I would add.

Yeah. Very good. Appreciate that. That that that's one that we're we're we're we're we're sort out with the mayor's powers. Yeah. Some of this is antiquated. The the provision member Krutzla is referring to has the mayor able to propose changes in city policies or in the city budget, which, of course, any city council person can do. Right? It's it's not anything, you know, you that in modern terms is unique to the mayor. But if if she were to make such a proposal, she would also have to say how that's gonna be financed and where the money would come from.

And that just seems like a a gratuitous requirement, you know, on on a a gather council person or a mayor in making that recommendation because only staff's really gonna, you know, be able to, you know, understand that and present that. So maybe that, you know, condition either might be deleted or that power might be added as a council person power. Right? So that it's it's something that's that all of them have because they all have it already.

I just now that you just mentioned it, I was just thinking maybe it's there because they they want to somebody wanted to ensure that there was one person responsible for saying, where's the money coming from?

Mhmm.

That's the only thing I can think of. But I I agree. I think, know, it's like, yeah. We wanna fund this one. Well, just go ahead. Say yes. Well, where's the money coming from? Mhmm.

It

would seem to me that it'd be you know, that's probably what

we want. Some version of that.

You have you have to say anybody can do it. Just, okay. You wanna do this? Great. Where's the money coming from?

Believe me. As part of the budget process, professional staff is always interested, particularly if it's a significant proposal of, okay. Where do you wanna where where do you want that to come from? But, usually, that's, right, the discussion that you then have, right, with the group. Okay.

If any one of you is gonna want that to happen, it might cause now some funds, you know, that were going to go here to be moved, you know, to that. But, yeah, so we're trying to put it in context of how it really works, right, as opposed to some limitation on their ability even to propose such a thing because they might not be able to understand or or make a specific recommendation about that unless it's put out on the floor in a larger discussion and sorted out. So, again, trying to align what the charter says with how things naturally, you know, and currently work. This group's gonna meet again on March on May 6. And, again, with my goal, maybe aspirational, to have all of these different pieces that they've been looking at, you know, put together in a in a substantially final enough state for them to be able to make a recommendation out to the one of the then upcoming larger meetings.

Any questions from anyone about any of the things I talked about with the group two meeting?

I forgot that we had a special guest appearance by Courtney for technical support, and then Jovan cruised through. So

Was that the meeting? I'm even lost track. I I've got a as any number of you have witnessed, yeah, I have a technical support team that I'm very that that I I I need more than I care to admit. And, yeah, we had was the the was this the one where Javon came to and helped troubleshoot it?

No. That was last week.

Oh, that was a different one.

He cruised he cruised through. Oh, okay. He walked through to get a drink and then walked back. So Well,

I appreciate all of that. It does take a village, especially for my IT needs more more than that. So, k, group three then has met, of course, a number of times and has has met since the last report out, and has another meeting scheduled May 13. This occurred, again, not that long ago. There was full attendance, with, member Diamond.

Thank you. We're participating remotely. And this another substantial. Again, these as you guys can see, these are a couple hour, you know, meetings because we're getting into the nitty gritty of the actual review of language with all of the groups. There was a staff presentation, which included the usual presentation and debrief on the discussions.

Oh, I'm sorry. This is the one where we that I'm losing track, where we spent most of the time talking about the chief of police. We touched on that with the other group because it's all intertwined, but this was the one that had a substantial debrief from the previous meeting. Excuse my, the faulty recollection on that. And, after we had that, we we went over some proposed updated language for the director of finance, city manager, city auditor, you know, and city attorney.

All of those, you know, positions are assigned to this group three in effect, you know, the role and function of the senior leadership team of the the city. The detailed issues discussed on the next slide now, of course, is a substantial debrief on the discussion on discussions surrounding the role of the city manager versus the chief of police and and who should have ultimate authority over the appointment, removal, or discipline of officers within the the the police department. The likely recommendation that the group's headed towards is whoever ends up, you know, being recommended to have that ultimate authority should consult with the other because there's some overlapping responsibilities, and and that's currently drafted in the city charter. It's more the better argument would be it's it re it remains a city manager, you know, ultimate responsibility, so how to how to kind of reconcile that. And then there is a fair amount of discussion with consensus around that as do we need to go further and define what consult means?

What does it mean for one of them to consult the other person in that situation? Very important, but can we get at that in the charter? Given the sensitivity of this area, right, with an elected, you know, chief of police and the role and function of the elected chief of police, any kind of modifications in this area might be politically sensitive. And so depending upon the outcome and how this is received, this may end up being, I think, I mentioned before, a level three issue. That's the kind of thing that the that you might recommend or the council might ultimately decide is the is the kind of thing that maybe you don't include that right in the comprehensive proposal.

Maybe that's something you pull out and go, hey. Let's act on this separately. The goal is to try to make it professional and balanced, you know, enough that it can be included, but, again, it's a it's a sensitive area as we've talked about. We did review the some proposed changes to the city manager role and function section. I did get some fairly substantial and helpful input from the city manager himself, and and he deputized me to, you know, act on his behalf to represent those things.

We teased him a little bit because one of the questions we asked the group was, you know, should the city manager's, you know, provisions be considered, you know, in a in a section along with all the other senior elected officials, or should it have its own article? The existing city manager thinks he should have his own article. And and he's he it's not a a bad idea or recommendation. There really is a lot more, right, to his role and function and his oversight, so that that may end up making sense in the over overall organization of things. There are some the again, in spirit of looking at things that are a little outdated, there's a provision in there that prohibits city council members from being the city manager, while also being the city manager during their term or any sooner than two years thereafter?

I think maybe back in the fifties, right, the the city manager job wasn't what it is, you know, now, and it might be like, hey. I can be city manager if I'm not in the council. I'll I'll I'll be that. So different now, it's kind of unimaginable, right, that the the council person would become the the city manager. And so do you do you delete that, or do you or are you communicating to the public, oh, now a city council person could be a city manager, right, when they were prohibited before.

So it's one of those things that you're trying we're trying to figure out, right, how what what is who's the audience and how are they gonna perceive it. Even if it's kinda silly and antiquated, it might be a necessary thing to retain because we don't none of us wanna give the wrong impression on on what the intent of this is. There's also provision that prevents the city a a relative of the city manager from being employed by the city. And some of the thoughts around that was, oh, why can't the city manager's kid, you know, be a lifeguard at a pool, right, or or have some kind of summer job? But is that kid gonna get special treatment?

Is that kid gonna be allowed to do stuff that kid ought not to be able to do because their parent, you know, is the city manager. May it's maybe it's a little silly to have it in the charter. But, again, should you take it out even if it's even it's a little silly, it probably makes sense to keep a provision like that anyway, which was with the discussion about that. I, of course, made my pitch for the city attorney, you know, sections. I don't have a conflict of interest so much as I do as I do invest yourself.

Interest. Yeah. But if you and if people want different thoughts from other attorneys, I could certainly solicit those. But and this is similar to the the chief of police, you know, dilemma. The chief of police has a thought that they are overseeing a professional group, right, that has special rules and and roles.

And who knows better than the chief of police, right, who to hire, who to be disciplined, you know, where you cut slack, where you don't. Well, I think that about the city attorney is you know, as well. City manager is not qualified to evaluate, you know, lawyers the the same way that I am or either for purposes of appointment or, you know, for purposes of discipline or advancement? Shouldn't the city attorney, you know, as a as a matter of their kind of duties as as the primary legal adviser be able to, you know, have responsibility over their team. So I'm proposing that. It's an interesting, you know, conversation. City manager probably wants to retain that authority with respect to to to that position as well.

I mean, at the very least, if it's your kid's firm, for example. You know?

Yeah. That's right. I do get to have my children work, though, here. There's not a provision for that. No. That wouldn't be allowed either. The another provision presented was the idea that the boards and commissions would not have the authority to require written opinions of the city attorney, just city council. Written opinion is a a pretty substantial work effort. And if that's being required by all the boards and commissions, that would be a lot. And then there was a a good discussion around the city attorney qualifications.

Currently, the the language requires four years of experience, you know, as an attorney to be qualified to be appointed as the city attorney. That is, of course, an absurdly low, you know, standard both in terms of years of experience for cities like this, and you could be a patent lawyer or a states and trust lawyers for four year in theory, right, and qualify for this. But you also don't want to be, you know, too limiting because there there are unique people, right, who might have other kinds of experience that that that could qualify them. So the consensus or the where the group's headed, I've got to draft some languages to increase for at least to seven years. We talked about as many as 10, and, really, 20 is probably the right, you know, amount for a city like this.

But with other qualifications as may be approved by the council commensurate with the demands of the position. So, again, that charter is not supposed to create, you know, hiring specs, you know, for for positions, but at least it's supposed to give some some general guidance. And so that's where things are at now. There's also a good discussion around the city auditor's roles and responsibilities. The city auditor himself suggested in addition to allow that to contemplate that provision that position, not just doing financial audits, but also doing performance audits of the city.

But there's also a concern at that position as potentially being weaponized. Right? Who's telling the auditor, you you know, how many audits there should be and who should be audited and who shouldn't be? So we're giving some thought, and I'm gonna have some additional discussions with the auditor whether or not there should be some guidelines, you know, around that to make sure that independent authority doesn't doesn't get abused. A lot for this group still to talk about. The the next meeting is scheduled for the for let's see. This says May 6.

Yep. But not since thirteenth.

This one, it should say May 13. Right? Yeah. Excuse that. That's my error in putting this together. Their meetings the next scheduled meeting is for May 13 on that. And, again, the aspiration to have all final language in front of that group for the potential ability to make a recommendation to the larger group. Is there a group three report out person or anybody from that group that wants to augment how I presented the discussions?

I think member Nikolai was going to do the report out. But

Ah, how convenient.

But I think you covered it well.

Very good. Thank you. That's right. It was Pat who was supposed to do that. Yeah. Very good.

Can I ask questions?

Mister chair, this would be the appropriate time for that, so I'm comfortable with that.

On the family and friends section of the, city manager

Mhmm.

You're talking about relatives. I was thinking about, you know, just honestly, if there's something in there that you have a a friend or something that could potentially look suspicious, that if they do wanna do it, at that point, it has to be brought to some other you know, I hate to say city council, but let's say city council would then say, okay. Yeah. We know you're bringing your son to be a lifeguard. Yeah. It's fine. But then it's public and notified versus, okay. I have some friend. I want them to have this position, and they're gonna get paid $350,000, and, you know, no one's gonna question it. No.

I think that, you know, it it should have something in there that if you have some kind of prior dealings or relations or whatever that that be brought out and then somebody else kind of blesses it off?

Miss mister chair, some thoughts on that. The I get that. I I get that thought. And it's easy when it's a the way it's currently drafted, where there's an outright prohibition on a a married or blood relative. But what does a friend mean?

I mean, there's the the professional people in our circles develop pretty substantial relationships with other, you know, colleagues as a result of being on committees together, being at conferences together. If you've worked in multiple cities, right, you'll there'll be a group of people that you develop relationships with over time. And very frequently, I will say, if you've got a position open, you know, in your organization and you know somebody, right, who you've worked with or have a relationship with, you will invite that person, you know, to apply, you know, for that position. And the idea that there would be either a prohibition on that or some second some some supplemental review of that, I think it'd be hard to define what what level of friendship, right, and relationship might might be regulated by that. So it's not a I I appreciate the point.

I'm just as I think about how it actually works.

But the way you just worded it Yeah. Is actually good because I'm saying I know somebody professionally. Uh-huh. They have experience in this area, and I'd like to bring them in. It's the ones where, like, oh, yeah. I have this friend, and they are a patent lawyer, but I'm gonna bring him on a a city, you know, attorney, whatever.

You know?

Something something where it's like, wait a minute. There, you know, there there can there can be some question as to is this person qualified to do whatever. So

Yeah. I'll I'll tender that group three. I'll that to the group. You're not with that group last time or if any group members wanted to come. We we can that can be socialized, you know, with the group for for discussions at their next committee meeting. It's a it's a it's a fair thought. I'm just giving my initial reaction, not The

way you explained it, actually, that would be fine if that's the way it worked. Yeah. I'm just saying, you know, you have to you know, we have good people, but you gotta plan for the unknown.

Yep. Something to wrestle with. I'll I'll also try to look into what the other rules that might apply to that either in the city managers. City manager has, like city attorneys do, has a substantial code of ethics that they're responsible for complying with. I have a feeling there might be a provision in the in the code of ethics that that would prohibit, you know, inappropriate engagements or hiring of people who are who aren't qualified. So that would be the kind of thing I would look at and and and discuss with the group when I get back with them.

So, Glenn, for the sake of those, or at least me who is confused, what to what exactly were we referring to with your questionnaire with number 12?

I'm sorry. Could you could you say that again and maybe into the the, more more into your mic.

Out data provision prohibiting city council member to be oh, I'm sorry.

The the the Yeah.

The city this is an action to propose. The city attorney should have a point removed at this point.

No. It's this one here. Retained provisions preventing city manager relative being employed by the city.

Yes.

You're saying, hey. Should we consider maybe expanding that to have some standard applied or guideline or additional review for people who are friends in effect of the of the city manager.

To your point, if there is a code of ethics, and I would assume there is somewhere in there for the city manager.

I'm gonna look at that to see if there's a separate standard that that may be a better, you know, reference point, you know, for that or even could include some language, right, that that is is balanced, you know, to include. I'm just hesitant to try to get too many again because how do you define a friend? And, again, there's so there's so many professional relationships that you become friends, right, you know, with with people.

That part's okay. I I like that part. It's like, I know professionally this person is qualified to do this. And, you know, like you've said before, it's not a bad thing to also maybe just not put too much in the charter, but say, city council will come up with an ordinance and guidelines, you know, so it's outside of the charter, so to speak, and that they can change it as needed so that they put an initial thing in there. And it's like, hey. This is not working. Right. You can change an ordinance. It's just like when you when congress passes a bill, if they ever do, there's a regulatory agency normally that's involved that Ben says, okay. How do we specifically implement this?

Uh-huh.

Yeah. And some agencies have I I appreciate that. Some agencies have what are called compliance officers that kind of review, you know, those things, you know, because there's hiring standards. Right? And there's ethics, you know, standards that apply to that. And a compliance officer would over over might oversee those things. I will tell you, I'm a little less concerned about it with a city manager as opposed to an elected official in that manner because if a city manager is inappropriately hiring people who are his or her friends that aren't qualified to do the work, that's gonna reflect on their performance, and they can be fired. So there is also an immediate remedy, you know, to that.

Yeah. We have some history of some of these things. So I would say Yeah. Just we don't have to go crazy, but I think, again, maybe something that says this the city council has to make an ordinance or guideline that helps Yeah. I appreciate can do it or or whatever.

Yeah. Good. We'll we'll we'll work that up a little bit more in committee and and discuss it.

Any other questions on that part?

Okay.

I would just like to add that this is no different than any other profession in the world. If you're working in the real world and you meet somebody you know and like and you think they're pretty good, you may suggest them to move on. And it's just we have eyeballs. We know people. We have relationships. Just because someone is a friend of yours doesn't mean they're not also qualified.

Yeah. That's and that's what we're I I agree. And I think member Crutchlow agrees too. It says we're just kinda wrestling with it if there's anything more that Yeah. It's something in there.

It's more if somebody is obviously, like, not qualified. Like, if you said, hey, Eric. Why don't you become, you know, the city council? It's like, yeah. There's no way I'm qualified for it. Right? So it's more it's more to cover that kind of area because we've we've had some history of of seeing some of this. But, you know, yeah, I don't wanna go debate this too much to death. I think, you know, maybe something that's in there again that then can be done by ordinance so council can change it as needed. And if they say, hey. You know, really, we're fine with the way things are going fine.

Very good.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Mister chair, ready to go on. Yes.

I do have two more questions. Oh, okay. Yep.

Not at all.

If I may. Okay. Real quick on the four years experience for the city attorneys. I was wondering, is there any kind of certifications that say, okay. I'm a lawyer, but I'm not a patent lawyer, and I have a certification in city legal stuff? There is not. Okay. So then writing something in there saying, okay. It's more than just four years experience in law. It has to be more specific to the kind of law that's being done by cities. Is that what you're contemplating for this?

Yeah. I I I think the idea would be to get qualifications approved by the council commensurate with the demands of the position was how we kind of intended to get at that in a broad brush way. You know, this is a sophisticated city. The the the hiring decisions made by city council need to be made in public. Right?

And so it'll be pretty obvious, you know, when when and they well, they generally do pretty substantial either recruitments unless they're hiring someone in house, right, who, as a result of that, probably is inherently qualified, right, if they've worked some number of years in house to be elevated. So I I I get the point. There's not a clear criteria here. I'll tell you we wrestled with this down in Chula Vista where it was more important because it was an elected position, you know, there. And so, you know, what what kind of qualifications should you put on that, and what should be left to the voters?

Right? You don't wanna be so permissive that anyone could run or be hired, right, that's not remotely qualified on the one hand. And on the other hand, you don't wanna restrict the ability of someone to run and let the voters decide, right, relative to, you know, amongst the people who run, you know, who's more qualified. And if you're too strict with it, particularly in the electoral context, you might have a dearth of candidates who even meet those qualifications, you know, who'd be crazy enough to run, you know, for elected office like I was. And so they ended up actually revising it down there to increase it.

I think down there, it's now ten years experience for an elected city attorney in that case, city attorney. And there was a lot of discussion around, well, shouldn't it be, you know, a a municipal lawyer? And it's hard to define what that, you know, really is, and there is no certification, you know, for it. So they ended up leaving it alone, but they but they increased it from seven to 10. And then they imposed a residency requirement because it didn't have a residency requirement, you know, before.

And that was even hotly debated because even though Chula Vista was a big city, how many people are gonna be ten year lawyers who, you know, have the kind of experience, you know, that that you really want and that are also residents? Right? There's just just not too many folks. So there's good conversations around that to be to be had. This group's discussing it. I think they ended up in a so far in a place that makes sense with the with with the the with the language that I described.

And you had I had another question. I just wanna make sure if anybody else wanted to comment on this before I go.

Anybody else have another question?

Right. Final question on the last one, the city audit and performance audits. Mhmm. Are there any particular standards in GASB or anything like that that, can be referred to? So, like, in the industry, this is the standard by which we will, you know, maintain our performance audits and such like that.

Yeah. There are. I I don't know if it's if that's as true for performance audits.

Sometimes there's just recommendations saying it should be you should do one for this on these occasions and this or, you know, upon the you know, these actions occurring. You can just take it as a no. You don't have to respond at this time if you don't want.

Yeah. I'm I I the the language doesn't currently have that, but I'll make a note of that to to discuss with the group as well. Thank you.

Before we move on, since we have members, Diamond and Naved with us tonight, would either of you like to comment on what member had to say?

What mister Kaslow has said and also very good summarization of the details that mister Glenn has shared. I think I agree to some of the questions that you have raised and in response to some of the comments that you have also. Because in our professional life, I also would suggest someone who has got experience to just come and apply to this role. But there should be some criteria during the process. There is an entry process, and there is a process of getting them hired. Having that ethics, right, it makes sense

Mhmm.

To actually go and evaluate and it makes sense or not. Yeah. So I think we'll discuss it broadly within the team.

All set? Okay. Alright. Glenn, over to you.

Next group. Group four, boards and commissions, composition, powers, and duties. This group's had a lot of meetings. They've also had a lot of good stakeholder input. They've had not had a meeting since the last report out, but there is one scheduled for April 16, yeah, tomorrow, my fourth night meeting this week.

I'm trying to I'm setting a record. People are both feel bad for me and make fun of me, you know, for all the all the meetings we're having, but I am don't worry about me like my my staff, but I'm enjoying it. So we'll we'll keep going. The the report out from the March 12 meeting, which was the the most recent one, you already had. I've just got a slide, you know, for that here, but that's already been reported out and reported out to the committee itself.

So I won't belabor the group for I will add, though, an item that wasn't included here, which I think we might have talked about, but it's not on the slide, so I didn't want I wanted to make sure it wasn't This group, the Board of Library Trustees, which was the focus of the March 12 meeting, recommended all of these things about their powers. You will remember, they're giving up quite a lot because the charter provision currently has them administering the library system, which they don't do and haven't done for decades. But they still want to retain some, you know, power and authority. And so that's what these sections here talk about, the balance of that. But the other thing that they mentioned that other groups are thinking about and considering as well is whether or not to expand the access to board of library trustees representation, whether or not the qualified elector requirement should be relaxed so that I I I shouldn't say it this way, but mere residency, you know, would be necessary.

And if you remember from previous point out, a qualified elector is someone who is a registered voter, you know, within the city. And to be a registered voter, you need to be a citizen. And so part of this is very consciously, you know, to try to expand the tent, you know, right, and include people who aren't necessarily, you know, US citizens, but nonetheless, our residents, you know, here with a stake in the community. So board of library trustees thought that was important enough at least to recommend with respect to their commission, and other ones are weighing in on that and still will present to the group on the sixteenth about that and other things. So that was the the the last meeting.

It just again, to repeat it, but there's a meeting, as I mentioned, coming up on April 16. At that meeting, planning commissioner Chirakuru will be has been designated. What? She's not able to to make that.

Able to meet meet tomorrow, so I'm I'll I will talk to you about alternatives

Okay. If I can. Yeah. Very good. We had a little miscommunication. Unfortunately, the the Priya was on this committee meeting under the impression she was presenting to this group, which I don't think is the appropriate, you know, channel for that. Right? It should go to the subcommittee, and then the subcommittee digests that, right, and then presents out. So our apologies for any miscommunication to her about that. Planning commission, as member Kretzler knows who chaired that, really took this up very seriously with an initial presentation from me and then another meeting scheduled, right, to really dig into it. And so you're working on potentially a different mechanism for everybody else.

You can always blame the chair for being an idiot.

I would not I would never do that, but I I would instead take responsibility my myself. So we can talk about how to make sure that the the there is a a record of it, right, with a memo that that's drafted that either staff or another designee, you know, might be able to present to tomorrow's group. So some version of that will come back to the group on the sixteenth with apologies to planning commission Terro Caro. But we also have and very impressed with how this group was able to take this issue up in very short notice. The Parks and Rec Commission took this up at their at their commission meeting on Monday, a night when I had three meetings and and and presented primarily to the committee but popped my head in at the other ones as well.

And Parks and Rec Commission, in one meeting, took a presentation and developed their comments and has deputized staff to present those and their input on their thoughts about both the composition and roles and functions of the Parks and Rec Commission. And they had a good discussion about measure r, right, the the provision that requires votes for any disposition or change of use of park property. They had a good discussion about some modifications that could be made to that along the lines of what the planning commission, you know, talked about because I know that came up, you know, with your group as well with, I think, similar outcomes with the idea of at least some provision to allow for ancillary, you know, uses, but I don't wanna get ahead of them. That presentation's gonna come to the committee, you know, on the sixteenth. So that's group four.

Are there any group four members who would like to supplement or disagree with any of the things that I just presented on your behalf?

Yeah. We're we're good on group four. Go ahead.

Very good. Group five met a lot but hasn't met for a while. The next meeting is still to be determined. The early work that you did, though, is in process. The meet and confer process has been initiated, and preliminary input from actually the impacted labor groups has been received and is being analyzed, and those labor groups are being engaged with as part of that consultation kind of meet and confer process.

And so once that's complete and and as much of that as can be resolved as possible, that's gonna come back to the the subcommittee if we have time and or directly to this committee. And to the extent issues are resolved, labor groups may or may not, you know, come and present you know, the committee itself to express, you know, their issues or concerns about the proposed changes that this group so far has just approved in concept, right, in order to initiate that process subject to the feedback that's coming. So that's in process, and, hopefully, we'll catch up because we started it early on, as you remember, on purpose out of necessity. Any questions about where that's at from anyone? Okay.

Lastly, group six. I apologize on the version of the PowerPoint that you sent out. There's a extra provision, a a bullet underneath the April 6 that on the slide has been deleted because it it was a carryover from an earlier meeting. So scratch that out or ignore it on your your printed power out your PowerPoint. Group six met on February 4.

They've met on March 17 as well. The next meeting is scheduled for April. Oh, I'm sorry. This is this is an old slide. The the meeting since report out should be 04/06/2026.

And on the next slide, we'll do the report out from the April 6 meeting. Apologize for not having updated that one properly. Next slide. At the April 6 meeting, had full attendance, quite a meeting over almost two and a half hours. Staff presentation, of course, included a recap of the March 17 meeting, which, as this group will recall and maybe the larger committee after the report out, was focused on public works contracting, including a stakeholder presentation, which was very well done by director of public works, Craig Mobek.

And the group went over and reviewed two primary proposed updates for the public works sections. One, basically, a wholesale replacement of of what that those sections currently made with a set of standards to be implemented by ordinance, and the other one really keeping a lot of that language intact but increasing the dollar limits. In each case, there was gonna be provisions made for alternative procurement mechanisms that would allow for design build, you know, procurement as well as other similar type alternatives that were different than the traditional design bid build and award to the lowest responsible bidder. Both Public Works and Silicon Valley Power are very interested in having an update in this that allows at a minimum these alternative procurement mechanisms. They are very suited for more complicated projects, like the kinds of things SVP, you know, builds for the electric transmission system, and they're also very useful for the kinds of things that are now being built with the oversight of public works using the measure I, you know, monies, the $400,000,000 of infrastructure monies.

A lot of it's going to the potential construction of sophisticated projects like firehouses, like potential updates to the International Swim Center, and those types of things are viewed as ideal projects for alternative procurement mechanisms that right now under our charter, the way it's drafted, you know, they can't deploy. And so that was the focus of that meeting, and that's definitely going to be a recommendation of some form that's still being discussed that's going to come out of that group when they ultimately report out. At the at this meeting, really, was focus the focus was on the finance part of the sections of part of the group six allocate allocated assigned provisions and that we're it was very helpful to have a presentation and question and answers with the director of finance, Ken Lee, on the city's existing budgeting and accounting process and why updates to these budget and accounting sections are really necessary in order to align with modern standards of how that works. So the issues that that group dug into on the next slide, thank you, were changes throughout these sections to allow for but not require biannual budgeting. You've heard that before.

The the sections as currently drafted in the charter only contemplate an annual budget process, but our city for some number of years out of compliance with the charter has been doing biannual budgeting and and probably will for the foreseeable future, so it should at least be contemplated if not required. There were discussions, and, again, this is in reviewing, you know, the actual language that that was drafted, terms for updating and simplifying the budget preparation and approval process. There was a lot of detail about how the city manager needed to solicit and then would receive back and then would comment on, you know, proposals from the different departments that really aren't necessary and just happen as a matter of course. So that was simplified. The there was also a lot of discussion around the whether or not there should be specific reserve requirements.

The current language that was drafted proposes levels of reserves to be determined by the city council in consideration of and recommendations from the city manager, but there was a lot of concern by this group on fiscal, you know, management of of, you know, city resources. And should we develop, you know, more specific standards, you know, in the charter? I'm resisting that a little bit, I'll admit, just because those standards can change, you know, over time. And so this group's wrestling with, you know, whether or not a general concept for the maintenance of reserves in accordance with professional standards or more specific provisions should be included. As with all sections that have notices for certain actions that need to be taken, the way the charter reads now, it's all posting and mailing and and putting in the newspaper.

That's gonna be modernized, you know, now to make sure it it uses modern resources and posting on the website for so that anyone who wants to provide input on the budget can be notified in a more modern way. And then there was a fair and good discussion about the provisions for the administration of and amendments to the budget, including an analysis of the value or legal necessity for five votes to amend the budget as opposed to a simple majority. The legal analysis that was done led me to conclude and advise this group that even though a five vote requirement to amend budgets is pretty standard throughout general law and charter cities in fact, it was not a legal requirement, and the charter could be legally revised to require only four votes. There's some hesitance to do that, you know, though, because it's an existing restriction, right, that that is intended to have amendments be exceptions to the to the budget process as opposed to just something that's done in course. And so the group's wrestling right now with maybe a version that says, hey.

Five votes to change budget or change the amend the budget in a way that takes money from one place and puts it in another, but still maybe only four votes for an allocation of money that's new to the city. Sometimes you get grants. You can get unanticipated revenues. It's not changing something that you already approved in the normal more elaborate budget process. Instead, you're just out appropriating those monies in the first place.

And so language like that's being developed for this group to review and consider as part of their final recommendation. There is also under review with some interesting pending results that I will present to this group at the next meeting. The the public debt, you know, provisions that are currently in the charter, They're being reviewed by our bond counsel and outside special counsel. Boy, these are really old and outdated and and talk about things and and budget and finance mechanisms that aren't even used any longer since I think these provisions were put in there. There are a whole lot of other constitutional, you know, provisions and laws that have been developed that limit, you know, how cities can issue debt and where you're allowed and and and where you re is required to vote.

So the next presentation will get at all of that. One of the sections that's being looked at, our outside counsel is actually proposing be deleted almost entirely because it really no longer applies and and unnecessarily. There's a workaround, you know, for the kind of finance mechanism that this thing appears to, you know, govern. And since there's a workaround, you know, already, why not allow it, you know, in its more, you know, modern, convenient, streamlined way. So we're gonna get that more specifically reported out on and presented to this group six at their at their next meeting.

There is agenda for May 11 meeting that or there is a meeting scheduled for May 11. And, again, with this group aspirationally, and I think realistically, we're we're looking to have all the final language proposed for all sections and, again, have them in a position to make a recommendation shortly thereafter to the larger group. Any group six members, mister chair, who might wanna supplement or disagree with me on that report out, now would be the time. Member Brooks, do

you Yeah. No disagreement. Thank you. But there was a a couple of things that we really I think Bert would agree with that too. Talked around, and it was a standardization around the reserve.

And we had there was a real big discussion about the the pool, as everybody knows. So it was like, how do we what do we put in the language to to really make sure that that does that doesn't happen again? And then from the budget, he Glenn talked about the amendment to a budget, and we discussed new monies as well as a reduction. Because Ken had a real big problem reducing the budget, and it needed a five votes instead of four. And he was just trying to save the city money, and he had that struggle. So should should we categorize those two things?

Thank you.

And then the last thing I have is just a a a percentage a percentage of budget for capital maintenance and a may minimum capital reserve.

Else from group six? Yes. Mister Gretchen,

go ahead. Actually, it was a great meeting, seeing Ken there in person was just the next level. Great to get feedback directly. Yeah. In in fact,

Ken's fantastic, and this the committee joking, not joking proposed to include language in there requiring Ken Lee to be the finance director in perpetuity. It may not have been this group. It might have been the other group. I think it was this group that that is proposing that. So he'll that that'll be something that when Ken gets to review this, he'll see that in there. We'll see if he notices and and and and and objects to it.

I believe there was something about him keeping two sets of books

as well. We also jokingly were gonna require that he keep yeah. I think this was in his the role and function group, right, where we require him to keep two sets of books. Right? So we'll see what he notices about that. We're gonna have fun with Ken, but he's gonna have to show up at subcommittee meetings.

If I'm gonna have to snitch you out and say you also were giving examples of how we should reduce the budget of, legal counsel. I don't know why, but you did.

Yeah. That's right.

I second.

Alright. I I do have a serious one, though. So one of my things that I always bring up about this and one of the reasons I very much wanted to be on this committee was, when we talk about reserves, the the real problem I have with the way that the city has been run is we just passed a $400,000,000 bond issue, which was actually, there was an ask for over 600,000,000 because of all the things that we needed to do. And my big problem is, like, if you do not plan for your reserves and and do this in a proper manner, like, hey. I know I'm gonna replace the swim center.

It's gonna have a life of thirty years. I should be saving money every year to know that that will need maintenance, and it will need replacement at some point. And even the stadium authority, part of the contract is who pays to tear down the stadium. And it's actually, I think, Glenn, that's on us. The city has the It's actually not paper some of the

It's actually not on us. It it's it's on the I

thought we had, like, $7,000,000 budget that had to be in there for

There there is. There there's. So it's a little more complicated than that.

But Okay.

Quickly, it's it's that you the stadium authority funds out of revenues a $70,000,000 contribution towards the demolition or renovation, and any amount beyond that is the responsibility of the 49ers. Yeah.

Great. So my thought was there's too many examples. When you ask people who live here and own property, the you're gonna pay more taxes, which we we do to pay for this bond. I think it is not the way you wanna do it. You wanna plan for your expenses and and future finances. I don't wanna put a burden on anybody else. And so one of the things I had, discussed briefly was a finance committee made up of citizens that will have oversight and see, hey. Are you making these plans? Are you making these reserves? And if not, why?

Because at some point, it's gonna come back to us, and we you know, you're gonna pay for it one way or the other. Right? And so we have enough examples. And I think when somebody asked me for over $600,000,000 that we have to fund, that concerns me and that we need to do something better. So one of the things that I have been pushing is that although I know Glenn has very nicely pointed out, says Eric, that is a level three.

I I would go and say it's a level four ask. There is another way to do it. You we can create a a separate committee when the city council doesn't have to necessarily be done in the charter, but I think we should say something about that in in proposing this to city council. Whether we have a finance committee that's in the charter or that the city council should make one, I think we should bring it up because I think that's very important. It's been a lot of money that we spent, and it it it really disappoints me that this is the way the city has been run. And it's not just the current city council. I mean, this has obviously gone on for years. Kicking you know, kick the can down the road is not a way to budget. Thank you.

Glenn, I believe you concluded your presentation on that.

Yeah. Very good. I think that's great. And we're going to we're working on some concepts of that with potentially some couple of different options for the group, you know, to recommend along those lines beyond even what I drafted already. So

I'm Right.

I'm hearing that from more than just member Crutchlow as something folks are interested in. So at least some option will come back to that subcommittee and ultimately to the CRC, know, to look at.

Wonderful. Thank you for your standing tonight on that. I will now open it up to public hearing. Does the staff would ask any members of the public wish to speak?

There's none.

There are none. Presenting staff, if you have the stamina, have you anything else to speak on that point?

I think I think we've got my the report outs covered.

Alright. We'll close the public hearing on that and bring the committee the item back to the committee for discussion. Is there any discussion on that item that was not brought up during that item? Seeing no discussion, I'd like a motion to finish that one off.

Mister chair, you are you I appreciate your parliamentary observances, but I don't think you need to actually do that from the group. US presiding officer can decide we just move on to the next item.

Excellent. Let's move on to the next item.

You might as well enjoy your power while while you have it.

I did remember to wear the coat just in case. I will now move on to the next item, staff presentation and solicitation of committee input or direction regarding one April 7 report to the city council regarding the charter project progress to date, proposed comprehensive reorganization plan and schedule. Second, the comparison and lessons from Santa Clara's comprehensive charter update from year 2000. Third, charter's project work plan and scheduling update. Staff, do you have a presentation?

Yeah. Very good. Thanks. Back to me. I always at least got a breather there.

The a couple of the subcommittees have already heard this report out, but I'll I'll do a quick version of it here for this group. As

you

all know and remember, Matt, boy, back I think even in your February 18 meeting, we talked about wanting to give an update to the council, right? So they knew where we were at, and we wanted to include in that the thing that we were talking about as a comprehensive reorganization of of the charter so that they wouldn't be astonished, right, when it came back, you know, looking like it's gonna look with all the work that that's being done on it. And we weren't able to schedule that because the the agendas have been so packed. And because the agendas have have so packed, I also made and pardon me for this executive decision to actually include that item that report out to them on their consent, you know, agenda, which is something that allows them to pull the item if they have issues or concerns or questions, you know, and provide, you know, comments on it, but it also can stay on the consent agenda, right, and be approved en masse, you know, with the other items. And so that's how it was presented to them on April 7, item three d on the consent agenda.

With this agenda, you've got an r the the RTC, the report to counsel that we put together in in order to give them a status update. And I think we attached the PowerPoint too to this agenda as well, so you have the PowerPoint that I ended up not ever giving, but what was available there as a we call that a pocket, you know, PowerPoint in the in the event that the item was pulled. The report to them included a background of the charter project origins and the creation of the CRC. Of course, they're familiar with that because they did it, but it's been a good seven months, right, since they did all of that. And so to remind them of that, of of how we got where we got, I I thought was useful.

And for the public if anyone was looking at that, right, and tracking it, you know, publicly. It also included a a statement and reminder of the charter project purposes purposes that were formally adopted along with the CRC bylaws. Remember that was an important part of creating a focus and narrowing, you know, the focus of this group so that it wasn't a hodgepodge of anything anyone thought of. Right. Instead is, you know, the the update, as you all know, that we've been working within the spirit of.

And then it it gave a summary of the CRC activities to date, including the formation of your ad hoc subcommittee working groups, which, as you know, has been a pretty good, I think, successful driver of the engine of the kind of this this work effort as was intended. The they were informed as they already had been in a separate memo, but the approval and concept of the changes to the article 11 civil service rules and the sections regarding the civil service commission so that we can initiate the consultation with labor groups. So they're now reinformed of of that process going on. They also were presented the the the actual language for the different levels that that we we created with some input from the group of how ultimately we're gonna categorize the different changes. Remember, Krutchlow is trying to create levels five, six, and seven with some of his ideas, you know, so far.

But at least the, you know, the basic levels, including now level four, was presented to them again so they hopefully will be socialized and familiar with some of these things when it comes back. And then maybe most importantly, presentation of the proposed charter reorganization that was designed to improve user friendliness, including, you'll remember, the slides of the pros and cons, you know, on that. So they saw what the the group wrestled with and, ultimately, you know, the decision that it made sense if we're gonna do all this work, you know, to let's let's do it in a format, you know, that makes the most sense. The item, as I mentioned, allowed the city council to pull the item if there were any issues, questions, or concerns, and no one did. So it was approved along with the other consent items as a note and file item.

I do wanna recognize, though, and extend further appreciation to members Tanzi and Roberts who were in the audience to present and answer questions if the item was pulled. Member Nikolai also told me he was on standby if it got pulled and was prepared to come over, you know, and present as well. Member Tanzi has never looked better. He was in wasn't, like like, for a gala or anything, but it was he was fully suited and looked great. Remember, Roberts, I think, was more casually attired, but definitely ready to go.

And when after the item, you know, in effect was approved, right, and not pulled from consent, I went over and said, hey. Good day. You guys are good to go. Thanks for being here. And they're like, what? What do you mean? I'm ready to present. I'm like, well, you could still ask, you know, to present or present in public presentations if you want. And they they stayed to observe. But I think you you guys being engaged in it, obviously, was was valuable and important, and I wanted to thank the volunteers for doing that.

A lot more of that's gonna be required right when it actually comes back to them with more of your voices, you know, than than mine because I think it's important they hear from you all and your experiences with the process. So thanks to them, a successful item. I do feel like the council's been checked in on, right, and given a full update, you know, on where we're at and hopefully to prepare them for the things to come, including the schedule of how we're contemplating, you know, getting to the finish line here amongst this group and, ultimately, the timeline for the presentation to them, which we'll talk about in a in a second. Any questions about how that went down with city council or comments from member Roberts as an attending observing commissioner. Always interesting.

Those meetings are always interesting.

Oh, yes. You were exposed to a a few other things of the goings ons, you know, there. Yes.

Yeah. And member Tanzi had a speech prepared. I just had notes in here to if they wanted examples, I had notes on on standby. But, yeah, it's all good.

Very good. Yes.

Question. Was that one of the Batman that became town? Or okay. Right.

No. There are no costumed people there other than member Tansey. Yeah. Comparison any other questions, Mr. Chair, that item?

We can go to the next slide. Comparison lessons from charter update in 2000. You'll all remember that as I've as we've talked about this process, the most recent, really, attempt at a comprehensive update of the charter was, you know, twenty six, you know, years ago, but we hadn't been able to find any real other than a general description of that, it was a comprehensive update, the actual nuts and bolts of what was done. City clerk doesn't have a record of it. It's not on the on the ROV, you know, at least anywhere I found it.

Well, one of my legal assistants found it in in sorting through our files, an underlying strikeout version of that charter amendment proposal. I can't swear to you because it's not official. Right? It's just something that was in the file. That is the actual final, you know, version of what was proposed, but it appears to be a substantial, you know, final version in line, you know, with the changes that were proposed.

And so as a matter of context and reference for this effort, I have attached that to this agenda item if you care to look at it. And I wanted to talk about it at least a little bit for your reference and for the public's reference for anyone observing tonight. There were changes throughout, but for anyone who's looked at it, and I I think I distributed copies at least at one of the subcommittee meetings because we'd found it before then, a very light touch compared to what this what you're going through here. So I'm not sure there's too many lessons, you know, to be learned, you know, from it, but I thought I'd share with you some sample changes to to what the the their their changes were. They, in this case, added language regarding required residency and qualified electorate status that had not been explicitly stated that way before, but that was added back in in year 2000.

They added language.

Clip then. To be clear, these are changes that were made as a result of this process? Yes. Okay. They were added to the charter.

Yes. These were all things that were proposed to be changed and were adopted with one exception that I'll I'll note at the end. They added language preventing a city council member from running for another city council seat if they had more than six months left on their term, it's an interesting provision that I think is now antiquated and no longer relevant, and the group that's looking at that section is taking that up. Back then, you'll recall that they were the the council sections weren't districts did. They were just numbered.

And so in theory, any council person could run for any council seat because they were all elected at large. And this was intended to, you know, prevent someone from being cute, right, some would say, or strategic or democratic. I don't want I shouldn't be pejorative about it of of, you know, in effect, trying to work the system to, you know, keep getting, you know, fresher, newer, you know, you know, council seats as part of their process. So that was apparent I guess that was going on, and so there was a provision added to the charter to prevent that from happening. There was a lot of details for holding of local elections and detailed process consistent with the exercise that we're engaged in now where there's extra details that really don't need to be there.

You know, we're frequently proposing deletion of those. So they did a little bit of that back then, which was a pretty substantial deletion. I think recognizing that a lot of that was governed by the the registrar of voters, right, and wasn't really a a local city thing. And so those things were eliminated with instead a reference to state law, you know, for for governing those things. There was a a three year residency requirement in order to be an elected official back then.

You could not run for election unless you'd been a resident in Santa Clara for three years or more. And I think they replaced it with the thirty day, you know, requirement that there is now. They needed to do that. Three year residence requirements were struck down as being unconstitutional, on on unfairly restricting people's, you know, ability to to have full rights, you know, of of being a citizen, you know, of the of The United States. I forget which amendment.

Might have been might even be First Amendment, free speech and other, you know, rights, you know, and provisions. And so that was deleted. It was unconstitutional, so it was good that it was deleted. So they were involved in the complaints with law, you know, aspects of of this as well. They changed back then, considered a modern thing, all references to it was all, male references.

It was all him, his, you know, he. That was, deleted and replaced with his, her everywhere. As you know, we're going now to the even more modern convention and either using the title itself, you don't have to use a pronoun. You're using the title. Or where you do, you use they to encompass whatever, his, her, and anything else. They deleted details for calling a special election and instead referred to the I'm sorry. This is that's wrong. Special meeting, I should say. They deleted details for calling a special meeting and in and instead referred to the Brown Act. They deleted requirements for meetings to be held at city hall and instead deferred to the Brown Act.

They deleted outdated provisions regarding the taxing system and and limits on the city's ability to tax. Again, at that time, that had become outdated. And so as you'll see as you'll remember in the the the particularly the fiscal group, there's a number of sections there that we're getting rid of entirely that just have the headings and show that they were deleted. It was this, you know, comprehensive amendment back in the year 2000 that did that. Other than that, just kind of little things here or there.

So while it was comprehensive, very small c in comprehensive, not anywhere near, you know, the the enterprise that this group is engaged in in in now. So when I say lessons, I don't know that there are so much as there is some resonance in the kinds of things that they were doing back then or the kinds of things, you know, that this group's doing now just in a much more comprehensive and and detailed manner. So please look at that. And if you've got any questions about it either tonight or at any other time, give me a call if you want an explanation of it. Again, I can't swear to you that the underlying strikeout version I gave to you is the last one, but I believe it's a substantial provision.

Here's one note. The underlying strikeout version, included a proposed revision to the public works section that changed the 1,000 threshold for city council approval of public works or for approval of the use of city forces to engage in public works. It proposed to change it from $1,000 to $50,000 That, I think, was taken out and proposed separately at that same election or maybe at a later election because these proposed changes were approved. Whereas that one, you'll remember when I gave you a history lesson on what I learned about the different provisions that had been proposed and rejected. That proposal was rejected at the time, you know, by the voters, the proposal to increase from 1,000 to 50,000.

So you'll see in this underlying strikeout, that's included there, but it was not ultimately tendered and was tendered as a stand alone measure and and was not approved by the electorate at that time some time ago.

Like, was there a no sticky note your law clerk found that said don't try to replace the whole thing at once? That didn't come up. Okay. Good.

That's right. Yeah. That's right. Measure and and maybe there's a benefit of doing everything at once, right, as opposed to parsing things out. But so that's it on that section.

Finally, really, and we're getting close to the end here, I wanted to talk to you about scheduling requirements of where we're at in the process. This is you you had a little version of this at your last meeting, but still, we're targeting an initial presentation to the city council on June 9. If further council direction is needed, this would be scheduled for June 23 with the concept of final action occurring on their meeting on July 14. This schedule was included in the update to them, so they've seen this and know they're paying attention that this is coming kind of in that form. But, of course, before we get to any of that, we need to be done with our own work, and we're likely gonna need one or more additional CRC meetings in May and or June.

The current meeting that you've got is scheduled for May 20 at Central Library and then on June 17 in City Council Chambers. Next slide here. As you saw a little clumsily with how the system works, we did solicit your your input in polling, you know, for these additional meetings. Sorry about how that came out. It's a goofy system.

And the poll and and since we we solicited your availability, the rapacious ad hoc subcommittees have eaten up two of those dates that probably weren't gonna be dates we were gonna be ready for the extra meeting anyway. So I think that makes sense for ad hoc subcommittees to do that. May 6 only had eight of you being able to attend anyway. May 13, the same. Now we've got ad hoc subcommittees meeting on both of those.

But we had pretty good response for May 27. 11 yes, one no. Sorry. Whoever that no person is. I think I'm gonna propose, mister chair, at some point for the action to actually schedule that as a as one of your additional kind of special meetings.

I don't know if we should do June 10 yet, but maybe we should tentatively schedule that for a special meeting. The juxtaposition of that with the council meeting on the ninth might be a little too close to to turn that around, you know, and respond to what the council action is. And so we may need to go further deeper into June as opposed to scheduling that June 10. But I might suggest for this group at least to take action if it makes sense to ask that May 27 be identified as a special meeting.

Willing to proceed with that now while we have all the yes votes there in your impromptu poll. How would you recommend we structured that? Just move to schedule a a vote for the full committee. Alright. So a motion then to schedule a full committee meeting on twenty seven May twenty twenty six. Is there a second? Second from mister Kretchlow? We get a vote on that staff.

Holly Roberts?

Yes.

Pat, Nikolay, and Bernard Tanzi are absent. Mohammed Naveed?

Yes. Yes.

John Brooks?

Yes.

Joe Susinski?

Yes.

Eric Crutchlow?

Yes.

Bert Field? Steve Kelly? Lauren Diamond? Yes. Eric Jensen? Yes. Mark Beckman? No. Susan Peters? Yes.

The yeses have it. I'm sorry, Mark. With that and if that wraps up your presentation on this item, I have a few questions.

Yeah. Very, very good. Yeah. I'm done. And I don't think I I'm I'm I I think I'm gonna recommend, mister Cho, we wait on June 10 just because I I think we're gonna pull for later in June for a more timely meeting now that's that's relates better to the the what we hope will be the June 9, you know, initial presentation to the city council. So, yes, available for any questions about

this. So now that we're into the home run here, what do you envision these meetings looking like, especially the one or two we have that will proceed the June 9 meeting of city council? I'm curious as to whether you intend to be voting as a block on markups per committee where there might be text that is related between committees. Have you given some thought to this? And if so, can we hear it now, or should we talk it out now?

Yeah. I'd love input from the group about that. I'll give you what my preliminary thoughts are on it. Right now, we've got May 20 and May 27, right, as the the the meetings that hopefully will be in a position to receive from subcommittees that have gotten to that point, you know, their recommendations on some or all of their, you know, section language. And I'm sorry.

Oh, June 17 might be available. Okay. The did we pull on that? Or

No. That's right.

Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry. That's the oh, I got you. That's the that that's when the actual meeting is. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. So I think we can wait on the June meeting. So the the thought was to have the groups, the subcommittees that have met that are most ready, right, that have most of their provisions to present, to present with assistance from staff, of course, their their proposed language for those sections by, I think, by by subcommittee.

Right? Even though some of it's an overlap, it might make sense for group two and group three to go on the same night, right, because there's so much interlapping, you know, between those those two. And those in theory could be taken up together, you know, or separately. But a lot of the rest of them are really you know, could be standalone. And so depending upon how the next I guess I would suggest, you can see these upcoming subcommittee meetings, depending upon how those go, right, the try to be in a position to have at least two groups, if not three groups, in a position to recommend, you know, for this group's input and potential action, you know, the the proposed changes in those sections.

And so a lot of work between now and then, but that's the thought is to have two or three at each one of those meetings. And if possible, the whole the in in in effect, the components for assembly and referral back to staff to to to assemble, you know, a full initial presentation to the city council on June 9.

Okay. So the June 9 presentation will be the initial one. So if not, all subcommittees have completed their work, or we have

That's right.

Maybe have not approved the entire package ready to go?

That's right. I'm trying to be realistic. Right? The the this is this was such an ambitious project. If we could have air all of it together, we would have it together.

But whatever is done, I think it's important to get at least some of it in front of the city council, you know, by June 9 so they have a you know, see what it looks like, right, and and are in a position to at least provide initial, you know, feedback. So, again, eating the elephant one bite at a time, one subcommittee at a time, and that's my thought. The thing that we need to still do a lot of work on is even frankly for how it's gonna be presented to you, but for especially how it's presented to counsel, how we show the changes. Right?

Before you go in because I wanna go first because

you're Yeah. You go first.

This side. Yeah. Is are we going to present it both to this committee and to the city council in its initial presentation as part of the entire replacement or in red line versus where it stands today? So are we gonna have sections one or articles one and then sections 100? Is that your intention?

Yeah. That's, again, what I'm I I I think they need to at least have in their hands an underlying strikeout. Right? I think they need a clean version. I think they need an underlying strikeout, and then I think they need something annotated in one or both of those documents to provide them some guidance on, you know, kind of what was changed and and what at that point, right, what levels we think they are. Right? And and and that's how we

I miss asking. Just so I'm trying to make clear what I'm saying to everybody is you have this notion. We have this notion of presenting a fully redrafted, everything moved to the right place, renumbered with new artist one section. Is it your intention that the city council and this committee will see that as part of this initial presentation?

Yes. Okay. That is that is my objective. But I think it might be sorry. I I I I probably thought you were asking more than that. I what I'm I think it needs to be more than that, though, again, for for tracking and annotation purposes and categorization of levels. And so both the clean version, especially the clean version, but probably the underlying strikeout version needs to have some annotations to explain what was changed, you know, right, and the kind of level of of how we would category levels of changes. Right? Level one stuff, we're probably not gonna highlight, but it'll probably be, hey. This is level two.

This might be level three. Anything else that was changed is just level one. Right? And and, you know, refer to the underlying strikeout to see what the level one stuff is. Okay.

So that so your idea that is we'll lay out here is the the brand new version with articles one, two, and three, and so forth. And this the strikeout or the red line on that will be reflecting levels two, three, and four?

All of the above. Yes. And, again, I'm I'm still working on how each of one of those look. It might be three versions of it. Right?

It might be a clean version. It might be a underlying strikeout version, and then it might be somewhere in between that shows sections side by side, right, that that are underlying the struck out sections. So if they don't if if it's hard for them to see the underlying strikeout all in one place, and as all of you who have seen, you know, the when we're going through the sections, what it looks like, it's it's it's it's very kind of challenging and almost not helpful, you know, to have the underlying strikeout. So I'm trying to conceive of a hybrid version of it, again, to communicate in as many different ways as possible that are useful to them in understanding what it originally said, what changes were made, and what it looks like now. And that could be three versions and annotated in some way.

We will at one of your first meetings, if not the twentieth or the twenty seventh, obviously, try that out on you because you need to you're more involved in it, so you're not as needful of those different tools, you know, with how deep you are involved in it. But you obviously care about how it's presented. I care about how it's presented, and you want it to be digestible by them. And if it's not, they're gonna be resistant.

Right? So one last thought, and I'll hand it back over to the committee for your all's thoughts on this as well. And, Glenn, for you to finish your not yet prepared remarks, but I I think it's worth agendizing at both of those meetings, preceding the meeting on the ninth, an opportunity for you to present. Here's how I intend the council to see it.

Uh-huh.

We're all on the same page now.

Abs absolutely. That would

appropriate to, like, move to agendize that at this point, or would that be something you guys have?

You don't need to formally direct me to do that. I'll I'll just I was intending to do that anyway. Yep.

Did you wanna finish your

That was really all I the the, you know, the preview the next item is preview of next meeting. Right? And it's gonna be at the library. It's gonna be the approval of minutes. It's gonna be report out from subcommittees, and then, again, CRC action direction on any final subcommittee, you know, recommendations. And so I will be as far along as possible on this meeting about how that might look to the city council as well for for part of your direction and input.

Okay. So member Klutch, I think, has a few things to add to that, or is it to the next thing to that? Yeah. Okay. And does anybody else I'm just worried if this needs to be properly agendized as a discussion or if we can have some more not yet agendized discussion as to how it'll be presented now.

You don't the the this this is well within the parameters of what you can talk about here of how you want the the input from the group about how you want things presented either to you or to the city council. I'm all ears. I'm still wrestling with it myself. I have general idea of it, but a lot of it will be you know, as I look at it and we start to assemble it all. I know how it was done down in Chula Vista.

I'm gonna try a version of that, but this is even more dramatic, you know, than than that because of how many sections were taken from one place, you know, and moved to another that really wasn't done there. And so what that looks like and how that's communicated is a is is very important. And I'm not sure honestly, I I would love everybody's, you know, input on it. You might need to see it first, right, in order to be able to comment on whether or not that was successful or not or whether or not you want something different.

Okay. Since this is our deliverable, I'm gonna let Eric go next because member Crutchlow, because he's already on green, and then I think Mark is also on green. We'll we'll give a pass through so everybody has a chance to weigh on this. I think this being our deliverable is something we wanna weigh in on.

Yeah. So my first question is, are we getting a packet beforehand that we can review when you have a final, you know, actions and directions from a subcommittee? Because to give it on the same night is is not gonna be very productive in my mind.

You will have a packet to review.

How soon before the meeting?

I can't promise what that will be. Seventy two hours? As soon in advance of the meeting as possible. Yeah.

Okay. I I take your good gracious, and I believe this. Thank you very much because that that is very, very important.

Yeah. So, you know, the next subcommittee meetings, right, are April 16, May 6, May 11, May 12, May 13. Well, the April 16 and May oh, and, unfortunately, group three is May 13. That's pretty close to the May, you know, twentieth meeting. But the ones that meet sooner, right, I'm gonna be in a better position to take all of that and package it.

The ones that meet later, we could be scrambling, right, to get all that, you know, ready. So I I do promise you that it will be in advance, ideally, you know, when the agenda packet goes out. So, you know, that would be the Friday before the Wednesday. It would be my intent. So good lord. What is that?

That's that's fine. I mean, I I understand that. I just wanna save up my AI.

I'm sorry. I'm just having a little heart attack now in front of you as to what that day is.

That's that's fine, Glenn.

Two weeks. I trust than you could have. Yeah.

No. I I trust you on that one. But miss Roberts miss Roberts, Holly, since you're an expert in this, one of my thoughts is, you know, like, when you do QA and you're gonna release

Yeah.

You know, you have release notes that have a summary of changes and stuff like that?

Yeah. That was up so,

Glenn? I'm sorry. No. That's quite alright.

No problem.

We're we're we're It it's quite alright. Don't worry. So one of the things we were thinking about is I know Holly is the expert in QA. I've worked a lot with QA. When we we make re we tell somebody we're releasing a new application, a new version. Right? We have release notes, and we have a summary of changes so that they can, look at that. I I don't maybe you were already considering that. I didn't quite understand that, but I was thinking, you know, the way that that format is you know, we could we could give you examples and suggestions if that

would be a

Would love would love to see it.

That that Yeah. So release notes would work or even, like, a diff, like a like a get diff, where you have, like, on one side of the page, what it looks like now and on the other side, what it looked like before. And I don't know if you can match up things, like, one to one, but that might be a good thing that just each page like, because I you guys like paper. So each page has, like like, before and after on it.

Yes. Yeah. If you guys have program systems that you've you've used before that do that, that is exactly what Well, it won't do it had in mind, but I don't know that I've I I you know, I don't know if I have access to the same tools you do.

It won't do it for you. You have to you'll have to do it yourself. But

Code code When you say you, you mean Courtney. Right?

We were pointing at you. Courtney has been doing too much work already. But I was thinking in terms of, even even if you gave us electronic versions of, okay, the original, which we we have here, and then the the new ones, there may be some tools that, you know, we can look at and find and and try and help you out with and and at least give you some assistance on that because it is a monumental task you're doing.

Yeah. Very good. Appreciate that. And, yeah, we've we've been thinking about this. I've done it before.

But, honestly, so far, we've just been focused on the substance of it, right, the issues and the drafting. And, obviously, we're at a point where that's why we're talking about it. Right? We need to start thinking about the form, you know, of of presentation. And I'm happy to, as our thinking evolves, run it past anyone who's interested in providing me kind of some input and feedback on on, you know, informally as a little mini ad hoc form, you know, subcommittee to provide, you know, input on that. So appreciate your guys' expertise there. We'll I'll I'll definitely bet we'll definitely benefit from it.

Can I add something? The the great thing I would look for if I was just a casual person looking at this would be have the old, the new, and the goal, the reason why we're making the change. What is the purpose of the change? What's the goal? And if I can see the goal, yeah, let's go for it. But I think it's important to have the original, to change, then why?

Yeah. I think that's a good point. A little bit of that is built into the levels, right, with some of the definitional structure around the levels, but you're proposing something a little more than that. Right? I think we I think Yeah. No. I under I understand that.

Is here's I wanna do a side by side comparison. And I I think in theory, I like that. I'm not sure of all the changes that we made if that's even possible without it being crazy. But Overwhelming. As as much as we can, I think that makes sense? And that's why I was talking about a summary of changes. Like, like, okay. Look. I'm not gonna talk about all these different things here, but the net net of it was this is what it was, and this is what we decided to change it to. And your your point about, like, well, why did you do that? What was the goal?

At the end of the day, optics is critical. When people look at what we did, I like for them to see why we did it, and that's that's important.

So Yeah. And and there's an overall, you know, purpose and goal, but you're right. There's there's different things that relate to the different changes that are made. Some of it's just a pure level one, right, cleanup and language change. Other of it's to say, hey. The law the the the the what was deleted was illegal. And the goal was to make, you know, make it legal. Or this this wasn't clear, but this is how it currently works. The idea is to, you know, include language that describes how it currently works, which is a best practice. So I think there can be a lot of it's gonna be maybe we can develop some standard phrases.

Right? The levels are meaningful, but there's probably some goal related extractions from those levels that we can use and code, you you know, on on the different changes that are made in order to help annotate it.

To

to make that simple, Glenn, I could say you have, like, a list one through six, and one could be this reason. Two could be this reason. You could actually, instead of writing it out every time, just say, see note six, see note five, and that might save you from being redundant.

You know, I have concerns that this group won't have enough time to effectively review this, especially as we if if we're still getting it in parts, I agree with Eric, getting things ahead of time and doing a review. And then each of us, you know, needs to read it and then be able to highlight those things that we want to talk to the subcommittee about because we haven't seen it in the in both what the content or or the context of how the committee saw it as well as the context of change within this global change that we've made. So that's my concern that, we provide enough time for this committee to because if we don't get the optics right here, the city or the the citizens won't either.

I I I agree with that completely. And, boy, I would love another six months. Right?

No. I I I'd love another work on the presentation.

I'd love another three months. I'd love another month. But you're right. That's not a we have the time that we have, and so it needs to be presented in advance with full context. One of the reasons why I did a little bit more detailed of a report out tonight, again, is it doesn't replace what you're talking about.

I know we are talking about something more. But to start, again, to even if it's not your committee, you know, have the folks who are gonna be acting on, you know, stuff they didn't work on and need to understand it to start to have some interactions, you know, with the details, you know, and and and the comments so that you'll be more ready, right, by the time it comes to you. But you still need time. You still need context. And you may have just in yeah.

Informally suggested we might need yet another meeting of this group, another special meeting, particularly, and I apologize, you're you're missing on the one on the twenty seventh. And so we might need to, you know, pull for, you know, yet another one if we can find time and a facility for you guys all to meet. I hate to impose on your time any more than I have already, but it might be necessary as we get down to the end here.

What's the hard deadline? City council had to

City council needs to take final action on July 14.

Meeting on the ninth is their first viewing.

Meeting on the ninth, if we can make it, right, will be their first viewing.

So what do you envision right now as being the contents of the report out? And, obviously, the report out will include the substantive changes you're making to the language. Are the subcommittees are we going to provide you with an explanation of the changes we are making to Mark's point? I think to understand that language and the motivation, it would help if we had an explanation come with it. Are we writing that, or are you? Ultimately, I'll probably want

ultimately, I've got to do the lion's share of it. Right? The the and I'm I'm already looking at, for example, Sunnyvale's report, right, and how they presented their, you know, changes as a not a model because I think they overdid certain things given the changes that they made, and it doesn't need quite the explanation and analysis, you know, that they gave it. But a report that that staff would lead on, but that ideally and maybe this would be something that can be agendized for the subcommittee groups, a designated person from each subcommittee to assist with the review and commentary on the the report that's gonna go to counsel too. It could be the secretary, but it need not be the secretary, you know, if if if the group has a different appetite for that.

So probably each subcommittee designating somebody. So there's another group, you know, that works with staff in reviewing the the report as it's finalized because I I want as much of your guys' input as you're willing to, you know, provide. It's only added value, you know, as we've gone along. I wish I could have more of it, right, with more more time permitting. But that's my thought about how there might be some more direct member participation in the report. I would have to believe that

the meetings that we have were, as a group, as we're going through this as the larger committee, that the points that come up that have the most discussions are the ones where we're gonna pull out the summaries as to this is what's gonna need context or an explanation for the council because they probably won't review it as certainly won't review it in as much detail as us. And I would think the expectation is that they want us to, you know, to to talk about the substantive, you know, conversations that we had about this particular item or another.

Yeah. I think that's right. It's gonna be interesting to and June 9 will be, you know, indicative of that, how how they think about it and approach it. They're they could be very deferential, right, to the work that's done if they understand it and it stays within the parameters, right, of what they envisioned themselves. But different members on the council may have different feelings about what they told, you know, to do and what the and what their charge was and whether or not the work product, you know, here fell within those, you know, parameters.

And so but I think your point's a good one. I think input from this group, not just me, no matter how much of the work, you know, that that needs to be done right by me and my my team, and context and explanation about what the thinking, you know, was behind it. It's gonna be really important. I think a lot of that needs to go into the written report too, you know, as opposed to just, you know, the presentation because they've only got so much time and bandwidth, right, for reviewing it, you know, themselves. And and so it's gonna need to be tight.

And I when I say that, I mean, just, like, disciplined and really on point. And for me, the best way to do that with them, even if they might not always be that way when it comes out to them in their discussions, is to have it all in the report. Right? So you can refer to the report that makes the points that you really wanna make, at least the essence of, you know, of the of the comments. And then with informed people representing each, you know, individual subcommittee prepared when there's a question to, while I'll be there, of course, right, to provide the professional staff response to add the, you know, perspective of the subcommittee and or, you know, committee at large.

So there's if if any of you are thinking about what role can I play in getting this across the finish line, there is a role for, you know, providing review and input on the report itself, and then there is a role for being at, you know, the council meeting where your particular assigned section, you know, is is coming up for their consideration? And probably Pat Nikolai, the, you know, chair, you know, hopefully, depending upon his availability, having a meaningful, you know, maybe outsized role, you know, or appropriate to the chair, you know, role and being able to be an ambassador and spokesperson for the group.

Okay. Any more thoughts on that? We can wrap that one up.

I just had one question or suggestion. We have seven days between the thirteenth, the group three meeting and the next group of the whole group. And seven days later, we have the subsequent meeting. It would be helpful, I believe, if you could share the green charter as soon as possible as member Crutchlow suggested, but perhaps allow us to comment, make live comments on a shared copy that we can leave the commentary process on the May 20 meeting.

And when you say clean version, you mean the version that includes all the changes. Right? The one Yeah.

Yeah. The clean version so that we can look at it and and as a group discuss the changes for that twentieth.

Yep. Appreciate that. Now Yeah. As opposed to, like, I've been doing it live. Hey. Look at all the changes.

It's just too much discussion.

Yeah. It's

better to do it.

Yep. I understand. We're at that point. You know why I've been doing it that way aside from the fact that I'm only just ready, you know, just before the meeting to actually have it all done is, you know, preliminary drafts are more thought process, you know, as opposed to, you know, recommendations. But now we're at a point where you guys were even if we're not disclosing that yet publicly, you guys need versions of it in advance to be able to look at it, not just for the twentieth, but for your subcommittee meetings as well. Yep. So I think that's a good

I'd also like to point out that if you're using Microsoft tools for that, there may be people here who don't have access or easy access to those tools. And and I believe, even in the poll, there are people who couldn't get the word, but they couldn't they couldn't log in. So there might be some technical IT issues that some members may have. I didn't have any myself, but there's quite a bit of email regarding access.

Very good. Poll was a pain in the backside, I

will say. Yeah. So you don't want me to use the polling technology for purposes of sharing the address?

I think it was the authenticator. I I I didn't have a problem myself, but some people don't have Microsoft tools like Authenticator on their phones, and they may have issues. And I'll I think it's the most effective way of doing it for us. But I just wanna point out there may be some members who may have some trouble and probably should plan ahead for that.

Very good. All good comments. Appreciate that.

Alright. With that, we will close that item and begin public presentations.

Andrea

There's not.

That then just will turn

a minute to to see, right, if the the that might have snuck up on them. Mr. Chair, just recommending there's only a couple people on. I don't want to steamroll them if they're just hearing now that this is an opportunity for them to provide public presentations. And so while I'm talking, they're being given time. I will observe for the record, there's no one actually physically here in the chambers. There's a couple people observing online, and neither have raised their hand in the time that I've been talking about it. So I'm comfortable with you proceeding then, mister chair.

Well, staff, do you have any comments for the committee?

Oh. So

no. No further comments at this time.

Thank you.

That's the reports. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second.

Third. And you can do it by a consensus, by affirmation.

Anybody wants Unanimous consensus, it will. We adjourned at 08:21PM, sixteen April.

I'm I I apologize that