City Council - Regular Meeting

We're back. I believe we're live again. And I believe we're ready to ask the clerk to call the role on the question of uh adding in rec regulatory services on to the list of department has to be confirmed by the city council. Commissioner Dillo Thank you. You're up on the motion to You're voting no. Nay. Thank you. I got it. I got it. Commissioner Nye. No. Thank you. Schneider. Nay. Priddle. I. Dhy. I. Click. No.

Garcia. Nay. Cooper. I Perry. Nay. Kak no uh vice chair Rubenstein no chair Gder no we have three eyes's and nine nazs that motion fails we're back to the main motion and is there another motion to be made yes prindle

uh yes it's I've been advised that um if we want to retain council authority over for appointment of uh um emergency management that that would also likely require adding it back in. So I am making an identical motion uh for emergency management. So this would be a subsection again F now again for uh emergency management. Yes. Is there a second? I would second that. Cooper, we have a second. Any discussion? I have a question.

Yes. Um, and I would direct this to our city attorney as to whether or not city council approval is required. I I think there was some discussion about that both ways and I don't know if there's a definitive answer or not.

Uh, Commissioner Kle and Chair Ginder, I have not studied the manage the emergency management direction uh, director issue for several months now because I was not aware that this motion was on the table. There is a state law, there is a special law uh that are applicable to this position and so I am not certain whether it is possible to add it in this manner or with this language and I would need to investigate um that further if that was the will of this body. I would add that the technical amendments include provisions that relate to superseding inconsistent state law and so that interacts with this as well. Um, and we would have to figure out how those things go together in order to make something like this work, which I would be happy to investigate if that's the will of the body, but it's not a straightforward answer.

So, I I will be voting no, but would like more research done before a May meeting. And uh commissioners, if you may, um unfortunately uh I wish I remembered more things better, but uh four years ago when I was interim city attorney, I wrote an opinion on this and and um opine that it had to go through the city council for confirmation because of the special law or I'm trying to remember how it all worked out, but it was a very interesting question because um otherwise throughout the state uh this is an appointment that's simply made by the the chief executive. It's by the mayor and we're the only city that sends it through uh the council. Um, I don't remember my memorandum and I don't know if anybody has a copy of it anymore if if if uh Nef comm assistant city attorney Nef could find it, but um um I think at this stage we can go ahead but um I I know that uh I'll vote no on this. Also,

Chair Ginder, I have a memorandum and I I certainly can find it, but I don't have it with me and I haven't studied the the issue recently enough to opine on it. Okay. So, so u so to clarify, we will have an opportunity to bring amendments in the May meeting. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Uh then I I'm prepared to withdraw my motion. Okay. And just to make clear for everybody, this this gets gets us to a final document when we go to our next meeting. And if we decide to put things on the ballot, we will again have an opportunity to bring amendments forward on the ballot or the language that is going to be uh subject to the ballot. Commissioner Kle,

and that in fact is the whole purpose of having a public hearing is to get public feedback on it and then we could make amendments after hearing from the public. Yes. So that amendment is withdrawn. Mr. Chair. Yes. If it's in order, I would like to make another motion or make I have an amendment. You may. Uh so I move to add uh subdivision F uh and include uh the Department of Civil Rights. Is there a second? I would second. Cooper,

we have a second. Is there any discussion on this motion to add civil rights in as a department that would be subject to city council confirmation? Any discussion? I don't see any discussion. Clerk may call the role. Commissioner Dillo. Nay. Ny. I. Schneider. Nay. Prindle. I. Dhy. I. Cle. No. Garcia. Nay. Cooper I Perry no Kak no vice chair Rubenstein no chair Ginder

no we have four I's and eight nazs we're back to the original Commissioner Kak

thank you Mr. chairman. Um I I guess this is a question. When is the appropriate time? I know you've explained and uh to make it a I I'm partially convinced that we need to split this whole thing up uh between the technical and the substantive. And I think it's only fair to ultimately uh if it goes to the to the ballot. Um it's gonna if if it goes all in one piece, it's going to be very confusing. And I think the points were well taken from comm uh council member VTO that this is not technical. And it's like over at the legislature with these big omnibous bills, there's always what we used to call wood chucks. And this would be a pretty big wood chuck uh what we're what we're discussing with all of our amendments on the confirmation process. So uh at some point uh I I would make the motion at appropriate that at least we discuss splitting the splitting it up. But maybe uh how how possible, how complicated is that to do given how much more work is that going to be for our our city attorneys?

Commissioner Kak, um when we conclude voting on this, I'm going to ask for a staff direction to the for the city attorney to do this attempt to split these up. Um I've had discussions with the city attorney. is going to be a fairly complex splitting because of uh if they go as separate questions, how do we make sure that there's not inconsistencies? If one passes, one fails. So um when the hope is when we come back in May for our regular meeting, we will have this document which would be the basis of an omnibus bill if you want to call it that that would go on the ballot as well as the option of looking at separated out executive officers, department heads and the other technical amendments split out. And the options then to um put both on the ballot, put neither on the ballot, send one to the council for um uh unanimous consent. Um but they're going to be complicated and before we vote on that, I want people to see what it looks like

and so that's the direction. So when we get to the May meeting, we'll have had an opportunity to look at at that document to see if it makes sense. That makes perfect sense. Okay. Other amendments. All right. I will uh I will do the last one here. Um I'd like to move to add subsection F uh to add the health department into this document. Um identical language except that uh I believe that the current verbiage for the head of this department is commissioner rather than director and I don't know the history of that and I see no reason to change it. So my motion would include retaining that verbiage. Is there a second? Second. N. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Cooper.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak in favor of this one. Um, I think we've seen over the past uh five years the uh important role that the health department plays in this city and protecting residents and being a um a source of information um and education for people across our city. So I think that this, you know, has a lot of contact with um with residents and it has contact in a different way than uh departments like public works or um or CPED. Um but it has contact in an important way and I think that um you know that's one reason that I'll be supporting adding uh the health uh health commissioner um back into city council confirmation. Thanks.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the role. This is on the health department being added in. Commissioner Dillo. Nay. Nye. I. Schneider. Nay. Prindle. I. Dhy. I. Clay. No. Garcia. Nay. Cooper. I Perry. Nay. Kak. No. Vice Chair Rubenstein. No. Chair Ginder, no. We have four eyes and eight nazs.

That motion fails. Are there any other motions to be made? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cooper.

Um, I have an amendment that um uh just to describe it. And what I would like to see from the city charter is to provide kind of the basic uh the bas basic architecture and structure in a very general form for city government that then allows the city council and the mayor to specify the exact operations of how how it should how the department should be set up, how things should work through ordinance. I think that the, you know, the charter is something that should change rarely and should contain the broad strokes of um of what city government looks like. And then ordinance, I think, is really where, you know, each each mayoral administration and each city council can decide this is these are the policy priorities that we have uh and this is what we've learned from uh past iterations of how to make an effective and efficient city government run. Um, and so to that end, what what my amendment would do is it would um it would add into section 7.2 A1 and A2 at the very end. It would add in or expressly by ordinance. Um, let me pull that up 7.2A into a a1 and a2.

That's on page two. And so it's the end of the executive officers of the um office of public service describes the chief operations officer and the office of community safety, the community safety commissioner. Oh, sorry. Yeah. the um I was looking at the clean red line but um article 7 and could you state the language that you're this is 72 a A1 and A2 okay

and so it would end um uh it the last sentence of each of those would would read the city operations officer is responsible for the appointment of the heads of each of the departments under their authority unless otherwise provided by this charter or expressly by ordinance. Um, and it would be the same change to the community safety officer. And so what this would do is it would say if the city if the city council and the mayor passed an ordinance that expressly provided for the the confirmation of a department head by ordinance. Um it would provide that that department head would be um would be confirmed by city council. So it would let them specify and finesse the uh the structure of particular uh city departments um through ordinance giving them the flexibility that I think they should have through through ordinance.

Is there a second? Second. N Commissioner Kle I just want to speak against it. I think this would basically give the council the ability to override the mayor's um appointment authority if they had a supermajority and I don't think that's appropriate and that's not consistent with what we're trying to do. So I'm opposed. Any commissioner? Um

I would like to speak against this. Um, putting it in ordinance means that it technically can be voted on every time we have a new city council or every other year. And I think that would tremendously politicize the point that we have in the appointment process. Okay. Commissioner Prindle.

Yes. I'd like to speak in support of the amendment. Um, previously, you know, I made several motions that were really intended to get us an up or down vote per department, but really my my preference personally is to build some greater flexibility into into this uh amendment. And I think that um the proposal before us does that. Uh I think that it is, you know, if we look at the example of the office of community safety, that is an office that was created by ordinance. It was important in creating that office that the head of that office be uh be approved by the city council and so that was incorporated into the ordinance. Um the draft as I read it today would not allow future departments like that to be created or offices to be created uh contingent upon council approval. Uh and so I think it takes away some of the flexibility uh that I think we need uh to allow the city to adapt and and change as the needs of of residents change. And so I think that if either the city council plus the mayor or a super majority of the city council feels that the particular department has become important enough where the head of that department should be confirmed by the council, then I think that they should be able to do that. Uh and I would support making this amendment to accomplish that. Mr. Chairman,

let's we'll start over with Commissioner Dhy. I would also uh like to speak in favor of this. Um primarily again to give the flexibility to the understanding that we will have a different city council and a different mayor um at all times and to just allow the allow the charter well to to not have the charter be what stops the city from acting in the way that the mayor and the city council want to go forward. Commissioner Kak.

Uh M Mr. Chairman, the 2021 uh charter amendment uh to some people had a drew a bright red line between executive and legislative. um what we've done here today and we we've all been back and forth. We maybe have blurred the line a little bit by adding adding the uh the departments we we did but I think this proposal would uh would blur the line irretrievably and um the the charter if it's in the charter it should be changed uh only by uh by the by the voters or unanimous with the consent of the mayor and the uh city council and uh so I I I would uh not I would not support this amendment.

Go ahead, Commissioner. Um I'm sorry, Jill.

I would like to be clear. Um, I oppose this for exactly the reason that Commissioner Doherty mentioned is that every time we get a new composition of city council, um, and even a new mayor, a different ordinance will keep passing. A different ordinance will keep passing. And there um that completely waters down the intention and has no no it's just worthless. And also going back to the previous government structure and hearing from the whole 13 bosses idea, part of that was that yes, the department heads that are confirmed by the city council are confirmed by the city council. But while it said that there is a fine line between legislative and executive, part of the issue of 13 bosses was that it was almost that council members making confirmation kind of had those department heads at their bequest holding over that that confirmation. It was almost like a quit proquo there. Again, there's nothing that bars council members from interacting with government heads, from having them out to their to their wards, from speaking to their constituents. There is nothing that bars council members from talking to to department heads. It was the it's the issue of the reporting mechanis mechanism. Cooperation, working together, clear communication is wonderful and ought to be the goal consistently.

Um, Commissioner Prindle.

Yes. I I one more comment. I think um, you know, thinking about the comment that when you when you build a structure by ordinance, each each, uh, new mayor, each new council can kind of layer on their own vision on top of that. I think what we have here though is um a structure that was adopted by ordinance in 2022, so two councils ago. Um and we're we're baking it into the charter and we're saying this is the structure now going forward and if you want to change it, you have to come back and amend the charter. And I think that's that's just kind of my broader concern about the substantive changes in this proposal is that inflexibility that it introduces into the government structure that it is taking one a structure that was developed that was the right structure at one point in time uh and forcing future mayors and future councils to uh to fill in fill in that structure with people uh and adhere to it. And so that's why I again am in favor of introducing a little more flexibility.

Uh seeing no other comments, I'm going to comment that I'm opposed to this. Um I believe this language is um broad and what would basically would permit if that were passed is the council could go back and amend all of its ordinances that create the 25 departments that we have and expressly say that the department head shall be uh confirmed by the city council. and um that's not something that I'm interested in exploring. So with that Oh, Commissioner and I. Sorry. Sorry. Something you just said, Mr. Chair. Uh so we're not uh um Commissioner Cooper uh specifically put this under

the Office of Public Service and the Office of Community Safety. It's not under all 25 the this would not give the authority to as I understand it and the the legal minds on this on this panel would need to correct me. It wouldn't give the legal authority to go and amend uh ordinance to allow city council to appoint uh to appoint heads directly. It would just give them the flexibility that that members have been talking about um in it would give them the the flexibility for these two specific offices, not the entire uh uh um slate of of um of of cabinet uh uh members. So I I I don't well I understand the concerns that members are are raising. I do I would agree that I think in this instance at least having a little flexibility is uh um could be could be helpful um especially if when we're talking about things like community safet community safety if there is a uh if there is something that requires the city council to move quickly which uh amending the charter is not something that can move quickly. Um so uh I would uh um I would just want to to comment on that. Thank you.

Um and before I get to other comments um all 25 department heads are under these two agencies um except for city attorney. So um whether it's arts or um race and equity or IT uh performance management um those are all departments in the city. Those all have appointed department heads and under that language then would now become if they wanted chose to in the ordinances they could make those all subject to confirmation by the city council. So I'm there was a hand up over here. That's what that's what I was going to say. All departments flow through these two. Yeah. department

and and the point that I that I'd make to that is that um I understand the concern. I think the the whiplash is not is not likely to to happen because it would require um any any ordinance that would be passed would require either the mayor's signature and thus agreement with with that ordinance um or it would require you know a veto proof um majority of the of the city council. Um, in which case that I think indicates strong pol like either way I think it indicates strong policy alignment on the the importance of you know that change and it wouldn't it would require explicit language. I think the interpretation of this would be uh anything less than explicit language for confirmation would uh would default to the default under the charter which is that the the cabinet members are the ones that uh appoint um appoint their subordinates.

Uh Commissioner Schneider and then I'll do Commissioner Kak after that. Um I would like to ask the city attorney a question. I I don't understand this language personally. And I mean, are we Commissioner Cooper, are are you suggesting here via this amendment that a a nine vote uh nine votes on the city council could could pass an ordinance saying that they would would uh appoint a department head? I I'm I guess I'm directing this to the city attorney because I it seems to me when we change something that's set in charter to ordinance, it is a whole different ballgame and I'm really confused here.

Do you can you feel comfortable answering that?

Just looking very briefly at the language that's been proposed. I do believe that it would open up the possibility of all of the department heads except for the city attorney um being subject to an appointment process dictated by ordinance and ordinances are passed by a majority vote. So 7 to six would be sufficient to pass an ordinance. I I think essentially what this ordinance does is it returns into the charter language that was in there up until I think the very end of our last structure workg groupoup meeting. uh which was the ability that department heads are appointed as is laid out in the charter or in the related statute or in applicable or or in the related ordinance the organizing ordinance or in um particular state statute. Uh if anything, this is stronger and more restrictive than what was is currently in the charter uh which doesn't require that the charter language or that the ordinance language be explicit.

Commissioner Cozette.

Uh Mr. Chairman, I uh I think as I understand it and uh the amendment, the suggested amendment uh is obiates the need for us to do anything if that were if that were to pass because the uh uh we we would no longer the the mayor's authority um under circumstances that I can foresee. Uh if you could uh get rid of a a uh how do you undo a mayoral appointment just uh and have the council basically appoint their own um uh that's I think what the amendment a certain reading of the amendment would do. And if if you don't like what what what what's on the table now, just vote against the whole thing. Uh that have the same effect and we we'd be back to where where we are currently.

Let's start with um Commissioner Nye. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm certainly one to ad admit when I'm wrong. So I appreciate uh Mr. Chair, you correcting me. Um, my my excuse is that it's my birthday today and that uh I instead of uh going to see Suffs uh I'm I'm I'm here with you all fine people. Um so I apologize for for for that uh mistake and my misunderstanding of what the the um amendment does. Um I I will still um keep the keep my second, but I'm not sure that I can support it. It's much broader than I thought that it was. And then uh Commissioner Clay,

I would I would I'm just mindful of our 6:30 captioner deadline. So, uh instead of saying things that have already been said, if we could use our own judgment and get to a vote as fast as we can, that'd be great. I see no other comments. So, let's have the clerk call the role on the question of adding the language or expression by ordinance to section 7.2A, to a subsections one and two. Commissioner Dillo, nay. Nye, no. Schneider, no. Brindle, I DHY. I Kle, no. Garcia, nay. Cooper, I Perry,

nay. Kak, no. Vice Chair uh Rubenstein, nay. Chair Ginder, no. We have three eyes's and nine nazs. Are there any other amendments? Commissioner,

Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, I have uh just one amendment that uh reflects the proposal in councelor Pomano's letter that is at the back of of our public comment um packet. uh her public uh her her letter suggests uh what we've discussed today. Um and then also specifically discusses the importance of um uh the principal deputies of the um of the cabinet officers being subject to city council confirmation. Those are the folks who enact the city council's past policy. um it it's much more streamlined than um than I think the concerns about you know what what I had just proposed. Um and so this this would be the exact proposed amendment would be in section uh uh 8.4 C. Um amend the section so that it reads as follows. Each executive officer and this is underlined may nominate and with the council's consent appoint one or more deputies. the deputies serve in the unclassified service. So it just adds the may nominate and with the council's consent appoints one or more deputies. So this would be just limited to that high level executive deputy role um uh of the of the cabinet officers.

Yeah. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Could you say this is in section 8.4 8.4 C C? Unless I'm wrong about that. I think it's 8.4 4 B. I think that's what you're talking about. No, this would this would be under the deputies section, the 8.4 C, page seven. Yeah, page seven in the fully marked up copy at the bottom. Okay. So, right above administrative offices. Officers. Okay. Each Okay. Each executive officer appoints one or more deputies. And your language is what?

In my my language is each executive officer may nominate and with the council's consent appoint one or more deputies and then it keeps the last sentence.

Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Prindle. Any discussion? Uh, Commissioner, go ahead. I I I just want to be clear. Does this mean we're doing more of what we've been doing, which is having the council uh approve appointments? Yes. Um, yes. Yes. Okay. Thanks. I won't be supporting that. Any other discussion? Commissioner Rubenstein.

Yes. Thank you. Although I understand the point and think it's well taken, I would vote against this proposed amendment. Sorry. Um because I think in terms of um processes I've been to through in nonprofits hiring an executive director and that's a board, you know, a board decision. There's vetting. There are big sometimes nationwide searches to get the right executive director. But it's important for anybody who's going to work directly under that director to be able to work well with that director. And so to have that position as well subject to, you know, a a more distanced process where the criterion may not necessarily be how these people work together when they clearly very they have to work very well together. I would find it very difficult to support.

Uh, Commissioner NY, Mr. Chair, just a question for Commissioner Cooper. Could you please re uh uh repeat the language? Yep. So, the full the full uh section would read, "Each executive officer may nominate and with the council's consent appointees. The deputies serve in the unclassified service.

Commissioner Prindle.

Yes. Um I'll speak in favor of the amendment and you know we've talked at length about uh council approval of positions, but I think the another important thing to call attention to is the change to mayappoint. Um as I read the current language, it would require each executive officer to appoint at least one deputy. Uh and again I don't I don't think that level of inflexibility uh is appropriate. Um as the council president alluded earlier, we currently have a structure where a lot of very important departments are actually three layers deep from the mayor. Uh and I'm not confident that any f that every future mayor is going to want to operate with that level of, you know, layering in their org structure. Um, so I I would definitely support um introducing greater flexibility in whether each of those ex officers should have a deputy or more or more than one.

Seeing no other discussion, I'll ask the clerk to call the role on the uh amendment that would uh permit each executive officer may nominate with the uh uh consent of the council, appoint one or more deputies. Commissioner Dillow. Nay Nye. No Schneider. Nay Prindle. I Dhy. I Click. No. Garcia. Nay Cooper. I Perry. Nay. Kak. No. Vice Chair Rubenstein. No.

Chair Ginder. No. We have three eyes's and nine nazs. Back to the main motion. Are there any other amendments to be made to the main motion? Seeing none, we now have in before us the main motion as amended which includes public works and CPAD. And uh is there any further discussion on that motion? Seeing no discussion, the clerk may call the role on the amended motion. Commissioner Dilla. Nay. Nye. I. Schneider. I. Prindle. Nay.

Dhy. Nay. Kle. Hi. Garcia. I Cooper. Nay. Perry. Hi. Kak. I. Vice Rubenstein. I chair Ginder. I We have eight eyes and four nazs. That motion passes.

The next item on our agenda is considering proposed ballot language. Um I don't know that we need to spend much time on this. This was brought forward specifically for people to get an idea on what language might look like uh on the the ballot if we went ahead with the so-called omnibus uh amendment. Um Commissioner uh Nye.

Um Mr. Chair, I well I appreciate seeing the language. I will say as somebody who writes and reviews uh and reads uh legislative bill language for a living, I read this and I wasn't quite sure what we were trying to accomplish. Um and so I was I appreciated all of the public comments that we received um and for those folks who said that it was confusing um because I felt the same way. And so if if this language comes back before us and I'm asked to vote on it, I'm a no.

Um I also think that the explanatory note uh is not clear. Um it's not clear uh of what is included in the um in of what would be included in the amendment. And so um I think that there's still a lot of work to do. I understand that it's sort of a um a trial run, but uh using words like align the provisions um I don't know what that means in this context. Um and and so this should be a a much more simple text. Uh because if if somebody like me who I I I read this language um and it's my job to understand it, if I don't understand it, um I I don't think I don't think our voters are going to understand it. So, uh I hope that between now and May, uh we we can come up with some much much easier to understand language. uh and and so just appreciate the brief conversation that we're going to have or that we're having. Um but just wanted to get that out there.

Thank you. Um and Commissioner and I, um part of the purpose of this was to get discussion started on what this language might look like because I think it's a challenge to write language for this bill, the omnimous bill. And so what I would encourage um members to do, I'm not going to appoint a drafting committee for the ballot language, but um for example, if you have thoughts on this, I know that the city attorney and I would welcome your thoughts on this as we try to prepare this language. And similarly, uh Commissioner Prindle, I know you've had some thoughts on how to split this up. If you would share thoughts with me and and city attorney so that we can work on this as we get ready for our meeting, um that would be appreciated because these questions are a challenge. uh the ballot language will be a challenge and the ballot language ultimately will go to the city council and they will have their crack at it um if we decide to put it on the ballot. So they will have their own view on what fairly um uh summarizes the the uh the proposed uh amendments. Um so I'm not asking for any uh action on this item. Um uh and before I get to the to the last item which is setting a public hearing, I am going to um ask and I hope we can just uh maybe just do this by uni unanimous consent is uh ask uh the city attorney to move forward with uh language that would separate out this current government structure alignment and technical amendments proposal which is all as one and try and break it out into the sections that would be more technical amendments and then a section that would include the executive officers and department head and uh as a separate question so that we can look at that and decide then if we can accomplish that because that's a complicated separation um depending on if one fails one doesn't fail depending on how we if both go to the voters if we send one to the council for unanimous

consent um so if you have ideas on that but anyway um that is my motion. Um I guess I'm making a motion to for staff direction. So if we could just have unanimous consent on that. Uh and so seeing no opposition to that. Um that that's approved and if the assistant city attorney would move forward with that, I greatly appreciate it. Um the next item on our agenda is setting a public hearing for May 6. So, um I believe we can just need a motion to set um the hearing for that date. So, if we could have someone make that motion. So, second.

It's that motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on that? My only discussion on that would Sorry. Thank you. My only discussion on that Commissioner, please go ahead. Thank you. I'm sorry. My only I'm trying to hurry because we have time. Have three minutes. My only discussion on that is um sometimes uh to get public input four o'clock is early

and in I I I know when we were almost going to set our public hearing for the uh uh uh even your voting uh we had pushed it to I think six or something like that in order to allow more people to attend who work during the day. um that I know raises a question about staffing and um broadcasting and captioning.

So um I'm going to propose that we keep it at 4:00. I know it's an in position, but we do get a number of written comments that in our in our file that we can all review also. So I understand the concern. I appreciate it, but some of the other concerns here I think override that. So, um, Commissioner N,

I would just, uh, to sort of echo what you just said about, uh, public comments. Um, thank you to our to to staff for putting this packet together. Uh, you know, our emails are public. Uh, they're on the the the charter commission's website. Um, so if folks have have comments and thoughts leading up to the the the May 6th uh um meeting and you want to send them uh to us, you know, I know I would certainly appreciate hearing from folks before the day of the hearing, although I was able to read it because we did have breaks and and and whatn not and whatnot, but it was really helpful um to to get these uh these comments. So um for everyone who sent them in, thank you.

So um we have unanimous sent the motion that the hearing is set then for May 6 at 4:00 and will that be here? Yes, Mr. Chair, that will be uh in the public service center uh room 350. Okay. For the public and viewers watching us. And seeing that um we have concluded our agenda and so we are um adjourned.