Council - Special Meeting

It really came down to it. I said, I want to help my own just in my limited time and I focus on their stuff over the finish line because our conviction rate on the citations like nothing. But that money adds up. Once again, it goes back to the dollars. Well, we've actually seen a decline in court clients and fee revenue. Doug was showing me yesterday looking at the legal budget for going through stuff. says we're seeing a lower rate of money collection at this point than we were last year. You want to know why? And as I was going to reach out the point, what do you see? I live in

so 153% 27% cops don't show up and people challenge their tickets. We don't have a witness to speak to it and we have to automatically dismiss. Why is that? So automatically, even without the witness, you can't take any of the written statements. Nothing. Nothing. I would think you could. It's just like, okay, you're risking not having live testimony.

The judge will not hear without a witness to speak to the citation written by him because you have to be able to have the connection of is this a fair and true? Yeah. Establishing the foundation. That's right. There's no foundational basis without the signer of the citation. Good morning.

The incident. So I get it. N That's it. I think squash down the road. Sounds

great. See you tomorrow. I don't know why I need to talk to testing. One, two. I check. One, two. two years.

It's a good I do not know anything.

Okay. So Dell's coming and so

is there a gamble? Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning. Uh this is a special meeting for NA City Council. It's been called on short notice and convened for the purpose of discussing the mayor vacancy and a possible appointment. Before we get started, I would like to acknowledge a couple of things and make sure that we understand this is not a public hearing. This is a council meeting for council. There is no public testimony to be taken. So don't want to have confusion. There will not be public outbursts, cheers, clapping, booze. If there is, we'll ask you to leave the room. This is a time for council to deal with uh serious issues and we want it to be in the public as that's a requirement, but we also ask for your cooperation this morning. I would also like to acknowledge a few things. You'll bear with me. There may be a moment of some emotional. It was difficult when we had to convene several weeks ago for a special meeting to carry forward. I think it's important to be acknowledging that our staff, our directors, their teams in the city of Nampa have carried forward. While it's been difficult and while there's been an adjustment, the operation of the city of Nampa has

continued forth. Many people have stepped up to the plate, offered help, continue to do their job, but also working to move the city of Nampa forward with the same goals that were in place at the time of Rick's passing. It's important to understand the city has not fallen apart. The work is still happening. It's important to know that while there can be different people encouraged to be in the position of mayor, the purpose of this meeting is for that discussion. It it will be a short meeting as we have two counselors who need to be other places in a short while. So please understand the reasoning behind what we're going to proceed through. Our first item will be if there's a counselor who wants to speak, we'll allow him to speak for two minutes. They want to say something before uh the business portion of this meeting. So we will start with the option of

roll. Excuse me. And we need to call roll call. Sh helps me stay on track. I appreciate that. So clerk will call the role. Scog present. Jangula here. Bills here. Reynolds. Rodriguez here. Griffin here. All present. So, with that, uh, if there's a counselor who would like to make a comment, you have two minutes. And we'll start, uh, with councelor uh, Griffin. Anything? You don't have to. Well, some have asked, so that's I'm opening up for two minutes. I can always conjure up a few words. I'm sure

you got a minute 40 left.

Thank you. I think the thing that should be in the forefront of everything is that this council I know each of them have been very prayerful about what we do moving forward. We none of us anticipated and none of you anticipated this ever happening. the the turmoil that we've gone through, the grieving that the community's gone through, uh the trauma that many people are experiencing with the passing of of Rick or Hogab. So, this council, I believe, I know at least one has been very prayerful about how we move forward with one thing in mind. bringing Nampa together, bringing peace to the community, bringing unity to the council, and uh we might be a long way off from from being able to find that or maybe we'll find it today, but just know that nothing's being made hastily and that we're all trying to be thoughtful of the process as a whole.

Thank you. Is there another person who wants to speak? don't have to. I just want to vote. Councilman Reynolds, you wanted to speak.

Mr. President, um I have a few comments. Um I I don't think that I'm ready to vote today. I feel like we haven't had discussions from this dis um to uh to get to that place. We have to have some discussion before we get there in my assessment. But uh I think this should be a logical, common sense, smart business decision. A proven, experienced leader is what we need for the city of Nampa right now. I feel like we should interview potential candidates much like we do in a candidate forum. Um I want to know what the candidates's goals and visions are for the city. You wouldn't hire or appoint a CEO for a corporation this size this fast. This is a big big decision. Probably the most consequential decision this council will ever make. Um, I feel like the best path forward for NAPA is a known quantity. 18 months a new mayor would be elected. Um, and then, uh, keep in mind that whoever is appointed, we can't fire that person. That person is here whether we like him or not until the next election cycle. So, we need to pick wisely. Uh, the timeliness to get another mayor and chief of staff up to speed realistically, if it's not a known quantity, is probably 6 months. That leaves about 12 months before the next election cycle and then the employees of Nampa have to go through that again. So I want to make sure that's in everybody's mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Reynolds. Gentleman J.

Yeah. Thank you, President. Um, in the process of me working through this challenge that we have in front of us, I reached out to our directors and asked for their insight. At the end of the day, yes, this is the mayor of a city. This is also going to be the leader of a massive corporation, which is what we are as Nampa. We have 815 employees. So, this is someone's boss. This is who runs our city on the day-to-day, the operational side. So, for me, this is less political and more about how can we move forward in a more seamless fashion that gets us into budget, gets us through this challenge, this timeline until it comes before the people as a vote. So, that's what I'm kind of looking for. That's the discussion that I want to have with council. Um, that's what I I believe that we should be looking for in this position as we move forward. So,

Councilwoman Scog, do you have any comments you want to make?

Thank you. I do have a couple of things that I just want to remind um our citizens of. This is a decision for the council. This is not a decision for builders, construction workers or um for uh the staff. This is a council members decision and we are not taking it lightly. We are praying about it and we're not going to be strong armed into accepting what um somebody may insist that we do. We are um we need to I believe take some time, more time and um be very thoughtful and um go out in the community and um have people come and give us their resumes and do interviews. I also believe that if we take time, the cream rises to the top and we will find someone that can lead this great city and this great community. And so I that is my heart is to um take this to the community and make sure that it's an open um discussion between us and um that uh you all know what's happening and it's not behind closed doors. Thank you councel. Uh before uh proceeding and making uh motion, uh I'd like to communicate that uh many in the community have been very respectful. Uh there's been a few derogatory remarks and there's been a great deal of opinion shared as to future forward, how things should be done, what's the best possibility,

and uh it's gotten to the point where um I've tried to explain what I understood might be council's position. Obviously, council has not had deliberations u and yet occasionally uh people don't believe what I'm trying to say to them. And uh I quite frankly uh have gotten a little bothered in the last uh 5 days, 6 days with uh some of the comments, the needling telling me what the heck I need to do and it's gotten a little old. So therefore I uh consulted with council, legal counsel and with uh clerk on uh procedure forward so that we could uh do today's meeting. And so in response to a letter that was provided to us uh by Debbie Clling uh requesting that she be considered to be appointed and she asked that it be by vote uh trying to honor that request. At the same time, her letter also called for that if council said no that she would recommend that council consider Clay Long, chief of staff. So without all the the fanfare and council then has the option and council has been made aware of the purpose of this meeting

is whether somebody is appointed today or not. It is a checkpoint and gives council guidance. Uh, I would say that uh comments in the future and letters, if they're constructive, if they're helpful, uh, certainly are warranted and taken into consideration. Badgering, derogatory statements, they do nothing. Now, I'm sorry, Daniel. I used that word, didn't I? Daniel Badger. Okay. Should have thought of something different. But in all cander, I understand the political statements. I understand the opinions, etc. But it does absolutely no good to harp and harp and harp and to try to force your opinion on somebody and they have to respond to what you want or your group wants. It actually becomes a turnoff. It actually causes council to to say, "Well, to heck, we'll just uh figure out four votes and we'll do what we want." That's not a good approach. It's human nature, though. When we're done here, again, I'm asking no cheering, no huras. Head to the hallway and cheer and do whatever you want from that point forward.

We'd appreciate that. Regardless of the decisions made here in a moment, feel free to continue to communicate your opinions, but please do so, as I've already said, in a respectful manner. Thank you. So therefore, I move to appoint Debbie Clling as mayor for the city of Nampa and provide her with notice of appointment no later than April 30th, 2026 and within 10 days thereafter hold a public meeting for her to take and subscribe to the oath required under Idaho Code 59-401, at which time she shall shall enter upon the duties of the office of mayor which shall be May 4th, 2026. Is there a second?

Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Is okay. Yeah. Counciloman Jangula.

Thank you. in receiving a lot of the feedback that I received from city departments and then also community members. Um, Mayor Clling and Clay Long, chief of staff were both names that were heavily discussed and there was a lot of praise. There were pros and cons to both. And so I one of my reservations is if we did move Clay Long into that position, who would be our chief of staff and what would that look like since he's doing the operational side? So for me it feels the most fluid way is to bring Mayor Clling into that position so that Clayong can keep doing what he's been doing, what he was doing when him and Mayor Hogaboom had their new transition going and that the staff very heavily gave praise to what that was and they wanted to see that continue. So to me that does feel like this could be a really smooth transition.

Okay. There other comments wanting to be made, Mr. President. Yes, Councilwoman Reynolds,

I would echo those comments. Um I think um from Councilwoman Jangula, um what I made comment on earlier about the timeliness. I'm concerned about if uh Clay was to be appointed, Klay is a great individual, nothing against Clay, but if if he was to be appointed, that um we would have to wait for him to move into the city, establish residency, and then um get him in up to speed in the office, and then we would have to replace that chief of staff position, and that's appointed by council. We're looking at a minimum of two months if we're fast on that process. Uh realistically, we're probably 6 months before we have a mayor and a chief of staff that are up to speed and that can get this thing rolling. We're a big comp big corporation. Basically, we need to keep rolling. We're in budget season. Um but that also leaves 12 months left after that 6-month period of where we're transitioning again. In my opinion, Mayor Clling is the best option to sit right in that seat um that she recently vacated and uh keep on rolling. Um, I uh I think that uh if Klay Long was to want to run for election in 19 months that uh it would serve him well to uh apprentice or whatever you want to call it underneath Mayor Clling and gain that experience and then be able to move into that election cycle as Mayor Clling has said that she will not want to run for reelection at that point. So, thank you. Any other comments? I'll uh wrap up there then that uh again uh the request is and the motion is to appoint Debbie Clling and uh clerk

will call the role. Scog, no. Jingula, yes. Reynolds, yes. Rodriguez, no. Griffin, no. bills. No motion fails.

The next item is uh a motion to appoint uh Clay Long. So, I move to appoint Clay Long as mayor of the city of Nampa, provided he becomes a qualified elector as defined in Idaho code 50-402 and delivers to the city the required documentation substantiating his qualified elector status no later than June 5th, 2026. And the city within seven calendar days of such receipt shall provide him with notice of his appointment and within 10 days thereafter shall hold a public meeting to take and subscribe to the oath required under Idaho code 59-401 at which time he shall enter upon the duties of office of mayor June 15th or sooner as determined. Is there a second? I'll second it.

Motion has been moved and second. Is there discussion on this? Council President. Council member.

Thank you. And I'll look right at you, Clay. I think you do an exceptional job as chief of staff and probably the best there is. I I I fullheartedly believe that. Um and I'm not necessarily opposed to your appointment either. I think as discussed today uh this feels rushed even for myself in the process. I still have questions uh that I would like to ask you. I would like to have interviews to be able to have those questions answered because a lot can be done in 18 months. uh and for the positive and I think having aligned vision and a partnership council's independent of the mayor's office but we work together as partners and I think it's very important that we're uh aligned in the vision of the city and how we move forward. So I I don't know how to be able to vote on this because I don't want it to be a no today and a definitive answer for you. I want to continue to be able to have that time to refine uh discuss and then ultimately decide. Um I think applications as discussed by a few council members uh is warranted. I I think there's a lot that we can vet and go through in a matter of weeks to be able to say this is definitively a good answer and a good direction for the city. And you very well may likely be that. Uh, I want to know who your chief of staff is going to be before we make this decision. I want to vet that person and we just go down the line. So, I don't know if I can abstain on a vote or if that's ultimately a no, but I think to give you the direction of a no is not the intention of at least this council member. So, if I end up voting no, I would actually ask for a substitute motion that we continue that vote. But uh a motion's in order so I won't try and and buck it too much. So

So to answer your question, the motion is uh will be voted on and uh the reason being is because we have a time frame. Idaho code doesn't provide for council president to remain doing the duties. Uh it it is ambiguous on the time frame. Uh and so legal counsel uh in-house out of house have both uh uh advised that uh and the reason we went for the 90 days was probably a stretch for the meaning of the code but to give us time to work through the issues. So we must continue to be uh vigil. Again, the reason for requiring the vote is um because there's been a push from the public uh several emails, several comments, and when I say several, there's many and have uh said, "You need to do something now. We need to get this done now. This is not right to leave this very long." And so, uh and you need to move on certain people. And therefore I feel like today trying to have a short meeting uh was to answer that question and it gives council the opportunity in a public fashion to be able to speak which three of you have and so uh I'm just trying to clarify uh the direction. Councelor uh Rodriguez, do you have comments?

I do, sir. Uh, I just want the community to know, understand that I don't take this decision lightly at all. Lately, I've received many emails. I call them one-sided conversations because I can't respond back to you the way I really want to because I'm trying to be unbiased. I'm trying to do this level-headedly. So, after this vote today, I would ask you to call me and ask for a for a conversation. I'd be more than happy to to sit with you and discuss why my votes go the way they do. So, just keep that in mind. Thank you. Anything further, Councilman Rose?

Mr. President, um I just want to say Clay, I think you're a fantastic individual. Uh I appreciate what you do for the city and um I think that at some point you will make a great mayor. Um I can't support you at this time. Uh, I think for me the optics of you living in a county are are bad. Um, and then I I just I just can't support you at this time as I discussed with you. Um, but I think you'll make a great mayor someday and I just wanted to know that. Thank you. Other comments?

I just have a brief comment that um Clay does a fantastic job. I know uh Mayor Hogab had mentioned to me how he really appreciated um Clay's work and how good he was at his job. My um issue is that Clay does not live in the city of Nampa. If I were to go down and register to be a city council member, I would not even be able to fill out the forms because I if I didn't live in the in the city limits. And so that is the issue right now is that I don't think that he's eligible for that pos for the position of mayor because he does not currently live in the city limits. So I cannot vote for him.

So in response for clarification that's the reason the motion is providing time to for him to uh complete that. For a reminder, uh former mayor uh Debbie Clling moved into the city exactly

30 plus days or more uh prior to needing to file to gain residency to file when she filed eight years ago. So timing and connections uh this is not a special situation. This is uh putting it up on the table and understand here's the provision. And so again, uh that's the reason the motion has the specific days and it has the requirements for him to perform uh in order to uh have the vote go forward or his appointment go forward. Just a clarification, it's not a dig. It's not to try to create uh animosity or more talk in the community, but uh I'm trying to answer the questions and it's been difficult uh not being able to do so

uh on certain things, not be able to discuss certain things. Any other comments? Clerk will call the role. Scog, no. Reynolds, no. Rodriguez, no. Griffin abstain. Is that an option? No. No, it's not an option. Clay, you know my intention in saying that. So, it's a no. We don't need comments. We need a vote. Jenula, yes. Bills, yes. Motion fails.

Okay. We appreciate uh council's time this morning and we will continue to uh try to provide some direction. However, it's going to require council members to assist on that. I'm not your lap dog and I'm not going to uh put all the paperwork together to get shot down, etc. And uh again, uh me staying in the interim uh time frame is short-term. So, it behooves us to have to uh have some uh dialogue and probably more open meetings in order to uh get through uh the discussion. president for that.

If there's any other comments, go ahead. Can we just get some clarification from legal at this point? Now, what what communications can we and can we not have?

Council President, if I may, this is entirely a political process, right? Is my mic on? I only have a red light here. So, do I. That's all right. I think we're good there. So, Idaho code does not provide a lot of explicit direction as I think most of you are aware. It provides that the council shall fill the position. That shall language is the directive. It's not a suggestive. It is a mandatory shall. So, it behooves you a duty to actively and diligently work towards filling that. The procedure, the manner that you want to do it is up to council. That is a process that you can determine however you so choose. Um, we do have a resolution that is in effect for 90 days. It will conclude on June 16th providing temporary executive function authority for the council president. If needs be that that needs to be extended, Idaho code would allow for that. Uh 50-301 allows the city to operate any of its internal affairs as it may deem necessary uh for the good of the city. And so the direction that you want to go really is yours. If I had more specific direction, um, I would provide it, but the law just does not give us that direction. Our city code also is pretty generic. There's no specific direction on the mode, the manner, or the process. How you would go about that. Um, that could be a workshop setting like this for the public. It could be an open discussion at all times though. Um, as you're aware, the open meetings law is applicable. And so all the quorum discussions need to be noticed up and properly and duly set. Um and so as is permitted in a in a political process, there are uh there is room under the law for individual conversations similar to what we've done here. And the all of you are vigilant in adhering to those standards. Um but it really is up to you on how frequent and in what setting you want to do it.

Council President, I'm happy to elaborate further, but I think that hits the gist of it. I think so. Does that help you or assist you? More questions? It does. Just one followup. Because both of these failed, is there any way that these names could still be in the pool moving forward or are they just are both of them done? Is there a motion we'd have to make to keep them alive? H they're still

to answer your question, council president, um by a failed motion today, the names that were presented are not disqualified. What was today was an appointment of vote. This was one method that was attempted and we know what the results were for that. That does not disqualify them from let's say there is a procedure for applications or invitations. each of those individuals um would be allowed to apply um allowed to uh be interviewed. Obviously, the qualified elector is a uh a relevant piece here. Um the legal advice that I'm providing after research is that whoever you appoint needs to uh fit that criteria and that's set forward in code. I won't recite it here uh but we know what that criteria is and we'll ensure that that in fact is the case before that person takes the position. So the short answer is no. They are not disqualified.

Thank you, Council President. Yes.

Just for clarification, it can come from you or legal. You mentioned that the ability to sign expires at a given date. It's ambiguous. You explain that. Do we have a general timeline of when that expires uh in regard to your role as interim? Well, council uh at the special meeting uh following Rick's passing uh uh gave uh council president the authority to sign in lie of mayor uh for 90 days. So that puts us uh uh down into the plus or minus June 15th.

Thank you, president. But please understand, no, I

council president added 10 to 15 hours a week to me. This event and trying to keep a good uh attitude forward has added an additional 10 hours a week. And so I'm not everybody's lap dog. I have a servant's heart, a servant's mind, but I'm not going to uh be whiplashed hence forward. And so it's important to uh have that understanding. The council's got to uh come together and we're going to have to have some special meetings because we can't dialogue through email and uh so it's going to require us to come together and share our thoughts and it's going to be a work work sessions and we're in the middle of budget and uh so it's going to be a very busy next uh six to eight months. My wife and I have counseledled twice traveling to see our daughter and her children and uh husband and help out with some issues. And so uh for sure she'll be traveling the next go whether I make it or not. So I'm just being candid with you that uh it isn't without energy that has been taking place. It's just uh there hasn't been as these votes show a consensus on direction. And I think it's going to be difficult to take applications and go through that process. I think that's going to be timeconuming. And so uh please uh understand then that we got to roll up sleeves everybody and be involved.

Mr. President, I'm making a suggestion here. Uh I think it would behoove us to have a mediator to run this process. take the load off your shoulders u third party neutral and then they could just run the process and uh move us forward. That's my suggestion. If that needs to be a motion, I would certainly make that motion. I won't I won't accept for a motion uh because it wasn't agendaized for for that and uh we'll certainly explore it and work it out from there. President, yes. Can we discuss moving forward just because we can't have conversations? We need to leave this bench knowing what we're supposed to be doing from here.

Well, uh you might think about the process forward. So, how is council going to uh discuss uh the method? Uh one counselor has put together a rough draft of an application form and sent it to me. And so, uh we will look at that further and with today's votes. That's the reason to get today's votes is to get us moving on things and decide is this how we're going to do it. There's got to be guidelines and procedures as far as picking a person and what are the criteria for people uh submitting an application. Uh and so um some of that just has to be put together. Some's going to have to be utilizing staff or has been suggested an outside party to help put that together. Um, but it's got to be from outside. Uh, there's been too much bias the last two weeks, three weeks of of communication coming to council members. And, uh, it's hasn't been an undeal of trying to get something figured out to do it correctly and what's good for the 18 months. It's been very, uh, uh, one-sided and it's political. And so, now we're into the work session time. And that's that's what the benefit of today is is to establish a point forward.

Can we put a date on the calendar today for that next um collaboration or we'll need to put emails out to council members and get response. Council president. Yes.

If I could being the council member that helped draft that rough draft of an application, I'd be happy to continue the process uh and take some of the load off on you. I'm sure all of us as council members are willing as well. Uh in my mind and when drafting that uh this could be a very long drawn out process, but it also could be put inside of a box in a timeline that we don't have to allow it to be at this point. There's discussion, there's media, we can make a pretty clear um outline of what we should be doing. I I personally believe we should take applications. I think we should set a a date on when those applications need to be turned in. Amy can put them on the website and receive those and then those get distributed to council members on that due date and we have a week to review, call and interview those candidates for a new discussion. So, in my mind, we should at least be gathering again in three weeks to be able to have discussions on the applicants um received. So, what what's today? What's today? Wednesday.

Councilman, I appreciate your input. Put it in writing. Okay. And send it out. Thank you. Uh we have two who need to exit. And so with that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. So moved. Second. Now we'll call for the vote to adjourn. All in favor? I. I. I. Excellent. Thank you. Good.