City Council - Special Meeting

Test, test, one, two, three, test.

Is that it? Testing. Testing. You can hear. You can hear.

You can hear.

You can hear. You can hear.

Yeah. So we should also let Woj in as a.

Testing, one, two, three, testing. I can hear you, can you hear me? Yep, sounds good.

All right, perfect.

Guys. Good, how are you guys?

Test, test, okay, yeah. So the Zoom is muted right now, just letting you know.

I'm not going to say anything. That's a secret. Hi, Lena.

I'm hoping to get this done so I can go to my gala, but probably not, right?

I'm so sorry. I know. Lena, please. Well, you thought you told me that.

Joe wasn't happy.

Yeah, what?

I don't, yeah, I don't.

Hi.

Is my mic on?

I don't think my mic's on. I think it was those guys. They were testing. Can you hear me? No.

They were testing. Yeah.

GOOD EVENING. IT IS NOW 616, AND I WILL OPEN THE SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2026.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT?

WE ARE GOING TO MOVE RIGHT INTO CLOSED SESSION. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK

I, Walter Starr again, sorry. I'd like to suggest some questions that you might wish to ask counsel during closed session. I spent part of the day reading the papers the city filed in the state Supreme Court yesterday. I hope some of you did as well. I suggest that you ask council for an estimate of the likelihood of success in that appeal to the state Supreme Court. The likelihood that the state Supreme Court is going to grant the emergency stay that the city has requested. The other day, I referred to it as a Hail Mary pass. I think I was overstating the city's chances of success. Hail Mary passes, as we know from watching football games, work from time to time. The honest chances of the city's success, I think, are somewhere between one in a thousand and one in a hundred. Then you should ask counsel, how much time the Rutan and Tucker lawyers devoted to preparing those papers? How many hours? He might say he doesn't know, but he could pick up the phone and get that number pretty quickly. I think it's about 100 hours, maybe 125. Four lawyers' names appear on the front of that brief. They worked pretty hard over the past week. Pretty easy, I know, from private practice to run up 100 hours over the course of a week between four lawyers. Now Rutan and Tucker is not billing the city at its full usual rates. The senior partners are only billing out at 295 an hour. But still, 100 hours times 295, 30 grand. 30 grand of the citizens' money spent on an appeal to the state Supreme Court, which has a less than 1 in 100 chance of success. That, in my definition, is a waste. Then I think you should ask the city attorney about those discounted rates. Is there some understanding between the city and Rutan and Tucker about those discounts? Is there an understanding, for example, that in return for these discounts, thousands of dollars that Rutan and Tucker has foregone by not, sorry, by not charging their usual rates, is there some understanding that the city is going to be giving Rutan and Tucker other business in the future? other business at full rates. I don't care whether that's written or not. I think the council should know and the people should know what the deal is between the city and Rutan and Tucker for all this legal work that has so far proved utterly pointless. We're in a mess and I hope that you have a long closed session and ask hard questions of council. Thank you.

Next speaker please. Good evening. My name is Susan Skinner and I'm here to address the City Council's overt actions to sabotage democracy in our city. For those who have not been following this debacle, the law allows residents to collect signatures and submit an initiative for the vote. This is often done when the residents feel that their elected representatives have stopped listening to them. There's a requirement to publish a notice of the initiative in an adjudicated paper of general circulation, which was appropriately done by filing a notice in the OC Reporter. A 30-second internet search shows that the OC Reporter is listed as an adjudicated publication by the court. The OC reporter has been regularly used for legal notices that are previously accepted by the city of Newport Beach. But this time, our city decided to block the initiative process by claiming that the OC reporter was the wrong paper. That's it. That's the whole debacle revolving around this legal notice. The proponents had to go to court to force the city to follow the law, and the court effectively spanked the city, calling this action obstructionism and an abuse of power, and requiring the city to move forward with accepting the ballot measures and setting an election. Despite this, city council members are still claiming that quote, the law was broken, Mr. Stapleton saying that, even though the court has been crystal clear that it has not. Make no mistake, these actions are intended to undermine democracy. When a group of elected council members has the arrogance to decide unilaterally to block the legally mandated steps to put an initiative on the ballot, we're in dangerous territory. What else might they unilaterally decide behind closed doors? perhaps moving the police station and the jail to the Civic Center Park. These initiatives are intended to provide guardrails to this and future city councils that overstep their authority, and I sincerely hope that they are approved by a landslide. In the meantime, I've had a number of interesting conversations with legal experts about ways to ensure that there are personal consequences for this council's attempt to subvert democracy. It is likely that an evidence preservation letter has already been served on the city, but I'm going to give you one tonight just to be sure that that base is covered. Additionally, I am preparing a California bar complaint against Mr. Harp, not my first, regarding his role in this mess. Your arrogance and your blatant disregard for the law deserves the most stringent consequences possible, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, my name is Jim Mosier. First of all, I wanted to thank the city clerk for intervening with the IT department so that I did actually receive a notice that there was a meeting tonight. But I would point out many of your constituents who thought they were signed up to receive notices probably did not get any notice that there was a council meeting tonight. And so I think that's an ongoing problem. I think the clerk realizes that. And it still needs considerable fixing. I think you're also aware, and indeed one of the speakers mentioned, that there is considerable public concern about not only the point, but also the cost of the litigation that is the subject of the closed session tonight, item two. So I wanted to remind you again that in our city charter section 602, the people of Newport Beach established the position of a city attorney. But at the end of that section, we reminded you that the city council retains control of all of our legal affairs. So it's up to you what we're doing or not doing. And beyond that, the Brown Act, our open meeting law, requires if you give any direction in the closed session to your legal counsel to seek or to refrain from seeking judicial relief, the public is entitled to know who voted to give that direction. And to the best of my knowledge, the only vote on these closed session items that has been publicly reported was back on August 18th at the special meeting. And the public heard that all of you unanimously supported going on with the litigation and the expense. So if we hear no different report tonight, I think the public has a reasonable conclusion that you are all behind this. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, do we have anyone online? I don't have any raised hands.

Okay, Mr. Harp, would you please announce our closed session items?

Thank you, Mayor. The City Council adjourned a closed session to meet with legal counsel regarding the potential initiation of litigation for one matter, and the case is titled City of Newport Beach versus Newport Beach Stewardship Association and City of Newport Beach versus Robert Page, and those are all on the agenda under Item 2, 1, and 2. Thank you.

We are now adjourned to closed session.

Yeah.

Mr. Harp, do you have a closed session report?

Thank you, Mayor. There's no closed session report this evening.

Okay. Moving on to current business. I'm assuming that no council member wants a staff report, but just check, seeing none. Do we have any public comments on current business?

Mayor Kleinman, members of the council, my name is Jim Mosier. Item three, I think, is what members of the public came here for, is that we expected a public dialogue between you and the city clerk as to the feasibility of conducting the election that the court has ordered. The fact that you do not need to discuss the staff report or anything apparently with the city clerk creates a strong suspicion that in the closed session you may have discussed what we thought was going to be a public item. And I would just point out that the closed session, according to the announcement, is a session with your legal counsel. It is not a session with the city clerk. So I'm not sure how that discussion took place. The public has seen a staff report. I thought it interesting that the staff report, because at your last special meeting a week ago, the public understood that the city attorney was gonna seek clarification from the court. There's no mention of what that clarification was. The public seems really to be kept in the dark. What I thought was important in the staff report, it says that the city clerk and the city attorney recommend that you continue to comply with the court order. So if you do something different, I'm gonna wonder where you got the recommendation to do something different. We do have that staff report and a supplement that the city clerk provided here. It looked like there were a couple of hurdles in trying to comply with the order. One of them was getting ballots printed. That seems to have been solved. There was a problem about confirming whether there were any so-called confidential voters who might need to get the mailing tomorrow to military and overseas. It looks like that has been solved with the cooperation of the Registrar of Voters. So my only comment, if you're gonna have no discussion, The remaining obstacle seems to be getting signatures to verify the signatures on the ballot. That won't be an issue until November when the ballots are returned to determine if they're valid or not. This council and your staff have been immensely creative in blocking the public's ability to vote. I would wonder if you could be equally creative in facilitating our opportunity to vote. And perhaps you could go to the judge, instead of asking to stop things, ask them to order the registrar of voters to provide the signatures to you before November. That would solve that last roadblock. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on this item?

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO PUBLICLY REPORT SPECIFIC FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN DURING A CLOSED SESSION. SO BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO REPORT, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY BY DEFAULT SAYING NO ACTION WAS TAKEN THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC. AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND CLOSED SESSION. BUT UNDERSTAND THAT THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW I THINK HAS A TRUST ISSUE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE. I WISH THAT WASN'T THE CASE. BUT ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO SHORE UP THE CONFIDENCE OF THE CITIZENS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. AND I THINK YOU'D BE BETTER SERVED SHARING MORE INFORMATION THAN SAYING NOTHING AT ALL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

WHAT WAS YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, SIR?

My name is Mike Smith.

Thank you.

Any other speakers on this item? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, is there anyone online?

I have no raised hands.

Okay, we'll bring it back up here. Are there any council members that wish to speak? Council Member Wiegand?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I brought up a lot of issues last week ago related to this, asked a lot of questions, and I remain as confused as ever at the process that this is going to create mass chaos and confusion at the polls once these ballots get sent out and I'm not confident that the registrar voters or the Secretary of State is going to provide us enough information to Get us the ability to verify all of the ballots that come back to us But before us today really is a deadline that is tomorrow. That's a federal deadline that military and overseas ballots are sent out and so THAT WAS DISCUSSED MOMENTS AGO IN OUR CLOSED SESSION, AND 400 OF THOSE WILL BE SLATED TO BE ISSUED TOMORROW.

YOU CAN'T DISCUSS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION.

BUT I CAN DISCUSS WHAT THE BALLOT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, CORRECT?

That's correct. You just can't talk about our closed session discussions.

Sure, sure. Let's discuss what the ballot that goes out to the voters tomorrow will look like. So there's an instruction page that explains that we're having an election, and then there's the ballot itself and then there's a bunch of different forms you have to fill out in order to certify who you are and that you qualify for what you qualify for and how you transmit the ballot back and all of the steps. And this is something that looks nothing like a ballot that we're used to receiving because these are, there's a lot of verifications involved and then these go to either countries abroad that potentially don't have mail service the same day or could be working on a ship or could be anywhere in the world. BUT THE BALLOT THAT I WAS SHOWN SIMPLY JUST ASKS A YES, NO QUESTION WITH THE STATEMENT THAT IS THAT PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY? THAT LINE THAT SAYS VOTING ON WHAT THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY VOTING ON. AND THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION of a pro or con, no arguments for and no arguments against, that tomorrow, that ballot will be distributed in those means looking exactly that way, correct?

Yes, the military and overseas voters will receive only the ballot and instructions and the voter guide. We will be sending them later, and it's allowed by election code. Some of the cities I just received from our consultant just post on an election page on the website and direct the military voters to go there on the election page. We will have to send it to them because we didn't include it in our letter.

Okay, so tomorrow 400 ballots have to go out and they will have information how to do it, but they won't be given all of the details of the election. They will just be given or actually the items they'll be voting on. They will not be given the pros or the cons statements made from the proponents and the statements made by the opposition. I feel that that leaves a significant amount of confusion to those voters because we're accelerating the timeframe. The Registrar of Voters has sent out 10,000 ballots already to these same voters. Do we know what day they sent those to?

I think they were sent already several days ago, and it was confirmed that Orange County does include the voter guide with the military ballots.

So they were giving everything when you go through the registrar of voters. But the city is going to give them only partially the information. So I think that in its face is concerning. But information that the registrar of voters has TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AS OF TODAY EVEN, HAS STATED THAT THEY DO NOT RECOMMEND ANY FURTHER ACTION FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THAT THEY TAKE ANY MORE ACTION AND ASSIST THE CITY IN DOING THE ELECTION. with our city attorney has indicated from the Secretary of State that they feel the election is illegal. That's not in writing, but that was a conversation that our city attorney did have. So if the state is saying it's illegal and the county is saying that we haven't hit any of the deadlines, We know for a fact that at some point, whether we send these ballots tomorrow or not, that we're going to get information that we can't conduct or hold this election in a proper means, and we won't be able to verify them, and that the election will be null and void. But in doing so, you have an entire election that's happening concurrently. Some of us are on that election. There's another item, the housing initiative, that's on that as well, as well as your entire state down ticket, your senate or your congress, your senate, your assembly, your board of supervisors, and then anything local. So for me, we have set into a series of events something that we can't pull back from if we send out these ballots tomorrow, because we are starting an election process to vote for these other things concurrently with all of the things And if you do that, that sets in motion a significant amount of confusion, and that will come back to us not only in potential litigation, but in the for all of those elections that touch Newport Beach to question whether that the confusion prevented those voters from actually voting in the general election. If we're canceling one election, there could be confusion that we are canceling all the elections and it might put into somebody's mind frame that they don't feel comfortable voting because they think that the election has been canceled. Another argument that could be made is that there could be somebody out there who is specifically waiting for their ballot to be received. The County of Orange will send them in the first week of October, and then we're sending them again. What date is that anticipated to be sent?

We have to finalize the voter guide yet.

What day do we think that the ballots will go out to Newport Beach residents in the mail?

October 19th.

So the 19th. So I'm going to assume the 5th or 6th, depending on when the mail actually hits for the statewide election with all of these questions on it. And then three questions for this city are going to be delivered on October 19th. I can make an argument that somebody knows that they're allowed to vote in that timeframe between the 6th and the 19th, and they've already in their mental, or not mental, but their physical state have decided to be out of town the remainder of October through November and won't get an opportunity to vote. on this election because they're not knowing that this is actually going to be mailed out. So there's all of these hypotheticals I get that it's hard to put into perspective, but the mindset of the voter is unique and different per person. So the confusion is just too extreme and too complicated for us to be accelerated in an election that really shouldn't be. I would very much encourage my council colleagues to reconsider this process any further and not mail out these ballots tomorrow due to the confusion it will cause, due to the fact that the ballot that they're being sent to isn't complete. There's no pro or con on that. It's just simply a question asking to vote yes or no. To me, that's not enough information that a voter needs to make that determination. Yes, will it be sent out at a later date? Maybe, maybe not if the Registrar of Voters comes back and says we're not gonna provide you with the information. So now you've got a bunch of ballots out there that now potentially will be null and void and not counted because the election can't go on. And if we so happen to send a communication to them saying that it is not being counted, That sets us up for a potential for more confusion that a voter may think all of the votes, all of the elections, both the statewide county election and the city three question item election are not to be voted on. I'm not here to talk about the past and what happened leading up to this point, but right now the future for us is a process that we jeopardize the integrity of this election. And election integrity right now is at the forefront of most voters' concerns. And creating an election that causes confusion and chaos IS DETRIMENTAL TO THOSE THAT ARE ON THE STATEWIDE COUNTY ELECTION AS WELL AS THIS MUNICIPAL ELECTION THAT HAS THESE THREE ITEMS THAT, AS OF RIGHT NOW, VOTERS ARE GOING TO BE SENT TOMORROW THAT DON'T HAVE THE PROS AND CONS, THE ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST. ONLY A QUESTION WHETHER THEY SHOULD VOTE YES OR NO. SO THAT'S CONCERNING. And for me, this is about integrity of an election. And we must do the right thing to protect every single voter of Newport Beach. And that means to, I feel, have exhausted every resource. We have attempted to find vendors. We have attempted to find people that can run this election to the best of their ability. But we keep finding that there's certain things that need to be done. Secretary of State says it has to have a special indicia or watermark or some type of authorization coming from the state. They have said that we're not going to provide that to you at the moment because we feel your election is illegal. And that the county says that they can't assist us because it'll take away from the duties that they're doing for their election. And that means how does somebody vote here in Newport Beach when they have questions and they go to a vote center to drop off that ballot? We don't even know if that'll be accepted or not. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR BALLOT AND THEN YOU GET AN ENVELOPE FROM THE COUNTY AND YOU PUT YOUR CITY BALLOT IN THE COUNTIES BY ACCIDENT AND THEN YOU MAIL IT OFF. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THAT BALLOT IF IT WILL BE COUNTED OR NOT. THERE'S TOO MUCH CONFUSION THE MOMENT WE SEND THESE BALLOTS OUT TOMORROW WE SET IN MOTION A WHOLE PROCESS TO CREATE THIS ELECTION AND THAT HAS RAMIFICATIONS ON THE GENERAL ELECTION THAT THE STATEWIDE AND COUNTY IS RUNNING FOR US SO WE WOULD be in our best interest as a city to carry on with the November general election that's the statewide run by the county and not go forward with the municipal election due to the issues that I've brought forward.

Are there any other council members that would like to speak? Mayor Pro Tem Blum.

Thank you very much. This is a very hard topic for all of us up here, and I reflect on one very important thing that I remember my mother told me when I told her we lived in a democracy, and she goes, Noah, we don't. We live in a constitutional republic that has democratically held elections. And I think understanding that is very important to what we're talking about right now. I have no desire to not work with the orders in front of us. In fact, we have abided by every single one of them. The hardest part is that we have found an impossibility in the final piece. When we were given the option, and this was the judge's order to choose when this election would happen, we chose, and we didn't do it out of spite or malice, we did it out of process. The product of government is process. And if we don't want to follow that process, And we're not doing our job up here. And so when we offered that process, our argument wasn't good enough. And so now, here we are. And we have played this game through. We have had evidence stacked against us to tell us why this isn't possible. We don't have the ability, the wherewithal, the strength to hold our own election. Right now, what we're offering is that you can't go and vote in person. That's important for everyone to understand. On these three initiatives, no one could show up and vote on them. We don't even know if that's legal. We haven't even got clarification of the legality on that. The initiatives aren't the problem. That's actually not what we care about, but we do care about the process. And in all of that, we have shown the same effort and diligence that we try to show to everything in this city. Not one person sits up here because this is some kind of beautiful, high-paying job and we all want to spend our late Friday nights being here and enjoying each other's time. We're up here because we're raising our families, we're owning businesses, and we care about this place. We're a constitutional republic that needs democratically held elections. And the moment that we decide that we are willing and able to relinquish our oath of office, our oath was simple. It wasn't for a judicial order. It was to defend the Constitution of California, Constitution of the United States, the Charter of Newport Beach. Those are embedded laws. And so if an order makes me relinquish those pieces, it makes it near impossible for me to follow because now I have gone against an oath I took. And that's the simple fact of this. I am willing to work with anybody to get this over the finish line. And if the entire problem is timing, let's work on timing. The city of Newport Beach has never held its own. We don't know how, we don't have the capability, and we don't know the process. And every step of the way with everyone we've talked to, we've been met with the same thing. An inability to follow through. So it's not a question of our decisions or our beliefs on one side or the other of the issue. The question again comes to a very simple understanding that our product, the thing we produce in government, is process. And if we're unwilling to uphold the process, If we're unwilling to uphold our oath of office, then the easy answer is we should all step down. And I know there might be some cheering out there for that, but the answer is we don't do it for ourselves, we do it for Newport and for our families and the people we want to live here forever. I'm at a very interesting point right now because I love this city more than anything. I have spent six years on this dais and I'm having a very hard time understanding how we can skirt our oath because of an order that defies California law. Thank you.

Council Member Grant?

Thank you. I'm very sensitive to what's been said already by my colleagues here, Council Member Wiegand and Council Member Blum, about the uncertainties of what we're facing. I'm very cognizant of it and very sensitive to it, but I am also cognizant of the advice of our legal counsel, both in-house and outside counsel. And this body has voted by majority to comply with the writ and conduct an election on November 3rd. And there are definitely hurdles to address. There's no debate about that. There are a number of hurdles. Some have been raised here tonight. Others we've been addressing in previous council meetings. There are definitely hurdles that we need to address. We do have city staff and consultants working on these hurdles to resolve them and to solidify a lawful path. That's what we're all looking for here is a lawful path forward. our responsibility now at this juncture is really to make every good faith effort to comply with the writ we voted to do that we've been ordered to do that by a judge on a number of occasions not only in a trial court but in a court of appeal a number of occasions and that good faith effort is what we need to be doing right now in my opinion um that per doesn't ELIMINATE THE NEED TO PROTECT EVERY SINGLE NEWPORT BEACH VOTER'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A LAWFUL ELECTION, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS. GETTING OVER THE HURDLES TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER AND WHEN WE CAN HAVE THIS ELECTION, BUT RIGHT NOW WE VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NOVEMBER 3 OF 2026. And we can be in compliance with the writ until it's firmly established otherwise that there is some, in some legitimate proceeding that a lawful election cannot be conducted. But I don't know that we've hit that juncture or that we will hit that juncture. RIGHT NOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE JUST REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE, AND WE DON'T PRE-JUDGE ANYTHING THAT MAY BECOME NECESSARY. YOU KNOW, IF CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, WE CAN REEVALUATE AGAIN, BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE IN THE SAME POSITION WE WERE WHEN WE VOTED, A MAJORITY OF US VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, AND WE DO HAVE SOME STEPS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE IN GOOD FAITH TO CONTINUE WITH THAT. THANK YOU.

This is way past my bedtime. So I think it's really important that I say this. Maybe we don't say it enough, but I absolutely believe in the right to vote. And I am going to take a guess that everyone sitting up here on the dais with me tonight believes that as well. I think what we've been trying to do is make sure that when Newport Beach residents vote, they have the time, the information, and the process they deserve. So there's a reason we have election laws. There's a reason there's deadlines, notice requirements, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I am fully aware of the judge's orders, and I respect the role of the court. But I can't ignore the position it puts me in as a council member. I took an oath a couple years ago to uphold the law in the city charter. And so this is about making sure that when people do vote, we've conducted the election lawfully, fairly, and in a way that our residents can trust. I keep thinking about it in a way that I'm not gonna get on a plane with a pilot who's completed nine out of the 10 steps that would fulfill his requirement and say, that's close enough. The process exists to protect people and I don't think our election should be treated any other way. And then I can't help but ask, why are we rushing this? Why are we forcing this accelerated process that risks creating any voter confusion, disenfranchisement? I can't for the life of me understand it. That all being said, voting isn't just about putting a ballot in someone's hands. It's actually about giving voters a fair opportunity to understand what they're actually voting on. So we're council members, and I have to ask myself, can we do this properly? Can we do it in a way that best serves the residents of Newport Beach? Because ultimately, that's who matters tonight. Not the proponents, not the politics, not the lawsuits, but every single resident who lives in the city of Newport Beach. Thank you.

Any other comments up here?

I'd just like to add that I think the reason, I know probably the public wonders why we're here, and I think the reason that we're here is some items in the staff report which are very concerning, which my colleagues have alluded to, being told repeatedly by the registrar of voters that they cannot provide us the voter file, that it would interfere with their election, not only recommended, but they cannot, having follow-up from the Secretary of State, that they cannot provide the voter file. We are doing our best to comply with the writ. We are going forward. But I do think that if people are concerned about having a fair election and they're concerned that the tactics of the council are to delay, I would really ask that you look at what kind of election you're getting when we're doing our very best to comply and we've gone to so many consultants and state bodies in order to carry this out. So while I think it is important that we comply and election integrity is very important and I think people deserve the opportunity to vote on these initiatives regardless of what I think of the content of them. When people are speaking to council members saying you're trying to hide things. I just ask if you were in our shoes, is this the election that you would be wishing to put on for the public regardless of why we are here?

Okay, we've heard from everybody. Council Member Weigand.

Yes, I am. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO REQUEST THE CITY CLERK TO NOT SEND OUT THE BALLOTS TOMORROW.

I'M HAPPY TO SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

motion fails three to four votes also member grant um mayor clyman um council member stapleton and council member barter opposed

OK. We have a failed vote on that. If there are no other motions to put forward, then this is basically a receive and file item. And we'll move on to motions for reconsideration. Mr. Harp, do you want to just give us a little bit of clarity on how motions of consideration work with special meetings?

Yeah, I think there may be a little bit of confusion on this point, so I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Council Policy A1 says that motion for reconsideration should be made at the next meeting. So for the meeting on September 11th, technically tonight would be the next meeting. um kind of the way i've interpreted the policy is that a motion for reconsideration should be allowed at next tuesday's meeting just because we've had all these special meetings i just want to make sure everyone's on the same page that it's okay to make a motion for consideration either from the meeting on the 11th or the 18th at the next tuesday's meeting if the council feels differently then i want to make sure everyone's clear that that motion for consideration needs to be made this evening

Thank you for that. With that, we'll move to motion for reconsideration. If anyone has one tonight. Seeing none, we are adjourned.