Town Council - Special Meeting

Okay, we're back in open session. We did meet, we reviewed from this morning's review. I shared some of the comments that we talked about during Bill's performance review this morning. And then there was a recommendation Do I just say? We need a motion. We need a motion. But there's been a recommendation of bills 26-27 that will go in effect, I guess, tomorrow.

So may I have a motion to that effect? I'll make a motion that the bill's salary for 26-27 will be $150,000 a year. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second.

Outstanding job, as always. Thank you. You might want to, those things I sent you, you want to just hand them back to me. They were just my cheap notes. Oh, I made notes on it. Okay, keep them. Just straight through it to say this has nothing to do. It's kind of in code anyway. Okay, so... Again, congratulations, Bill. Thank you for a great job and a great eight years. So to eight more.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Since 2014.

And involved in Oak Ridge since?

Since 2006. Yeah. What were you then? The... Guilford County Planning Department, but this was before the town had a planner and I was contracted by the town of Oak Ridge to be the planner for Oak Ridge in 2006. So yeah, that's 20 years.

The evolving nature of our relationship with Guilford County is that we continue to take things on that they used to provide.

Okay, where are we?

We are back to the business. Consideration approval volunteer recognition program. But I think all of us on council very much know that our town, that we benefit from a town where we have active volunteers on many different committees as far as the town is concerned. And also outside of town committees, we have a community that really appreciates the importance of volunteering, whether or not it's specifically on town committees or different groups that have an impact on the town. With that, and you guys have had for a couple of months, ground rules that I suggested based on the input that I got from other towns and other members of council and staff and try to come up with some recognition ground rules. And also more importantly to create a volunteer candidate criteria that I think captured the best how we would recognize volunteers that could be recognized by such a program. We have a number of people that volunteer. And so a general suggestion was that we wanted to recognize volunteerism and that each council member could have, suggested as many as two candidates per year who they would recommend. This is not to be done in the sense of proclamations, but that it would also be done in a public recognition with a simple letter from the council thanking the contributors. We try to put That would be short and sweet and not more than five minutes, so keep it simple. And the volunteers would be chosen based on the candidate criteria that are provided on the There was also some discussion about whether or not we could provide something visible besides just a letter from the council. And that's yet to be determined, but it could be a simple labeled lapel pin or something like that that could be worn with pride once recognition has occurred. There were other ideas, but the key things were about volunteerism to begin with. What was suggested is volunteers should be residents of Oak Ridge. But we know that there are people that impact Oak Ridge that may not necessarily live in Oak Ridge. And so there was a suggestion that they by at least three council members. I can think of several people in that category who do not live here, but the impact in the volunteerism, not necessarily on town committees, but on other things that are important to this town. The volunteers should be recognized for their contributions to town committees or town groups that are beyond their daily professional roles. So it's focused on volunteerism, not whether they are unaccounted or whatever. It's for their volunteerism that we're recognizing. Contributions should have an impact, positive impact on the town, and that should be visual and measurable, and the greater the impact strengthens the consideration for the candidate. What I originally suggested, because we have so many that the volunteers should be a minimum of five years, I think we have vast number of people that that do that if we do 10 a year probably got well out 10 years um before we were struggling and by that time there'd probably be more people who've been volunteering for five years um volunteer candidacy has strengthened that they have a positively they positively contributed to multiple town committees uh or other talent organizations such as scouts And then it says monetary candidacy is strengthened and endorsed by more than one council member. This has been in front of council for several months now, the majority of it. was an initial day within the model two ways one by immediate comments to what I had put together some months ago and then the Sandra's help we got input from other towns on some of their things and that's been that wording has been incorporated in this document so I'll stop there and see if there's

I have two small suggestions and one just comment. In the third bullet, it says preference should be given to those that support town committees. I would change support to serve on town committees. I think that's what you mean. Okay. And on the second page, the second bullet, I really liked how in the, um, I think it's the first page, somewhere on the first page. Yeah, the first page of the third bullet, you said candidates should be chosen for their exceptional contribution. I would like to mirror that language in the second bullet on the second page. Volunteers should be recognized for their exceptional contribution. And the last thing I would say is there's nothing wrong with giving out pins. Just one thing to think about when you're thinking about pins is that you have to design the pin. So that's an upfront cost. We have a good designer, but it would cost a couple hundred dollars. That's not a big deal. But also those pins tend to be not cheap when you, you know, if we're doing two a year, that's, there are five of us, that's 10 max. 20, 30 over three years, they don't get cheap until you order a lot more. And I would just say that we have other needs like for the municipal clerks organization, they typically have pins and our town is one of the few that doesn't have pins. I would just think about that issue more broadly. Even though that might be a different pin, I don't know. But the design could be adaptable.

We could.

That would last for 10 years.

Yeah.

That's about where they start getting cheaper, isn't it, Sandra?

Could the same pen be effective for a clerk thing?

Well, not if you put volunteer. Yeah, it says down there.

What if we just put our samples in here? Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying it's a safe volunteer. No, I don't think it has to be that specific.

Yeah, that's a good point.

The fact that you have one.

If it's a lapel pen, you don't have room for many words. I have a bunch of them. But other than that, and just cleaning up the draft, there are a few editorial things I would fix.

Yeah, I guess my feedback is, so I like the general recognition ground rules about basically how the program works. The only issue I see is potentially criteria to where there are any people that are... I guess it seems kind of like a... A situation where I don't think there should be debate over someone receiving it. Like if a council member

No, I'm not talking about residents.

I'm just saying just general. It says on the fourth one.

The only real exception other than, you know, if you are, I'll listen to you in a minute. If you are, obviously, we have residents that are volunteering. But we also have, as I mentioned before, we have people outside of Oak Ridge that impact.

Yeah, I'm not talking about Oak Ridge.

And we have a way to get there. So to me, when I walk through this and try to develop the criteria, the only thing that I think potentially gets excluded is if the individual... is not is not a volunteer this whole program is to is to celebrate and encourage volunteers so the only thing that falls out with the criteria is if you're trying to reward somebody who is a great accountant This is to celebrate volunteers and to not exclude unless... The only exclusion that's here, really, is if they're not a volunteer.

Well, no, because it says that they have to do a minimum of five years. It says must have a positive... I don't know. It just seems... I think it's a little too specific. You could just generally say candidates should be chosen for their exceptional contribution, maybe even exceptional voluntary contributions to the town, and preference should be given to those that serve on town committees.

So you don't like the minimum of five years?

Well, I think if we start saying, you know, if candidates are chosen based on criteria, other council members should not block, should there be scenarios where council members block people being recognized?

I don't want to get into petty... This is not intended to be a popularity contest thing. It's intended to recognize volunteers and if the council is focused on the candidate criteria, again, the only thing that blocks out is if the guy in person is not a volunteer. It just happens to be somebody in Oak Ridge or not that the councilman likes. This really focuses on volunteers, so it's not a popularity contest.

Well, no, but I mean, are you saying that the council needs to...

If a councilman... Are you asking who judges whether the candidates meet the criteria? Because that was my first question.

If the criteria is met and stated... Yeah, but who determines that?

Like, does it need to be a council?

No, no. The only time I put it here, the councilman who is observing... based on these criteria, if these criteria are accepted, he can make that choice for his choice. And the only exception to that is if the individual comes from outside of Oak Ridge, I said by at least three council, it could be two.

When I asked this question, Lindsay, I said, who judges? He said it's basically self-policing. In other words, if I want to propose someone who's only volunteered for two years, I ought to have the good sense to know that that person doesn't meet the criteria. I might get a nudge from another council member, but technically the way this is written is you, you, me, Mike, Jim, I'll redetermine. whether the person we're proposing meets these criteria.

So I just hear in number, or in step four, or ground rule four, how it says, you know, if it meets criteria, other council members should not block another council member's choice. That implies that someone doesn't have the power to block someone.

I don't see that language.

The fourth rule.

I think that was taken out. Again, it basically was trying to establish that if the criteria... Was it, if the choice was made using the criteria provided and Mike Riesen chooses Mr. X and that's his choice, the rest of us should accept that that's been thought through about using these criteria and we should not have us think about it. The reason number four is there is to say that if the candidate volunteer criteria is followed, then no one should question because we've agreed to the criteria.

So then I think the criteria needs to be very black and white, like not gray area. And that's where I could see, you know, saying residents with an exception, that's very black and white, or saying minimum five years, that's very black and white. Then I'll see the need for any of these other things. It's like, oh, well, I don't think that... Well, again, that's why... You know, it's like... That's why I use words like strengthened. So why does it need to be strengthened if someone can't block it? Like, I'm not trying to like cheat on everyone.

It's kind of... It's kind of suggesting that as you look at things, these areas make the candidate a more valuable candidate for the town.

So that seems more so not criteria, maybe like... Well, I think it is criteria. But if it's not black and white, you know... I would think criteria would be like check boxes.

Yeah, I see your point. I just think that the way I've come to understand this is that we are asked to be thoughtful about... proposing someone. And I think that, you know, we're smart enough to be thoughtful about it and not try to reduce it to black and white things because kind of recognizing people is never black and white.

Well, yeah, I just mean the minimum criteria for which someone could block a nomination.

But we shouldn't be thinking about blocking at all. I know.

Well, I said there should be no criteria, but then you guys said, okay, well, we at least need X, Y, Z.

Well, if you don't have criteria, this criteria and the guidelines are there to basically set something in motion that hopefully could live from council to council. We can always change it, but I don't see where these things issues here, it does not say that the candidacy can't be done. It just says the candidacy should be, I mean, it should be obvious that if somebody is doing multiple things that benefit the town, you would naturally assume that that guy's done individuals done some pretty good things because he's a stronger candidate.

Do you think in terms of process that, you know, if I want to say Sandra is just a normal person and I want to propose Sandra, should I, in deciding to propose her, because you may not know about all the things she did in 2001 or 1994 or whatever, I draft the simple letter saying here's why I would wanna recognize Sandra and I share it with council. And that way you guys know what I'm basing my proposal on. And you say, man, there's nothing to argue with here, go for it. In other words, there's no vote, there's just a communication of why I've selected this person or why you've selected your person.

Yeah, I guess making argument as far as some potential, hypothetical future town council where two people are, you know, can't see each other and then someone wants to be spiteful and petty and say, hey, well, I think your candidate does not have a measurable positive impact on the town, so I'm going to block you.

They don't even have to do this. They don't even have to. You know, if this is followed...

I'm just saying the current language leaves it open for future councils blocking based on petty reasons.

I don't think that's true.

Well, so why can't we make it more vague of just as long as you meet XYZ criteria, not an 81?

Because... I think that's what...

I think that's what's here. I'm saying the criteria being very wordy leaves a lot of gray area. That's what I'm saying.

If there's just minimum... I've tried to set it up so that it has flexibility. The only restriction, it's been in front of you for three months, The only restriction is if you're not a volunteer.

Then why do we need six bullet points that are very wordy defining that?

Because the analogy that I gave Mike Breeson is if you were playing baseball, competitively, would you not want the chalk lines down right and left field? Would you not want the bases to be the same distance apart? Would you not want the pitchers down from game to game to be the same distance away? All this is is the structure around where the decisions can be made, and it does not block a council member from making a recommendation Unless, unless, unless the individual is not a volunteer to begin with.

It's just the wording here, and if I could finish my full thought. The wording here, it doesn't match up with the rules because the rules say there are scenarios in which the council can block a nomination and the wording here in the criteria saying, you know, this strengthens our consideration or candidacy is strengthened, candidacy is strengthened. Those ones don't make sense. I can see points one, two.

What if we change that language, block? Because one person can't block. You know, you can't block Mike Greason's.

That's what I'm trying to do. So take that block.

It may be that fourth bullet on page one of the other council members should support. You know, if candidates are chosen based on the criteria, other council members should support their selection. The other thing I would suggest on the back page is there are two things that are about the purpose of it. They're bullets number two and three. I would put them first. Then I would say requirements. That's bullets one and bullet four. Other considerations are bullets five and six.

Yeah, I can see that. If there's like certain black and white criteria and then maybe consideration. Other considerations. You know, something like that. That's fine. Yeah, so as long as you meet the strict criteria, then it's up to your judgment.

And whether or not you put, going back to the first page, what I was trying to put in place was if candidate criteria that's provided and candidates chosen by a councilman, all of that criteria, then we should be respectful and accept that council member's recommendation.

Maybe that's the right word, should respect another council member's choice, not support, but respect.

I was trying to get to the point where you're not scoffing at, if Mike wants to recognize Mr. A, in my turn, I want to recognize Madam X. As long as we're following, and I don't mind the reorganization, as you said, is that we respectfully accept that and not behind the scenes say stuff like, I didn't read that. The point is, it's the councilman's choice based on a group of criteria. And as long as the criteria, as I said, as I've tried to do this, the only thing, because this is a volunteer recognition program, is that the only restriction is, The individuals gotta have done some volunteering. And then if they happen to be in Oak Ridge or not from Oak Ridge, there are ways to bring them in as long as they're making a positive deal. I don't mind the reorganization as you suggested. Again, this was put together, my thoughts, staff interaction, and then

Okay, so basically the mandatory criteria would just be items one and four?

The requirements would be number one and number four. The purpose would be bullets number two and three. That would go first.

That's the purpose of this whole deal.

Bullets two and three. Well, I guess three maybe could go actually down into other considerations.

Although that's a must-have, a positive impact. I mean, you're going to nominate someone that has a negative impact?

What?

You're going to nominate someone that has a negative impact? It's even spot on. Well, and then also you get into people arguing like, oh, well, I think they've had a negative impact.

Yeah, well, that's why she would be on there. I don't have a problem with being on there. We're spending way too much time on this. All right.

So, Ann, would you, would you, would you, again, let's review what those changes should be. On the bullet point, we're going to third bullet point of recognitions to those that serve town committees. Change that. Serve on, right. Serve on.

Next bullet should respect another council members. Should respect. Should be other council members.

Another council member's choice. And then on the back, you're going... How would you organize that?

Well, we would say purpose, and I think we would use bullet number one and bullet number three. And maybe we could even combine those. Well, no, they're really different. I thought it was one and four were the criteria that... No, those are the requirements. This is the purpose. The purpose of this is that they're... Oh, you're right. Number one is a requirement also. Sorry, but number two and three are the purpose. Sorry, I can't read my own writing. Number two and three are the purpose, and then number one and four are the requirements, and then other considerations are five and six. Sorry.

Yeah, that makes sense.

So let me and Anna agreeing on this.

Oh, he just said something.

Let's finish this up.

Okay.

Anyway, so I can make those changes.

all the issue in that you can just circulate the final draft without taking it back to a council meeting. I think that would probably be the best. Okay.

So I could update this and say after discussion, here's the final draft and circulate that.

Yeah, I'd like to correct a few editorial things.

Yeah, that's fine. I mean, again, this was this is good work in progress for somebody or something.

I move that we approve the changes as discussed and with further review via email.

All right. All in favor? Oh, second. Second. Second.

Aye.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I guess sometimes you're too close to these things, but I do think the criteria are important. Because this never was intended to be a popularity contest. I think if you're ordering pens, you probably at least have 200 people already Thank you. We'll flip back. We're now in a time for public comments. I'd like to call a very nicely well-behaved public comment. Would you like to make a public comment? Thank you for being here.

Good job.

All right. We have time for public comments.

All right. Thank you.

Then I would ask for a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second. Second. It's been made. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you all.

What did Berger say?

I sent him a message today once I saw the budget, which is not much.