Oversight Board Committee - Regular Meeting

We can just bring it back.

I apologize, the meeting did not record.

I was wondering.

No, we'll just note that the meeting was called to order on July 9th, 2026 at 6.04 p.m. So we have Commissioners Pirowitz, Billingsley, Commissioner Duszynski present. So, and then... And we completed the Pledge of Allegiance and we are on the discussion of the consent calendar item 1A, action to approve the Civil Service Commission meeting minutes of June 11th, 2026.

It's not a problem. If you would like to recuse yourself, we'll just bring it back the next time for approval. No problem. And staff can just pull it from the agenda for that. So Commissioner Billingsley, if you want to just withdraw your motion.

I withdraw my motion on item 1A26-764 on the calendar. Very good, thank you.

All right, so then the next item on the agenda 1B is note and file the current status and requisition report dated June 30th, 2026. So if there's any questions or if we can get a motion.

Do we still have a quorum for that?

Yes, since there's three of you, there is a quorum.

Okay. Okay. I wish to make a motion to approve item 1B26-695 of the consent calendar. Second.

All right, so a roll call vote. Commissioner Billingsley.

Aye.

Commissioner Duszynski. Aye. Commissioner Pierwitt. Aye. All right. And then moving on to public presentations. Oh, and there is no, sorry, there was no public comments on the consent items. Moving on to public presentations. There's no one in the chambers and then there's no hands raised on the Zoom. So we can move on to the general business items. So the first item on the agenda is the election of the civil service commission chair and vice chair. And so in terms of the staff presentation for this report, so on an annual basis, we are to bring this item forward. So the commission can elect both the chair and vice chair. The term is for one year. So for the term, it would be getting at today's meeting July 9, and go until the end of next fiscal year up until June 30 2027. So if you wanted to have any discussion amongst yourselves for the election of the chair and vice chair. And we are bringing, I know we did not, we obviously do not have a full commission currently because they were unable to fill the seats due to just a low applicant pool. So it is reposted. However, because we do have upcoming meetings, we do have to have an election of a chair and vice chair. That way we can continue for the rest of the meetings until the remaining two seats of the commission are filled.

Chair.

No. I would like to nominate Samuel Pumarejo as the chair. Sam.

Oh. Absent. Sam, yes. I nominate Sam too, but sorry, but I don't think he's coming back. He's not?

No. No, his term on the commission has ended. So that's why we do still have two vacancies remaining on the commission.

That was very short term for him.

Oh, he resigned. He resigned. He's moving out of the city.

Good for him, though.

Yes.

So it will have to be one of the three. Put me in the middle.

I told you it was not a good time.

I walked in. I said, no, that's a bad spot for me. I guess I'll accept.

That's what I have to say.

So we have to do, so we've got a motion, and you're going to second the motion? Yes? Yes. Okay, very good. So then we have to do a vote, and you can vote. I can vote? Yeah, you can vote for yourself.

Nay. No. Aye. I'll just make it simple, aye. Aye. Aye. Very good, thank you. Thank you.

All right. And on to the election for the vice chair.

I would like to nominate Artie. I don't want to be.

I nominate him. Please go forward. I may eventually resign around like December or January. Not right now. So that you have enough quorum and then you can. So I nominate him.

No, no, I don't. Second with motion.

I think this is referred to as a voluntold situation.

I second the nomination.

Okay. So you can state your votes. Aye.

Aye. Aye. But it still passes.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't? Because you're only three, you have to be unanimous in order to pass anything.

OK, I withdraw. Yes.

OK. Thank you. Thank you. We really appreciate your service.

Yes, thank you.

And I'm taking four vacations a year, at least a month at the time. So it would be better if somebody else was doing it.

Well, we really appreciate it. The city does appreciate your service and, you know, our employees do too. So thank you very much. So, and then just for clarification for the record, you know, there's no public comments in the chambers and then there's no hands raised on the Zoom either.

So congratulations, Chair Billingsley and Vice Chair Duszynski. Thank you. Thank you.

Right, so that brings us to our next item, the informational presentation to the Civil Service Commission regarding the Board of Review Rules and Procedures. So we'll turn this over to Sue and she'll be conducting the presentation. For your reference, if you did wanna follow along, there is the presentation, a copy in your binder on the front.

All right, so commissioners, it's been a couple of years since you've had a training relating to Board of Review processes and procedures. And so given that we do anticipate some Board of Review hearings upcoming in the next few months, we thought it would be a good opportunity at this meeting to sort of do a refresher training on these rules and requirements. All right, so a few different areas that we're going to cover tonight. First, we'll start with a question of why are we here, talking about Board of Review hearings. Next, what is a Board of Review hearing? Third, the procedures that are applicable to hearings, including before, during, and after the hearing. Next is specific rules of conduct that are spelled out in our documents relating to the conduct of hearings. And lastly, what do you take into consideration in terms of reaching a decision? Next slide, please. So let's start with why are we here? The Board of Review process begins if the city takes disciplinary action against an employee based upon an allegation of misconduct by that employee. A disciplinary action subject to review can be a termination, a demotion, a reduction in pay, or a suspension. Once that occurs, a classified employee has rights under the civil service rules to request a hearing before the Board of Review, the Civil Service Commission sitting as the Board of Review, wherein the employee can argue his or her objections to the city's disciplinary action. The civil service rules require what's called quote unquote for cause discipline for classified employees. And those potential causes are listed in section 6.4 of the rules. The process for giving the employee notice of the city's action and the right to appeal is set forth in section 6.6 of the rules. And the organization powers review procedures, and other rules relating to the Board of Review hearing itself are contained in section seven of the rules. Oh, there we go. Okay. The next topic, what is a Board of Review hearing? A Board of Review hearing is an adjudicatory procedure. The fundamental idea is somewhat similar to a trial in a court of law. Each side has the right and obligation to appear before you, the hearing body. They have the right to present arguments and they have the right to present evidence, which may take the form of witness testimony or the presentation of documents or other materials. The Board of Review hears all of this with an open mind and in an unbiased fashion. Then you consider or deliberate upon what you have heard together as a body, and then you render an opinion. The aim is to ensure that the hearing is conducted in such a way as to provide the parties with a fair hearing and respect the party's due process rights. At the hearing, the Board of Review as a body is represented by independent counsel who has not been involved in the disciplinary matter that is coming before you. The attorney assigned to the Board of Review will help the chair and the rest of the body to work through deliberations, to answer the questions raised by the body, and will assist with preparation with the Board of Review's written decisions. The attorney who is assigned to you for each hearing may be different depending on which attorney has assisted the department with the underlying disciplinary matter. Whichever attorney worked on the underlying disciplinary matter, they are excluded. They cannot come before the board and represent the board. In prior Board of Review hearings, an attorney from my office represented the board in your deliberations and in writing the decision. And that attorney had no, just like you, had no idea of what the case was about until the materials were presented. Same thing will happen in future hearings in order to keep that independence. Okay, so let's talk about the rules and procedures for Board of Review hearings. So separately from the Civil Service rules and regulations, the Civil Service Commission has adopted, and this was more than 20 years ago, I believe, but the Civil Service Commission adopted a document entitled Rules and Procedures for the Conduct of Hearings and Boards of Review. This document is intended to provide more detailed and concrete requirements for steps to be taken before, during, and after a hearing to ensure that a fair hearing is held. Let's start with what happens before the hearing. An employee is notified by the city in writing. Thereafter, the employee has 10 days to appeal the city's decision. The Civil Service Commission and staff will set dates for the hearings. The parties will submit witness lists and written statements describing the dispute. And that is generally presented in a binder format or some sort of booklet type format. And that will be distributed to all of the commissioners in advance of the hearing. And it will be distributed to the attorney who's assigned to represent you at the hearing. If both parties present, sometimes if an employee is self-represented, for example, they won't present that or submit that information to the city. But if both parties submit information to the city, they also exchange that information so that everybody comes to the hearing having had the same universe of information being presented. um and you're entitled to review the statements prior to the hearing um just so you get context for what what you're about to to hear um you don't necessarily need to review the evidence and in some ways we would recommend that you don't review the underlying evidence um just because by the at the time that it's submitted and handed out to everybody we have not had the opportunity to hear any arguments or objections relating to any parts of the evidentiary materials. So in terms of the briefs that are submitted, the statement of the case, what issues are in dispute, what are people's positions, that's fine because it gives you some understanding of the case, gives you some context for it. But the evidence itself is probably best left reviewed at the time of the hearing. The employee has the opportunity to request that the hearing be confidential, be closed to the public. And if that occurs, that's fine. We'll notice it that way. It's the employee's right to do so. We haven't had that happen in a long time, but it is in the rules. And we'll let you know if that happens. Yes.

What happens if employee requests closed meeting Out recording, we are not recording them.

Well, we record we always record, we just won't be putting it out on zoom not be available. Right? It will it will be noticed as a confidential hearing. So it won't be telecast, I guess, on Zoom. And then the last thing is that the parties can request that subpoenas be issued. So there are administrative subpoenas that can be issued by this body as a body. And sometimes, you know, if the parties believe that some particular employee would be a really important witness, but that employee, third party uninvolved, but perhaps had witnessed something happen, that employee doesn't want to be involved and doesn't, you know, really just does not want to participate or cooperate. The parties may, one or more of the parties may ask that the city issue a subpoena that would compel that employee to come and testify.

That's legal and binding.

It is legal and binding. Absolutely. And failure to comply with the issuance of subpoena can get you a contempt sanction, just like in a court of law. So once the employee gets that, they will comply. Many would certainly hope that wouldn't come to that, but sometimes it does. Um, and so it would be the, I believe it's the chair of the commission who has the authority to sign, um, subpoenas in the event that you didn't know that.

Okay. So what happens at the hearing?

There is an important procedural discussion that will be held at the beginning of the hearing to ensure that everybody understands, all the parties, all the participants understand sort of what the processes are that are applicable to the hearing. There will be opening statements by each of the parties. Then each party will have the opportunity to present testimony and other evidence, either in person or by affidavit. They can introduce exhibits, whether that's documents, recordings, any kind of materials. Each party will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses from the other side, and then they'll have closing statements. So what is the order of proof meaning how, how does the evidence come before you in what order. So first the department as the party that has the burden of proof, the department goes first they first to present all the evidence that they have that they believe is pertinent to support their finding that discipline was appropriate. Next, the employee gets to present evidence in defense and in rebuttal. The third step is that the parties, like I mentioned earlier, the parties can cross-examine their witnesses after the direct testimony is provided. Then the department has an opportunity to provide rebuttal witnesses. And lastly, the employee has an opportunity to provide rebuttal witnesses. The scope of testimony of rebuttal witnesses is limited. You can't present brand new arguments or brand new areas in rebuttal. It can only be specifically in response to something you heard from the opposing side's witness. Okay, so how do we conduct the hearing? So as members of the Civil Service Commission sitting in your capacity as the Board of Review, the most important thing is that you come into the hearing with a clear and open mind as to what you're going to hear. That means having no preconceived notions of how the case should come out based upon the briefs that you had the opportunity to review before the hearing. making no assumptions about the appropriateness of the disciplinary action one way or the other, and having no discussions with any persons prior to the hearing relating to the content of what you believe is going to come forward. So that means don't talk to each other about it. Don't talk to people you might know who work for the city. Don't talk to people who perhaps have arguably a vested interest in the case. In the event a union representative, for example, reaches out to you as a member of the board in advance of a hearing involving one of their members, we would recommend strongly that you don't engage in any such communication. Because it's important that you maintain your independent, unbiased position before the adjudicatory process. Once it's over, once your decision has been rendered, that requirement sort of goes away because you're done, right? You're done with that work. But up to and sort of including the the time period where the process is taking place we would strongly suggest that you just don't engage in any discussion of the substance with anyone until it's time for you to go and go into closed session to do your deliberation okay All right, so what do you take into consideration? You take into consideration the evidence that's presented before you, right? And you're guided by the weight of that evidence. You don't wanna obtain any evidence outside of the hearing. So let's just take, for example, I'm totally making this up, so... Like they say at the beginning or the end of movies, if there is any similarity to any real case, it is totally unintended. OK, so let's say that the disciplinary procedure proceeding is occurring as a result of some negligent driving by an employee. Right. And so really the issue arises out of, let's say, a car accident. Okay. And if the employee's position is that the employee drove reasonably, the employee followed the rules of the road, but it was the design of the roadway itself that rendered it dangerous and resulted in the accident. So it wasn't the employee's fault.

It was the roadway's fault.

What you need to review or take into consideration is the evidence that the city and the employee present to you in support of their arguments. Don't go out to the intersection and look for yourself, right? Don't talk to your friends about if you know if anybody's been hurt in an accident at that area, right? You don't wanna do your own investigation. You just wanna focus on what is being presented to you and make your decision based on that universe of testimony and evidence. Okay, you can ask additional questions of witnesses. Let's say in this scenario, the employee is testifying, and for whatever reason, after they've given their direct testimony, and then the city had an opportunity to cross-examine, and you feel like it's really pertinent to find out whether or not the light was red or green, and no one testified as to whether the light was red or green, you can ask the witness. Was the light red or green, right? So you have the opportunity to do that. I would suggest that you limit your questions to things that are directly pertinent to your thought process, deliberation, and decision, right? Not things that you just happen to be curious about or something that maybe just caught your interest or fancy, but limited to the issues that are before you. You have to be a disinterested and impartial arbiter. What does that mean? It means that to the extent there is by any chance, any... connection between you and any of the parties in the case, you need to make that clear immediately, okay? So we want to make sure that all of you don't have any personal interest in the outcome of the hearing, right? And you need to be impartial. So like we said, come into it with an open mind, unbiased, ready to sort of be a sponge to take in all of the information and arguments that are presented to you. And then lastly, you want to, as members of the board, assist your chair in ensuring that there is a fair and orderly hearing that's conducted. All right, so what does the chair specifically have to do? The chair is really kind of the person who is given the lead role in terms of the board in the hearing. So you serve as the presiding officer, open and close the hearing you do the little explanation of the procedures you can hand it off to the attorney at any time if you want the attorney to take over for some portion of it you administer the oath so when the witnesses come up to provide testimony somebody has to swear them in and that somebody is the is the chair next next slide please All right, what else do you do? You preserve the order. If one of the parties decides to interrupt and yell and speak out of turn, that's when you use your gavel. Oh, do we not have a gavel? We will have a gavel for you.

We will find one.

We will find one. So, you know, you use your gavel and you tell people that they need to observe the rules of the hearing and be civil and professional to one another and, you know, sort of preserve order in that fashion. there may be objections that are stated with regard to certain documents or certain other materials that one party or the other wants to put into the record to be considered. And to the extent there are such objections, after deliberation with your attorney, we can rule on objections or what we can do is essentially just say, okay, we hear your arguments and we're noting them for the record, continue on, and we'll include the ruling on the objection in the order. Through the process of deliberation and talking to your attorney during the closed session, we can determine which items of evidence are going to be included, which items of evidence have objections that can be sustained or overruled, things of that nature.

Sorry.

And then the last thing that you do is once all that is done, then you can, you know, formally accept the evidence into the record. And again, we can do that in writing in the order. Okay, next slide, please. So what happens after the hearing? The board will adjourn. You know what? I forgot to mention in terms of conduct there, can we go back to one slide? In terms of the objections and those kinds of things that we have to take into consideration, the technical requirements for this hearing are much looser, much more informal than a court of law. So while generally speaking, the theory is kind of the same as with a court of law, all of the sort of formal evidentiary requirements that would apply to a trial there, they don't apply here. In terms of the objections that can be lodged, our rules limit those objections. In civil court, in a court of law, there's a very long list of complicated objections that you could state. Here, we have four, only four bases for an objection to evidence. Irrelevance, repetitious, confusing, or it's seeking to prove matters that have already been agreed to or established. So unnecessary.

And will the city attorney help?

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And also, unlike a court of law, hearsay evidence can be admitted into the record. So hearsay is kind of a big deal when you're talking about civil trials in a court of law. And it's generally excluded with certain exceptions. But here we allow hearsay evidence. The caveat is you can't base your entire case on hearsay. So you have to have some direct evidence. But if you want to include hearsay evidence as something to support your direct evidence, you can. So hearsay evidence, just so you know, is out of court testimony by a third party that's relayed to you in court. So basically an employee saying, well, my supervisor, I heard my supervisor say X, Y, and Z. And the supervisor has since retired and can't be located to come to the hearing and testify. That statement by the employee on the stand about what his supervisor said six months ago out on the street, that's hearsay. And in a court of law, that would not be allowed, right? But here it is allowed. But now if the employee's entire case was, well, my supervisor said X, Y, and Z six months ago out on the sidewalk, if that was all they had, that's not sufficient to support their case. Okay, so that's sort of how, in broad strokes, the evidentiary standard works here. Okay, and let's see. Yes, after the here. So the board will adjourn to closed session. You can do your deliberation. You can ask me questions. We will set a second closed session if for nothing else to review the scope of the written decision. And then we have a 10 day time period within which to do that. So if you start your deliberation and then it's midnight and you need to come back two days later to do a second session of deliberation, that's fine. We just have to keep in mind that we have to be done 10 days after the last hearing date.

At calendar days or?

Calendar days.

We can still count.

We can still count, yeah. Um, this is the things you have coming up. I don't believe are grievances. They shouldn't take that long if they're grievances. So, um, we'll, we'll go with the 10 days in the event you do get a grievance matter, which is not termination, demotion, suspension, reduction of pay, but something else, um, some sort of term or condition of employment that's been negatively impacted by some decision of a department. Um, then that grievance, um, has a 14 day, it's on a different time schedule, um, the decision that you render must be in writing. So then we have to build that time period in to our process as well, because your attorney will need time to write it up, whatever it is your decision is. the decision would be to either uphold the department's decision or disciplinary action, overturn the department's disciplinary action, or modify it in some way. So let's say, back to our car accident example, if the proposed disciplinary action is a two-day suspension without pay, The Civil Service Commission may meet and say, well, you know, based on what we hear, we actually think a one-day suspension would be more appropriate. That's within your power to modify the discipline that was imposed. In terms of the finality of your decision, it is final in terms of city administrative processes and it's binding upon the department and the employee. Again, if it was a grievance matter, the rules are a little bit different. It's not binding and it's not final. There's more that can happen. But with regard to the city administrative processes for regular disciplinary matters, this is the final step. So there's no further appeal to the city council, for example. This is where it ends here. There are review processes with the courts that can occur if some party is unhappy with the Civil Service Commission's, I'm sorry, the Board of Review's decision. But in terms of unlike some of your other actions that you take that then have a next step of going to the city council for further review and approval, this decision does not go there. All right, so what do you need to do to reach a decision? How would you actually do that? So first we start with how do you frame your review, right? Your review should be framed in a de novo fashion. Right? So that translate, de novo translates to from new or from the beginning. And what it means is that you conduct a fresh and independent examination of the facts that are presented to you without any special deference to any prior determinations by the city. So you don't go in already saying, well, this is the discipline that was imposed, for example, by the city. And therefore we're going to assume that was correct. And someone has to prove to me that that was wrong. you don't go in with any of those kinds of special deferences on either side, okay? So let's next talk about burden of proof and standard of proof. So okay, so although the employee decides whether or not he or she wishes to appeal the department's disciplinary action, it's the department that has the burden of proof. That means it's the department's obligation to establish the facts necessary to support its disciplinary action. The department has to prove those facts to you to a standard called the preponderance of the evidence. that means the department has to establish facts to be more likely true than not true. In other words, to a degree of believability, that is more than 50%. So just slightly more true than not true. To the extent the employee raises an affirmative defense, then the employee has the burden of proof as to the facts needed to establish that defense and must meet the same preponderance of the evidence standard. A decision of the Board of Review must be made by a majority vote of the entire body. In this case, three votes. Since there are only three members of the Board of Review at this time, a decision would have to be unanimous. If the Board of Review cannot reach a three vote majority decision, then the department has not prevailed. The Board of Review can reach a three vote decision if the Board of Review reaches a three vote unanimous decision. then the direction is given to the attorney to write up the decision in accordance with your deliberation and your vote, and to present the written decision to the board of review once the draft is done for your review and approval.

Does this mean that if, let's say we have vote two to one, does this automatically, which we failed, does this mean that automatically employee wins? Yes. Okay.

That's what the burden of proof does, right? You have to reach, you have to meet your burden of proof.

Yeah. Okay. Yes. Have there ever been cases where the department's decision was overturned by civil service?

Yes. There have been. It's been a while, but there have been.

Once or twice.

Yes. That I'm aware of, yes. Thank you.

You asked for clarification on a city's policy or rule. Different policy or rule that's not presented.

Can you use that? The reference, if it overlaps into a different policy that wasn't brought forward by either party.

Probably not. Probably not. I think the employee would have the opportunity to object to that if we did that. And so we really do want to limit it because So let's go back again to the due process scenario, right? We want to ensure that in all the steps of the process, the employee is given their full due process rights. So let's say the notice of proposed discipline and the notice of final discipline both set forth a certain requirement set of policies and analysis that were used to support their position, that's what they have to defend. I mean, prosecute, I suppose. That's what they have to support. And if they're not able to support that, then they would, in theory, have to go back to the beginning and say, okay, now we were trying to... impose discipline based on some other grounds, right? If they have the opportunity to do that, if they have the time to do that, if they haven't waived everything by then, that's a whole nother can of worms. But what's before you is to determine whether the action taken by the department based on the arguments and the policies and so on that they cited, whether that was correct.

Another question. What if the you don't know, but you know a witness? OK. Do you have to excuse yourself?

I think in that scenario, because the witness should be testifying as a percipient witness, they're testifying under oath, they're not an advocate for either of the party. I think it's important for you to state on the record whether you, hey, I happen to know this person for the last 10 years or something like that in a personal capacity, but I have no financial ties or business ties with that person. If you say that, then the parties will have the opportunity to state on the record any objection they have to your continuation or any proposed disqualification as a result of that. But in the absence of any such disqualification, uh you know objection by either of the parties just happen happening that know somebody um should not um negatively impact your ability to continue service on the board of review particularly if you stay very clearly when you make that that the fact that i happen to know this person is not going to in any way impact my ability to impartially view their testimony because that you know actually very first

I knew a couple of people in the witness list, but they were never brought forward. So it never, it never had to come out. Right. I mean, I did recognize the name.

Sure.

Yeah. And it per se. Right. Right. Yeah. Yes.

But yeah, in that scenario, it's fine. It's a little bit more complicated if you happen to know the employee, or let's say the attorney who's advocating on behalf of the department, or the department head who made the decision, or the employee, you know, somebody who's like specifically involved.

Because if in this scenario, I served on a murder trial, you know, it's insane. Yeah, yeah. was an ex-city employee that I had worked with.

Oh, wow. Different division, same department. Yeah.

And I didn't recognize him, so after the trial, he came up and he goes, hey, Rhonda, do you remember me? I said, no, I don't. But then he told me who he was, and then I remembered him. Oh, wow. Which was, you know. Yeah. So he moved on from the city, and he was going to school at night.

Mm-hmm.

Separate from all of us.

Yes. But yeah, so in that scenario, ensuring that everybody is informed of any potential personal relationship is important, but also the statement that, look, it's not going to negatively impact my ability to be impartial in this case, right? I can still be unbiased. And that should probably end that discussion. Any more questions? Me?

Nope.

Okay, very good. So that's the that's the conclusion then of this presentation. And of course, if if in the process of thinking about this on some on your off time, you happen to come up with some other questions, you can of course, email me and that's fine.

All right. And then just for the record, there's no one in the Zoom and no hands raised on the Zoom for public comments.

And it's an informational presentation, no action required. Just one moment.

Sure, yes, yes. So for the staff reports,

Do we have any staff reports?

Yes, we do. So, um, so tend to tip. So, um, you do have calendar holds for the border review dates. Um, the first border review date is going to be Thursday, August 13th. Um, so, you know, please be sure to hold that in your calendar. Um, the next, um, Okay, we'll have to pull this up real quick, one second. There will be another Board of Review hearing that is scheduled for October. So those dates, give me one moment, please.

So no, I used to go looking, um, really quickly.

I guess that was an email. Hold on. I apologize. Sorry. I did not have them handy right off the top of my head calendar.

No, no, that's okay. Okay. So I've got, um, Let's see, Board of Review for Employee 2 is October 8th, October 13th, October 19th, October 23rd, October 26th, and October 28th. So if we could get a statement of confirmation from each of you as to the proposed dates for those two employee appeals for the record, that would be great.

It'd be at 6 p.m.

Yes, so how it works, the Board of Review is scheduled to convene generally after the regularly scheduled civil service meeting. So for the first date in August, that's a regularly scheduled civil service meeting. So we'll open with the Civil Service Commission and then we will proceed directly to the Board of Review directly after the Civil Service Commission meeting. The same will occur for the first date that is scheduled for October. And then the subsequent October dates, it'll only be for the Board of Review, but we'll plan to begin at six.

There are five meetings in October.

There are six.

I already replied that I'm available for all days.

Thank you.

I'm available for all six days in October.

I'm available for all six days in October.

And then the August date is also okay. Right, we have a. August 13th is fine. The 13th, yeah, okay. Thank you, thank you for that. And to the extent either one of those requires a secondary closed session for the board, that will have to be discussed at the time of the first closed session, so we can. Ensure that you have the opportunity to review the written decision, the proposed or draft written decision before it's issued.

We expect that we'll have two more members by October.

I believe that the application deadline closes August 7th. So that means that they will still have to be interviewed by council. The date that that will occur, I don't know if that's been set yet. So for the August one, likely not. So, you know, we will need a quorum. So all three members present for the October one, hopefully we do have a more full commission.

Okay. Do I move on? Yes. Is there any commissioner reports?

No.

No. Your motion to adjourn the meeting, is that correct?

Should I just say adjourn or is there a motion? You can do a motion. That's usually what we do.

Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting?

Yes. You're the first, I second.

I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second. The meeting has come to an end.

Oh, you just have to say yay.

Yay.

Yes.

Bye.

Okay.

Sure. Yes. So the presentation though, and the recording will be posted live and then a copy of that will be provided in the agenda materials as well too.