Oversight Board Committee - Regular Meeting

Testing. Testing.

Test. Test. Test.

No. It's not even

Randy, microphone is off to

Okay. Yes. Alright. Happy Alright. Good evening, everyone. At this point, I'd like to call the November 13 Civil Service Commission meeting to order. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Billingsley?

Present.

Commissioner Dizinski?

Present.

Commissioner Pierowicz? Present. Chair Pumarejo?

Present.

Noting vice chair Philazardo is absent.

At this time, I'd like to ask that we all stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Okay. As our first agenda item, the, action to approve the civil service commission meeting minutes our last meeting, which took place on 09/11/2025. Is there any public comment on the matter?

There's no public comment in Zoom.

Thank you. May I have a motion regarding the agenda item?

I move that we approve item twenty five ten nine five.

Alright. Do I have a second?

I second the item one a twenty five ten nine five.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Billingsley. Aye. Commissioner Dodzinski. Aye. Commissioner Pierowic.

I'm not aware of the meeting minutes, but so I will abstain.

Chair Pumarejo?

Aye.

Noting vice chair Philazardo is absent.

And the motion passes. Moving to the next agenda item to note and file the current status and requisition report, which

is dated 10/31/2025. Do I have any public comment on the matter? No public comment in Zoom.

Okay. Can I get a motion regarding the the agenda item, please?

Can I make a motion for item one B25Dash1593, note on file, current status, and requisition report dated 10/31/2000 or 2025?

I have some technical difficulties, but that's fine. Oh, that's fine. Do we have a second?

Second.

Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Billingsley. Aye. Commissioner Dodzinski.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierowicz? Abstain. Chair Puma Rejo?

Aye.

Noting vice chair Philosardo is absent.

The motion passes. Moving to the next item. Are there any public presentations today?

Yes. We do have a presentation for this item. Oh, I'm sorry. No public presentations.

Oh, bummer. So excited. I'm so excited. Alright. So noting no public presentations today, we will move to general business. Action to abolish the eligible list for associate engineer civil job code three two one. Is there a status report?

Yes. We do have a staff report. So we are requesting to abolish the associate engineer civil classification. This classification is used in both the Department of Public Works and water and sewer utilities. There is a current eligible list that, is existing. We ran a recruitment earlier this year to fill, two positions initially, one in public works and one in the water and sewer department. Both of those positions were filled. Subsequently, we did have three additional vacancies that did come up during the life of the eligible list. Candidates have been invited by both departments to interview for those positions. We did have a couple instances where candidates were invited, but they either declined the interview.

In one instance, a candidate was offered the position but declined because they received another promotional opportunity, so that does further dwindle down the list. We currently have five candidates remaining on the eligible list. Per the civil service rules, if there are five or more names, we do need to bring it forward to the commission to request to abolish the list, if we would like to begin a new recruitment, as the current eligible list does not expire until April 2026. For the five candidates that are remaining, they were invited to interview by both departments. One candidate only one candidate expressed interest in the water and sewer utilities department.

The other candidates declined interviewing for that position. So the water and sewer utilities department did not end up making a selection for from this list, and, therefore, they would like to begin the recruitment again to fill their vacancy. Again, the Department of Public Works also invited candidates to interview for their position. However, none of the candidates that responded to interview, were determined to be a a match for the position that they were work looking for based on more of the desirable qualifications for the position. So because we do have two departments looking, we do have three vacancies in total.

We would like to request the commission, abolish the list. This is a bargaining unit where we do have, a higher number of vacancies, so we we would really prefer not to have to wait until April so that way we can try, and expedite and fill just because there's so many projects in both departments that are upcoming.

Okay. Thank you. Is there any public comment on the matter?

No public comment on Zoom.

Okay. Public comment. Any, questions from commissioners?

I have one question. I was curious. The individuals that are currently on the list that would be removed from the list if it's abolished, are they eligible to be placed on an upcoming list without testing, or do they have to go through the full process?

They would have to go through the full process again. So, they are more than welcome to apply for the position, but they would have to apply and go through the entire application and interview process again.

And sounds like that the positions you have you have positions for multiple departments, So some of these people are more qualified towards one than the other, so they're not

Correct.

Wanting to go to a different department. They're looking to move up in their current department.

Right. That is possible. So it is one general classification that is used in both departments. So sometimes that can be a challenge with one eligible list because we have one classification. But, you know, we do advertise for both departments on there. Candidates are usually indicating on the application if there's department they have a preference in, and both departments will supplemental questions. So we have a a general idea, but it is still one classification, so one eligible list is used by both departments.

Thank you. Any questions?

Question. Do so we do not have to confirm any current candidates who are interested in these position before we abolish the list.

So we did reach out to interview them. And if they responded that they were interested in interviewing, they were interviewed. But from those candidates that were remaining, they were determined not to be a the best most qualified candidates for the positions that are open just based on the desirable qualifications.

For the remaining candidates on the existing list, will they be notified of the the new the

new one?

So they do get notified that the if if if you approve the list abolishment, they will get notified that the list has been abolished. So that notice does get sent to all the candidates remaining on the list. What we do or what there is an option in neogov where candidates have the option to select, like, a job interest card. So if they've gone in there and selected that they wanna be notified for every engineering opportunity, they'll automatically get notified. In some instances, you know, if we are trying to broaden out the candidate pool and do more outreaching, sometimes we do go back to prior candidate pools and let them know when new positions open. So that's definitely certainly something we can do, but they're not as part of the actual formal abolishment notice, they are not notified at that time a new posting is upcoming because usually it hasn't been posted at that time yet.

Thank you. Just one more question. You mentioned April earlier. Why exactly would we have to wait until April?

So the eligible list is good for one year for classified positions. So it was initially established in April 2025 this year. So then, therefore, we have would have to wait until April 2026. So we would either have to hire candidates off the current list, or let it exhaust until April 2026 before we can begin a new recruitment.

Makes sense. Thank you. It

doesn't mean so in case if we do not abolish the list, it will still expire in April.

Right. So if the list is not abolished, then the department is most likely unable to fill any of their positions.

Any other questions? Right. Do I have a motion regarding the agenda item?

I make a motion on, general business item number two twenty five dash 1606 to abolish the eligibility list for the associate engineer.

K. Can I get a second? Second. Alright. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Billingsley? Aye. Commissioner Dodzinski? Aye. Commissioner Pierowic? Aye. Chair Filizardo I'm sorry. Chair Pumarejo? Aye. Noting vice chair Filizardo is absent.

K. Next agenda item. Action to modify the jail service officer examination waiting plan to 100 oral examination and qualifying written and performance examination on an ongoing basis basis. Can we get a staff report, please?

Yes. So we are recommending a modification to the jail service officer waiting plan. The current exam plan is a 100% oral examination and a qualifying written examination. So that means there it's in order to get on the eligible list currently, they do have to complete a written examination, and then they do go through an oral board examination. And a 100% of that oral board score is their formal ranking on the eligible list.

We are proposing to add an additional element, which is the qualifying, performance examination, which would actually occur at the time that the candidates submit their application. Because the jail service officer, when you read the the duties of the job, it is a physical job. It does require them, you know, to interact with, any suspects. You know, they may have to pull down anybody, you know, has just in the course of their job duties. So there is a physical component.

What we are proposing to add as a performance exam, is what is called the work sample test battery. So there are components of this test that basically assess a candidate's physical, like, aptitude and their abilities to perform the job the or how they're completing the test. So an example of some of the items on the there's a course agility run, a body drag. They do have to do a fence climb, and then there is, like, running component as well. Unfortunately, what had happened the last time we ran this recruitment, we went through the entire recruitment process.

And because there was no physical assessments, during the actual recruitment process, we did have a candidate who we went through the entire backgrounding process, the hiring process. As soon as they're onboarded, candidates do have to go to an academy. So and it is a physical academy. Unfortunately, the the selected candidate was not able to pass that component. And then there has been other challenges, just as in previous people who have gone through this position where there's they've just struggled making it through the academy components.

So the thought process with adding the performance exam would really essentially move forward the most competitive candidates who demonstrate, like, the physical abilities to actually do the job. So that way, we're not sending them to like, going through the entire steps in the recruitment process, the background process, which is very time extensive, for HR as well as the police department. And then that way, hopefully, the selected candidate will pass the academy, when they get to that component. So then the proposal would be to have the performance examination of qualifying, and they would submit the certificate at the time of application. They would still have to complete a written examination, and then they would still go through the oral board exam, which is a 100%.

Thank you. Is there any public comment on the agenda item?

No public comment.

Any comments or questions from commissioners?

We are so this is an for my understanding, this is an additional examination, which is basically adding practical or lab for the existing process in addition to the return and performance exam.

Correct. That is correct. And I actually, do wanna note too. This is the same examination that's used for the, police officers. So at the time that they go through their examination, they're actually completing the same test. So, it it does align with a current process that we do already have in place as well.

Part of the examination actually to demonstrate the practical physical strenuous activities Yes. Which wasn't there.

Correct. Mhmm.

Any other questions?

There's no height or, weight restrictions to this position at all?

No. No. I

just to make sure, so there's, a a basic foundational level of fitness that has to be achieved

Yes.

Beforehand. For the examination is there, I know that sometimes how the military does it is that they have, like, an initial strength test or something like that that establishes, like, a foundation of eligibility, and then they have the actual test. Is that how it would work or the same test that you take for the the performance test is the same type of exam that you'll be taking in the academy?

That is a great question. Is is, by any chance, Mike Crissini on Zoom? So we do have a representative from the department on Zoom. Mike

Hi, Ashley. Can you hear me? Ashley, can you hear me?

Someone So the question is, is there a physical fitness test they're taking during the academy?

Yeah. Is it the same? Is the performance test the same, or is it different, less strenuous? I'm just curious.

Captain Kristini, do you know the answer to that question?

Yeah. I can provide that answer. So the work sample test battery would be a qualifier as far as the physical fitness, and it would mirror, at the academy the same testing process, for our jail service officers when they go through the corrections academy.

My I I would Open. Oh, is he back?

Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. It would it would mirror the same the same testing process that they're going through. So if they can pass the work sample test battery, they should be in the same kind of condition to participate in the academy and also pass those same tests.

That's great. Thank you.

Captain Cassini.

Yes, ma'am. Can you hear me? Okay. I gotcha. Sorry. Having some technical difficulty. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. We can.

Okay. So I I don't know if I I didn't, if it went through, but, yes, the the test would be the same in the academy as it is at the work sample test battery.

Do you know how long the test is that they take?

How long the, like

The process? Yeah. So there there isn't necessarily a time limit, but the total time usually takes somewhere in the neighborhood of probably forty five minutes max because there is a a mile and a half run component to that.

I'm

sorry, Mike. We kind of lost you. Do you mind repeating that?

Yeah. No problem. So the the time element for this would be about forty five minutes. There usually is some time in between each phase of the test, and then there's also a one and a half mile run.

Different part of the physical exam. How many steps is there in that physical exam process?

Right. So they do, there's an obstacle course agility run, a body drag, chain link fence climb, solid fence climb, a 500 yard run, and one and a half mile

So it's seven, I think you got there. Mhmm.

Yes. So there's several components.

Forty five minutes. That's pretty good.

That's no joke.

I like that.

We're hiring if you're interested. Okay.

Alright. Thank you.

Is there a?

No. How

about that? Okay. Any any further questions or comments? Okay. Okay. Is there a motion regarding the agenda item?

I'll make a motion on the general business item three two five dash one six zero seven to move to modify the jail service officer. Examining weighing process.

K. Do we have a second? Thank you. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Billingsley? Aye. Commissioner Dansinski? Aye. Commissioner Pierowic? Aye. Chair Pumarejo? Aye. Noting vice chair, Philazardo is absent.

And the motion passes. Moving to the next item, staff report, informational presentation to the civil service commission regarding rules and procedures. I've really been looking forward to this. So what comes next?

Great. Thank you, chair. I'll be presenting tonight. I you have the PowerPoint? Yeah. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Alright. So tonight, we are going to briefly review some new rules and laws that pertain to your business as a legislative body, of the city.

First, the city council has adopted meeting management protocols that are applicable to boards and commissions. So we will review the highlights of that new policy. And second, we'll discuss senate bill seven zero seven, which is a fairly large sweeping, legislation passed by the state. It goes into effect January 1, and its purpose is to amend a number of different provisions of the Brown Act. We'll hit the highlights of that law as well. Next slide, please. K. Let's talk about, council policy zero five five. A copy of that has been provided to you. It's a fairly long policy, so we're gonna go over some of the some of the highlights of it.

A few months ago, the city council adopted this council policy zero five five. It's entitled council meeting procedures and protocols, and they specifically stated that it would apply to boards and commissions. It was adopted initially as a six month pilot program, but will continue on to extend after that six months if council doesn't take action to repeal it. We believe that it will remain in place at least in large part, So it's important to present the boards and commissions with it so you get a sense of, what these sort of adopted policies are, that previously had been sort of an unwritten policy of how how the, ports and commissions would transact their business. One of the key provisions of this policy is to transition to the, use of Rosenberg's rules as opposed to Robert's rules of order.

Rosenberg's was developed by a mister Rosenberg as you would imagine, and, he was a, city council member. And so he developed these rules specifically for use by local governments. It would more easily fits with the method by which local governments transact this. Robert's rules, on the other hand, is it's a it's a function of parliamentary procedure. So it's meant to, it's it's meant to be done by a chamber, a a body that has the potential for a very complex set of motions, substitute motions, amendments to motions, things like that.

It doesn't generally come up quite so much in the local government context, right, and certainly not with boards and commissions. Rosenberg's rules is is intended to streamline, simplify the rules process, not have a book this thick for how to do rules of a meeting. That's So, you know and I'll and I'll just say quite frankly, the commission this commission has essentially been following Rosenberg's rules, how you've been practicing your business. So you're already there. You've already got it.

But now it's actually enshrined in the council policy on meeting management protocols. Next slide, please. Another part of the, council policy is that they have formalized, an agenda process for each agenda item. So this is it's written obviously for mayor and council, but mayor should be swapped for chair. Council members should be swapped for commissioners.

Right? So the process is introduction of the item by the chair, ask for staff report, questions to staff on the staff report, staff responds to questions, public ask for public testimony if there is any with regard to this item, and then deliberate and make a motion. This is exactly what you already do. K?

Fifth order. Fifth item. The or of the order of changes.

Well, it you staff responds to questions from from the board or the commission. So they you do your report. Staff provides the report and then questions and answers on that on that report come next. Right? And then there's public testimony, and then there's comment. So the intention is to divide up question and answer period from comment period. K? So be because they serve different functions. Right? So the question and answer period elicits information upon which you base your arguments or or opinion.

Right? And, similarly, the public testimony and responses to questions from the public, they serve the same purpose. So instead of combining the question and answer period and the comment by the council members or by the boards and commission, it it separates them so that we don't get so much of the round and around kind of process. It keeps it a little bit orderly, keeps things move. But like I said, the way that you have handled the last, two or three items on this is essentially this process.

Right? So you're you're already on the right track, and, it doesn't really, from a practical perspective, change what you guys do, but it's important to know that it's now actually enshrined in a policy.

Doesn't have to be in the order.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Next slide, please. Alright. So let's, some more let's go over some more highlights, from this new policy. We have pre we have in another part of the council policy manual time limits for public speakers, but that time limit policy was only applicable to council meetings. As an unwritten policy, we applied those same time limits to boards and commissions. Now in this policy, we are expressly applying the time limits from the other policy to boards and commissions in the meeting management protocol.

So for agendized items, a public speaker would get two minutes. For nonagendized items, a public speaker would get three minutes. So that means that in the public presentations portion of the agenda, if someone wanted to come up and talk to you about something that's within your subject matter jurisdiction as a body but not on tonight's agenda, they could do so. We've had that a few times in the past. Right?

Sometimes a bargaining unit representative will come and talk to you about something that's going on, and that and that's fine. They're entitled to do that. They have three minutes to do that. Another thing they can do under the same, meeting management item is, they can come in a group, and multiple people can concede time, to one speaker. So if they have a ten minute presentation, you know, they can they can have five people there who all combine their time and allow one speaker to give a ten minute presentation.

So that's that's one of the highlights of this policy. Another highlight is that we specifically call out that disruptive and unruly behavior will not be allowed. If you recall over the last few years, particularly since the COVID time when we were fully remote, there has been, unfortunately, all throughout the state, an uptick in, what we call Zoom bombing or kind of, like, hate speech essentially, that people use the opportunity to have a public forum to espouse their hate speech. And those kinds of issues, unfortunately, have also had to have some sort of legislative response because in some cases, it's very disruptive. They'll come week after week after week to a legislative body and essentially prevent the body from doing this.

And so there have been some new rules relating to how, a legislative body can take action to declare, certain speakers or groups of speakers to be disruptive to the point where, business cannot be transacted. We can ask for the room to be cleared and then, transact business in a cleared room, that sort of thing. So there are some new policies in the Brown Act new new procedures in the Brown Act to address this, and our city policy now specifically says that this type of behavior will not be allowed, and we'll take whatever the appropriate action is at that time to address it. Right. The next highlight is, something else we've we've talked about before, the duty to maintain an open mind.

So because of your body, like the city council, is a quasi adjudicative body. Right? You make decisions sometimes that are final decisions, and sometimes you make decisions that are in an advisory capacity to city council. And sometimes you make decisions when you're sitting as the board of review like the court would. Right?

You you hear evidence, you deliberate, you make a decision. So because of those kinds of tasks that are now within your discretion as a body, It's very important that you always approach all of those item those types of items before you with an open mind. It's, it's important that we don't, know, have ex parte communications with any of the parties that are involved, things of that nature. But it's, that that sort of function, the duty to maintain an open mind when you're taking legislative action, is now enshrined in the council policy. The next, bullet point, is something, that you we always do, and you guys do a really good job with it, is, to ensure that the motion get that gets made only gets made after public comment is sought.

So sometimes, you know, as you're rolling along, you kind of get to make a motion, then you say, okay. Does anybody have any comment? Council, public, anybody? Right. I'm sorry. Commissioners, public, anybody have right. That is the wrong order. So the public comment has to be sought and asked for before a motion gets made. So that's it's it's that's a purely procedural thing, but it's now set forth in in the policy. And then the last thing is, in my my view, maybe it's a little nerdy, but it's the part that I find the most interesting in our in our council's new policy.

It's the distinction between recusals and abstentions. That had previously not been written down anywhere in any of our policies or rules or ordinances or anything. So now we have we have two separate categories. We have recusals and abstentions. A recusal is when a commissioner is legally obligated to not participate because of a conflict of interest.

Okay? So let's say, you know, let's say you're closely related to the employee whose disciplinary matter is before you. Okay. That would be a financial conflict of interest. In that case, you would have to recuse yourself from any kind of activity, or involvement in that particular board of review hearing. Right? So you would have to stand up and say, have a financial conflict of interest because this person is my brother. Right? And then you would have to physically leave. Right?

That's the process for a recusal. When that happens, there is a change then to the way you calculate quorum and majority. K? So for a recusal that is based on a financial conflict of interest or some other conflict of interest, that seat is taken out of the calculation of quorum and majority. Right? So if you have, let's say let's say, it's a it's a body of five. Right? And you have two people who recuse themselves based on some sort of conflict of interest. Right? That leaves three people.

Three becomes your new total. And so two is what you need for majority and conflict of interest. Now, normally, you would need three. Right? Because you would take the whole the whole body. So that's how the difference is because the recusals are mandatory as a matter of law. K? So we're not going to negatively impact the vote making ability of the body because we're complying with some applicable law. K?

Does this mean that if you have four accusers, remaining person votes and motion

Unanimously. Yes. Uh-huh.

Yeah. An interesting scenario.

That would be a I would be very curious to know what facts would be created for recusals, but, yes, that is theoretically what would happen. Okay. So now now let's talk about abstentions. Right? So that's the second the second reason.

So abstentions occur because for some other reason, not a financial or other conflict of interest reason, a commissioner decides not to participate in a vote. So, for example, earlier today, we had an abstention because correctly set it making the correct choice, If you don't have actual knowledge of the substance of the item before you, you don't wanna arbitrarily make a legislative decision. Right? So correct choice to make. In that case, the number the the majority and quorum does not change.

Okay. So if you have five people two abstaining, you need the three left to be there present participating in order to make a quorum, and you need all three unanimous to pass the item. K? So that's the difference in terms of how the policy now finally, we have a definition of refusals and and abstentions, and now we know how to do the math when that happens.

You're right. It is a very interesting distinction.

It's a very interesting distinction. Alright. Next slide, please. Okay. Let's talk about seven, senate bill seven zero seven. We're just gonna hit the highlights of it because, like I said, it is a lengthy bill. It is, in in some ways, perplexing because they are making changes that, some of the changes, it's unclear what the need was that prompted the change. It almost seems like a change for the sake of change, which isn't always the best thing to do. But what do I know? Okay.

So what what did they do? So the one of the things that they did that's important to all of you. If you recall the last time we had a Brown Act training, we talked about social media restrictions. That there are there's a prohibition on, commissioners interacting with each other on social media relating to city business that could fall within your subject matter jurisdiction. Right?

So no likes, no retweets, none of none of that kind of stuff, with regard to posts like that. If you also recall, it was set to expire 01/01/2026. The state legislature has made those restrictions permanent now. So now or as long as you serve on this commission, please take heed of the social media restrictions. Alright.

So another highlight from senate bill seven zero seven, a remote participation by a commissioner is now allowed as a disability accommodation. So there was previously two areas of disability accommodation that were kind of up in the air. Use of remote participation as a disability accommodation for commissioners or council members, you know, anybody serving on the legislative body. And remote participation by a member of the public that we facilitate as a accommodation for somebody who wants to participate, an ADA accommodation, essentially, for somebody who wants to participate in a legislative process but can't physically get here or doesn't have the means by which they can participate themselves online. And so those two things were treated very differently for a long time, And there have been some, there's been, an opinion by the attorney general early earlier this year, that sort of brought those two areas closer together.

And so now the state legislature has taken the opportunity since they were amending the Brown Act to include some language in the Brown Act that specifically says, if you are a member of a legislative body and you require, participation remotely for a disability accommodation, then you don't have to do a lot of the things that we would otherwise require for teleconferencing groups. So, you know, you don't necessarily have to make your home available for the public to come and participate with you. Right? You don't have to, necessarily, depending on the nature of your disability, you don't necessarily have to be on audio and video the whole time. So think there are some things like that that we would otherwise require for you if you were participating remotely that we don't necessarily require if the person who needs it is doing so because of a.

That's a pretty interesting change in the law, and we'll see how that pans out in terms of how we actually implement it. Mhmm.

How to interpret? Does this mean that if you do not have the disability, you may not use the remote access?

Oh, no. You still have all the same rules for remote participation.

Oh, okay.

But if you so if you recall, just circumstance just cause and emergency circumstances had limits on how many times per year you could use them in order to participate remotely. And though so if you had, for example, a childcare or elder care emergency or if you had a family if you had an illness that prevented you from coming in person but didn't prevent you from participating online. You could invoke just cause or emergency circumstances such that you did not have to put your location where you were calling in from on the agenda. And you didn't have to post at your location. You didn't have to make it available for the public to come into your home.

You didn't have to do any of those kinds of things. You could just participate remotely. But the but the legislature put limits on the number of times you could do that in one calendar year. And so what they realized was there are folks who have physical conditions or, you know, that prevent them from attending, but they're not short term physical conditions. They're disabilities that prevent them from doing so from long term, and we don't wanna negatively impact those people's ability to serve, on a border commission or on a common council.

And so that's why they wanted to just have this sort of broader exemption. So that's what that that, bullet point's about. So Internet disruptions. So what they have what they have added to the Brown Act is if there is, action taken by the primary legislative body of a of a organization, so in this case, the city council, to say, subsidiary bodies, advisory bodies, multi jurisdictional bodies, every all these different bodies that fall within the overall, umbrella of the city council. We wanna allow remote participation in all of those bodies.

We don't currently necessarily allow for everybody to have a hybrid hybrid kind of meeting. So if we if we do that, if we say citywide, we're gonna we're gonna do that for all these bodies. Then a part of what you have to look at is what happens if you have a disruption in your two way audio visual service. Right? So in in Santa Clara, we use Zoom, and Zoom is very reliable.

We have hardly ever had any problems with with that. But to the extent, a city is using some other some other platform or, you know, maybe they have infrastructure issues as opposed to software issues, if the Internet goes down to where people who are expecting to be able to participate via a two way audio visual system are unable to do so, then we have to essentially put a pause on the meeting. If you can, in a reasonable period of time, restore service, you can you can unpause. You can continue on with the meeting and conduct business. If you are not able to do that, you cannot continue in person.

You can't say, well, hey. Look. We noticed this meeting as hybrid, as both in person and online. We're still here in person, so everybody who's here in person can participate. Right? You can't use that kind of a justification to continue a meeting if the online piece of it isn't working.

So what about circumstances in which technical difficulties are being experienced indefinitely per person. It takes a long time for them to rectify those issues. Is there a threshold, a time threshold?

So the technical difficulties would be experienced by the city, not by the person.

Okay. So

So we don't have responsibility or control over what's going on in a person's home. Right? So if they're having Internet issues, but we're not, that's fine. Yeah. Right?

But it's it's for us, if we have some sort of issue that is preventing other people from participating with us, right, then we can't we can't continue to transact business until we fix that problem. Okay. The next one is updates to teleconferencing rules for subsidiary bodies. This is another one that's pretty interesting. I think that we can argue that we are not a subsidiary body because of the fact that you actually do more than just advise.

You are more than an advisory body. You take final action, and you take a judicatory action. And so subsidiary bodies tend tend to be purely advisory in nature. And so from my perspective, I think subsidiary bodies shouldn't include you. The updates to the teleconferencing rules require some they essentially allow for more teleconferencing than your body would would normally get.

K. And so I think the idea is you get certain boards, and commissions that are purely advisory, like an ADA, you know, the the disability accommodation advisory committee, senior advisory, youth advisory committee. Right? So those types of bodies, oftentimes, it's a lot easier for those folks to meet online, than to actually travel to city hall in person. And so I think the legislature maybe heard some of the requests from from, people to make those participation on those bodies a little easier.

And so there are some updates to the teleconferencing rules, but, again, it's only for the definition of subsidiary bodies, and I don't think that this body qualifies for that. So I think you guys just stick with your normal teleconferencing rules that you've been working under. K? And then the last is updates to translation rules, and this is an important change not only from a procedural perspective for, staff and for the council, but really statewide. The Brown Act did not include, much at all about processes to be used, for translation of agendas and for allowance of public speakers to have live translations.

So the now the Brown Act requires for city council meetings and and also for county boards of board of supervisors meetings, not for this body, that we provide a a translation of the agenda, not the entire agenda packet. Sometimes the agenda packet is literally, like, 2,000 pages, but just the agenda itself. A translation of the agenda, in particular languages, languages that that were identified in the last census as being applicable to more than a certain percentage of our population in ours. And, we also are required to provide essentially double the speaking time. So two minutes on an agendized item would be four minutes or six minutes on public presentations.

If the person who's speaking requires, live translation. And it allows for us to use electronic translation methods, to help those people who are there. So there are some there's there's a I'm blanking on the name of the program, but there's a it's a real time, translation service, but it's done through not done through with a real real person. It's done through an elect electronic program. And so that the Brown Act now allows for that.

You don't have to have a real a live person doing that. So that that's helpful as well. And that's that's about it. That's the end of my presentation. I'm happy to take any further questions, but there are I'm I'm glad that we are have the opportunity now to sort of discuss these these new

rules. Mhmm.

Mhmm. So as we all know, I was ill for quite some time. Would that would that circumstances fall into this where I can use telecom?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm glad to see you back with us. So that's it. I if there's no more questions, I will just move on to the next thing that's not agendized, but it's just a quick sort of heads up. And I'll take the opportunity to give you this heads up in the staff report section of the agenda. The charter review committee has begun its work.

The charter review committee, has been authorized by the city council to review the entirety of the chapter I'm sorry, the entirety of the charter. It's broken down into six sections, and one of the sections is civil service. So civil service commission is has been taken from the boards and commissions section of the charter and included for review purposes with the civil service, section of the charter. And so there are some subcommittees of the charter review committee, the larger charter review committee. It has 13 members, I believe.

There's a subcommittee that's going to be discussing civil service, the civil service section, and potential, updates to the civil service sections that would also include this commission. So I wanted to give you a heads up, that that's happening. The the meetings of the larger commission, this all with all 13 are noticed, agendized, the Brown Act meetings. You're welcome to attend if you have any, input that you would like to provide. You're also identified your body is also identified as a stakeholder for the civil service section of, the the agenda.

So if requested by the subcommittee, we may reach out, to the chair to see if you would wanna participate in a subcommittee meeting, because they may wanna hear your input on, you know, what whatever work they're doing with that particular portion of the charter. And I thought that would be obviously of interest to all of you since it bears directly upon the work of this body. So just wanted to give you a heads up on that, and, you know, we may be we may may be in touch on that. Okay? Thank you

for the heads up.

Yeah. Thank you.

Be happy to help. Anyway. Okay. Thank you for the great staff report. That was awesome. And I'm glad to know we were already complying with it for the most part. For the

most part, you are.

Yeah. Okay. Do we have a commissioner's report today? Nothing from me. Do we have a motion for adjournment?

K. Do have a second?

I'll second that motion.

Alright. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Billingsley? Aye. Commissioner Dasinski?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierowic? Aye. Chair Pumarejo? Aye. Noting vice chair Villasardo is absent.

Very much, everyone. Hi,

everybody. Good night. Thank you.

Good to see you back.

Likewise. And

we have a great staff, actually.