Town Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the special meeting of the Springdale Town Council. It's a work meeting. Today is Friday, April 3rd, 2026, and we're at the Canyon Community Center in Springdale, Utah. From the town, we have April Radits, Robin Romero, Tom Danzy, and Kendall Sagers. And on the dis from council, we have Kylo Tapam, Randy Eton, me, Barbara Bruno, Jack Burns, and Pat Campbell. And I'll entertain a motion to approve the the work meeting agenda. I move we approve the work meeting agenda. Second. Got a motion by Randy and a second by Pat. Are we starting with me? Yes. Start with you tonight.

I Randy. Barbara. I hat I.

Okay. And we have one item on the agenda. It's a review and possible direction to staff regarding the town council meeting procedures and protocols and the contact is Tom Denzy. Thank you, mayor. Um, as the council is aware, the state law requires um all public bodies to adopt rules of procedure for the operation of their meetings. The purpose of those rules of procedure are to um ensure compliance with the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act um and to establish general um policies for how meetings are operated such that meetings are efficient um effective, transparent, civil, um all all those things. Um, pursuant to that direction in the state law, the town has adopted rules of procedure and codes of and a code of contact, code of conduct for public bodies. Originally, um, these were adopted in 2012. Um, and then subsequently in 2023, the rules of procedure for operation of public meetings um, was updated and revised. Um but that that 2023 um revision only only impacted the rules of procedure for meetings, not the general rest of the code of contact code of conduct for public bodies. Um in the the recent public officials training heard earlier earlier this year um there was a lot of emphasis put on the fact that um public bodies need to have these these rules procedure for the governed public meetings. And in response to that, the council in a preview in a in a recent meeting asked some questions about our current uh code

of conduct and rules of procedure and also expressed a desire to um look at what our current policies are. So that's the purpose of today's meeting um is to look at where what we have now and to discuss if there are if there is a need for revisions or updates or changes to our current policies um and if so what those changes could be. Um there today is a is a work meeting. So you won't be taking any final action today. You won't be adopting a new policy or resolution or new specific codes. Um this is a work meeting. So this is your opportunity as a council, as a group, talk to one another, discuss what you think um would be the best policy for the town. Um and then you're welcome to give staff direction on any changes or revisions that you would like to see and we can uh incorporate those. and then bring back a a a revised copy or revised policy for you to act on. Um so that's that's kind of the purpose of today's meeting is just a just a discussion on those on on those topics. Um, just by way of a little bit of of more introduction, the state law that governs or or that that requires us to have these rules of procedure, as I mentioned, is is pretty um pretty pretty generic. Generics may be the right word. It's not real detailed. It doesn't go into into strict detail on you must do this, you must do that, you must do that. Um so there's a lot of discretion up to you as a public as as a council to determine what you think the the appropriate um operation for public bodies should be. Again the the underlying factors are that you um want to ensure compliance with the open and public meetings act meaning that all of your decisions and

deliberations are taken in public. Um you want to have an effective and efficient meeting process. Nobody wants to be here till midnight. Um, and you want to have policies or or rules that govern, you know, just civil discourse to make sure that you as a council and other public bodies in Springdale are able to accomplish their work um in a in a manner that is respectful and and civil. So, that's what the state says needs to be need to be in your rules of procedure. Other than that, you can you can make them as as detailed or as non-detailed as you want. And in fact, um, I included a document from the Utah League of Cities and Towns that has examples of three other communities. And they go from pretty pretty basic, pretty generic to like super detailed, super intense. Totally up to you how you want to handle that. If you want to get to that level of of detail, that's fine. We can do that. If you want to be more general, we can do that as well. Um, so that's a a big long introduction of of why we're here and and what the purpose of today's meeting is. And I um anticipate just the council having a discussion on these on these policies and giving staff direction.

Any questions for Tom before we get started? Uh I I do, Mayor. Uh Tom, as I understand it, this breaks it down into how we conduct ourselves in a meeting such as this and uh civil interactions between staff and officials and the public. So is that is everything I read here all there is in the in the handbook about how we treat each other, how we deal with each other. That it in terms of our current adopted policy. Yes, that is correct.

So there's nothing in there about harassment or offensive language. I mean there's nothing in there like that. So So we need to make sure that's in there. I'm saying that we should consider putting that.

That could be a great addition. Correct. I thought I saw something about that somewhere. Maybe it was in the Utah League. So, um I think that we'll talk we'll we'll talk through Tom's staff report and we'll look at our current our current uh procedures, current rules. But just up front, I thought I'd ask a question. I assume that everybody looked at the examples from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the three different types. Is anyone inclined to adopt one of these three um as a starting point which we could then alter a little bit or should we just go through our own and make alterations to that? Give me some feedback on that.

Well, I think the short and formal is too short not formal enough. And I think the third example seems to almost follow Robert's rules of order. Not that we shouldn't adopt some of what Roberts had. So for me, I like the what? Short and uh what did you call it? You called it short. Short informal. Yeah, I like that one the best as a starting point. That's just me.

I think all three have their merits. The for the third one. Um, I did appreciate like it how it spelled out all the the different ways that you might call for a motion and and then I started thinking, you know, as a council member, that is good information to have. However, I think we need to say what we mean and mean what we say. And if we were to adopt something that intense and that detailed, we are more likely to be breaking our own rules more often than not, which I'm I'm not a fan of. I would rather have something that is like more of a general framework that gives everybody a good basic understanding of how the meeting should run and then the details as of this council they flow really well and we've um come to kind of a good basic understanding of the way we like to do business at the table and I think that could shift as councils and mayors change. I would be reluctant to make something so detailed and formal that it ends up that you just end up breaking all of the rules you made for yourself.

But I think the the the what is it the long and business casual I did like rule six and seven because pretty much that's how the mayor conducts the business now. No, rules six and seven. You said

six and seven. I mean, the mayor calls for a motion. We go back and forth. The only thing we don't have is a substitute motion, which is process I like. Um, and then when you get to rule, I'm sorry, rule six where it talks about u substitute motion. that one. And where is the one where it talks about rule one? I like rule one, which which we we seem to already follow. I mean, the the mayor announces the the agenda. The appropriate person makes the presentation. We get to ask technical questions about it. The motion is made, seconded. The mayor asks for discussion on the motion. Mayor asks for a vote. uh tall as a vote. I mean, we already do that, right?

Rule number one. Yeah. So, Pat, are you in the short and formal? Short and informal. Well, um um you're in the longest one. Okay. So,

I like the short and informal to as a framework, but I do like some parts of the the uh long and business casual. So, are we inclined to go through what we have now and and talk? Well, let me do this. Let's start with the staff report because some of that is not even in the rules. This is this is sort of some of this is outside of the meeting even because it's meeting preparation, it's it's interactions with staff, that kind of thing. So, um, let's let's start with public participation portion of the agenda and some of the questions that were raised. What is the council's position regarding the expectation that public officials andor staff will respond to and answer questions from residents on the spot during the meeting?

Feedback on that. I say no. You'd say what? I say no.

Yeah. And and I really think it's um it's situational on that. I I think there's uh there's times when I would definitely say no. There's other times where I would say, you know, maybe maybe it's a good thing to to answer the question. I don't personally don't feel like there should be a we're never going to do this or we're uh we're always going to do this. I I think it's situational depending on the question. Um, you know, there's some things where um yeah, I I think there's just there's maybe too much information or it would make a meeting go too long or uh is it is not the appropriate time to to answer that question.

Well, or or as long as it doesn't become a debate. Yeah. And and that's the other thing is that can exactly can Yes. get our meeting to Yeah. It's midnight and we're not quite finished yet.

I'm less worried about that than I am about the fact that the questions we tend to get in that question comment period are gotcha questions. And so often they are meant to to catch somebody off guard. and the person asking the questions has had a lot of time to think about the question and we are supposed to answer it on the spot and I seem to recall that um in the past and maybe Tom you could tell me if my my memory is accurate. I thought it used to be comments and questions of staff that the questions were only asked of staff and they were only questions about you know what's happening on Lion Boulevard, what's that kind of thing. Is that is my memory accurate or was that when I was on planning commission?

Um yeah, I we there's been various permutations and I don't know that we that the the policy was ever that formal like you can make a comment to the public body but you can only ask questions of the staff. I don't know that was ever formally a policy as much as it was maybe a practice. Um, but regardless, this these are these are topics, you know, for the council to consider what you think is appropriate. So, you you can go however you want on that on that topic.

I tend to agree with you, mayor. If if if Riley comes to the microphone and she says, I think we should do that. And I agree with her and I go, you know, you're absolutely right. We should do that. That's a problem because the staff hasn't a chance to look at whatever the the issue of complaint might be. It may be different than four of the people on the deis want. I wouldn't want somebody like me to say something like that and and like now we own it.

Well, and essentially when that happens, we're deliberating on something that wasn't noticed. If we're if we're answering a question, I think it's and and that's like Randy when you say some it's it's situational. Yeah. Sometimes it'd be fine if if it were a question like what's happening on Lion Boulevard. Which of us answers that? Sometimes it's a question to a specific person. I feel personally more comfortable making it a comment period because if somebody in the community has a question, they certainly have the opportunity to contact staff anytime with that question if it's a a legitimate question about something h and not just a gotcha or something like that. So tell me how you feel about what I just said. I think I think questions can be really productive, but I also agree with the issue of questions imply an answer which imply a back and forth and I think it is very uh we should proceed with a lot of caution in getting into a back and forth or a debate or which easily turns into an argument between somebody at the podium and people on the diet and or staff. Like I don't think that that is absolutely ever a productive relationship to be having five of us and one commenter. It I think it gets chaotic really quickly. Could get chaotic really quickly. So um I think how do you how do you allow simple questions? what's happening on Lion Boulevard or something like that and not allow something that could end up

a back and forth or a deliberation

or a deliberation that ends up in a decision because at first that reaction a lot of times as a council member you think oh that sounds like a good idea and then you look into it more and you're like actually I did not consider all of these e um external factors and now that I have more information, my opinion has changed. And very rarely if ever since I've served have I had to make a split-second decision without having time to thoroughly consider my answer. Um I tend to not want to do business like that. So, I would think that we would not want to be inviting split-second decisions or representations of the entire council without being able to consider the problem completely. But I also think that there is a lot of uh for somebody to come in front of the room and make a comment about something that maybe we haven't considered. That's a great way to put a pin in something and say, "Okay, yes, actually we all heard that. Maybe we do think we need to follow up on it or consider that issue more completely. So I think comment periods are very valid. I don't want to see that uh diminished but maybe we do limit questions

or maybe it's a hybrid and you know comments three minutes or less continue. Obviously, we want to hear the comments and we can choose to act on them or not. But maybe if it's a question that isn't something answered by staff because staff can answer a question without seeming to deliberate, maybe then the response is I I will think about that and get back to you if it's for one of us specifically. That's another kind of a hybrid way to I think so that I also think that

in thinking of me recent meetings um and someone comes to the podium and they have a problem and we aren't responding it it does appear as if we aren't following up on the issue when really I'm doing my very best to not turn that comment period into a back and forth. So I I wonder kind of what the public perception is when somebody comes up with a genuine issue and we all are just sitting there.

But would wouldn't it I think as the mayor suggested we'll get back to you or the contact person might be Tom or Nile on that issue to give them somebody to go to. But I think you're right. If we we sit there like five lumps in a log that's not good. But at least give them somebody to talk to. But we're sitting there with intention, right? It's not that we don't care and that we didn't hear. It's that we are not going to turn this into a back and forth.

So, it's simple enough to to make it a comment period only because it's not like we it's not like we don't respond and staff doesn't respond to questions that are about things. You know, if if the question is why do you why do you treat your husband that way or something like that, then that's not a legitimate question. and we get things that ridiculous sometimes. So, I I think legitimate questions can be asked outside of our council meeting and comments should be allowed. Anything anybody wants to say in a council meeting personally?

Well, and I think that we have to be really careful. I mean, I think we're talking about um you know, innocent questions being asked. I think we have to remind ourselves that sometimes we don't want to create a venue where questions can be asked, where answers are expected that have legal ramifications. And um so I think we have to be really cautious about that. You know I I I think that it in a a certain in one way I think it is situational and I think it can be entertained on a case by case but I think our protocol should be that we are seeking public. So that's this particular question is what I'm hearing from everybody is really uh when we when we put our agenda out we are specifically saying this is a time for public comments

only and not questions. And you know my my response originally was I agree that I would not respond to a question from somebody that I thought was uh at all a gotcha question number one or a question that should have staff uh looking at this or or andor attorney looking at something. I think that's obviously something we didn't want. I uh I agree that that comment period should be a I mean that that agenda item should be a comment opportunity. The one thing I I I kind of think about when I think about this particular item is we um we have certain items on our agendas that are public have or are are for public comment and and

public hearing. public public hearing and we have other items that are not and uh I sometimes wonder if uh some of our residents, you know, are feel a little stifled in that there's one of these items that are not a, you know, a public comment or a a public hearing, but it's an it's a item where they want some more information and how do they um you know are we saying in the meeting you can't do that and in the meeting you've got beforehand you've got to ask your question beforehand and that's that's where I get a little bit concerned about um the perception from our residents and businesses that uh you know this public meeting or that this meeting we're having of the town council there's some items on there where the public just doesn't get to say anything. They just listen to what we have to say and then we vote on it. Boom. That's it.

Well, we haven't we haven't been So the question that's coming up, should comments be accepted for all topics or only topics not on the current agenda? So that's kind of where you're going here.

Yeah. And we have not had a policy that you can't comment on things on the agenda. Now, I can tell you that most other municipalities I know of don't allow comments on topics on the agenda because then you turn a non-public hearing into a deacto public hearing. I don't know if we're worried about that or not. I think I think, you know, somebody could certainly submit a letter in advance and tell us how they feel about something. Um but maybe maybe what we do is we do a compromise here where we we do limit it to comments only but we don't limit it to comments or topics not on the agenda. I mean we we don't need to it doesn't have to be all or nothing but I can tell you that like in Rockville I think that's on here. um Rockville, you can't comment on items on the agenda and you can't comment at all if you're not a resident or a or a property owner in Rockville.

And Tom and I have had a conversation about that. And he feels like the more open we are, the better. And it's someone who's not a member of the community. Maybe that's okay.

I Yeah. And I do actually have strong feelings about that. I it um has always gotten under my skin a little bit when somebody comes up and feels like they have to tell us their address. Honestly, you you cared enough to show up and make a comment. I don't care if you rent, live, have a business, if you, you know, teach yoga here. It doesn't matter to me. the fact that you cared enough to show up. I think that that um says a lot and we should be open to we have a very unique community in the sense that many people who who are here and live a vast majority of their life here do not actually live here and we should be open to hearing from those people who participate in the community um have skin in the game. I don't think that it should be tied to property ownership. I think

I don't feel like I need to know their address, but I think it's helpful to know if they're a resident or not. I agree. I I I really value third party perspective. So, it helps me know if somebody is commenting on something that's Did you guys just lose me? Um uh but that um uh they may or may not part of our community. But you do you want to do you want to limit it to residents only like or No. All right. So I don't either. I agree with K. They're all everybody that works, visits, lives in, owns property in

the town are stakeholders. So I mean we our our council meetings unless we have something really controversial, there's rarely people out here. And I agree with Kyla. I want more people to come, but I understand that, but I do want to know where they're from. Yeah. Yeah. And that's fine.

Especially when they're I think I think when it's relevant to us to know whether they're a resident or not is when we're talking about spending town funds or that kind of thing. I think that a resident has more validity than I mean we had we had a a meeting a few years ago where we were talking about buying a building and people from Virgin were yelling at us about what we should be doing. You all remember that and I'm not sure that I mean they they have the right to say so but I certainly value what our residents say more than I value someone who is not a resident.

No. And I'm fine with that if they identify but I don't think we should limit it. Alison said we should open it to and I also think that let's say in the next year we have like this explosion of we have so many public comments we aren't going to get out of here at a reasonable time and our meetings are running over and it's really diluting the process for our residents. Obviously at that point we address that issue of saying okay this has gotten out of hand. Um yeah we can change this too.

Yes. So, I don't foresee that issue happening, but I'm not saying like we want everything all the time. Let's be here for hours and hours. Let's just um at this point commenting is not out of hand as far as like how many people are lined up at the podium. Yeah, especially with the three minute limit. So, in interest of time, should we try and just follow this answer these questions and Well, we kind of are. So, seems like we're jumping around.

The only one that we It's all one thing though. So, let me let me nut this out here. The only question we haven't yet answered is whether the the comment period should continue to be at the beginning of the meeting or should it be at the end? In Leverkin, they put it at the end because they feel like the questions might have been answered by then and and then you don't end up with a deacto public hearing. But I think that I think personally that it should be at the beginning. How does everybody else feel about that? I think it should be at the beginning because someone may say something that I'm not aware of.

Um and and and just and I don't want to get this off track again, but in terms of the comments, is there any appetite for uh because I know you're talking here about uh you can only comment on non-aggenda items. any appetite for if it's a public hearing, your comment needs to occur then and not during the general comment period so there's no repetition. Yeah. And that is our current rule is that you if somebody gets up to comment about something that has a public hearing later, we usually would say in fact we could say that up front.

Do you have comments that are not about something on a public hearing? So the last question we have in this list is what is so so here's where I think we are now. It's it's continues to be at the front first of the meeting. It continues to be anyone who wants to make a comment. It continues to be three minutes and it's a comment period only. Is that accurate to say?

Well, yeah. And then just this one middle thing. It should comments be accepted for all topics. And I think we decided all topics. We would take comments on all topics and if it's for a public hearing, we'll ask them to wait for that. So the last one is what is the responsibility of the town to add information submitted by members of the public during the public participation portion of the meeting to the many meeting minutes. We've been getting more of that as you know and one particular resident has submitted the same thing for three meetings in a row that become an issue in the minutes you know lengthy things. Um the council always has the option of asking that something be put in the minutes should the public be allowed to ask that something be put in the minutes. And I have personal experience with this where it's problematic in my opinion because anybody can write anything down whether it's true or not and put it in the minute minutes and it's a permanent record that I have a problem with and that's happened. So let's let's discuss that last issue. Do we want to do we want people in the audience to be able to add a document to the minutes or should they just be able to say it to us and leave it at that unless one of us asks that it be put in the minutes.

Well, if there's a concern about a public record, it's already recorded. Yes. What they say is recorded. It is recorded. So, if the issue is I want to make a public record, it's recorded. But someone is more likely to go back and read the minutes than they are to go listen years later to a public record. Well, I just think in the interest of of of workload um if um I I I understand the rationale for I want what I say to be in in the in the minutes, but we would act on it in council if it was an issue. Then it would become part of the minutes. But if somebody comes in with some hairbrain stuff and that could happen. It has happened.

Yeah. And then Robin has got to reduce all this stuff to writing. I just think it's it's I think it's more than we should. So if one of So if somebody has something in writing, a bunch of photo copies or something like we've seen before, but anything in writing and they're not on council and they say, "I want this in the minutes." I think that one of us should sponsor that to go into the minutes and not just anybody should be able Does that make sense?

Do we have to do it in that moment? Like they get up and they read a statement and they're like and I want this in the minutes and then at that moment we say I agree I would like to have this in the minutes. I don't I don't know that that's I think we have to but I think we have to say it at some point. No. Yeah. It should be done in the meeting. It doesn't have to be like immediately. Okay.

Oh yes, in the minutes. Boom. But at some point during that meeting, you could go back and say, "Hey, you know what? So and so made this comment at the beginning of the of the meeting and I thought that was really important and I would like that to be added to the minutes." As the mayor mentioned, as council members, you all have that privilege. you have the right to to request anything that you want to be added to the minutes.

If I can add something, um just to be clear, anytime somebody makes a public comment, it is it is part of the minutes. It's I think you're talking about mayor when they provide documents and like you said pictures. It's it's the question of whether you want what they are handing out to all of you to be included because their comments are already going to be included, right? That's just part of the record. Yeah, but yeah, I just want to make sure that everybody's clear that that's what we're talking about. Their comments are always going to be included. It's whether or not any additional supplemental information you want to be included, right?

Yeah, this is an Yeah, I've felt split between this. I see the importance of like the minutes being a complete reflection, but then I also know there have been times we have had things passed out to us that really are fairly off topic and maybe even weren't commented on. Um, I'm just thinking of times we've shown up and there have been things on our desks and they're I mean obviously relevant to something but maybe not relevant to that meeting. I just like what Tom said. You know, I I think that it should be our call as to whether or not we think it should

as a written document in the minutes as a a written document. Yeah, we've already said anybody can make comments, but do we really, you know, do does that mean that anybody has the right to write something down and have it become a matter of permanent record? And it sounds like where we're going here is that one of us must ask that that be put in permanent record, the written document. We all good with that? Yes.

Okay. So, I think we're done with this first part, public participation. So, the comment period is a comment period only. It's still a three minute max and that's fair to everybody. We can't we can't eb and flow on that. Um it can be about any topic including things in the meeting and if it's a public hearing we'll ask them to wait and comment at that time and any document that that they have one of us must sponsor so to speak to put in the permanent written record of the meeting. Did I miss anything? Just a quick question on a on a threem minute limit. What um there are times not frequently but there are times when somebody makes a comment interested about maybe a perspective. Would we be able to ask council people ask questions about parts of their comment or should we just leave that alone?

I think we'd leave it alone because if it's comments only. Got it. Um and I think you could follow up if you wanted to. We could follow up with that person. Any of us. So

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I think we need to if it's comments only, then it's comments only. Okay. So, the next item on the staff report is meeting preparation, meeting packets, other public body communications. Um, so we did have a situation recently where there was a contract put in front of the council that that had a lot of a lot of corrections that needed to be made. Um, it those in fact need to be made. Um, so Pat, I'm I'm not you you made a lot of good corrections that needed to be made, but we did it in the meeting,

right? If there's that much to go through, just in the interest of time, that would be I think let's talk about this. It would be better if you called Garen ahead of time and said, I see a lot of issues. Let's talk about this. And potentially pull that until it's cleaned up a little bit rather than take so much time at the meeting. I agree. Okay. So, I think that hadn't happened before and you didn't know that was that was something you could or but my impression was that you had to do it in the meeting or at least ask for it to be done in the meeting. But knowing that we could do it ahead of time and say, "Listen, here's what I suggest. What do you think?" And the vision come to us beforehand.

Yeah. When when there's a lot I think if it's one or two things, that's fine. I guess I'm kind of wondering though is what if Pat is is suggesting changes to That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about there were there were will shall grammatical punctuation those kinds of things. I think if it's substantive substantial issues, we should talk about it as a group. But if it's just, you know, I see this typo, I those kinds of things could be cleared up in advance.

Right. Technical versus substantive. Yeah. Right. Like I I totally agree that if somebody is going to change the the meaning of the document, that's why we're in council, but if somebody sees a typo, a misnumbering, um then yeah, I think it would be even much easier for me to digest a document if those grammatical things are cleared up. And let's so let's just you know if you see them on Tuesday maybe that does need to just be taken off the agenda and telling technically cleaned up and then we talk about the substance at the next the next meeting. So I guess that's kind of actually relying on staff a little bit to say if a council member is coming to you and you feel like that the changes are you know dealing with the substance then that's kind of a well let's have council look at it and Yeah, I really I think here we're just talking about when there are quite a few technical items to clear up and not when it's something that we have to talk about our our thoughts about the substance. Um, and if it's just I see a typo on page five, that could be done in the meeting. But if when when there's a lot, I think that that maybe could be done before and and um we could get the new version before that meeting or otherwise we could push it to the next meeting. Agreed on that. Okay. And then so what is the most effective and appropriate time and method for contacting staff with questions about meeting agenda items? So, so the community development um department has opened up Thursday afternoons as a time that they are open for conversations with council members. Is there

is there a time you would not want us to contact you? Is there a best time? Is there a worst time? I think that's something you could answer. Is this is this question related to council or public council? Well, I I I think any Yes. Yeah. I I I I mean obviously your experience is as council members, but this the policy that you're discussing applies to all public bodies. Okay.

So, I think the question is um as as staff absolutely that's our job to be a resource for all of the public bodies in the town and to um support you in doing the most effective job possible. Um question is um what's the most effective way to to have that happen? Is that to get a phone call on Sunday afternoon saying, "Hey, I've got a question about this contract or is it maybe wait till Monday morning?" Um, similarly like if the meeting is Wednesday night and we get a a email from a public body member at 3:30 on Wednesday afternoon saying, "Hey, I've got all these issues with this item that doesn't give us a lot of time to to prepare and respond." So So that that's just the the idea. how can we best support you and um the the timing of when those questions come to us helps us better support you. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And and I think barring like major manager emergencies, obviously I'm not talking about that. I would not expect staff to be answering after hours or on the weekend if I thanks for taking my call this weekend. Um We'll classify that as as as emergencies.

Yeah. I mean, in general practice, right? Like if I'm emailing on Friday evening, because that's when I've read the packet, I really am not expecting, me personally, I'm not expecting your answer until you get back into the office. Um, and I think that that's reasonable to expect that our staff gets to have evenings and weekends barring any emergency. Thank you, Kaylin. And I think that's kind of at the heart of the question is knowing that yeah, you know, for your convenience, you may be reviewing something on a Friday night or a Saturday afternoon and it's fresh on your mind and you send an email. When a staff member gets that on the weekends, they feel like, "Oh my goodness, this is this is pressing. I've got to respond to that." and and just having some some um mutual understanding about yes, it's convenient for you to send that email on the weekend, but you're not necessarily demanding a response as soon as you send it or within a certain amount of time after after you spend it. Just just having that understanding I think is what that that

just because I don't have a life doesn't mean I think I guess for me I just don't want to feel like I'm limited like if I missed my Thursday slot I missed my opportunity. I don't want to feel like that.

Absolutely. Yeah. And and mayor, just one minor clarification on the on the office hours that so this this um thing that the community development department has done is is on Thursday afternoons is actually the the last Thursday of the month. That's just like, hey, come talk to us about big items, big issues in the town that you see going on. Don't feel like every single question that you have has to wait until that Thursday afternoon of the last month to be answered. That's just a dedicated time that community development has set aside to talk about big community development issues. But absolutely, like I said, staff is here to support and to and to be a resource for the for the town. And as much as possible, we make ourselves available during business hours to to treat or to answer questions from council and commission on a priority basis. I think the the real question is just an understanding on what the expectation from the council and the commission is in our in our response particularly on off hours questions.

So a couple things, one is that that Thursday that you've set aside for us to talk with you, we should make an appointment so that we make sure there aren't more than two of us there at the same time. And then the other thing is maybe we just agree here that, you know, we're all retired. This is our only job. And so we often there's no difference between Tuesday and Sunday for us. So if we are looking at something on a Sunday and we Sunday

and and we we're just, you know, getting our stuff done and we send it to you on a Sunday, do not feel obligated to answer it on a Sunday. I think if it's urgent, we'll text you instead. Is that fair enough? We'll text instead or we'll put in the subject urgent. But I think I think You know, like I don't think we have to lose sleep Sunday night because we're thinking, "Oh, I got to remember to ask that question tomorrow." We could ask it now, but we don't need to expect an answer now. Is that fair?

And I think for the public facing side, we need to kind of say the same thing to the to the public and the residents. Like staff gets evenings and weekends to not answer your your emails. Um, and you can expect have an answer during business hours. Um, and and I think that, you know, I'm a big quality of life person that helps our staff have quality of life that they are not having to check their email or feel bad that an email has been sent Friday and they didn't get into it until Monday. I think that's very reasonable. And though this is not exactly on point, if if an email comes to us, town council in general, uh I want to talk about this. I want an answer on this. I have a complaint about that. Um and a response comes from staff at some point. Do do can we get what that response is so we know what it was? Does that happen as a routine basis? I'm thinking about the most recent email that we got. Oh, okay. Yeah, good good point. So, so some somebody in the community emails the council with a with a concern and staff may be included or it's forwarded on to staff. Either way, um then you as a council would like to be aware of whatever response goes back from staff to that to that person who asked the question or express or raise the

I would, but I don't know how the rest of people feel. I think that would be really nice actually to know what staff said. Absolutely. Great great uh addition. Well, I just I want to say that uh recently in the last couple weeks when Rick was still town manager something and he called me from his cruise. So I expect that kind of dedication from this state. Tom doesn't cruise.

However, that being said, uh I do not expect the staff. I'm I'm like everybody else here retired. I will send you stuff whenever I'm thinking about it because that's what I need to do. Uh but I don't expect a response until working hires. Yes.

And and thank you. and and and let me just also clarify that in in many instances the town manager is exempt from a lot of things and I think this is one of those areas. Um so absolutely if there's if there's an emergency if there's a need urgent request um that that the council needs to to communicate with the manager absolutely that's anticipated and expected. I think this is just for like normal routine uh town operations, town business types of communications.

Yeah. So, I think we've probably said enough about that. Uh, the next question, what are the responsibilities of members of public bodies relative to documents and records that are classified as town records, which is closely tied to the next one. What are responsibilities of staff members to protect confidentiality when information is proprietary or not publicly available? Um, I think we all learned at the training that the a lot of information that comes to council only can only be released upon a grammar request. Robin, clarify this for me because we talked about it. So, so if it's something say our our council reports, our manager reports that are in the council packet, those can be grammar, but only a certified document handler can hand those out legally. Right.

Correct. Okay. So, um, your records information management team, um, we all go through annual training. We have to test every year. It's it's an ongoing thing. Um, as you're aware, in the legislature, uh, legislative session, this this uh, recent one, they made some changes to grammar. We don't expect you guys to know all those things, but they do expect us to know those things because that's our job. So our responsibility is to make sure that we are sharing the information as it's requested, redacting information that is protected and you know any any other things that if there's documents that have been classified a certain way that we're following Utah State code.

Okay.

So um if anybody wants information, they're more than welcome to submit a grammar request and we'll provide the information that we're allowed to provide. It's it's actually pretty easy to do and make requests. We've had plenty of members of the community that have done it. Um but we would ask that um you know people that are certified in in records management be the ones to release that. Um not only that, there's also the requirement that when there is a grammar request, that also creates another record. So, we have to keep a record of requests and um that's not something that we would expect you guys to do um you know to retain something for 3 years until you know the retention schedule allows us to to get rid of it. So, that's kind of why we have everything and most municipalities as far as I'm aware also follow that. They have very specific people that handle those records requests.

Okay. And I don't I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but I but I saw recently a pretty hefty legal bill for a grammar request. When do we have to get our attorney involved in that? Um if it it so we typically don't include our attorney unless it is things uh that have been requested about specific um you know legal things. So, if somebody say just because it's at the top of my mind, hey, I want to know about how that whole subway thing went, then we would probably include our attorney and say, you know, are there any legal documents that are attorney client privileged because they would be the subject matter expert on that. I would not be. Um, and that's kind of when we would include them. uh sometimes they have records that um we may not because they're talking with the other attorneys. There could be a lot of additional information that we don't necessarily have that our attorney um because of that client privilege would would have that. So that's kind of when we start to involve them. So, you make that decision based on what someone is asking for and and sort of whether it was a a legal matter or just a Okay.

Right. Um, there might be some other times that we would reach out to them and ask them, you know, like, hey, how should this be classified? Um, the state of Utah allows us to classify records when they're requested. We don't have to classify every record once it's requested. So, sometimes we'll reach out and ask them, you know, is this a record that should be classified this way? um you know and kind of get their their legal expertise on that. But most of the time, I mean, state code is is pretty straightforward when it comes to grammar and and how we classify records. Okay.

So, Robin, doesn't grandma though say you only have to provide what you have on hand? Like you just referenced, the attorney may have additional. I mean, you're not required to see that.

Uh that might be a little bit of a slippery slope because that's an attorney question. It probably is. Um, if they're asking for something specifically and we know that the record exists, it's a record and we have to provide it if it's not classified as protected or private, right? So, um, you know, there there would be situations where they do have those records. I think the thing that you're thinking of is if somebody says, "Hey, I want this record." record if that record doesn't exist, we as a municipality are not required to create a record to service that request. So if we don't maintain that record, then we we don't keep it. But we also have to site the reason why we can't produce the requested record. So usually when we're responding to grammar, we're also citing codes, which again is why we don't u you know ask that you guys respond because we have to site a lot of Utah codes explaining what the record is, if there was any redaction, what state code requires us to redact, a lot of things like that. So um yeah, if if it's not a record that we maintain, then obviously we we're not going to create a record. The state does not require us to create a record in order to provide a requested record. Thank you. Welcome. So maybe next we can look at the um the rules of order and procedures. It's at the end of our packet. It's we did adopt this in March of 2023 and it's the one that's on the back of our agenda every month that talks about um procedures and also shows the public hearing format. Pat, you made a comment earlier in the meeting that maybe we should prohibit profanity. I don't think that is on here. So, is that something you'd like to have added?

No, I was looking at when it goes down to some of the examples that were given in the from the league. Wasn't really there was in the conduct section and this had to do with the thing in 2012. So, I'm not quite sure. That's why I asked the question initially. Are we talking about the code of conduct as one issue and then procedures in town council differently? Correct.

Yeah. Really good distinction. So, the the state law actually refers to your rules of procedure, how you operate your meetings. Code of conduct is something that that can be a a part of. The the rules of procedure can be a subset of your code of conduct. Um, but the code of conduct can be much bigger and it and it it talks about things other than just meetings, but it could reference like to answer civil question. Uh, mayor, the harassment, profanity, all that stuff. I was thinking that that should be something that's included in the in the code of conduct part. Okay. Not not in the the procedural part. And we'll get to that next. So,

exactly. So on the on the sheet that I referred to that's on the back of our agenda, is there anything there knowing that we changed it only two years ago and we we for example, one of the things we added was after the after we closed the public hearing, we're giving the applicant another opportunity to talk to us to clarify anything that they heard during the public hearing. Um, is there anything else in the public hearing format that that you think ought to be changed? And also, is there anything in the rules of order that you think is inappropriate or anything that should be added?

No questions. Okay, thanks for that. Anybody? stands out for me. Okay. I I I think it I think things could be added to it, but I like it the way it stands now. Okay. Yeah, I think it's fine. I think it's serving us well and the changes that were made a couple years back have done, you know, what we needed them to do.

Okay. So, I think what remains is our conduct policy. And I said at the first meeting that we had these examples from the league and I wondered if we wanted to simply adopt any of those and it seemed to me that we didn't want to exactly adopt any of those. But is there one of those that might be a good starting point or do we want to look at our current conduct policy and word smmith and make changes to that? You know, the one thing that I picked up um in a couple of these is that um the council should only speak after they're recognized by the mayor.

That's pretty formal. I think it's really formal. I don't Yeah, I I agree. You're okay if we don't do that. Oh, of course. Yeah. I know. Well, I I you know, when I was looking through all of these these three different scenarios, um I thought that we we do a lot of them anyway. our our rules, our procedures set up that way. But I think some of these are are way too formal for for what we're we've been doing in the past and for our meetings.

I kind of like our procedures the way they are right now.

And that's kind of what I was saying in the beginning is I think all three have their merits. However, I would like to see us mean what we say and say what we mean. And if we we need I don't think we could adopt any of those three and have it honestly be a good reflection of how we currently run our meetings. And I think we currently run our meetings like councilwise. I don't expect Barbara to acknowledge me before I speak. And I don't I don't Yeah, I don't know that I could be on board with that. But I would hate for that. That's just an example of something all three or all five, sorry, all five of us wouldn't support. And I think there are many other things in the documents that that's just not how this particular council runs. We have a nice flow. Um, now if council changes and the mayor changes, I can see how maybe the dynamic changes and uh maybe these rules would apply. But I think whatever we need to set forth needs to be open enough to let the natural flow of or the dynamic of the group shine. And I think that's what we do now.

I think we do pretty well. I think we're respectful of each other and and um yeah, even when we disagree, nobody's nobody's out of line or anything like that. So, let's just let's just assume we're going to we're going to look at our current conduct policy, which is which says exhibit up on on the top of it there. And let's just we don't have to go through every item but so for example the first item is general conduct what officials shall do. Is there anything there that anyone wants to talk about?

I think the first thing just as an overview this thing is I went through this and cut it in half because it's highly repetitive. It talks about the staff should do this. The town council should do this instead of saying a category that's town council and staff. This is what we do. Staff does this, which is different than council. Council does this, which is different than staff. Literally, I cut this from 2,000 words to to 1100 words by just eliminating the repetition. And you know that there were two copies of the same thing, right? Right.

Yeah. So, it wasn't that you just Okay. So, for example, Pat, so in the what's up on the screen, what did you cut out of there? See, here we are. One thing that Kyler was just saying, wait to be acknowledged by the chair before speaking. Oh, we're going to take that out. Yeah. Where was that? It's not so much that I cut things out. I said I consolidated them. I think might be a better way to describe it.

Um, let's take C out. Wait. wait to be acknowledged by the chair before speaking. I think where that might apply is the public maybe um you know we've had it in the past where somebody says can I say something and I think at that point yes they do need to wait for the chair to say

yeah and in fact it's my prerogative whether I let them or not but um this is officials this is so in this in item. I think we do want to take that out. What about D? Is that redundant? I mean, move to require the chair to enforce these rules. What about

I don't have an issue with much of this until we get to the electronic equipment part. So, I I had a question about number eight, protect the public good. public officials do not represent a specific neighborhood, business, individual or interest. And I wanted to talk about that a little bit because three of us in on the council live on the Anastasia Plateau and that comes up way too much. Does anybody else agree that that that's brought up much? That's brought up by others by Yeah. others. because I feel like we still represent the whole community and we're not making decisions just because of our own neighborhood.

So yeah, I think it's different in because we aren't a lot of bigger municipalities, right? They have a district and that's your person is representing your district and they and and that's not how we run. Yeah. We're at large so to speak. But I also think that it is a good statement because I think the it's inevitable that you know your neighborhood the very best, right? You live there, you're there the most. You see your neighborhood. It's inevitable that Randy knows Valley View Drive better than I do. I hope. Yes, I do.

So, I think that I mean I see what you mean that some Having three of you living up there, it feels it feels like Anastasia is is well represented because three of you know it better. I'm not up there very often.

I guess what I'm where where I want to go with this is I just want to state publicly that just because I live on the Anastasia plateau does not mean that when I make decisions it's just to protect my own neighborhood. I'm making decisions I think are good for the whole town. And I think it's a good idea for us to never say, "Well, I wouldn't want this in my neighborhood, so I'm voting against it." And I don't think we would anyway, but I just want us to be kind of aware of the fact that we do represent the whole town and we need to to speak that way. Does that make sense? Yeah. And I think this is personally I think this is what this is basically saying.

Yeah, it's a good reminder. It's telling it's telling the residents and businesses and anybody else public officials do not represent a specific neighborhood business or individual. When they're speaking, they are speaking for the public and for the town in general. So, I like the statement where it is. I think it's fine. Um, and I think that's the statement is speaking to everybody else. Here's here's the way public officials will be conducting themselves.

Okay. Can you scroll that down to the rest of this section? I think we all turn our electronics off. I've never heard one of our phones ring. Let's see. except my security camera but keeps going off. But I do but we don't see that.

I do have a question about uh if we text during a meeting if if I if this is something that comes up and I don't know what the answer is and I go, you know, I wonder what so and so thinks about this. It would be highly inappropriate, yes, a violation of the open meetings act if I were to text somebody and say, "Hey, what do you think?" Right? What if I text an attorney or uh not Mr. Harden, but somebody else? What's the legal issue on that? I shouldn't be permitted to do that unless I openly say it. Correct. In other words, I I wonder what the legal opinion is on this. We're all looking at you, Tom.

I think there should be a prohibition of me texting somebody outside that meeting.

So, you can certainly put that in your rules. Absolutely. Um whether or not it's it's it's it's exactly prohibited by the Open and Public Meetings Act. Um I'll let Robin weigh in if I say this incorrectly, but um I Pat, I I think you're right. I think if you were having a a private side conversation with someone outside of the meeting, that flies in the face of an open and public meeting, right? because you're privy to information and you're you're you're then uh acting on or conveying or making decisions on that information that the rest of the council does not have. If you were to if if you were to disclose it and say, "Hey, I just texted my personal attorney and here's what he said about this." Maybe. But but again, I think you could by policy say, "We're just not going to do that." Robin, do you have a different opinion? I I think the only thing that I would really want to add is that um I think it's more of the public perception when you're on your phone because they don't know what conversation whether it's you know hey what's for dinner you know are you having a conversation about the the current topic or are you thinking about you know when is this meeting going to end what am I coming home to you know things like that so I I think for perception purposes it's you know it it would be good to not do that to just say, you know, we're just not going to do that. But that's that's kind of my my personal feeling on that. So So

on the other hand, if if we were talking about something and and somebody said, "I'm not sure if there are 10 or 20 of those in town." And we could quick text somebody and find out and say, "I just checked and there are 20." That could be useful information which is real different than us sitting there texting throughout a meeting, right? Which would be poor poor conduct. I agree. But and again, I think that speaks to perception that so I think just at our just use discretion. I think all of us are good at being present in the meeting and absolutely. Yeah.

Yeah. And I'll say for the record that there are times I'm on the phone, but that's because my phone actually has better access to some of our documents than my iPad as far as accessibility just because it's newer. So, there are times that and I I should be aware of the public perception that people don't actually know what I'm doing on my phone and that I'm reading packet material and not reading text messages about what's for dinner. I try to ignore those. Um I I this is a great uh discussion. You may I I think it may be as a suggestion um if you want to keep that flexibility and not have a blanket rule of we're never going to text ever and that's that's that's good. I think for the reasons that you mentioned, mayor, I think having a policy also that states if we do that, we are going to disclose, hey, I just texted so and so for this answer and it's 20, not 10. Again, just so that everybody on the council and who is attending the meeting understands the the information that the council is acting on. Again, that's the whole point of the open and public meetings act is that meetings are conducted in public.

Yeah. But I do think that switching it to silent is is important and I think we all do that. Uh what about that number K? Is that let's see shell immediately. Did you say number K? Okay. Number K. Letter K. K-shaped economy. Yeah. You say number, I say letter. It's okay. I just was uh making sure I heard you right. You always hear me right. Okay. So I guess that should stay, huh? Okay. So let's look at conduct conduct with coic officials. That second one there.

Pat, is there anything on there you took out? No, I I trimmed it down a bit, but I everything in there is good with me. So were you an editor in a previous life? I read police reports. until I was sick to my stomach. So, you just shortened the stuff. Is that what you're saying? You rewrote them. You didn't strike them out. You just kind of shorten them. Just kind of trimmed them down. And I'd be happy to send I was just going to ask version or if it's all there draft.

Um Pat, why don't you send your draft to Robin? I can send it all to you now. And as they're reworking this to bring back to us, they can take a look at your suggestions. I'll do that. Because as long as you're not changing the the point and the gist, if if you like the language better, I don't know who's going to write this, if it's Tom or Robin or April or whatever, but maybe just let them have those and if they see something that makes complete sense that you give them, they can change that. I'll do that

because we'll we'll be the final um we'll do the final vote on this anyway. So um so one question I had avoid offensive negative comments and practice civility. That kind of covers not using profanity, right? We don't need to specifically say not to use profanity. Plus Kylo wouldn't be able to make her point without it. So Okay, thanks for the check. I needed that.

Okay, contact with city staff. What about that? Anything in there that anybody wants to talk about? We talked about when to contact them. We talked about um weekends and evenings, so we don't need to redisuss that. I I can't believe Randy doesn't have a comment about the the heading there. conduct with city staff, not town step. Let's change that. In our own document. Our own document. How embarrassing. Um

I wanted to ask just a little bit about um D conduct with town staff. Um recognizing that we each have you know our own assignment per department. Which part is this? Uh

D. Okay. refrain from giving direction to staff on behalf of the public body without having received the express authority of the public body to do so. Um is is that in concert with us uh working independently you know with uh each department I have you know I I'm glad we're talking about this. I was going to bring this up. So, so we all have we all as council members have our own responsibilities and some of us have departments and some of us have people and some of us have functions. Do we as a body feel that if we want to for example talk to Ryan Gooler about how he's doing something should we talk to to Jack and involve him in that conversation or should we feel free to go directly to Ryan? And that's is that the question you're asking?

And I think it's a good conversation to have. Um, so so there's that. There's the council piece and the the responsibility council. There's also the the town staff piece. And that's that. So if someone reports, so Robin reports to Tom. If we want to talk to Robin about something, should we go through Tom? And so let's have conversations about both of that. the the the staff reporting and the council responsibility and how I mean we don't have to change anything but let's at least have a conversation about that. Well, it's just following chain of command. So, it's not creating anything new

in the private sector. You would definitely follow chain of command. Oh, wait. Are we talking about like I am trying to think of a Robin specific question which I have like have had clumps of them in the past. Hey Robin, I noticed that when I call the phone tree, you're still listed as deputy clerk. That was something I had a long time ago. Do I really have to go to Tom? Well, that's what we're talking about. Like I feel like burdening Tom with that when Tom's got a million other manager fires. Like if I have a big issue, gosh,

I think we're talking about performance or conduct. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Because if I'm having an issue, then I could say I don't want to go over Robin's head and I don't want to go around Tom. like these I this would be really hard to put in black and white I think

but these are bigger things than that Kyla the these are so one of the questions I have if I if I went directly to Jameson's the wrong example if I went directly to Christian about something I think he'd be pretty intimidated and and I I think I think maybe maybe we should be at least working through the managers and Robin you're a manager too so you're you know so so maybe or Tom give us some rules of thumb

yeah so um in in terms of like performance and and things I think that's already covered in C says discuss directly with the town manager or DCD we may want to change that I don't know why the DCD was included in 2012 but anyway discuss directly with the town manager any displeasure with or concerns about a department member or staff. So like if if you say gosh I've really got an issue with the way that so and so is doing stuff rather than going to them directly or even to their supervisor probably first to come to the town manager and say let's talk about this and then we can come up with the appropriate um way to handle the situation. So that's that's so let's cross off for DC. Yeah.

Well actually but we are going to the DCD. Look at his name thing. Yeah. For a minute. I don't know. Every order. So

So Tom, you're saying C really is saying don't go to the council person over the department. Go to the town manager. Well, if if it's like a if it's like a a performance issue, if it's hey, so and so is not pulling their weight or um so and so did did this which is um you know counter to town policy or you know some something that that would require some kind of coaching or or things like that then yeah I think it's appropriate to come to the town manager first. Um so that's that's that's C. Um, I love the way that we have things set up with council members having um responsibility for different departments and there's a council liaison. If it's something um like a project that the council is working, excuse me, a specific department is working on like say you have a question about the Russian olive and tamarisk removal project. Um then yeah, you don't have to come to the town manager for that. Um, you could say to Kyla, "Hey, Kyla. Um, I I want to talk to Kendall or Nile about the Russian Russian olive removal project, right?" And and you can just go straight to to that department through the council liaison, right? I I think that's we've got that all set up. It doesn't require the whole council to say, "Can Jack go talk to Nile about invasive species removal?" You don't need to do that. You don't need to come to the town council. I think looping in the council liaison for that department would be appropriate

and it may it may save having to go to Nyall and let him do his other work too because Kyle Kyla is likely to be able to answer that question. So do we agree then that if we have a question about something going on with the department, we start with the council member responsible for that department? Does that make sense? Does I also feel like I am not the gatekeeper and I'm never going to tell another council member don't go ask staff. Right. But if you can answer blanket approval to talk to Nyall. So yeah like I don't want that to be the perception

that I that any one of us has to say like if I have a question for Garen that I have to go through Barbara. I don't know. Yeah. Well, I mean this thing is saying uh refrain from giving directions and and so I think questions our directions are are very different. Yeah. I think if you have a question, I think it's appropriate for me to go to Ryan asking, you know, a manager, but if I'm going to give directions, I think I should go through. Yes, I like that distinction and thanks for rereading that because I I feel like that is like absolutely we I should not be giving direction to

Absolutely not. Right. Well, and and it says giving direction, but I think the conversation we're having, we are talking about even asking questions. So, again, if if I want to know the status of the Tamaris project, Kylo, should I should I come to you and say, "What's the status of the Tamaris project?" And you might say, "Talk to Nyall," or you might just tell me because you probably know. Which which should we do first? Should I go to Nile or should I go to you? We just want to we just want to set a protocol.

Yeah. And and I don't I don't know that it's I wonder if it's black and white because there are times when maybe I am less busy, right? And so maybe I could but I also as much as I know I do not know a lot of the intricate moving details that council members uh might want to get into with a staff member. Yeah. And I the way I would answer that you asked Kyle the way I would answer it if you ask me is I would say it's more appropriate to go to the if it's a question go to the manager

and ask that question but I this item D is talking about specifically giving directions. Yeah that's I think that's straightforward. I think that one's straightforward. If you're if we're going to expand this into questions, u you know, if you have a question about the sewer, you don't necessarily have to come to me before going to Rob because Rob's going to be able to answer that detail or streets much better than I could. So, I'm very comfortable with anybody going and asking them that question. Okay.

Not having to go through me on that. So use your discretion. You can go directly to the manager. I would just say be careful about going to and don't give direction without, you know, do that through the manager, but be careful about there are people on our staff that would would be very intimidated by us going directly to them. So let's just use our best judgment. Is that fair?

Yeah. And and definitely Yeah. Start with the manager. I think if the person is listed next to an item as the staff contact, they should be comfortable and confident in dealing with that item and and otherwise like you said the people maybe that we aren't dealing with very often like some of the streets crew or parks people absolutely that is not a common connection that I have with many of those people and so I would not specifically uh be cornering them and asking them questions and I also think that the the road can you know communication needs to be open from staff's perspective too if they are having like beingounded by or inappropriately asked questions and they're not comfortable like then we obviously I think I'm open to hearing that feedback and saying you know Robin really wants you to lay off on um asking her about the phone tree she doesn't know So like um I think it's kind of like we should open up the communication to say if something's not working on the staff side too, we I would like to know about that.

Okay. Now, sorry, can I just say something really quick? So as you know, we have the staff report from the community development side every month and within that we have our special projects. We've started listing who the staff contact is. And the reason for that is so that you can come to us directly and ask about the invasive species project or America 250 and items like that because we are kind of the experts on that project. Thank you for pointing that out.

I mean, we all see the report, but it didn't it wouldn't necessarily we wouldn't necessarily connect that to that's who you should talk to. So So we've probably talked enough about that. What about this next conduct with the public? Anything that we want to change? It seems really straightforward. Yeah. How about I have a question on the next one. Okay. Anybody? Anybody on the public? Okay.

Uh this one uh conduct with our other agencies. Do we need anything about dealing with the press? Well, that's that's an interesting conversation because I am technically one of my responsibilities, not technically, one of my responsibilities is being the media contact. And when the media contacts me, if it's your project, I might refer them to you, but but they come through me to be referred to. I it' probably be good to at least have something in writing so that you know we state who the initial contact is and you can designate as you decide.

Could we add a a section that talks about inquiries from the media and specifically say that that Tom is the staff member that's the point of contact and I'm the council member that's the point of contact and we can we can refer them out to other people. Is that appropriate? Does everybody think that's appropriate? Okay. Or do you want to be Robin? you're look like maybe you want to you know one

one item I'll bring up in regards to this is I've uh NPR reporter that contacted me and said he wanted to talk to me about the the Utah Renewable Communities Act and Um, you know, and he hasn't contacted me yet on that, but I know a lot more than you do. I would refer him to you. I would Yeah. And I know I believe more than Tom about that. So, you were also mentioned in that press release. Yeah. Randy, like your name specific in that press release, which is maybe why he

Yeah, it might have been why. But I think he was contacting he is contacting you as a board member of that. Yeah, he is. Not as a spring council member. You're right. I think that's that's a good point. That's so that's a very good point.

I think it's probably wise to have something in writing in that I've been interviewed for a couple different things. part of it, you know, being a council but also being next park service employee and something that I do on a regular basis is just whoever's interviewing me to tell them this is my personal opinion. I'm not representing the town or the park. You know, it's

Yeah. And that's that's a good point. So, yeah, I think you know, typically when someone come someone from the media comes to me, they're often asking the town's position on it. They're not they're not coming to me as an expert in in anyone field. And I think that's different. So I think again use your destruct your discretion but but I think we should identify who the prime point of contacts are on both staff and council. Did we answer your question because you that was about the media really which is which is kind of other agencies and kind of its own animal.

Yeah. And then maybe this is a little bit off topic, but do we and unless we have it in here, do we need to say anything about um that you know politically were neutral and that we don't represent any political affiliation as a as a or not? Well, it's a nonpartisan position and we just assume that people know that. Um, yeah. I don't think any of us run as independent, Republican, Democrat when we run like in the state legislature or etc. So,

so I don't I don't know that in this code is is I don't know that there's any need to say it in this code. If you think we should, we could say we're politically neutral and represent only the town's best interests, but this is something that's for us internally and not for residents necessarily to read. They can read it if they want to, but Well, can I can I make a comment on that? Yeah.

Yes, it is. This is a a document that's going to guide you as a as a public body, you and the planning commission, and and that way it is kind of internally facing. However, once it's adopted, it's your policy. And if you violate, this is the point that Kylo was making earlier. If you if you violate your policy, whether it's not it's intended for the the public or not, you do open yourself up to some exposure there, right? And I I I don't know exactly. It's hard to say what that liability is without having a specific situation, but if you say, "Hey, this is this is our internal policy." So it's to to guide us, but we can kind of do whatever we want and and you kind of knowingly or willfully violate that that could expose you to some risk. So all all I'm saying is treat treat it treat it as an official policy that that should be binding on on what you do. Does that make sense? So Tom, given given what you just said, do should we go back to where we talked about not representing anyone neighborhood? Should we say something about we don't represent anyone political?

No, that I'm not saying that that should policy. I'm just saying that if you do adopt that as your policy, say we are we are non-political. we don't represent any political ideology or point of view or yada yada yada but then there's something that you unitedly as a town feel really strongly about and you want to make a statement about then you can't okay so let's leave it alone okay

I do have a question about if we if we attend another town's town council or planning commission and we want to influence their decision for some reason. We could do that. Do we need to disclose who we are before we do that? Are you speaking as a resident of Springdale or a resident of Springdale and I don't like what Rockville is doing? So, so if if you're saying, "Hey, I'm a resident of Springdale and I don't like what you're doing and this is, you know, that that's

then you're fine. If you're saying the town of Springdale does not like what Rockville is doing, no, that would be inappropriate without first coming and discussing that policy position with the rest of the council. But I think he's also asking so if so if he went to the to the Leverkin council meeting and stood up and spoke and said, "I'm a resident of Springdale and I have an opinion about this." Does Pat, are you asking if you should disclose that you're not just a resident, but you're a council member? That's was the point of my question because somebody may know, not that they would, but somebody may know who I am and they may think, well, he's speaking for

the town and and you don't want to make they don't want to give that impression, but that's the impression they have. Should at least put that on the record. I'm speaking as a resident of Springdale. I don't like this or I do like that or whatever. Yeah, I I I think I think that's wise. You know, just in case someone does know that you are a council member, you say, "Hey, I'm from Springdale. Um I serve on the town council, but I'm not speaking as a town council member. I'm speaking as a resident of Springdale. Just to make it clear that that's your personal opinion and you're not representing the rest of the council. And we probably don't need to put that in here. It's a good discussion, but we

we had a discussion about this. When is it a year, two years ago, about um like signing letters of support or or making letters um you know, did the the town supports this or doesn't support that? And you came to a very similar position that you as an individual can support or not support whatever you want. But if you are saying this the town of Springdale supports this, you cannot do that in your capacity as a town council member without first getting the um majority support of the rest of the council. It would be I think it would be a very similar situation.

So question I got a couple days ago I got a letter from Forever Project. This this stuff happens a lot. They wanted me to sign a letter of support for their grant application to finish the sewer in Z National Park and I signed that as mayor of Springdale. Is that okay? Or should I be getting council's opinion on whether it's okay for me to sign that? I don't sign at Springdale council or town of Springdale. I signed it Barbara Bruno mayor. But yeah, do you remember what if we I can't remember if we adopted an official policy or if it was just kind of a an informal decision. I believe it was an

I don't Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, I I think that was kind of the if I'm remembering correctly, the gist of the conversation was that if if you were going to be providing your support that it would be a a a conversation amongst the council members. Um, but if it was just an individual, yeah, I support this, then it's just you as an individual, right?

And it doesn't obligate Springdale in any way. I think if there was something that obligated Springdale, that's an easy answer that the council needs to talk about it. But something we should decide here because I get these all the time and it's it's always sorry for the late notice. I need this tomorrow. So when when should I not sign that as mayor? Sign something like that as mayor of Springdale? Other council members, how do you feel about this?

I I kind of think if you're signing something as mayor, that's your opinion and your title. If you're signing it as town of Springdale, then that implies you're representing everybody. I mean, I guess that does imply that you're representing us. Well, I I kind of feel like when when people are asked to do something like this, um it does add a little emphasis to you're not just Barbara Bruno, but you're a mayor. But I don't think anybody reading it is going to necessarily say, well, the town of Springdale has an official uh view of this,

you know. So, I don't I don't see that as a problem. I think that just is what maybe adds a little bit of extra credibility to this person signing this document. And and you know, I I see this on in a lot of different documents of people will sign on and say, I support this and I'm actually on the council and you know, but we do that all the time when it comes to like political endorsements, right? What's that? I mean, when you when you uh sign or or give a political endorsement, you say, you know, I'm I'm the mayor of Springdale and I endorse so and so, you don't need to get do that. So, I don't see a problem with that.

Yeah. And I don't do that. I think that's a slippery slope. But I could I could as an individual because like Randy says, that adds a little bit of weight to what you're trying to say. That's why they're asking, you know, like so there is a there are two county commissioners that are running for office and they both asked for an endorsement. So, you know, certainly um if if I were saying, "Oh, yeah, Springdale endorses you," then I have no right to do that as mayor. I could say, "I, Barbara Bruno, endorse you if I did." But do you sign it as mayor? I don't sign it. No, I mean for those political endorsements. I don't sign political endorsements.

Yeah. Um and they haven't asked me to put anything in writing. Well, I shouldn't say that. I did.

But but this gets back to the letter of support thing, right? So you're signing it as mayor Barbara Bruno mayor town of Springdale but you're not signing it bar mayor Barbara Bruno on behalf of the town council or on behalf of the town of Springdale and you're not saying this is the town's position right so I think what the council is saying is that's okay if you say I want to I'm signing this as a mayor as a council member because that adds some kind of of weight to my opinion that's that's fine as long as what's contained in the document that you're signing is clear that it is your opinion and is not the official policy of the town. Is that is that what I'm understanding? Yeah.

So, how about if I get something where there's any question that I run it through the clerk or or Tom and they get a quick if if time is important, they get a quick message out saying mayor's planning to sign this unless unless you object by tomorrow or something. Is that fair? Did didn't we do that one other time? Mayor, we did have something that came. I'm trying to think of what it was and I was I know. I couldn't government shutdown stuff. There was something. No, it was on the other side of the park for some reason, but we did do something like that. And I can't remember what for the likely what it was.

I guess for me it was the way it was worded. I couldn't support it. I can't remember what it was. Yeah. Rick came out to us and um who wins the prize? Who comes up with it? Come on. I thought it was during beginning of last year. There were several things that kept coming up and one of them was it that joint letter that was with several other communities about about the state taking state right of public lands.

Yeah. We we didn't Yeah. And I would never sign on to something like that without the council weighing in. That was an example where where the mayor came to us and said, "What do you guys think?" Right. So,

okay. So, what So, what what we've got is you're absolutely free to speak as individuals. You should probably disclose that you are a council member and that you're not speaking on behalf of the council. It's okay to sign a letter of support or whatever you want with your um credential as a council member or a mayor. If whatever you're signing is clear that it is your opinion, you're not speaking on behalf of the town. If you are asked to sign something on behalf of the town, and this probably would most likely um pertain to the mayor. If you're asked to sign something that is on behalf of the town, we'll distribute that to the rest of the council and just make sure you don't have a problem with it before mayor you sign.

Sounds good. Perfect. Okay. Agree. And then contact with other town bodies. That's, you know, I think that's straightforward, too. And then the ethical conduct straightforward, right? No, I think we're missing two things there. I

unless it's unless it's documented elsewhere. Nothing in here about uh required annual training, ethics, conflicts of interest, open meetings, public records, laws, harassment, discrimination. Is that is that where that should be that we should require training for staff and officials there? And and the second question I have is the last time we looked at this was 14 years ago. Should we put a clock on it and say that town council should review this like every four years and and and and compare it with current state law or current practice? I mean there's there's no time there's no clock on this. That's why it lasted 14 years.

Yeah. So to to answer your first question, I the that number one under ethical conduct talks about the two hours of training that covers it then. Okay. You're saying you want you want that to be more detailed or precise. Well, it says shall receive, but it doesn't. No, it says every year. Okay, never mind. It's annual. It's in there. Disregard. So, so your first that's okay for your That's good then. Yes. Okay. So, then the second concern is how often are they updated? How Oh, how often do you review this whole thing?

Yeah. And you can put something in there. That's fine. Um we, you know, we have kind of those kind of same kind of shot clocks like on our general plan. We say we're going to update that every five years. So, we can do that. That's that's just one more thing that we put on our on our tickler calendar to make sure that we get done. But I think it's a good idea.

Yeah. And and if I can say my opinion on that. um unless there's a something that comes out in in the state code uh that we really need to look at and look at our procedures because then we would be in conflict with what a state statute says. I'm not sure that we need to do this every four years or five years or anything like that. I think I think what we've uh we we've seen with this that has kind of withtood the test of time and we're still okay with what was was put in place several years ago,

14 years ago. Yeah. And I don't really feel like we need to have a time clock that says we need to look at this every so often. I think uh when there's something that does come up that triggers well you know that goes against the way we've been operating uh that the state passes for instance or the federal government passes then we need to come back and look at it but I think it's it's those sort of things that would trigger us to go back and look at these procedures because if if it ain't broke don't fix That I guess my philosophy

kind of view that a little different, you know, and it it's a little bit of the appearance of of not only compliance with your codes of conduct or whatever, but it's showing your due diligence to it. And that um you know, kind of on the surface, yeah, I didn't look at this for 14 years. You know, the appearance of that to me isn't all that great. versus Robin brought up something a little bit earlier on a recent change with grandma in the recent uh legislation sess session legislature session. Um it's that's the very thing that kind of triggers the importance of revisiting this. I mean it's it's a it's kind of an easy thing to do. I don't think it has to be a a council work session to update it necessarily if they're minor changes but yeah I think every 14 years is a bit much I I think it's uh five years you know is

well what if when a new council comes in every four years they are given this document and asked to sign that they've read it and if there was something that were blurringly out of or something like that. They would say, "Well, what about that?"

Well, and and Jack, I I think I'm hearing you correctly. You know that um and I think we agree on this. something comes up like on grandma or something then yeah I think it's appropriate for us to look at or if the state as I said if the state statute changes that is u contradiction to what our procedures are but if we don't have a trigger like that I'm not sure that we need to to look at this every so many years it's those golden rule stuff where it doesn't change much or doesn't change.

Yeah. But it's, you know, I think it's always just kind of fine-tuning. It's a work in progress. We've we've in, you know, we've added some things we didn't have before dealing, you know, with the media, stuff like that. Yeah. So, it doesn't hurt to just fine-tune it.

Yeah. And and despite what we have or haven't changed, we've had some very good, productive conversations today concerning a lot of topics that are of importance to the public and just general council procedure. Um, so whether or not we've changed the document a lot, I feel like the check-in and the work session has been really productive. Um, so I'm not I don't know that like saying it needs a time clock on it so that that you meet and sit down, but um I don't know. I have found this very valuable and I feel like we've all been able to kind of say kind of get on the same page about the way we operate. Not that we weren't, but just to sit down and say it out loud. I think it's been really nice.

I think it's been a really good robust conversation. I guess the question is how often, you know, maybe it maybe it's 10 years. I was thinking eight. I mean, two, if we're changing seats every two years essentially, right? Somebody's up somebody's up on the block every two years. Um, if you did eight, I mean, you could you could have a completely new council in eight years.

You could also have a strikingly similar council in eight years. Well, what occurs to me is that we come in, we come into these positions, and I don't know about you, I didn't see this for a long time. I mean, a lot of this is intuitive anyway, and you you come in and you pick up on how it's already being done and how people are already treating each other, but I think at a minimum, when someone comes into the office new, they ought to be given a copy of this.

And and I think that's a really good idea. and every council can decide when it's time to update it. I think I don't I don't know that we need a trigger, but I think it should be given out and I think in some ways it'll selfcorrect because people who are new on council and get it will be like, well, wait a minute, we should talk about this. And I mean, maybe maybe this is silly or not silly. I don't know. Uh some of it or lots of it could apply to commission which I think it does.

It all applies to the commission. Yeah. These are rules of procedure and and codes of conduct not just for the council but the commission, the historic preservation commission, art review board, all of our public any specifically. Kyla says elected and appointed. It does say appointed. Okay. Um, I I will say that reading as many versions as we were given, I liked the um I liked having all of the versions because I would have had questions, but in the end I was like, wait, which what did ours specifically say and which version was that? Um, anyway, so I think we've been coming at it from a very council perspective.

Yeah. Um,

but knowing that we do have quite a bit of turnover on all of the other public bodies that this is important information for everybody to have and for us to keep up on. And I'll say for a third time, I fully believe in in everything we do, we should mean what we say and say what we mean. And I think that's really important that we are willing to create and make and follow our our rules and we should only be willing to put on the books what we can uh follow and enforce. So yeah, and I like that there were a few things we talked about and decided not to write down. That gives us some flexibility. And in the final section, conduct of town staff, I thought everything was okay there. Pat, did you see anything glaring there?

Yeah. Um, if I'm reading this correctly, treat everyone with courtesy, civility, and refrain from inappropriate behavior and drugs. Is that does that cover harassment and and bullying and discrimination? Does that cover all that or that spelled out elsewhere in the code of conduct? Do we need to talk about that at all?

Um, I realize is that there's a there's a federal umbrella, so regardless, we have to follow it. Yeah, there there are a number of policies that that that that address that. It it wouldn't hurt to be more um specific there if you wanted to. I mean, our our town personnel policy addresses that and as you mentioned, there's there's federal statutes about harassment, but I don't think it would hurt to just reiterate it there as well. Well, it reference, you know, town personnel policy.

Yeah. And you have mandatory training on harassment and that kind of thing, right? So, so maybe maybe as Jack said even in this just re refer to shall shall take training as as laid out in the policy manual or something like that. That would that cover it for I think so. Sure. There anything else before we adjourn? I I thought it was cute that David Church said, "I'm not proud of it, but I wrote it."

But, you know, I I instantly went in with a filter then and being like, "Okay, what's bad about this? What is it that is not is not worthy of me adopting?" Like, what am Yeah, it totally changed the way I reviewed the documents. Yeah, I thought that was interesting because I felt the same way as, oh, this is flawed. I need to I need to see what's flawed about it. But was it not bad? It wasn't. No, I think he was saying it was overdone. I think that's really what he was saying. He didn't leave many stones unturned. No. Do you have you all had the chance to meet David Church and spend time with him? I have.

That's his personality. is extremely smart, super intelligent, excellent attorney and also very self- aacing, down to earth, humble kind of guy. So, and if you saw him, if you've been to any of the league conferences, you'd know he is because he's always there. He He's still going. He uses a cane and he he's a funny guy. Funny, I mean, humorous, enjoyable. One of his sons following in his footsteps. Is this the same guy? Yes. Is he an attorney, too? Oh, I didn't know who's he with He's not with the league, is he? Oh, he is.

Well, so Church Blazedale is David Church's uh firm, and I think Matt Church is also with Church Blazedale. Oh, okay. If I if I remember, because I think their attorney they use now is Todd. Yeah. But but the firm they use is probably that firm. Anyway, um we ready for a motion to adjourn? We'll second. Motion by Randy, second by Kyla. Randy Barbry had I church is actually with Manning, Curtis, Bradshaw, and Bedar, not with Church Blaze. My bad.