City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome. At this time, I'd like to call our SUFFK City Council work session to order. Uh we have one topic for discussion this afternoon which will be our city council rules and procedures. Mr. Manager, mayor, vice mayor, members of council, I believe our city attorney is going to take it from here.

Yes. So well there we go. Uh to recap where we are at the city council retreat, we discussed your current rules and procedures that are in the city code and talked about some partic some changes to be made and city council directed um that I put together some changes to the rules of both some of the substance of the rules as well as the content of the rules. And so what you received in your agenda packet was a draft of what the rules would look like if city council moves forward with the proposal we discussed of creating a standalone document rather than having your rules in the city code. So the point of what you've got was for you to see what the format was to see if that was something city council was comfortable with and wanted to move forward with it or if you would rather u maintain those rules within the city code. And so this presentation is going to cover the um substance of the rules of the new changes to the rules and the next steps for adoption if you want to move forward with changes. So what isn't changing in the code are the sections that cover the time and place of the meeting, how special meetings are called because that those code provisions are copying what is in our charter and it requires city council to adopt the rules on calling the meeting to order and the city clerk entering the names into the minutes rather than doing a roll call. the process for selecting a temporary presiding officer if the mayor or the vice mayor are both absent. Um the process for how to handle a meeting when there's not a quorum present and then the roles of the city clerk, the city manager and the city attorney during the during the meeting as well as the

seating arrangements. Now, what we did discuss um changing um would so if we move to a standalone document, we would need to add a section to the city code that would mirror what other jurisdictions in Hampton Roads have that say that city town council shall adopt its own rules and procedures and that would be done by resolution. The other thing that would need to be done is changing the amendment procedure and I'll talk a little bit more detail about that in a minute. Um and then the remaining sections under the rules of procedure would be repealed because they would now be um covered by the standalone document. And then part of that standalone document moved uh the code of ethics into the standalone document. So the code of ethics section would also have to be um repealed which is section 2-39. Now the changes that city council asked for to be made um was to clarify that all requests for to include items on the agenda are made to the city manager. There were places where the city clerk was mentioned as the recipient and places where the city manager was the recipient. It's being um everything is being made uniform to allow for all agenda items to come to the city manager. We also have consistent decorum rules for all speakers, whether you're agenda speaker, non-aggenda speaker, or a public hearing speaker. There were different rules for different types of speakers, and so those have been made uniform. Um the public hearing rules have been modified to um follow the practice of city council which is if it is a land use item or an appeal from say the historic landmarks commission those receive the

10-minute for proponents, 15 minutes for opponents and five minutes for rebuttal. And then all other public hearings are for 30 minutes with three minutes per speaker. All public hearings are still limited to 30 minutes, which has always been the rule. Um, the other change that was made um to speakers was the registration deadline for non-aggenda speakers. City council asked that that be moved back to 5:00 p.m. rather than 6 p.m. on the day of city council. Um, and then new business has been would be limited to um appointments. any items that come out of uh close session that require a vote or to add an item to a future meeting. So, if you want to um vote on something, you would have to make a motion to place it on the next meeting's agenda. Um and then for announcements and comments, city council agreed that they would be limited to five minutes per council member. And then there is one change that I made that was not discussed um because it appeared that the current rule was um both not the practice and probably illegal. Um one of the things we talked about in depth was about motions. And so you have a section in the city code that talks about motions and it has so Robert's rules probably has 20 30 50 different motions. The city code has eliminated all of those motions except for nine motions. And the city code also says that none of those motions, including a motion to approve or deny an item on your agenda, are debatable. And uh one, we've never followed that practice. Two, that would violate city council members first amendment rights

to speak on an item. So that rule cannot stand as it's written. It's been in the code since 1976. I'm not sure why it was put in that way. I don't think anybody's ever looked at it. We've nobody's filed it since I've been attending meetings since 2006. So, I took that rule out because it it doesn't make sense. Now, if you do want to make any of those nine motions non-debatable, then we would need to make an amendment to the code as it's written them now. And then finally, as I mentioned before, the code of ethics uh retitled that code of conduct because that's more what it is. It's not really a code of ethics because you are bound by the state and local government uh ethics code in the in the U code of Virginia. So that was relabeled to to make it a little bit more clear that you don't have something separate from what the state requires. So there are a couple of things that we did not talk about at the retreat that u city council should consider. One of those back to that section on motions. So in the list of nine motions there is not a motion to reconsider. However, in the um unified development ordinance, unified development ordinance provides a procedure for a motion to reconsider zoning and reszonings and cups. So, we need a motion for reconsideration. Every time that this has come up, we have applied the Robert's rules for motions to resend as our motion for reconsideration. What I'm proposing is that we just do away with what Robert's rules cause a motion to reconsider or a motion to resend and adopt our own motion to reconsider. And so what I

provided to you tonight is some sample language that I thought um matches what we've done in the past um and is something that we could include in the section regarding motions. And so that would so the motion to reconsider would have two different procedures depending on when it arose. Let's say you voted on an item um and the vote was recorded by the clerk and you wanted to reconsider that item during the meeting. Under the language that I've drafted here, those motions to reconsider would be limited to cases where there's a tie vote. So, a land use item is up, you get a 4-4 vote. One of the people who voted no says, "Oh, well, I didn't really want that to happen." They can make a motion to reconsider. If it gets a second and a majority vote, it would go back up for a vote. Or, which has happened from time to time, a member hits no but meant yes, or hits yes and meant no. We've we've also used the motion reconsider to fix that vote. Um, The second thing, and this is probably where we need the process the most, is when, and this usually only comes up in land use items, uh, is the motion to reconsider after the meeting has concluded. Um, and so in that particular case, I don't recommend that it comes up as a surprise. So I have put in here that prior to the meeting, a member who is going to make a motion to reconsider something from a prior meeting has to give notice to all council members before they make that motion. Then the motion is made in under new business to place it back on the agenda for the next meeting or whatever meeting you want to

put it on. and then it's placed on if it passes then it's placed on the agenda for zoning and conditional use permits we still have to provide which requires a public hearing and gives council the option to send it back to the planning commission. So um this would also direct you to for those type of items to go to the UDO and follow that process after the motion whe if the motion to reconsider is successful. So that's that one's a little confusing and it's new. So um that's something to be discussed further by city council and I'll be happy to answer any questions about that. The other thing that we did not discuss is the amendment process. So currently the amendment process which we're we're sort of in the middle of is that the proposed amendments are presented at one meeting. If city council is comfortable moving forward with the amendment, a motion is made to place on the agenda for another meeting and then a vote is taken. Um, we can continue that process or we could add on to that process sort of an annual review of these rules, especially since they are now if they move to a standalone document that's passed by resolution, it's much easier to to make changes as we go along. Um, and I would recommend that if you're going to do that that you would do that your first meeting in July. That's typically the code um sees that as your annual meeting as any corporation would have an annual meeting. This also gives a chance for any new members elected to city council to review the rules and if they have some ideas, it gives them a chance to put together those ideas. So, those are two additional items that I wanted to bring to your attention. And then finally, what are the next steps? So, if council is ready to move forward to change the rules, um or if you have any

additional any additions, we can discuss those additions tonight. And then a motion would be needed to place it on a city council agenda. I have provided you with a copy of a sample motion um if you want to move forward with the January 21st meeting um and then to highlight any changes that you want added to it. So what would come before you are two documents. One would be an ordinance to amend the city code. The second would be a resolution to adopt a new rules and procedures in a format similar to the one that I put in your council packet. And so at that point at this point I'm happy to answer any questions and we can discuss whether or not we want to make any additional changes to the rules.

Council, any questions, comments from our city attorney? Council member Recctor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, give me just a minute to get myself organized over here. Um, my first question is just [clears throat] so I can be clear on the motion to reconsider. Um, it says a motion to reconsider must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side. So, if it's a 4-4 tie, is the prevailing side those who voted no or the prevailing side those who voted yes?

If it's a tie, it's this it's the individuals who voted no. But I that's that was my assumption, but I just wanted to be sure. Um then just as a couple of points of clarification um in the um order of business under B the non sectarian invocation do we need to include that we're doing the pledge to [clears throat] I mean I I know that the planning commission just recently voted to change their bylaws to include doing the pledge allegiance because it was not listed in their order of business. So I I didn't know whether just for clarification purposes if if we needed to do that.

You you can do that. So to to be clear what I have done with that document, although it's reordered, it's just a cut and paste of what's in the city code. So, I tried to clean up some of the language where it was a little um jumbled and and it wasn't clear, but for the most part, if it was in the city code to begin with, it's written exactly that way in these rules and procedures. So, if you want to add anything, it's got to be changed in the code. Well, we can change it now. That's what we're talking about.

Yeah. And I mean, I you know, it it was such a minor point, but um it it was something that just kind of came to my attention. And then also under the motions to postpone indefinitely, it if we somebody makes a motion to postpone it indefinitely and it gets approved, how how does how would it ever come back up? Just for my own edification, someone would have to make a motion under new business to place it on another meeting's agenda.

Um, thank you, Mr. city attorney. That I think that takes care of most of my questions for the time being. Council, any other questions? Uh hearing none. I've got [clears throat] I've got a question related to the motions to reconsider specifically as it applies to land use issues. And you mentioned a requirement that council, whoever is making that particular motion, would have to notify council members in advance that this was going to be done at the next meeting. I guess my question is, is there a process for how that notice has to be done and how much advanced notice has to be given? Is it five minutes or five days or walking in or what are there any are there going to be any guidelines to how the notice is given and in what time frame?

So I haven't put any provisions in there. City council's free to pick what they feel is a comfortable method and time period. I I I did not make that assumption for city council. This is this was meant to be a discussion item and a document. So, I thought it would it would work best if I provided some language to kick off the conversation and then have city council fill in the blanks as they feel is necessary. We do need it unless you're going to take that provision out of the out of the um

out of the UDO. We need a motion to reconsider. I just sort of put together a process that sort of mirrors what we've done before, adding the notice part because I know that sometimes these things catch people by surprise. Does the UDO require notice?

The UDO has nothing about what happens for a motion to reconsider. It only covers what happens after the motion to reconsider passes. So for you to come back with some type of document, we should probably discuss now whether we feel like the notice is warranted. If everybody wants a notice and then if so, how is that notice to be given and then in what time frame? So this could be something that if you framed the document for us to consider at the next meeting, we can look and see how it was framed and then we could take some suggestions from there. Extend the time, decrease the time, change the method for notification on these land use issues. So by way of examples, the city of Chesapeake has a provision that deals with reconsideration. And in their partic in their city code or not their city code, in their rules of procedure, they require three members, one of which has to be on the prevailing side to send written notice to the city clerk the Friday um after the meeting when the decision was made. Um, so that's one example of a uh provision on who and when the notice gets made.

Okay. So it still only take really one individual from the prevailing side, but two other council members.

Two other council members from the opposite side, which they wouldn't have a problem with, you wouldn't think, unless they change their position on it. So that's probably not a way, not a bad way to do it. And how how far in advance would it have to be? Um so for um for those you it's you have to make that decision the Friday after the council meeting is how theirs is written. So these motions to reconsider we we the motion was made on Wednesday. So within the upcoming Friday within 48 hours then this motion to reconsider needs to be submitted to the clerk which would be signed by

So let me give you an example of what's happened to us in the past. So, we had a a solar farm that was denied and then a council member made a motion to reconsider that denial that so let's say that that decision was up for decision tonight. Um it was so the vote was for denial and then the one of the people that voted for denial wants to reconsider and vote for approval. They would have to make that decision, find two council members and give notice by this Friday or it could never be reconsidered again. Okay. And that would have to be in writing. That would have to be in writing. Okay. And that would be submitted to the clerk.

To the clerk. And then they also provide the writing to each council member. Okay. All right. Sounds like a lot. I mean, I don't think we've had a lot of that that I can remember, but we've probably had three that I recall and each time we we've worked we've had to work through the process for it because we didn't have a process and it and I think in all those occasions it's been one of those instances or I hit the wrong button or it's not what I meant to vote on.

I mean, we've had three instances where we wanted to reconsider a denial of a land use item to bring it back and reconsider whether or not to approve it. We've had a bunch of those. Not a bunch, but they've happened more frequently where someone's hit the wrong button. We've done the reconsideration right after. Um, I don't see anything else that I particularly find objectionable or have comment to, but I think it will if anyone has a question or would like to make a change, I think once the document is produced and will you provide that document to council well before our next meeting so it's not just handed out at the time of our meeting. Is that possible?

So, so yes, um could the lion share of the work has been done. It's the document you have in front of you. The code changes won't take me very long to put together so I can get them out ahead of the manager's agenda schedule so that you'll have it um with plenty of time to review. But for the most part, the document is going to look like what you already have with the exception of whatever we decide we want to do with motion to reconsider. But the actual code that we're going to be voting on the changes, we'll have the opportunity to look at that. Everyone on council will have opportunity to look at it well in advance. Yes, mayor.

Okay. That's that's the main thing. Then we kind of everybody take it, digest it, talk about what we may want to change, not change, and I don't I don't think it could really be done just being handed out the day that we're expected to vote on it. Um, okay. I'm sorry. Uh, Council Member Wright. Yes, I do have a question. Is the main benefit of having a standalone document is that it's easier to update the document or make revisions to it?

It's it's easier to update it. It's also in a more readable form. So you will notice well if you if you compare the document that you have in front of you the draft document to what's in the code now you will find that this document doesn't exactly line up because what I have done is reorganized it in sort of a

not quite chronological order but organization of how things are going to happen. The code is as we think of stuff, we add a provision on the end. And so, you know, some things are here, some things are over here. And so, the point of this document is it's easier in an outline to write it in or organize it so that it's more easy to understand rather than how the code so it's more intuitive. And then I think you made a comment about like as new council members come on board if they have like changes or whatever suggestions it's easier to do a change in that document than it would be to do that. Depends on how city council wants to handle amendments. Got it.

So um if we don't change the amendment provision, changing this document will be the same as changing the code. Got it. Okay. Thank you, council. Any other comments? Um, I do have one other thing. I know we're going to incorporate our code of ethics within this document and refer to it as a code of conduct. How are we addressing the abstension issue as to expectations of voting unless there's a conflict of interest or an appearance of an impropriy rather than

just willy-nilly abstaining?

Based on my notes, the consensus of council was not to change anything regarding voting. So, if if my notes are incorrect, um, council's free to ask me to make the change, but I haven't done anything with voting other than to clarify, which is already in the code, that once the clerk marks you present, you are voting unless the mayor has excused you. So, if you leave the room during a vote, your votes going to count as a no um because you're marked as present. Uh and and the our current rules require in order for you not to be present, either the mayor has to excuse you or you have to have a conflict under the conflict of interest act that's disclosed per the act.

So I guess at this point I might I'd like to bring it up. I would like to see that [clears throat] the topic of abstension is addressed in our code of conduct conduct in that it is expected that each council member will vote on each motion brought before them unless there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of an impropriy. So conflict interest is, you know, it's got to involve a financial involvement and appearance of impropriety is just it doesn't look good because I'm on this particular board or I'm doing this or I have a relationship with this particular um firm or individual, but not necessarily a strict conflict of interest. Council member Wright,

is there a history like what is the percentage of times or I guess is there a history of people abstaining? Uh yes. a high percentage like does it I guess my question is does it happen often enough to change the rules or is it like oneoffs every once in a while

it it has happened in the past and if it's not in my opinion I don't think it's it's right and so whether it's not right one time in a year or not right 10 times in a year it's still not right I think it needs to be fixed I think the citizens expect us to vote on the issues that are put before us and not abstain because it's a tough one. You know, there needs to be a reason. Well, I guess what I'm I guess what I'm trying to get at is has that historically been a problem?

It has occurred. It hasn't been a I mean a problem to what extent. Yes. I'll be maybe I can let somebody else weigh in on it so it doesn't only see me. But yes, what it did seem to create some consternation when it happened and it's happened several times. So rather than worry about whether it's going to happen one more time this year, let's just say if you're here, if you have a motion in front of you, you're expected to vote unless you have a conflict of interest or appearance of an impropriy. and it pretty much covers everything. So, if there's a legit reason to abstain, because basically an abstension, unless you have a strict conflict of interest, an abstension is a no vote and the city attorney can correct me on that. Um, if that's not the case. So, perceptually, you abstain, but it's really a no vote because you don't have a conflict. you don't have a true conflict of interest or maybe not even an appearance of impropriy.

Okay. So, I guess what I'm I'm getting at is I guess I'm trying to understand. So, I guess in the past someone has voted to abstain because it was difficult, not necessarily because it was or it was perceived because it was difficult, not necessarily because they had a valid reason to. But I I guess my question is do we know like do we know that for certain or do I guess it's subjective. It's kind of subjective as to why a person would abstain.

If you are supposed to abstain if you abstain and the city attorney can correct me if I'm mistaken, but to abstain you are supposed to state the reason why you're abstaining. the same reason than when I just recently abstained. We had a motion for me to where a statement. So the statement and I might be correct, but if you abstain, there should be a statement as to why you are abstaining. No, that's correct. No. No. So the reason why you had to make a statement is because the state code requires you to make a disclosure when you're disqualified on the conflicts of interest.

Interest, right? There is no provision in the city code that requires a member to explain why they vote yes, why they vote no or why they abstain. Legally a individual city council member's reason for voting doesn't matter. Um this cannot be presented in court as evidence. It is the it is what is looked at is what is the will of the body. So there's no legal requirement that a council member explain their vote. There may be some instances where a city council needs to have a discussion on an item in order to lay out what the will of the body is, but there's not individual council members opinions on why they're voting or why they're not voting legally don't matter. Um, as far as abstens, so city council does not vote under a simple majority. It is um a majority of all members voting. So you need So if there are eight members voting, you need five yeses. Anything other than a yes is a no because you're only counting up how many yeses because it's a majority of of the people present and voting. That's why it's important to know that when the clerk marks you present, your your vote counts unless you are excused by the mayor. And that was the the reason why I pointed that out earlier. To my point, legally, you're exactly right, but we're talking about a code of contact, code of conduct. We're talking about a code of ethics, which is not or code of conduct, which is not necessarily determined by the law. It's determined by how we want to conduct ourselves. So if there is no will by this body to assume that every member on this dis will vote yay

or nay unless there's a conflict of interest or an appearance of an impropriy then so be it. That's all we're asking. If you don't expect it, it's okay if you got an item and you two people want to abstain without whatever. That's fine. I, you know, we can do it that way, but that's what I'm asking for is that if that process is okay with the majority of everyone on council, then, you know, I'll live with it. Council member Recctor,

thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh you did ask one of the questions that I was going to ask which is under our normal rules that we have now an abstension is the equivalent of a no vote. Um you know sort of going back to the abstaining part of it a little bit of the problem for me is that it's is the public perception of what your abstension is. They may not completely understand our rules that that is a no vote until it's recorded, but they might interpret that to be some kind of ambivalence about the issue. They don't really care. I mean, to me, it means you don't really care whether it passes or whether it fails because you're not willing to vote yay or nay on it. But to go back to what the mayor was suggesting, I would suppose that if we were going to take abstensions off the table, we would have to change under the voting, all members marked present by the city clerk at the beginning of the meeting must vote yay or nay on all motions unless and and basically take abstension out of the equation completely.

So that so that was the rule um for a while for city council. I don't remember and I don't I don't have my code right in front of me to tell you what date it was taken out, but the original city code required all council members to vote either yes or no unless you had a conflict under the state conflict of interest act. Um there was so then there was a change made because there was some issues with council members needing to abstain because of um appearance of impropriy because of groups that they they were volunteers for. So it didn't qualify as a conflict under the state conflicts of interest act but it you know people might argue that their vote is being swayed one way or another by their involvement with that particular organization. So it was changed. So there was so originally was going going to be changed from my understanding from this and this was a while ago. So I'm I'm going off of memory. I can go and pull the records and figure out exactly how this went down. But um it was proposed to be changed to add you had to vote yes or no unless you had a conflict or appearance of impropriy. City Council ultimately decided just to repeal that section that required a yes or no vote. So, we went to you could abstain on every question. Um, and and I would have to go back to the to look at the video to see what city council was thinking at the time for why they they decided to go in that direction. But that um 2-91 where I was saying put in this the code section that says you'll do a you'll create rules by resolution that used to say city council members must vote either yes or no.

Yeah. I um [clears throat] you just brought up something that you know to me I guess allows for a little bit of the relevance of the abstension and that is it may not you may not completely fall under the conflict of interest statute part of it but you might have a very definite relationship um to somebody or some organization that is bringing something before this body um that might uh perhaps make it awkward to attend the next family dinner for instance and so uh it might be good to be able to abstain. Um but once again abstaining is the same as voting no. So it's not really necessarily letting you letting you off the hook. Um so I I I don't know what what you know which direction the council wants to go on that particular one. I I personally have not abstained, I don't think, from any vote um in the three plus years that I've been on council, but um there have been a lot of votes that I wish I could have abstained on, but you got to we're elected to represent the citizens of the city of Suffach and whether that is comfortable for us or uncomfortable for us, we have to do what we think is best for the citizens a of the city of Suffach and then b for the citizens of our particular burough. So, Council member Bennett.

Thank you, sir. At my recollection, I could be wrong, uh, but I think out of the years that I count years that I've been on council, I don't recall over twice. I think it's two not most at most three times that anyone have abstained and abstaining is really sometime could be where in that you have a feeling you don't you cannot definite for it or against it. So you don't want to put yourself out there and say well I'm just going to vote to vote. If you don't feel comfortable voting for something then that's that's your right. That's my personal feeling. So, as far as abstaining, I I voted one time. I know for I abstained once and it was not a conflict and it wasn't a personal thing, but I just was not ready to make a decision at that point to say yes or no. So, I abstain and I still would do that. If it's something that I'm not comfortable with and I don't feel like I'm ready to vote, then I still would understand.

Council member Johnson, I think you had your light on. I cut you off by mistake. Just historically, historically, hit your request to speak button. I'll get you back on. No, it's it's my fault. I did it. You cut me off. There you go. I did cut you off. I'm trying to cut you back on.

Um I guess my concern is I I I agree with the mayor. I agree with Leroy, but I ultimately think that we it's our responsibility to vote. And even if you don't agree with the project moving forward right now and you think it'll be fine in the future, fine. You deny it and then you'll you'll vote for when it comes back down the road. My point being other jurisdictions, other councils, other areas, what rules do they have in place? Do they I I personally would like to see us go to a point where we say yes or no. That's that's where the vote is. So, I've I've only seen three jurisdictions and and I to be honest, I haven't read everyone's rules, but of the examples that I gave you for the retreat, I saw three jurisdictions that um required yes or no and no abstension. Um most other jurisdictions, they are clear that you have to vote, but they don't say how you can vote. I think Williamsburg has a rule that if you don't vote yes or no, you have to explain why you didn't vote yes or no. Um but not allowing abstensions is probably the minority in Virginia. Um I think I've mentioned this before. There was um this question went out I think around the time I think we might have put the question out on the list serve about abstensions back when 2-91 was being um reviewed and one jurisdiction came back with a anecdote that his jurisdiction had put on the agenda a code section that would say everyone had to vote yes or no and it failed because the majority vote was abstensions. So So it's It's not it's not something you find common in Virginia jurisdictions.

I do

one thing that that I do find I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. The one thing I did find that was common in in jurisdictions is they don't allow you to vote present. The um it has to be yes, no, or abstain. You can't just say present um which would still be a no u because you're not voting yes. I I do think that we would be setting an example for the public. I think the public expects us to vote yes or no. And if we're not not in agreement with something, there's a reason why we're not in agreement. And obviously, you vote no. But I I kind of support the mayor on this one. I don't know how council feels, but I do think that we owe it to the public. So, I would not have a problem with with investigating it.

Council member Williams. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'm sorry. Get you next.

Um, thank you, mayor. Um, [clears throat] and this is just my opinion. Um, the citizens voted on us and put us in office to make those decisions. So, yes or no. Um, if a person has a valid reason to ex abstain, then so be it. But I think it should be a yes or no vote. uh when it comes to any decisions that we make. So, I agree with the mayor. Um and I would hope that the rest of council would consider that because, you know, I've never abstained to anything. Now, have I agreed to everything? Um, of course not. But, you know, I was put here to make that hard decision. And it's not fair to my constituents if I decide to abstain with no reason to abstain other than I didn't feel comfortable. So I agree with you.

Council member Wright.

Yes. I was going to say I I hear what everyone is saying. And my line of questioning is simply because before we lock into a particular way of doing things is it has it historically been a problem is the first thing one and then the second thing is some things and I think um council member Recctor spoke to it some things sometimes you just got to shun the very appearance of impropriety and when you don't have so for the way council's changing and the way that things happen sometimes it's not a black or white issue but it can give the appearance of impropriy. And so if it has not historically been an issue where people have abused it and we're saying once, twice, or three times, and however many years you've been on council, then I think to restrict it, it limits people who may have a situation. I do believe we are here and we are voted to vote yes or no, but I I'll for me as a perfect example, I haven't voted to abstain on anything, but I'm also a federal employee and there are some times where I don't want to kill your vote. I may not want to kill your vote and I may not have a definitive uh conflict of interest, but I'm also of the ethical mindset that I want to also shun the very appearance of impropriety. And so I should be in that instance have the opportunity to abstain if I need to. But if you completely remove it and it's something that hasn't historically happened and been abused, I I don't know. I just feel like it's I get it and we all have to vote because we were based on that. But I think if you remove it completely, you strip you're you're limiting to a certain type of council member and you strip certain circumstances um from being able to have that ability to shun that appearance of impropriy because it can happen. You cannot have a

ethical vi like have a a conflict of interest um or or a a ma a valid re not a valid reason a valid reason according to the rule but it can look murky and if it is something that can cause can actually give the appearance of impropriy I think that that window should be there especially if it hasn't been abused if it's something that people have been doing historically I get it but if that is not the history of this body, why remove something as an option that someone an exception may it it may happen? That's all I'm saying. I agree with everyone on here, but that was my line of questioning and that was my reason why I asked my questions. Thank you. Just to go back to where we were, William. I think it was about six, seven years ago, maybe eight years ago when this came up came up because my predecessor sat on a community board and got beat up over sitting on a community board, one of the bank boards, no financial interest. Nobody is saying take it out. You're still going to be able to abstain. The only question is you're expected to vote unless you abstain due to a conflict of interest or an appearance of an impropriy. And order an appearance of an impropriy is fine. That's what was supposed to go in the code. That's how it was written for us to change that night. I can't My memor is not that good. I don't know, we all went sideways, but it went sideways because it was always in there that you were expected to vote unless there was a conflict of interest. And to your point, we wanted to expand that or also to include an appearance of an impropriety. So, nobody's saying you can't abstain anymore. Nobody's saying you can't abstain if you have an appearance of an impropriy. That stays in there. You're expected to vote unless you have a conflict of interest, which according to the law, you have to have a financial

interest in blah blah blah, or an appearance of an impropriy. I'm sitting on a local board. It looks bad, you know, so and so and so such. But anyhow, uh, Vice Mayor Ward, [clears throat] Councilman, uh, right, to answer your question, uh, I don't see the numbers in when you put it in problems. If you do it one time is a problem far as I'm concerned. And I've been on counsel and it happened twice that I can remember that somebody abstained and they had definitely one time have no investment or interest in this situation. So I consider that a problem and one problem is a problem. It don't have to be 10 times. It can be one time. So, like I said, in order for you to say, well, you don't get continuous no. This time happened twice. So, I consider you have to vote yes or no. It been some hard decisions I had to make. I don't know if you recall that um it was a decision that have to do with employees. It took me about five minutes to make a decision, but I didn't abstain cuz I wasn't confused what I'm going to do. I said yes or no. So when you say a problem, it's a situation where I felt that the couple of times that happened, it was no reason to extinct. So I don't want to see it like happened five, six, seven times, but I know definitely was two times. Might have been three, but I know definitely twice. So we don't want to happen like that again continues because it's a hard vote. So I agree with the mayor and a couple of the council. You need to vote. The vog said

no. If you're staying still going to be no that's fine with me but I think that you need to vote. Thank you council member Barlo.

Thank you mayor. Um, I I appreciate everyone's opinions. I honestly do. In my opinion, this is really a non-issue. It's not that it hasn't ever been a problem, but it's not a pervasive problem that people are taking advantage of. So I would like to propose that we as a body trust each other to always do the right thing and to only use this in the very rare exception that you need to use it. And I think we can I mean we've all been doing this for a while now and I think we all follow a code of conduct and that we make hard choices whenever they're presented to us and that this is not really a big issue. Um, I I like the idea that we have it as a kind of a safety hatch in a situation where you really needed to use it and I would trust all of my fellow council members to use it in that way in the very rare occasion that you need to use it. My thought.

Council member Richtor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I I just want to make sure, Mr. Mayor, that I understood you correctly. You said that um the reason for having the ability to abstain is a clear conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriy. Is did I hear you correctly? That is correct,

Donald. Um with this draft that we have here, there's no mention of appearance of impropriy in it. So if we want to, my suggestion would be if we want to keep the abstension for that particular reason that we include that language in G-1. Um so that if somebody does feel that they do have a legitimate not a financial conflict of interest but a uh want to avoid the appearance of impropriy then this would give them the ability if they wanted to to abstain under that particular circumstance. and they would just have to understand that their abstension is it is still the equivalent of a no vote, but it would allow them to at least not vocally say yes or no.

Is that okay? I think at this point I think the best thing to do is just let the city attorney put together whatever he's going to put together. He's going to send it to everybody. Actually, mayor, at this point, I really I would need a motion from city council outlining because if we're going to put it on the agenda, there needs to be at least a meeting of the minds of what's going on the agenda according to the amendment provisions in the city code. So, we would need a motion from city council to place it on the agenda and to identify what additions to the draft that I provided to you should be included in what goes on the agenda.

And to clarify that, we can put it on the agenda and it would be brought back for consideration at the next meeting for discussion and it would either be passed or not.

It could be passed, it could be amended. You know, once you have a once you have an ordinance and a resolution before you, you can amend that ordinance and resolution. So, if you have an idea tonight and city council agrees that it's a good idea, you may decide next meeting that it isn't such a good idea and you take it out or you might have a new good idea and you put it in. But um to move it forward under how the rules get amended as defined by the city code, the the city council is going to have to make the direction on that.

All right. Um Mr. City attorney to make sure I understand you. Um, so I can go ahead and make the motion um move that the amendments to the rules of procedure be placed under new business on the agenda for January 21st, 2020 six. Um, with the following changes to include a motion for reconsideration as potentially amended by by you before then. So So the one thing I'm not clear about is what city if what kind of notice if any city council wants on that motive shouldn't reconsider. So, we hadn't discussed that. So, if you want to make a proposal for me to sort of put something together and then you can change it later. Putting a lot of pressure on me.

I'm sorry. Well, you talked about something that Chesapeake was doing. So, if you want me to use Chesapeake's language, just say that and I'll if you want to use Chesp's language for introduction into it and then when it comes up, if somebody feels strongly that it needs to be altered, we can do it at that point. And then um do I need to include in that motion changing G1 to include the the uh appearance of impropriety for an abstension vote? Yes. In that case, that's my motion.

Councilman Recctor's got a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Council member Wright could hit your button again. I'm sorry. Just council member Wright, you hit your request to speak again, please. Thank you. Okay, now you're good.

Okay, second. But I do have a question. I I still so I still feel like the appearance of impropriety is subjective because because I I feel like that needs to be expounded upon otherwise it's subjective because otherwise I'm hearing people say basically if you abstain it's because you don't want to make a tough vote is what I'm hearing. So I think that the appearance of impropriy needs to be clear because it's too subjective. It's too subjective. What an appearance of it is very subjective and so can we have can we get some help there sir on what because that is very subjective.

Would you agree or disagree? I mean the best I can do is I can give you a um legal dictionary definition of appearance of impropriy and then city council can work from there. An appearance of impropriy is subjective. That's why it says appearance and that's why by code clear. I said it's subjective,

right? So it's fine. You just explain what it is and in your mind that's what it is. Your reason for not voting is because you think it looks bad because I have a relationship with this person. I I've done business with that company. I live next to them. Whatever your reason is, you explain. That's all there is to it. So there's not an appearance of an impropriety is what that council member has in their head as to why they don't want to vote for it. But anyhow, we have a motion on the floor right now. Uh do we have do we have a second? Do we ever have a second? I think you did second. Yeah, we have a second.

And we got a second. Is there any other discussion the motion hearing? None. Council members, prepare to vote. Will you give me what I'm voting on?

So, Mr. Director will have to correct me if I get this wrong, but my understanding is that the draft that I provided to city council along with the ordinance and resolution that I mentioned um will be presented to city council for consideration on under new business on January 21st. Um, it will include the addition of the motion to reconsider and the provision in the voting section of that rules of procedure that all members must vote yes or no unless they have a a disqualification on the conflicts of interest act or disclose appearance of impropriy and then they may abstain.

So is that the same as what um Chesapeake has? I heard somebody say use the same language. Yeah. So, the motion to reconsider will have the same language that Ches uses for their motion to reconsider, which is notice um the Friday after the meeting of an item to be reconsidered and it has to be made by three council members, one of which is on the prevailing side, given to the city clerk by that Friday, and then provided to all city council members. Okay. But it does not say uh anything. I didn't hear anything about the voting. So, Chesapeake doesn't have a rule that you can't abstain. They just have a rule that you can't vote present.

So, we use the same one. Okay. I that's just want to make sure I'm clear. So, to be clear, the Chesapeake the only Chesapeake language I'm using is the Chesapeake language motion to reconsider. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have any further discussion of the motion hearing? None. Council members, prepare to vote. Please cast your vote. Madame clerk, please record the vote.

Motion is approved by vote of 8 to zero. Okay, that concludes our work session.

Mayor, if I may, just for for Yes, sir. Council members, so you so that you know what you will be getting from me. Um, as I mentioned, I'll send you the ordinance and resolution. I will take the document that you have in front of you now and I will underline. You know, normally the entire this entire document would be an underline because it's a brand new thing, but that's going to be confusing for everyone because you're not going to know what's new. What I will do is the rules of procedure document will have underlined the new language that is different from what is currently in the city code so that you can clearly see what has either be been rewarded by me or what we have discussed here tonight or at the retreat. Um, and so I think that that's probably the best way to move forward without confusing anyone.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, that concludes our work session, we do have a motion for closed meeting. Madam clerk, will you please present the motion for consideration?

Pursuant to Virginia Code section 2.2-3711A1, 2-3711A1 the discussion consideration or interviews of prospective candidates for appointment and the assignment appointments and performance of specific public officers or appointees of the city specifically the appointments as shown in the attached list for vacancies or term expirations for the early childhood development commission the economic development authority human services advisory board the local board of building code appeals the parks and recreation advisory commission the the planning council the tidewater youth services commission, the wetlands board, and the appointment of the city manager. Council, a motion has been presented for your consideration. Council member Butler Barlo. Move to approve.

A motion for approval from council member Butler Barllo. Council member Williams. Second that. Second from Council Member Williams. Do we have any discussion of the motion? Council member Wright. Second. No. No discussion. Okay. Um, hearing no other discussion, council members, prepare to vote. Please cast your vote. Madame clerk, please record the vote.

Motion is approved by vote of 8 to zero. This meeting stands adjourned and we will reconvene at 6 p.m.