Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, we will call the meeting to order. This is the Charter Review Committee. Start time at 5.31. We'll move on. All committee members are present and accounted for, so we'll move on to the approval of minutes. The July 30th minutes are in your packet. If you have any comments or corrections, otherwise I will entertain a motion for approval.

I'll motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Motion carries. We will move on to kind of just reviewing the section 3-2, the term of office, just kind of rounding out what we talked about last time and making sure that we're satisfied with how that settled. Katie?

So at the last meeting, the committee requested that we look at how we might be able to clean up the first three paragraphs which create the staggered terms because there were a lot of old dates and such in there. So again, we do need to have some reference to dates just because of the staggered terms, but I do think that the revised or proposed language simplifies it significantly and still accomplishes the same need of when the four year started so that the math can be done indefinitely. So thoughts, questions on that part before.

I think the language is very clear and as condensed and concise as it probably can be.

I'd agree.

I agree also. I'd like to see some dates removed, but I don't see how that's possible. Those have to be in there as a starting and reference point.

Okay. With that, any additional comments or revisions on 3.2 then?

I have a couple questions. In the paragraph... that begins, should a vacancy in the council occur? When we use the term council, that would be the six council members and the mayor, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. The latter part of that sentence states a November general municipal elections. Should that S be dropped? Should it simply read between a November

general municipal election and the time of taking office um it actually i do believe it's hard because of the s but i do think there's a line through it showing that it's a deletion oh yeah i trust me as you were reading i was looking at that going wait a minute did i really put an s in there so yeah i think that is a deletion but i will triple check it on

And then we end the next sentence, or the next sentence includes the verbiage of being elected mayor by the electorate. Is by the electorate necessary? Because an action of council would be an appointment. Is that correct? As opposed to an election?

I think they actually do take a vote, which could be considered an election in layman's terms or So I think having by the electorate makes it very clear who is responsible for that.

Okay. And in the next paragraph, we start off with any council seat that becomes vacant. If we say council seat, that would also include the six council members and the mayor.

Except it then goes on to say, except as a result of a regular scheduled election of the mayor. So you're taking that the mayor seat out. So it's limited technically to the six.

If it's limited just to the six, should we say any council member instead of any council seat?

It's a seat, not a member. A member fills the seat.

Got it. Okay.

All right, we'll move on if there's no more comments to section 3-2 we'll move on to the new parts and And yeah, Katie can present this.

So you saw when you looked through the materials, a lot of these sections are for feedback tonight and an idea of scope and then proposed language will come next week. So the first one is about the removal of a council member. It is very vague in the current charter. It's simply if a member is convicted of a felony or fails to fulfill the requirements, action shall be initiated by motion of the council and immediately declared vacant upon special resolution, which requires five votes, so a super majority. The questions that led to this being put on, or the two biggest ones were, one, are the requirements of this council member clear? that could be triggered when it says fails to fulfill requirements set forth in this charter? And then is the process for removal adequate? In other words, is it clear how that process would really take place? So with that, I went to surrounding charter cities just to get a feel for what other cities have adopted. I'm gonna preface this with it is very clear that Tip City's charter Vandalia's charter are at the two ends of the spectrum on level of detail. Vandalia's is very short, you might say, on sections. Vague, yeah. Tip City's is very detailed throughout its entire charter. So keep that in mind as you're looking at this as well. You'll see when you look at the other sections, Union, Springboro, and Clayton, they're kind of in between the two extremes. Sometimes they're more detailed, sometimes they're more general. So I guess my first question or my first look for feedback is about the requirements of a council member and what that may be that they're failing to fulfill to have this even be triggered. I think somewhere, and I apologize, I meant to look this up, but I forgot. I think somewhere there's an attendance mention in the charter, so that would probably be one, but there's no other real set of standards beyond the qualification that you have to live in Vandalia type of thing.

So should we separate out if you are failed to fill requirements and convicted of felony? I don't even think if you're convicted of a felony, it should have to go through vote. It should just happen automatically, but that may not be legally possible.

It would still have to be a vote because they're an elected person.

But I think the details behind, as you're alluding to behind fulfilling the requirements are so much more detailed than, I think one sentence is the felony part, let's just take care of that, and then go into detail.

So the structure would be, if we were going to put requirements in, we would identify those requirements as an A or something, or section whatever, point one. And then next would be the process for removal, how that gets triggered, and what the process is. Kind of like... TIPS has the B and the C. It lays out what can trigger it. And even unions does the same as well. It kind of lays out the standard and then what happens if it's triggered. I would also point out that Springboro uses the term a crime involving moral turpitude or malfeance because there are misdemeanors that theoretically could fall under one of those as opposed to it just being a felony because there are also felonies that are felonies that people might not view as being justifiable to remove from counsel. Technical ones.

And would Us using terms like moral turpitude and malfeasance be defined in the law enough or would we need to define that then?

Those are pretty standard terms in employment law. Okay. So I would think they would pretty much carry over. If someone's going to fight their removal from council, they're going to fight their removal from council under those provisions regardless if they're defined or not. Okay.

How about misdemeanor offenses of violence?

As a term?

As one of the conditions.

Okay.

I think the crimes have changed a lot in the last 10 years. And the definitions, what the restrictions are, what the elements are. So I like the idea of having, if you're convicted of a felony, that's it. I'm happy with that. I think adding in the misdemeanor classification of the moral turpitude or malfeasance is absolutely a good idea. It leaves it open enough, but not so specific, because as crimes of violence is determined, or felony defense or misdemeanor offense of violence is very clearly defined by the ORC. I think it gives enough room for counsel to do what they need to do, if we include that separate misdemeanor, as Springboro and the union have both done, without going too far into a further definition of it.

Yeah, because you're talking the rest of councils on shaky grounds if they don't take care of something that involves a minor and isn't a felony.

I like tips number three because I feel like it keeps it broad enough but adds more than just the felony aspect, kind of what we're all getting at. More than just a crime aspect to it.

The loss of public confidence, you mean?

Yes. I also feel like, I like how TIP lays out three and four of the attendance, because then, to your point, Katie, one and two of TIP, it's kind of duplicate, but if the only other portion of the charter is at the attendance piece, what really are we saying here? So, yeah, it's like it needs cleaned up with more words, but... More clarity, yeah. Yeah, more clarity and more worth. That's my comment.

That's what a lawyer loves to hear.

So does council, have they ever had issue with somebody showing up and just never being prepared? Do we need to include that too? Because if they're just showing up to take a vote and not doing anything.

That would be very hard to classify. Because your definition of prepared and someone else's definition of prepared for that meeting may be grossly different, but yet they're still prepared in their mind. So I wouldn't put that in necessarily. Okay. Okay, so for requirements, What I'm hearing is the qualifications, the violating prohibitions under the charter, using tips, personal gross conduct or conviction of a felony, and then fails to attend, it's currently three meetings. I don't see any reason to necessarily change that number. In addition to just the, well, qualifications is the number one tip. So really kind of starting with tips and Springboro's way they're laying out the requirements. Okay.

Yeah, I feel like one and two can kind of be put together. Yeah. Okay.

How would you define, Katie, legally personal gross misconduct?

May I get back to you on that? Because I had not thought about it.

Because I think that's going to be an ultimate problem when it comes down to it.

It's definitely one where there would be a lot of discussion, I would hope, among council whether it would go to that level. But I could also see it being something they never pay their taxes on time. They're always in the real estate roles of being delinquent in their real estate taxes. Year one, maybe not. Year six or four, three, I could see where that may start the conversation. Whether or not that would be sufficient, I don't know. But that's kind of what comes to my mind when You're talking about something like that.

At what point do we let counsel step in versus letting the voters then handle it in the next general election?

That would be up to counsel, theoretically.

So I don't want to take away that opportunity for the voters to make that decision.

Yeah, so all of this, theoretically, is counsel deciding to take action, not being obligated to, being allowed to.

So are you better off with language like the malfeasance or better off with language like loss of public confidence?

Either way, you're going to have that debate.

Then how we frame the first part of this, shall forfeit, shall be removed, or may be removed. Now we allow the opportunity for a permissive. You've been convicted of a felony, but you may be removed.

No, so shall forfeit their seat if five people vote to have it happen.

Yes.

So it's that's a requirement if the five under tips the five votes. So but again there still has to be just like impeachment. Someone still has to make that first motion for that vote to even occur. So going back to the recall aspect it very well may be that the citizens file for the recall before council decides to take action. It very well could be it's at the end of a term and council just says, we're three months away, we'll get through it kind of thing. Which actually leads very nicely into what I feel is missing from the second part of it, which is, is the process clear for the removal? You'll see that some of them require a hearing, some of them state that the accused may request a hearing in front of council or with their council members, fellow council members, whereas currently Vandalia just says there's a vote of five people and done. So I think part of your question, Eric, is that I'm going to call it due process aspect of it, which is if you've been accused of this, of something that would moral turpitude or gross misconduct, do you have the right to a hearing? Do you have a right to defend yourself, or is it just you've been accused, votes taken?

I think with that, if I could part that out into pieces, the accusation should never be enough. It's the conviction that's required. Right.

Well, the vote's the conviction. Yeah.

Well, if you're convicted of offense. You have you've had your you're thinking the crime part.

Yeah, you're thinking the crime part. Yeah.

Yeah, so I'm okay not having a hearing but if they want to request a hearing I'm not thinking of the felony or the crime part.

I'm thinking of the other Malfeasance part. Yes obviously if you've got the felony and that's a requirement one of the council members can make the motion and It's on the record and done

How does it go from council to being a recall vote from an election standpoint?

So it's not from council to that. It's two different avenues. So at any point, and recall is an upcoming week, I believe. I think it's on the agenda. If you get enough signatures, you can attempt to recall a council member at any time.

So that usually happens if council doesn't take action quick enough and somebody's angry.

Just from experience, which it wasn't council, it was school board, it takes a while to get people worked up enough to get the signatures that you need to pursue a recall vote, typically. Okay.

I feel like it's okay to leave it with just the council vote because I think if you get a super majority of five, there's probably a reason for that, right?

So you would not, you are not, I'm just, I'm not questioning. I'm just parsing. Um, you would not be in favor of adding a requirement that the accused could request a hearing with council.

No. OK. Or I agree with your statement, yes.

Yes. You do not see the need for the accused to have a hearing? Yes. OK.

I had made a note that there needs to be some element of due process, whether it's described in detail or we just make some statement that the council member in question has a right to some form of due process. And the three things that I noted I think they need to be advised of the specifics, the specific allegation, so that there's no question as to what this is all about. And it becomes something tangible and not something, well, we don't like you or you're not fitting in. I think there needs to be some right to rebuttal. And I have a question about the last one, but should they have a right to appeal? or is a unanimous vote of the council sufficient? Is that the?

So first, before I answer that, I'm going to say that you kind of like unions B, where they're provided written notice by certified mail and they have 30 days to respond.

Yes, and I also made a note somewhere here but I think there should be some timeframe so that it doesn't get pushed through too quickly, but it also does not linger.

Okay. So generally speaking, are you specifically also, Kristen, um, are you comfortable with B where it does give written notice and an opportunity for them to, it's just not a formal, we have to have a hearing.

Yeah, I think, I mean, in my personal opinion, I think that's fine to give them kind of a warning, I guess. But I think contrast to the recall, the voters don't really have to have a reason other than just we don't like you. So again, I'm not saying that's a valid reason to remove someone from council, but I think it should be similar process for both the recall and the council. So I think getting too involved in the, I'll say, due process may not be necessary, I guess, is where I'm coming from.

And before every vote, council does have the, I mean, just by procedures and rules, they do have the discussion section. They do have that opportunity. So there is, unless the council member isn't here, if you give them notice of why we're intending to remove you or intending to take this course of action, it will require a vote. Before a vote can happen, any council member can easily move for that discussion and for that issue, especially the accused council member or the intended council member can as well. Okay. They've got notice. They've got notice. They've got hearing, but it's abbreviated.

Yeah, I think that's good to have the notice.

And they can always, I think we're going to get to this, but they can always file a lawsuit. Yeah. To stop it.

Yeah.

Can you pull your mic just slightly closer?

Oh, sorry.

Just make sure we get the recording.

Nobody's ever said they can't hear me. That's cool.

Okay, so Mr. Dersham, Eric's correct. If they don't like the decision, it can be theoretically a lawsuit filed against council or the city. How that, I'll be honest, I don't know off the top of my head how that would look, what the appeal would be, or what the claim would be, but anybody can sue for any reason on any given day in this modern world that we live in. So with that, what I'm hearing, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're gonna lay out some notice. We're gonna lay out a notice provision and you know, essentially that they have 30 days to respond, which prevents that very quick movement. But we're not going to go further than that. And then the council can decide, as Eric said, they'll have their debate, they'll have their discussion at the vote. Okay. Anything else on 3.8? So again, next week you'll have the proposed language to parse through, or not next week, in two weeks to review.

So we're going with the tip city and the union kind of combined?

Yes. Yeah. Okay, next up, moving to legislation and definitions. It was raised to be reviewed in the charter review because council does act by motion. However, there is no actual recognition of a motion in the charter. When it's acting by motion, it's the appointments, it's things like that, the approval of the minutes. And just for completeness. We do think it should be recognized as an action by counsel in looking at the various Definitions again. This is why I pointed out how detailed tip gets That would not fit in with the rest of the Charter doesn't mean that you shouldn't we shouldn't have those at places But I do think Huber and Union as a general aspect fits fairly well with what Vandalia has for its overall charter and covers the issues fairly well. If I would say one aspect, I might like Huber's a little better than unions simply because it's clearer what can be a motion versus legislation.

Yeah, I like Huber Heights. Gives a little more detail. Little more definition, I guess I should say.

I'm OK with Huber and how they've approached that.

Do we have a general consensus on that one? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Any other comments on section 4-1? OK. OK.

Now into the fun of ordinances. So background, just a little bit. Ordinances require two readings. Public comment must be allowed before adoption at the second reading. If it's an emergency, oh, let me back up. It only takes effect after 30 days once passed. In an emergency situation, it's effective either immediately or whatever dates in the ordinance, and it only requires the one meeting or the one reading. Here, for the most part, at some point in the last 12 years, there was a question whether the ordinance, if it wasn't Passed at the first reading whether it automatically got a second reading even though it hadn't been passed I personally Don't read it that way I suppose you could read that into it since it says every ordinance should have two readings But the whole point of the first one is that it passes and moves to the second one so the first issue really the first change in the proposed revisions is just to make it very clear that if it's approved then it goes to a second reading and shall be on the agenda at the next council meeting for the reading after it's approved is probably was fine but with the if it doesn't presume it's going to be approved i guess um type of thing so it's just if it's approved it goes to the second reading and on the next council agenda um before we go to anything after that are we comfortable with that with that revision to kind of try and clarify that a little bit okay I saw a lot of nodding, so I just, okay. The next part is about publication. So right now, publication can either be in a newspaper of general circulation, which pretty much everybody uses or has used the Dayton Daily News. Some of the smaller publications, theoretically, the Gazette might qualify now since it does come to Vandalia. Might be questionable still, circulation's high enough. But the alternative is to go on the website and be posted at the city building and to other public buildings. It was requested for you all to consider whether or not posting on the website and at the city building would be sufficient, as opposed to being posted in two other places.

I think what your suggestion here is to place on the agenda, lets everybody know it's gonna be on there. The website knows it's gonna be on there. Frankly, I was looking and wondering, should we even bother saying published in a newspaper with general circulation anymore, given not only the cost of it, but the lack of its actual general circulation in today's day and age?

I would say because we have senior citizens who, I mean, from my work at the electric company, we talked about not having bills, and it raised cane. So you probably got a few more years before you can kill the newspaper from that sort of thing just because we have enough senior citizens in this community, and that's where they go. They don't leave the house and come to the city building. They don't go on the Internet. My mother-in-law doesn't have Internet in her house. Fair.

Currently, we do not publish this in the newspaper because it says or on the public. Interesting. Yes. Currently, we do not publish the council meeting notice or the agendas. It's all online or posted here at the city building because of the or.

What's the other two facilities that we post at?

So the agendas are not posted at two separate, it's the legislative summaries that are posted at the two other facilities. The two other facilities, this building here, and then we have the Senior Center, and then we have the Vandalia Rec Center. So if you look at the bulletin boards at the Senior Center, and you look at the bulletin boards in the hallway at the Vandalia Rec Center, there is a big block print that says summary of legislation, and that's where they're posted. Those are posted every Friday, after our council meeting. And you have actually, we have 10 days, 10 business days to post those.

Knowing now where they're posted, I would be, and I'm not the one who brought this up. I was fine with the two other public buildings. I would be potentially hesitant or give some really hard thought to taking that off of the requirement simply for what holly stated you're getting out actually into buildings that people are at that they do stop and look at the bulletin boards on whether they intake the information or not you're actually probably getting more people looking at it there than even on the website type of thing so i would probably not remove recommend removing that requirement based on where they're being posted currently.

I think to clarify, my discussion was only about the published and the newspaper portion. Oh, okay. That was it. Okay. Leave the website, municipal building, two public buildings, absolutely, and place, absolutely leave those.

It was that newspaper. The newspaper, gotcha. Misunderstood that. Is everyone in agreement of taking that off out of the charter at this point since it's, Not practically done. Doesn't prevent the city posting something in the paper. It would just have to be in addition to the others if they felt it was big enough or important enough to make sure more people saw it. Thoughts?

I'm okay with that. I read the newspaper, but it's printed in Tennessee so everything's two days late anyways.

Do we need to define the other two buildings?

I would not because of flexibility, and you never know. Suddenly you're having to amend the charter if the rec center's no longer the rec center.

Okay.

To that end, as a middle ground, since we're taking part up, would it be possible or advisable to add in two other public buildings of the highest frequency or? Never mind, we don't keep track, strike that.

Yeah, I think.

That was a thought under too much construction to continue.

No, yeah, no, no, no, you're good. Because I saw where you're going. I would probably leave it generic again just for that flexibility as the future changes.

Do we post on the city's webpage where we post these, or which two buildings we post this information?

On the bottom where my signature is at, it says that where it's actually posted and the date it was posted and it specifically says those two buildings. If you go to the website over to the right under council, it's under legislative summaries and they're all there.

So you could tell your mother or your neighbor where it is because it's right in front of you.

Okay.

Okay. So generally speaking, um, Do we want to take newspaper out then?

OK. Is there anything at the state level that requires us to post anything in the newspaper where we need to leave that in there as an or statement?

I will look. You know, probate court. requires in certain circumstances posting in a newspaper, but that's in actual statutes about those particular circumstances. I'm not aware of anything off the top of my head that said that's how publication has to be done. But I will definitely double check that. Okay, we're gonna jump past second reading for a second and just go to publication. And that's where we'll also make the same adjustment to that as well, to be consistent. Okay, going back to second reading, the issue here, and I realize my question left out a key word, If an ordinance is substantively amended, so not a technical amendment, not a typo amendment, but substantively, that word, part of the key part of the ordinance was changed, should it be able to be adopted that night? My recommendation is that if it's substantively amended, substantial enough thank you that it is changing the ordinance and changing the summary i don't believe it should be able to be passed in the same meeting because the whole point of the ordinance was to give people the opportunity to know what is happening and then be able to provide their comments

Does that happen often, where it gets substantially changed in the second reading?

It can happen. I wouldn't say it happened frequently at all.

Yeah.

Little things are caught, but not significant.

You don't want to override the process. That's the way it's set up. And you start changing things at the second reading.

I don't think we've had any adjusted since I've been on council, so that would have been pre-Jerry. So with that, I think the consensus is leave this section alone.

Well, should it be, just as I'm reading this, if we made substantial changes to it, should that second reading with the substantial changes really be treated like the first reading and it come back all the way around and not just posted. So there's a full reading the second time then.

So, so what happens is first reading gets adopted, moves to the second reading. Suddenly we have a substantial amendment. That's if it passes there with the substantial amendment, it's then posted again. And so essentially at the next meeting is when it's the vote is taken for the adoption. Yeah.

Okay. Yes, I agree.

Depending upon the ordinance and the reason that last sentence is written that way is it may not wait until the next council meeting. It may be a special meeting that's called, but they have to wait at least three days to have that meeting or after the publication.

Why is it three days out of curiosity from the posting?

That's what's there. My guess is it gets posted an opportunity for people to see it, read it 72 hours while still not being a full two weeks later. I would not go any shorter.

No, I actually was thinking it should be longer than that because people aren't paying attention. But they aren't looking at the website every day. They're not.

Counter to that is you're probably already interested, and so you're paying attention to what's going on. And so you're waiting for it to be published. Unless suddenly someone points out to you something that's going on, you're suddenly not Interested just because there was a second reading would be the kind of counter to okay Is now a good time to discuss the difference between less and fewer sure I Think you're right with a substantial or substantive amendment it needs to restart Okay That one was easy enough We're going through these much faster, which is why I'm glad at the next one, you're gonna have like two packets in case we get through really fast. Emergency measure, there wasn't necessarily, it was asked for you all to review it. There isn't necessarily any specific item that I was told Um, was the reason for having you review it. Um, so I just more curious if there's anything anybody sees or concerns them. Um,

I will say it'd be nice to know why so many things are an emergency. I had people when I was going to meetings ask me that all the time. Like why is everything an emergency? Are they even having a discussion about it or someone just shoving stuff through? So when, whenever money gets tight, people start complaining about that wise counsel thrown everything through as an emergency. and not taking the time to think about it. So I would say maybe we should consider is there some definition or some delimiter on there that keeps council from running so much through, especially when it often has a price tag to it.

I would say no, there really isn't, because the second you start defining, or trying to define it, you can't foresee every circumstance. and then suddenly there's a public safety issue and you're suddenly not able to act by emergency.

I'll give you an example. The one that does commonly come up once a quarter are the assessments, which is people that are behind in their water bills, utility bills, maybe condemned property that's getting forced mowing. And to go through all the different hearings, the first reading and second reading, delays us being able to collect those back expenses. So that one is one every quarter is on as an emergency ordinance.

And isn't the emergency ordinance kind of intended to keep the city running? Like we need a new vehicle and we need it now. So taking 90 days or 60 days to review that, I mean some of that stuff I think, or a bid or something like that, some of that is just to kind of keep things moving along, right? Is that the intention?

Typically the only thing that is used, which I would classify a little more often, is the supplementals where there's a request for maybe additional funding or the transfer of funds to cover an expense that is needed immediately. For instance, if a piece of pertinent equipment in public works breaks down and the expense to repair that is pretty significant, rather than going through multiple meetings to get approval and that equipment is not in use, we'll often do an emergency supplemental to get the funds immediately at the next meeting versus going through several hearings. So the emergency supplemental is, I would say, probably the ones that's used I wouldn't use frequently, but it's used two to three times a year, I would think.

Okay. From what I've seen, Vandalia actually uses emergency ordinances less than a lot of communities. But they do tend to be about money. Okay, so we will put that one to bed. So that's all we have prepared for tonight. As I mentioned when I was talking to Kristen earlier, next week we will be covering the referendum. Two weeks, yes. Next time we meet, we will be covering the referendum. There is draft replacement it is a full replacement of what's in the Charter currently and my goal is to circulate that to you all on Monday of next week just so you have plenty of time to really work your way through both the original and the proposal and then ideally on Thursday I will send around essentially what would be the packet for actually the following meeting but if we move through referendum faster than I anticipate we can get started on those other provisions so that we have time at the end to go back through any or ones at the, before the public hearing you have time to go back over some if we need to. And then of course also at the beginning of the meeting we will be reviewing the proposed text from what we talked about tonight, so. I think that's all then, unless.

We have one other thing about the October date.

Oh, yes, yes. So two of you are unavailable for the meeting on October 7th, which is the public hearing. We think it's important for all of you to be here if possible. I don't remember the dates. Angie, do you have those?

We have either October 6th, October 13th,

October 15th so if everyone want to kind of check to see the sixth I would still be out of town so I'd be unavailable the other options were 13th and 15th that is correct 13th or 15th okay

Tuesdays usually present a particular difficult for me.

October 13th, there is a scheduled planning commission meeting at 6 p.m. So if there is something on the agenda for that, then I would have a conflict.

Well, we'd have a conflict for the room, too. Yeah. Yeah.

October 15th?

So it's October 15th for everybody?

Works for me.

Yes. I will do it.

I will verify to make sure that there's, I don't believe there's anything that evening in this room, but I will verify and then we will send out an invite for that date if it's all clear for October 15th. And that's the public hearing night.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Good conversation. Okay. We will entertain a motion for adjournment.

I'll make a motion.

I'll have a second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? We are adjourned at 6.23.