you you you I'm going to have to go back to the next one. I'm going to have to go back to the next one. I'm going to have to go back to the next one. I'm going to have to go back to the next one. you I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to do today's. I'm sorry. But it brings up what I was saying is that I'm not even pouring out. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. I did. 25. I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to say, I'm going to lay down here. There you go. I'm going to go to the next slide. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. This one. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm doing. Mike on can you hear me? Good evening Santa Monica and welcome to the November 9th 2021 meeting of the Santa Monica City Council. Council member, Dela Tori, would you like to lead us in the pledge? and thank you. Now let's call the roll. Councilmember Davis. Here. Councilmember Greg Day. Here. Councilmember Brock. Here. Councilmember Dela Torrey. Here. Mayor Pro Temma-yengritte. Here. Councilmember Brock. Here. Councilmember Dela Tori. Here. Mayor Pro Temma-Calen. Here. And Mayor Hemmerich. Here. And now, let's call our closed session. Okay. Before we do that, I want to announce that the public line, public comment lines are open. They have been open since 515 and if you want to call the phone numbers 310 312 8173 the numbers 310 312 8173 Okay, so we have several closed session items. The first one is unfair practice charge administrative team association versus the city of Santa Monica. It's a public employment relations board. Then we have a nougat that's unfair practice charge again administrative team association associates versus the Santa Monica public employee relations board. Then we have Oscar Dela Torrey, Ellis Cerna versus the City of Santa Monica. And then we have Brian Conti. I apologize if I'm messing this up. Kironte versus the City of Santa Monica. Anthony Etchavaria versus the City of Santa Monica. And then we also have another unfair practice charge, municipal employees association versus city of Santa Monica, public employee employment relations board, and then we have river lung versus a city of Santa Monica. Then we have conference with labor negotiator, and the agency designated representative is the chief people officer, Laurie Gentles and Laura Kotley. Outside Council is Liberty Cassidy Whitmore. The bargaining unions are the ATA, the IBT, California Teamster, local 9-11. FEMA Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association, Fire Santa Monica Firefighters local 11-09 IF, M-E-A, MTA, AFSME, local 48-19, Management Team Association, the Public Attorney's Legal Support Staff Union, Public Attorneys Union, P.O.A., Santa Monica Police Office Association, Smart TD, the International Association of Sheet, Metal, Air Rail, and Transportation Division, Local 1785, the Supervisor-Reteam Association, and the Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees. Then we have another unfair practice charge, Santa Monica Police Officers Association versus the City of Santa Monica, Public Employment Relations Board, and then finally we have another existing litigation, and this is, I do apologize. NMS 1539 LLC versus the City of Santa Monica. And we have no callers. So if anybody wanted to call in on our closed session agenda, the number is 310-312-8173. We have no callers at the moment and on that note. Let me turn to City attorney Lawrence and ask him when he thinks we will return from our closed session. Certainly it will take at least until 6.30 it easily could take until 7. So should we say 7 o'clock? And yes, and I had an excellent idea from a member of the public, which is that in the future when we come out of closed session, we should send a notice out to people right to our list that we send notices of the agenda to and say we're out of closed session. Is that doable? I don't know. I know it is. The person that we send the agenda to. You know when you send us to know, you know when you send to everybody the notice saying for instance at all comments have been posted to the agenda to? You know, when you send us the note, you know, when you send to everybody the notice saying, for instance, that all comments have been posted to the agenda and that goes to everybody who gets notice of the agenda. Yes. Well, that's what I'm talking about. You just say council is back from closed session. Esther, did you hear that? Esther? Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Where is a difficult. So, no, that'll be fine. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, then we are adjourned to close session. Thank you very much. She says, I would ever move on. I have a vision in my mind. you You You you You you you you you you you You I'm going to use the same method as the other one. you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you you you you you you you you you You you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the That's worth seeing, right? I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little That's how we're used. Okay. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the I don't think you're as barred as seeing the touch on this. you I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to tell you guys, I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. I'm going to have to go back to the other side of the room. This is a pass by King Sheldon's death. Yes. Can I just come up? Welcome host, you are now in the host room and can men. All in studio web. Okay, so everyone's shall. Are we ready to roll down? Good. Okay. Then welcome back. I'm going to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the council to ask the Lawrence and ask him if he has any report out. Yes. In its closed session, the City Council discussed each of the items on the agenda. That's items from 1A through 1J. There's no reportable action on any item with the exception of one I, which is existing litigation. In particular, the unfair labor practice charge filed by the Santa Monica Police Office's Association versus the City of Santa Monica before the Public Relations, public employment relations board case number LA dash CE dash 1535 M. And in that matter, this, there is a proposed settlement to recap on July 23rd, 2021, the SMPOA, that is the Santa Monica Police Office's Association file that unfair labor practice charge with the California Public Employees Relations Board, better known as PURB, P-E-R-B. The charge alleges that the city had an obligation under the state's Myers-Millius Brown Act to meet and confer with the SMPOA prior to the City Council enacting chapter 2.5 over the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which established the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and that the city failed to comply with the obligation to meet and confer. The SMPOA and the city have reached an agreement subject to approval by the City Council to settle this perv charge. Both sides agree that the city council will consider at a future city council meeting proposed amendments to chapter 2.50. If the proposed changes are adopted, the purge complaint filed by the SMPOA will be dismissed with prejudice. The proposed changes to the ordinance are intended to mainly clarify the ordinance and in doing so, they will remove the SMPOA's concerned that were raised in its purb chart. The key, it allows for the adding of one ex officio member to the commission. This ex officio member will be non-voting. That person will be selected by the SMPOA and the police chief, if those two cannot agree, then there is no ex officio member appointed to the commission. The person who would be selected has to satisfy all the other requirements of a commissioner, not be a city employee, not be a member of the police department. The another change to section 2.502.020F deals with training, anybody who is going forward, anybody who would be appointed to the commission has to complete the required training within six months of appointment. Current members of the commission have until May 31 of 2022 to complete their training. another section that is subject to the proposed settlement is section 2.50.030A2 and clarifies that the inspector general may gather information regarding ongoing disciplinary investigations but will not participate in those investigations. Section 2.50.030A4 clarifies that the Inspector General may not disclose to the commission or to any third parties, SMPD, disciplinary or personnel records, except as permitted by state of federal law. The next section 0.040B clarifies that the commission will not participate in individual disciplinary investigations. However, the commission may refer individuals to the SMPD so that the individual can make a complaint. The section 2.50.040D, the Commission can make recommendations to the City Council regarding state and federal law. Another Section 2.5050A clarifies it to the City's annual budget. Subject to the City Council approval. We'll contain funds for the Inspector General to be able to perform its duties. The last two sections, 2.507O, the City Manager Police Chief and SMPOA are to be given 72 hour of written notice of any written reports that may be, that the commission may be considering sending to the City Council. And finally, and I know this has been long section 2.50.0808 OB. The commission's initial recommendation report shall be provided to the City Manager Police Chief SMPOA $5,000 and again if the proposed changes that I just highlighted are approved that a future city council meeting the SMPOA will dismiss its perbed charge with prejudice. So with that said I asked that the city council approve this settlement. Move settlement. Second. Move by Himalrich, seconded by Davis. May we have a roll call vote? Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. Councillor McAllen. by Davis. And we're on to our two items. We have our two item and let me announce for the public that the lines are open on items 2A and 2B. Again the phone number to call in is 310-312-8173. The first item is Proclamation desiccating November 14th through the 20th, 2021 as united against hate week in Santa Monica. And at this point we don't have any call. And councilmember Dillatory will be doing the Proclamation. Yes, typically do we read a couple of the warehouses and then go to the now therefore. You can do it however you want that's why you're reading it. Okay, do we read a couple of where-azs and then go to the now, therefore? You can do it however you want. That's why you're reading it. Okay. Great. Well, I have a proclamation here. And this is, you know, as you're not united against a hate week in Santa Monica. So I'll read as, whereas the United States is a nation of immigrants who strength comes from its diversity and whereas the Constitution enshrines equality on all individuals regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, or political views. And whereas the city of Santa Monica is dedicated to preventing and opposing hate and intolerance in our community, the city Council in 2017 adopted a resolution embracing diversity and clarifying the city's role in enforcing federal immigration law. And we seek, and whereas we seek to join other Los Angeles area, California, and communities across the country, United against hate week as an important step in bridging divisions and strengthening our communities. Now therefore, be it resolved that on behalf of members of the City Council, we do hear by take great pleasure in proclaiming the week of November 14 through the 20th, 2021 as United Against Hate Week in the City of Santa Monica. Thank you, Council Member Dillatory. And I think we all are against hate up here, yes. And now we have our city manager. We do have a caller for that item. Do I? Okay. Welcome, Pierre. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening, Mayor, Kilmerich and City Council. I'm Pierre Prasad to learn that I'm here representing the members of the newly forming coalition of Asian and Pacific employees of Santa Monica or Cape SM. Thank you for adopting a proclamation for United Against Tate Week at tonight's Council meeting. Cape SM was formed this year when Asian-American slash Pacific Islander or API staff across the organization collaborated to honor API Heritage Month. We have grown in membership and are committed to sharing our collective voice to advocate on behalf of the API issues, create strong and collaborative alliances with other marginalized communities, build better cultural understanding and celebrate our heritage that spans over 30 cultures within the AAPI community. In the wake of the alarming spike in violent hate crimes against Asian-American, the action of uniting against hate of any kind is the utmost relevance to us. Those Santa Monica is known to be a progressive city that embraces differences in body and mind. We have much work ahead to build true equity, be more inclusive, and eradicate the lasting impacts of systematic racism in our city. Many Asian-Americans face explicit and implicit bias regularly, both at work and in our neighborhoods. A recent LA County Commission on Human Relations Report reflected a 76% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in the past year. At a KAPE SM meeting closes this summer, 61% of Asian city staff attendees felt their career trajectory has been impacted by racial bias. We can and must do better. KAPE SM police supports the symbolism in asking people to stand up to hate for one week. Yet we hope that our community will join this council in sending up to hate every week and every day. We would teach council to continue to prioritize and invest in the IIT initiatives and services for our community as well as for our city staff. Together we can defeat hate in our city and create a more vibrant and inclusive Santa Monica now and for generations to come. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I apologize. And so are there any other speakers on either 2A or 2B? Not at the moment. Thank you. So take it away. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Just a few announcements about some pretty special celebrations in the community this week, kicking off on Thursday with Veterans Day celebration. This will be with the Los Angeles Army Recruitment Battalion and the California Army National Guard. And this will be at North Beach, Lott 1, 1550 Pacific Coast Highway. It'll be on the city's YouTube page. I also want to, of course, invite the community to the Annemburg Community Beach House on November 13th and 14th to experience two walking lambrans in the sand by artists Lars Hallett. And so you can come by and experience a temporary installations. And we're really looking forward to that community gathering. And then also I just wanted to quickly announce that we know we have the and we're really looking forward to that community gathering. And then also I just wanted to quickly announce that we know we have the second reading for SB 1383, and we're in the very beginning stages of doing our community outreach for that. But we do have some information on our city website that will go up if the ordinance is adopted, helping our community understand how they can start to comply with that ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. White. Now we are back to our consent calendar. We have a consent calendar. All items will be considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a council member for discussion and the lines are open. They've been opened by the way. The lines have been opened. So let me remind everybody just of the number which is 310-312-8173. And so if you want to call on consent on any matter on consent, please do so. I am pulling item G. Since it is, wait, is that right? Yeah, 3G, which is the addition of the nephatism provision, which is targeted at my husband. So I'll be stepping out for that addition of the nepotism provision which is targeted at my husband so So I'll be stepping out for that and And does any other council member have any other matters to pull council member Brock? I'm not sure if I want to pull the item but 3c I wonder if I could say two sentences about or do I need to pull it Uh, well you have to pull it. Pull it. Okay. Let's pull it. So, so does anyone move the other items? Okay. So remainder of the consent calendar, other than items 3c and 3g were moved by Brock seconded by McCallan so may we have a roll call vote please. Before we do that we do have a caller on the side. Okay thank you. Welcome Patricia Hoffman. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Thank you. Patricia Hoffman here, affordable housing advocate. I'm calling to the unceremonious dumping of Michael Solos from the Housing Commission. I do not oppose adopting a nepotism policy for all future appointments. I'm calling to do that. No sitting commissioner has ever been removed during the art terms without good cause. I would hate to see that practice start now. Specifically, Commissioner Soloth has been one of the most effective advocates for affordable housing in our city. He has been an exemplary member of the housing commission. He should not be the one person removed from the commission through no fault of his own. There is a long history of close relatives being appointed here and there is no urgency now. Michael is a true believer in the positive affordable housing. The commission has made great strides including the popular pod programs through his services. Implementing the policy now rather than allowing Michael to continue to serve out the remaining seven months of his term is not good governance. It's a travesty. It's an unprintable poke in the eye to someone who has been an outstanding, unpaid advocate for those in need in our community. Michael was not appointed by his wife, nor was he reappointed by his wife. He is not receiving any income or benefit by serving. Implementing a policy that affects only one person in the absence of an emergency is unjust by definition. I urge you to allow Michael so long to serve out the remainder of his term. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Husman. Are there any other callers? We have one more caller. Thank you. Welcome to Ms. Bart and you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening. Let me begin by saying how happy I am that the City of Staten Monica is finally saying that nepotism is no longer allowed on the City Council's boards and commissions. So we can only hope the City Clerk will do a job and weed them out of the application process for boards and commissions. But you know I have my doubts due to the City Clerk not being able to weed lobbyists Lauren Leorna, Camder from the Housing Commission application process. Unless, of course, Mail him a return husband on the her way half was coordinating with her to get the higher than usual arena numbers for the city. And what do you want that the city staff won't have a conflict of interest resolution until around the time Lorna Camber's term is almost over, even though she should be removed immediately because she's a lobbyist as executive slash managing director of Abundant Housing LA. Then on the subject of metropolitan water district board, they really do need to be turn limits for this position. I mean, don't you say you want as many residents to be able to serve as possible on boards and commissions. Well, permanently appointing duty-added to that position doesn't say that. And finally, the Housing Commission had this resolution on as item 3D for the October 21st, 2021 meeting. But due to the train wreck, those meetings have become with Renee Buchanan as the chair. She didn't get past item 3a. But nonetheless, I'm sure you'll approve this only further amplifying the dysfunction of the city of Santa Monica. Thank you. Are there any other calls? No more callers. Let's have a roll call vote on items on the consent calendar other than items 3c and 3g. Councillor Mabruna, Dela Tori. Yes. the council member抱 Yes, council member抱 Yes, council member抱 Yes, that passes 6 to 0 Everyone Push your buttons Okay, and now Council member Brock Brock item 3C Yeah, and I don't need a staff report on this There's a lot of money involved in this and a lot of kids You mean I didn't turn a microphone on that's unlike me. Okay, so The So the bids, this is a large amount. It appears that it was a very convoluted procedure. And while I received extensive feedback from city staff, thank you all city staff on this item. And I understand the process now. But I would mention it seems sloppy. And I'm not sure it's a city staff fault. It may just be the circumstances, but it seems that we can do better. The good thing is the last system lasts at 27 years. So I assume we'll be 25 years before we need a new system so we'll probably be fine and I will move to approve the item. Second let's have a roll call vote. I'm sorry. Councillor Member Davis. Yes. Councillor Member Nguyen-Grette. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McCallan. Yes. Councillor M. McC will be leaving the meeting. Okay, 3G is adoption of resolution amending the policies for city boards commissions, committees task force and regional advisory boards to include a nepotism policy and repeal resolution 11338. Do we have a motion? Who made the motion? Is there a second? We're ready for a roll call vote. Yeah. Oh, excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. I have discussion. There are discussions. I think there's going to be a lot of discussion on this item. Or at least I don't have some. Oh, okay. Be of free. I don't want to ask. No, that's almost so fast. I was sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I there are good provisions in this. There are concerns by residents and concerns by people I've heard throughout the city about some of the parts of this resolution. So I'm just going to go through each piece of the revolution and give you the part that I think needs to be amended or changed or something added to it. And I guess we can go back and then see if that becomes an amendment that's friendly or if a substitute is indicated. For the record. Yes. I just want to make sure it's clear that I had asked in advance if you had anything you wanted to say just so I would know to go on a consent item issue. I know it was pulled for the reasons it was pulled by the mayor because she had to recuse. I was talking about 3c Okay, okay, which I said I would have Okay, it's not a big deal. We're going through it Okay on section 1b I've been asked if the applications can remain online after the person is appointed So that people once they're appointed, you can still see their application. You can still, once someone's appointed to a commission, someone can still look and go, oh, this is why they were appointed. In G. Can, yes. Okay, people will respond at the end of all this questions or did we want to respond to each one? Because, okay. Okay. People will respond at the end of all this questions or did we want to respond to each one? Because okay. Okay. Okay. In G, this is the part about an eligible status and the legal status that's involved. And the question is, why is this the only clause that's effective tonight? Why not effective at the end of their current service? And how are we defining legal status? So legal status becomes very narrowly defined here when maybe it should be more widely defined. Or not defined as narrowly at all. So there are two questions there. Why is this the only clause that's effective immediately? Why not at the end of their current service so they would not be able to be reappointed? You said, should you? The Board of Commission, this is G. I don't see any. Which person? Effective upon adoption of this resolution, the person is ineligible to serve on all city boards, commissions, committees, and task forces that first is a close family relative of a current council member. The term relative means wife, husband, registered domestic partner, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, or sister. Okay, sorry, I thought you had referenced a legal term that I- No, I'm just going through this. In 2D, I have a question about clean beaches and ocean parcel committee and task forces where they may serve for an indefinite number of two-year terms. If we are in other cases having term limits, why suddenly are clean beaches and ocean parcel committee and task forces an indefinite number of terms? Shouldn't they also be capped? And so in other words, why is there a favorite nation status for those? On number four, what? No. Just the phrase. Okay. Well, I come from the film business. There's a point here where it says in number, well now I've lost my number, D4. Members must wait at least one year or two years to meet the goal of turning over, turning out commissions before they apply for another one. I think we decided on one year there are questions by residents about why it's not two years. I'm personally fine with one year but I wanted to make sure I mentioned that. Members of the County Vector district. And I have a great reminder of one of our college trustees, also serving on vector control and coming to the city boards and commissions dinner in a bumblebee suit, I believe, which was classic. But it says they shall serve an additional two year term in mace there of additional terms of two or four years each at the discretion of the City Council. My same point is before there should be a term limit for that. There needs to be a maximum amount of terms. The LA County Metropolitan Water District, indefinite number of four year terms, I don't want any of the commissions and I think that was our point in part of the review of commissions is to stop commissions from becoming someone's personal fiefdom. In case of the water board for instance, there needs to be term limits because otherwise we're not able to get a varied amount of residents involved in our city and involved in areas they might be interested in. In number nine, the question was the templates and the agenda minutes templates are going to be prescribed by the city clerk. I don't know if they were actually attached. So I'm not sure we're able to vote on that if we can't see the potential templates. On 10 F. I'd like to add a phrase after commission task board members. This is a summary of attendance that that should include all of our regional advisory board appointments as well. They shouldn't be left out. So in other words, they could become a commissioner or one of those board appointments and we may never know if they actually attend the meeting. So I think what I'm asking mostly is that everyone has the same rules that there aren't exceptions. And Section 11, the annual work plan, Section 11 assumes that all commissions have adequate city staff in order to comply with this regulation, but we've been in a situation where we haven't had the staff. So I am concerned that the city clerk or the city council may say you guys didn't do your homework the way you were supposed to and they say but we've had no staff assistance were civilians. We're in here once or twice a month, help. And we have to be able to provide them that help. So I'd like that on section 11. Sub-sort of phrase be inputted that allows either a time for this to take effect because it won't be able to take effect for instance this January. Or that there is a clause that says that the Commission support staff for each commission will help with that work plan. So those are my comments at all. I know that may be somewhat confusing and I can list them again separately. But I think the questions are one question that I brought up before, which is controversial, is whether we have one instance of this in the city. We have a housing commissioner who would be retired immediately. And the question on that is he has seven months left in his term. Has the caller Miss Hoffman said is that unfair? Because that's not normally what we would do. And then the other things are establishing term limits for our regional boards, things like that. And I'll yield the floor. Thank you, Councilmember Brock. I saw Councilmember Davis's hand first, and then I'll come back to Councilmember Dela Tori. Okay, well, I'll be happy to go through these things and express my opinion. I don't have a problem with leaving people's application after their appointments up, but I think it needs to be clear in a separate section because it does get confusing when we see a lot of applications. And if some of them are people who were already appointed, it might be confusing to people. The question of housing commissioner Soloff. And I do want to disagree with something, Mayor Himalrich said that her husband was the target of this. This was not in any way directed at her or her husband in my opinion anyway. It's just having an anti-nepotism policy is considered generally good governance. The thing is if you believe nepotism is bad, it's bad now. It's not bad in seven months. This is not meant to target any particular person if we had 14 commissioners who were close relatives of council members they should all leave. I think that if we're going to have a policy that it should be a policy that is effective immediately and if we aren't then we're basically saying we are condoning nepotism which I think is the exact opposite of what we're trying to do with this resolution. There were two committees that were singled out for no term limits. One is the tenant member and it's not the entire commission by the way, it's just the tenant member of the housing commission. It's my understanding that has been a very difficult slot to fill, which may explain why that's been exempted here, although maybe the clerk can say some light on that. I know for a fact that the Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Committee, and that's one committee, that's not two, is very hard to fill. We've had tremendous difficulty filling that. It's an oversight committee. It doesn't do a lot of substantive work, and quite honestly, people just aren't really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested in the community. I'm not really interested time of service. For example, Ms. Abdo has been on the MWD board for I don't know how long and she is just now ready to step into a leadership role. If we want to have any effective representation on these boards, which consists of tens of people, these are not small boards, being able to have representatives of Santa Monica serve in leadership positions is crucial to bring our issues before those boards. But the only way they will serve in leadership positions is if they serve for what seems like comparatively, you know, a lengthy amount of time. And that's why they are exempted so that they have the opportunity to move into leadership positions and do a more effective and better job of representing the city. The templates for the reports, I don't know why those would have that. I mean, that's micro-managing. It's not our job to decide what the template should look like. I think staff is perfectly able to develop templates. And then the work plans with city staff. And then the work plans with city staff. I mean, I don't have a problem with that, but I do want to disabuse people if they have the impression that somehow our city staff is leaving the commissions on their own and saying, hey, we're not going to help you. You go do your work and let us know how it goes. I mean, one of the issues we have now in these more austere times is that our city staff is spending dozens and dozens and dozens of hours with these commissions. They have not abandoned them and they're doing so at the cost of other work that other members of the community would like them to be doing. So while you know to the extent we want to say something that city staff should assist in the preparation of work plans we have to recognize one that will mean there are other things that city staff cannot do. If they're busy doing work plans and two I think they would do that in any event but if we put a very specific requirement on them then we need to be prepared to hear from our community that there are other things the staff members are probably not doing. So as the seconder of the motion for me, except for the fact that continuing to list the application after appointment, so long as that continues to be separate and clear that that person has in fact been appointed. None of these are friendly to me. So before Council member Dela Torre, I saw the city attorney's hand. Sorry, I want to go. Yes. Well, technically the entire resolution is before you to, in order to make the one change, the thing that actually is before you is the addition of the nepotism policy. If the council wants to revisit any other item that's included in this, you should give directions to staff and we'll come back at a later time, but right now, the nepotism policy is what's before you. So we're amending just one provision before you is an amendment to one provision. It doesn't open up everything in the resolution. So the brown, so this has been noticed just for the nepotism policy, not for how you deal with the vector control, how you deal with metropolitan waterboard or any other provision. But if you care to give direct after you decide, however you want to decide on this resolution, if you want to give direction to staff to come back on other things you're free to do that. Okay. Can I also note that this resolution that is that you guys have worked that is worked on right now other than the nepotism all of this was all of this resolution was what you guys previously voted on to come into effect in January. This was not relative for right now, but this is the new resolution that was supposed to go into January, which is a whole nother conversation after the board's and commission ad hoc comes back. So as Antrum City Attorney said, this is really just about the nepotism. That's the only thing that we were adding to this resolution and I would highly recommend that you either give us direction now or you can wait until the ad hoc item comes up as 13b and provide direction then because I think we're asking for direction. Can I ask a clarifying question though if we've already voted on the other parts of this, then we'd have to come back for someone to emotion for reconsideration by someone. If we've already voted on the other parts of the resolution. Well, at this point, it would just be direction. And we would have to come back. And because it's a resolution, we would either repeal this whole thing or we would make amendments to it. But have we already voted on? Yes, this was approved back in, I believe, April, when this came before you, when we brought the work and community work and group recommendations. And so when you ask about the attachments for the templates, that was when you guys approved back in April. So all of this was previously approved. So we had a temporary resolution to continue until the end of this year. And then now we have and this is this is the this is the full regular resolution. But if we but if we already I guess I'm just asking and maybe the city attorney can clear it up if we've already voted on everything addition. So as he was saying the only addition for this one that's different. So would that have to come back? You keep saying give and we can't just give a decision to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to continue to be able to be able to the prevailing side has to bring it back within a year, because we're within a year. Well, so this is, so this resolution, so that's why my suggestion is to wait until 13B and give this as direction to the ad hoc to consider to bring back as part of, because when you guys come back with the Boers and Commission, all of this is gonna probably change anyway. But if we, I'll leave it there. I understand. I already voted on it. I understand your question. The question is on the council rules, an item to be recond- an item to be changed, which would be a reconsideration, can be changed within a year at the request of somebody on the prevailing side. That's the general rule. Whether that applies to changing a law or not is an interesting legal question. I don't know if it does. But anyway, and maybe this is a move point. I'm guessing I wasn't here then, but these resolutions are usually unanimously approved. So theoretically, everybody's on the prevailing side. So it might be a move point. But usually councils are given the ability to amend their laws and resolutions without having to go through their reconsideration process. Okay, so first council member Dela Torrey was next. So I just want to make sure he doesn't have anything given everything that you just heard. Do you still have comments? Okay. Go for it. Um. The and maybe Denise you can remind me of this, but I know that we one of the one of the directives that we gave and I just wanted to hear from you your interpretation of the directive regarding like how for boards and commissions, for us how we can gather baseline data to understand. Okay, we will be coming back, we'll be coming back. We've already, we've already done that. We've already done that. Cool, we're good on that. Thank you. And then the other thing that I wanted to raise, you know, I do wanna say that, and I know we're only dealing with item G here regarding the nepotism. That's it. So one of the things that I want to say is that I think it is unfortunate that it seems that one member of our housing commission would be affected. And I do agree with the previous caller, Ms. Huffman said that Mr. Soloth has done a great job. But I do agree also that if we're going to have a rule that must be applied across the board for everyone so that we are fair in the application of our policies. But one, I started thinking, you know, the issue is really is like the sort of the conflict, you know, the, as we would call a conflict because, you know, the husband, wife, registered domestic partner, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, and sister of a council member would have a hard time sort of distancing themselves or, know, it seems like you know, they could be compromised right because of the relationship with the council member. But I started thinking if it would be appropriate to add sort of an employee of a council member or a business partner of a council member, maybe we would add those either two categories because wouldn't that also be a way to I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I mission, it's hard for them to sort of go against me, right? It's it's sort of they're compromised, you know, for lack of a better term. So I thought that maybe we would add that also that you can't be an employee of a council member and you can't be a business partner of a council member. And I wanted to know if, you know, how my colleagues felt about adding those two categories to the list. Council member Negrette is next and then Council member Brock here up if you still have a guide. I don't have any problem with what Council member Delatory just brought up. I do have a question though is that pertains to the nepotism. So just to be clear if there was an amendment to say that because this is a new, this is new that if there's a member who's going to be terminating within seven months and it sounds like it would be effective January, this member would be off presumably what may, do we know the date? Do we need to make an amendment to say that I, so that's what the amendment would have to be to this that we're asking to amend that it not be immediate but rather allow this. It sounds like it's one individual too. Yeah, one I don't think a motion's been made. Oh, there was. Sorry, a motion in a second. So you'd have to make a friendly amendment just addressing whatever particulars of the current and epitons in policy and then Council Member De La Torre if he wants to add, if that's accepted, it's accepted Council Member De La Torre if he wants to add if that's accepted, it's accepted, Council Member De La Torre, if he wants to add an amendment related to some of the other qualifiers that he mentioned, then that's also an option. I'm gonna try this and you guys can leave me in the right direction. So when this originally got brought up, I agree that if we make a policy, I was new to this too, that it makes sense for it to happen right away. Given the circumstances and the timing, and I know maybe this isn't always the best way to address it, but it sounds like we're talking about a matter of four months where someone would be finishing out a term that they were on. Is it correct? So I would like to ask if we can make an amendment that this go into effect and anyone who's on there expires their position and then going forward. So they get to remain out. They get to fill out the remainder of their position. So I think what I hear you saying in our city attorney can step in. You're asking if an amendment is friendly to the maker that if and the second area that that if and the secondary yet that we basically would allow those currently serving to serve out the remainder of their term. Yes. Councillor Member De La Torra. You know, I just like I said earlier, you know, I just feel that we should apply the rule as soon as we feel that, you know, we have the votes to pass this policy. We should apply it to everybody now versus grandfather and people. It just sends the wrong message, unfortunately. And like I said, I agree with everyone that Mr. Soloff is a great commissioner. But I just feel that it was sent the wrong message that this council makes an exception at this point. As I've already stated, it's unfriendly to me for the reasons. It's unfriendly to me for the reasons that Councilmember Dela Torre stay and I do want to emphasize that Michael Sola has done a tremendous job as a housing commissioner. This is nothing about him nor is this targeted at him. But if we're going to have an anti-nevitism policy, then we should have one and we should have it now. Okay. I suppose that comment to that or do we? Well, because I guess it's friendly, but you can add some comments. If you do. I hear everybody and I understand both sides of it, and I just given the circumstances of this specific situation that felt like it was the right thing to do to let someone finish it out because it's not advisory in the sense for there's finances or whatnot involved. So just to be clear, I made the friendly, but it's not friendly. She was accepted. I was accepted. Okay, moving on. In terms of the attorney, Mr. Lawrence. The other way for you to go just as you can now make a substitute motion adding your provision to the public and the public. the other way for you to go just is you can now make a substitute motion adding your provisions seeing if it has a second. I mean, or you could stop right now. It's getting exciting to make a substitute. Making a substitute motion to add the provision that we allow existing members finish out their term. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, so we have a substitute motion. Is there any discussion on the substitute or can we just go to a roll call vote? Oh, is there any discussion on the substitute motion? Anyone? Okay. And this is, we can repeat the substitute motion as I understood it. You did. Is that anyone currently serving would be able to serve out the remainder of their term prior to this resolution taking this nepotism policy of the resolution taking effect. So I did right sorry the nepotism. No, no, the resolution would take effect immediately. But it would include in the interim appoint somebody's husband, mother, father, daughter. Right. Right. Is anyone currently serving would be a mic. Oh, sorry. Councilmember Davis, you are absolutely correct. That is correct. So the resolution by operation takes effect immediately but there would be under the substitute motion there would be a provision that the nepotism provision effectively does not apply to sitting board or commission members. Which I'll be allowed to complete their current term. If you go this way, we will have language. Does that make sense comes in on the box? What the substitute motion is? Well, but the substitute motion, I hear that, which I would support the substitute motion I hear that would support the substitute motion, but I have substantive issues, substantive issues with the rest of the resolution has I've already detailed. So if you're saying you would then, if we approve the substitute motion, which I approve of, but that would allow the entire resolution to go into effect, then I would still be against it because I believe the term limit items that I mentioned need to be put into place and on the ad hoc, if I miss that, it's my fault. So, my question, Mr. Lawrence, would be, is there a way to know there isn't, Kristen? There's no way to dissect the resolution and accomplish it with the changes or the changes at least I've recommended being voted on, not as a possible direction later, because the direction later to me doesn't mean it is absolute. So really? Mayor Pro Tem, I know you want to interrupt me. Go ahead. Yes, so I think what? This is my Yes. So I think what this is my misunderstanding. I think there's just a general misunderstanding. So we're going to try to clear this up and Joe's going to do a really good job of it. But I just want to say first that what the interim city attorney said previously is that this resolution, which was already passed by us, I believe unanimously nanomistly in April. And we have only here before us tonight to deal with the nepotism policy amendment to this resolution. So we cannot, because that's all that's agendas, and because we would want the mayor and council member par it to also be part of that larger discussion. We cannot do what you want to do tonight. We can, however, after we clean up this vote, talk about it in the 13 item that is agendas. Maybe bring it back at another time. The way I read it was many of the policies for city boards, commissions, committees, task forces and regional advisory boards to include the nepotism policy and repealing resolution number 11338. So you're saying this is very narrowly defined. That's what I see both city attorneys shaking their head and letting me know that I need to be quiet or figure this out a different way. So and I want to make it really clear that I look at I am we're putting a nepotism policy and 146 47 years after the city was founded. And we have had instances of nepotism probably through the ages. So I support fully and anti-nepotism ordinance on the city books. Make no mistake about that. But at the same time, I look and say, you know, we haven't had a policy for 146, 147 years. Now we're finally going to have a policy. I'm not sure whether or not kicking someone off a commission six months before his term expires is really just. And the argument that says, my God, we're gonna finally act on nepotism, we have to do it immediately, has an urgent matter. I think there is room to have some flexibility in this for the good of residents who have been involved all these years. And in this particular case, the commissioner we're talking about was the commissioner before his spouse was elected to the City Council. So look at I'll support it provided yes the 13 item we will come back and talk about term limits and try and clean up some of the issues that I am worried about long term. Okay is there any more discussion on the substitute motion? Okay. So I just had some comments that I was going to just add in the regular motion, but since we're here at the substitute, I'll do them now. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the fact that this has been so overly personalized. You know, I like to think myself a friend of the commissioner who's been named all too many times here. That may change. That may have changed. Given what I'm hearing up here, but this is precisely why if you, we can not target a policy or when it takes effect based on one person. I don't understand this. And the idea that we've gone 124 years does not make me feel better that we go seven more months because there are so many policies on the books in so many places that if you allowed them to go one more day based on an argument, well, it's been policy for 124 years, it can go on for a little, and I mean, we're talking about not the housing commissioner, remember, but we're talking about policies that have affected people's lives, not this one, but just this concept of because it's been allowed to persist and we never dealt with it. Let's just keep going until someone we all like, and I 100% agree that Commissioner Soloff is one of the most effective commissioners that commission has ever seen. I believe his, what he is doing, the work he is doing, it is a yeoman's task. And we are not going to find a replacement for him that is him or even up to his standard. I don't believe. However, I either believe that nepotism should not exist in the city or a don't. And so I cannot support the substitute motion for those reasons and reasons I've previously stated. It breaks my heart. The fact that people are calling me as if I've lost friends over is absurdity because these are all well-meaning people who I believe believe that nepotism is wrong. So that's where I stand on this and I'll leave it at that council member, Brock, I see her. And by and large, I agree what you said. And I'm not necessarily wed to Commissioner Soloss, his name is now, he's the topic of this. But with this nepotism policy was first broached in a 13 item in June or July, it felt it was targeted. It was targeted at a potential planning commissioner to keep that person off a commission. And it felt at the time that it was a way to hit two birds with one stone. So I believe it was politicized at the outset. However, I support the policy. But I believe it was politicized. So, look it. I'm fine with voting whatever way we vote right now on it. And I have no, I'm not a friend of Michael Soloth. So, no, but I'm to say, he's not my, you know, bro. So, I don't have a personal stake in it except that I think it's wrong to remove someone when there's not just cause when he's been on the commission since 2013 at any time in the last seven years the council members could have brought a nepotism policy up and didn't so I'm glad we're bringing it up now. I hope we'll pass something, but I just wanted that to be clear. Thank you, Council Member Brock. Are we ready for a roll call vote? So before, so I just want to make sure I have it all right. So this is the substitute motion by Council Member Nguyeneté, seconded by Council Member Brock, to amend the resolution to allow anyone currently serving on a board commissioner task force to be able to serve until their turn expires. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Go ahead and start the vote. Councilmember Davis. No. Councilmember Brunegrette. Yes. The approach to him, McCallan. No. Council member Brock. Yes. Council member De La Torre. Oh, yes. No. Okay. So that fails. So we'll go back to the original motion. So the original motion was made by Council Member De La Tori and seconded by Council Member Davis. I'm sorry, hold on a second. No, no, no. Okay. Councilmember Dela Torrey. So this is on the original motion. Yes. Councilmember Brock. Yes. Mayor Patima Cullen. Yes. Councilmember Grete. Yes. Councilmember Davis. Yes. The motion passes. We can welcome Mayor Himmler to take over to this hot mess. I'll start with that. Okay, so next we have, well wait for the mirror. Okay. So next we have a second reading and adoption. An adoption of an ordinance amending municipal code section 7.04.610 for sewer capping and this is a second reading. Move adoption. Do I hear a second? Move by Davis seconded by Brock. May we have a roll call vote please. Council Member Badella Torrey. Yes. Council Member Brock. Yes. Mayor Pro Temma-Cowin. Yes. Council Member Badella Torrey. Yes. Council Member Badella Torrey. Yes. Council Member Brock. Yes. Mayor Pro Temma-Cowin. Yes. Council Member Badella. Yes. And Mayor Hillenrich. Yes. And that passes 6 to 0. Next we have item 7v which is second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending municipal code section 5.46 to comply with Senate Bill 1383 mandate on recycling of organic materials. And again this is the second reading. Do I hear a motion? I hear a motion. Council member N Nagrete moves. Second. Second. Move by Nagrete, seconded by Davis. May we have a roll call vote? Council member Davis. Yes. Council member, Nagrete. Yes. Care Patima, Calin. Yes. Council member, Brock. Yes. Council member, De La Torre. Yes. And Mary Hill, more rich. Yes. So that passes 6 to 0. And now moving right ahead, we're on 13-A. 13-A. OK. Request of Mayor Potimma-Calan and Council Member Davis that Council direct staff to take necessary steps to have the city join in the recent petition filed by Earth Justice to have the city join in the recent petition filed by by Earth Justice to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a nationwide ban of lead aviation gasoline and to appeal the city's congressional representatives to advocate for the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and Environmental Protection Agency to stop the sale of lead aviation fuel and environmental protection agency to stop to sell of lead aviation fuel and to expedite the approval process for an alternative to lead aviation fuel. And I just want to announce that the lines are open for callers. And let me announce the number again. If you want to call in on the Let it gas item item 13A the number is 310 312 8173. Do we have any callers? Do we have any callers? And the lines are open. And the lines are open for 13B as well, 310-312-817-3. Council member Davis, I guess you should announce it while we're waiting for people to call. All right. Discuss it. Whatever. Sure. So I think it's pretty self-explanatory. We have received a number of emails from people in the community who are concerned about the continued use of let it aviation gas, particularly since we do have an airport within the boundaries of sunset park. So the purpose of this is to have the city join in the recent petition filed by Earth Justice to urge the US EPA to initiate a nationwide ban of let it aviation gasoline, which of course would include Santa Monica airport, and also for us to appeal to our congressional representatives through our federal lobbyists to advocate for the United States Department of Transportation, the FAA and the EPA to stop public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the public and the and emissions-free aviation system. And so this is certainly part of a trend. And I think that we, as we usually are, should be on the leading edge. I've encouraging the federal government to take the right action and reduce the exposure to lead. We know lead is very dangerous. Chemical for anyone to be exposed to, but particularly for children, it can cause developmental disabilities and other health issues. And so the sooner we get the lead out of the gas, the better. Council Member, I'm sorry. Mayor Pro Temma-Cal, and do you have anything to add? I do not. I think Council Member Davis covered it. Great. Yes, and now you may make a motion. Make a motion to move. Second. Second. Second. Yes. Councilmember Dela Torre. Yes. Someone who lives next to the freeway, we are we're very concerned, you know, about these environmental impacts, you know, of the infrastructure and the on residents and so being that we also have an airport in our city, there's a lot of residents impacted by this. I'm really glad that this items came forward and I'm happy to go for it. Any other comments? Any callers? We have no callers on 13A. Okay, let's have a roll call vote. Council member De La Torre. Yes. Council member Brock. Yes. Mayor Patin McCallan. Yes. Council member Nugrete. Yes. Council member Davis. Yes. Mayor Hillman Rich. Yes. So that passes 6 to 0 and now we're on to 13b. Unless it's already covered and we don't have to do it anymore. Sorry, no. And we do have a caller for this item. Item 13b is request, well I guess I could let her read it. Requested Mayor Potemma-Cowin, Council members Brock and Davis that the Council received the update from the Boards and Commission ad hoc committee, approved the recommendation to add appointments to the Boards and Commission that will not be impacted by consolidation or reorganization on the November 23rd meeting. So this would include ARB, building and fire life safety, audit, housing, SMTT, airport, and rec and part. Number three, provide feedback about reducing the urban forest task force membership from nine to seven and the arts commission membership from 11 to seven and three to provide any additional recommendations related to the ad hoc committees continued work reviewing the boards and commissions procedures. And as I said, we do have one caller for this. Yes, but let's have Council member McCall and introduce this item and then we'll hear from the caller. So we will make this very brief because I think more of this is receiving feedback from Council. But we had the opportunity to hold a public meeting to hear from the community about the boards and commissions and sort of what they would like to see. And we had 21 callers that spoke to several different agendas items. And we discussed term limits, consolidation, council members as liaisons, youth and diversity on our boards and commissions, as well as voting members versus non-voting members, and input from commissioners on future appointments to those commissions. I think the three hours was three hours very well spent. I believe that we heard from you know really informed residents that have been really involved in these processes want to be involved in the commission board and commission process and I think we left there as you can see with at least one thing that we hope So, we will be taking up appointments on November 23 and we will meet again. This week prior to I think wrapping up getting pretty close to wrapping up this boards these boards and this board and commissions ad hoc. I'm going to let councilmember Brock and Davis add anything if they'd like, but we really want to hear from the council members. boards and this board and commissions ad hoc. I'm going to let Council Member Brock and Davis add anything if they'd like, but we really want to hear from you all as to if there are any additional things we should be considering at our next meeting. Council Member Brock, oh sorry. Nice for you. All of our mics are gone. Hey, go. We got it. all of our mics are gone. No, all of our mics are out. So I'll speak loud. I'll speak in my coaches voice. Yeah, come over here. You can come to mind. Oh, my. Oh, wait, everyone's on again. Oh, you're on. Whatever you did, Denise. Good job. Thank you. Oh, my is on. Hey, so the items that I mentioned in the consent aisle item calendar about term limits, etc. I will bring up during our next ad hoc meeting and try and get those included in our final report and our votes coming up in December. So I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that I haven't forgotten what I said earlier in the meeting. I'm getting old but not quite that old. Thank you. Townstone. Actually I do have one more thing, I'm sorry. And I just wanna let you know, I agree with council member McCowen that the town hall meeting was quite productive. And we heard a lot of things and we have been rigorous in going over the things that we've heard. So thank you for doing that. And Council Member Davis. I certainly agree with both Mayor Proctemicown and councilmember Brock that it was incredibly helpful to hear from the community. I do want to make a couple of comments on the items. One is managing expectations. We do have a history of not doing appointments unless everyone is present and I am regret to inform you I will not be here on November 23rd. I will be on an airplane to Detroit to be with my family for some family matters, including Thanksgiving. So we may not, I don't know we haven't, you know, I'll have to talk to the mayor of the mayor of Pro Tem about appointments for that evening. And the other thing I do want to note is that we did want to get feedback, particularly on the reductions for the Urban Forest Task Force for 9-7 in the Arts Commission from 11-7. I have received some input from Arts Commissioners in particular that they would like to be, they're happy to be reduced, but would like to be at 9. So just to put that thought in people's thinking process that as we discuss this I think the issue for the urban forest task force from going from 9 to 7 was the issue that they were not having sufficient attendance to make a quorum so by reducing the numbers they'd be more likely to get a quorum that does not appear from my understanding to be an issue of the arts commission and as I said I've heard from several commissioners that they would actually like they're happy to be reduced from 11 to 9 but not to 7 they have a series of subcommittees and they want to be able to populate those appropriately so I'm just throwing those out there as we address these issues going forward. And now I think we're ready for the public. Okay, Esther we're ready for the public. Okay, Esther, we're ready for the caller. Welcome, Denise Barton, you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening and the point of putting Council liaison's back on boards and commissions. Let's go back to the February 21st, 2011 article in the Santa Monica mirror titled, Article Prompt Santa Monica City Council, the NLA's on program, where it states the council's decision, which aimed to eliminate potential law fits against this members, was based upon an ethics column, authored by Sacramento-based attorney, Michael Dean, in Western cities, the monthly magazine of the League of California cities. As innocent as the council members, motives may be, when he or she personally attends the planning or other subordinate committee meeting, he or she may be crossing an ethical boundary Dean states in this column. Then having you saw boards and commissions is a nice idea, but in reality may be hard to do due to their daily schedules. And for a city that is recovering economically, I find Gleam Davis's idea that babysitting be provided for boards and commissions that tech payer expense shows how out of touch with financial responsibility she really is. Then regarding consolidation of boards and commissions, all public speakers were against consolidation. And even that way it appears that no consolidation will be done, I think it's important to point out Mr. Kerry, the Disability Commission Founders, combining a Disability Commission with other commissions didn't work, speaks volumes. So apparently you'd rather make the same mistakes again rather than learning from the past. I also hope you realize by doing this you are not only wasting the public's time but you're wasting the city council's time as well. Or is this another kind of game trying to distract the public's attention away from other issues? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Barton. There was another caller. Welcome all those are Rosca you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening regarding the recommendation to make the appointments to the board and commission not affected by the work of the ad hoc. I have a request for one of the council members who actually represent the residents. Could you please ask the interim city attorney now publicly why those appointments could not be made tonight, why we have to wait until November 23rd. City clerk Anderson Warren made a claim at the ad hoc committee meeting that there was a legal issue preventing those appointments from taking place tonight. I do not believe that to be true. I have asked both the clerk and the interim city attorney to provide the alleged legal basis for this delay, but have not received the response. Other appointments have been made since July 27. For example, the appointments to the personnel board, please let the residents know why the rest of the appointments to the board's and commission not impacted by the ad hoc's work, not have been made tonight. Thank you. There's no more callers. So that's the end of the callers. I'm not seeing any response from the city attorney, although I do note that it wasn't agendized tonight and that without item 3G there would have been a part of the ad hoc program that would have been implemented tonight had we voted tonight as I understand it. So it was the plan and I did listen to that meeting to have appointments on the 23rd since council member Davis won't be here on the 23rd and we do have a custom of only making appointments with the full council. We'll be making appointments at the next time we do have a full council which I suspect will be the first meeting in December. Council member Brock. Our resident to call in. I want to let that resident all residents know that I persisted in asking the question of why the audit committee, subcommittee person and the housing commission appointments could not be made. I received a number of conflicting reports back and then received a couple of reports from staff that made it clear that they could not do with this meeting. And so I will tell you that I think a number of council members asked over the last week or two about making these appointments. It was just it was not just me. It was a majority of the council possibly. It just couldn't be done. And I hope that we'll do it in early December. And I'll also note that we also don't have a full council and knew we wouldn't have a full council today. So we were not going to be hearing it today. This was an anticipated absence. Councilmember Para asked me about it a couple weeks ago, and of course said it was fine. So this was an anticipated and excused absence. Councilmember Dela Torre. Yes, really quick in terms of, we're giving some direction to staff on this item in regards to coming back. And I just want to make sure that we have staff respond to the question that I've asked and when we voted on the nepotism policy regarding if it's the best practice to include also employee or business partner of a member of I'm sorry an employee or a business partner of a current city council member. About an employer. An employer? That also, yeah. Look, there are loads of categories. I was not involved in this, but there are loads of categories, including conflicts of interest that we could cover here. Yeah. Right, I'm not on the ad hoc. I'm not writing the rules. But when I've seen these rules written, they weren't as targeted as this, which is one of the reasons that I had a very negative reaction to it. It usually does include business partners, employer, employee, I mean there are loads of relationships that this could cover. I completely agree with you, or even what if you aren't a domestic partner but simply are a live-in and have lived together for many, many years, right? I mean we all are aware of these situations and it's one of the reasons that, so I agree with you. Yeah, so, you know, if we can, in terms of getting consensus on the council so that we can give directions to staff, I just wanna make sure that we get some heads knot in probability that's okay for them to come back to us and tell us if this is the best practice or knot to include those categories. Yeah? Or, you're giving direction to staff, fine. But as the mayor said, when you review nepotism policies across the country, some are quite narrow and some are very expansive. And where you might want to be in between that is up to you. There's no, we could explore what, quote, best practices, but I don't know if there's a uniform policy that's in existence that everybody agrees on. It's just even just surrounding cities. I mean, what maybe we look at two cities that surround us. What is it that they do? It'd be kind of nice to get that feedback to the council so we can make it a tremendous figure. And it's all awesome. Frances, my understanding that the direction that council gave that prompted the amendment that was before you earlier, you ask or reference Beverly Hills. And that's the policy that essentially was adopted. But there are other cities and other policies. We're happy to do a survey if that's what you want. Yes, that would be great. Anything else? Yeah, well, I think that no. I think there's a little bit more that we definitely would like your thoughts on reducing the size of the urban task force membership from 9 to 7. We would definitely like your thoughts on reducing the arts commission from 11 to 9 that we have to do. So, I would like to thank you for your time. I would like to thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. came up quite a bit was the liaison issue and the issue of outside whether or not we should require commissions to submit their opinion formally on recommendations for appointments. We, I think, our decision are thinking just so that you all know. Our thinking was that it should not be a formal requirement of a commission to advise us on who they think on the applicant list would be well suited for the commission. But we welcome their calling in or submitting letters written comment when it's agendas. Councilmember Brock has. I think I would be the minority vote on that in our ad hoc but we used to have some commissions that would interview candidates and give their feedback, I think, up till 2014. And I was, frankly, appalled at the practice of a commission interviewing the successors they want on the commission because I felt that was a way that we were just gonna keep it into a very tight circle. You weren't going to, you weren't gonna bring on someone who disagreed with you and might have a different way of doing business on that commission. That stopped the commissions from having the creative thought process that we absolutely desire from our boards and commissions. So I am all in favor any time of an individual commissioner writing and saying I know this person, I believe they'd be a great commissioner. But some commissions, and I can think of a couple that used to literally trying to point their successors. And I and I think Mayor Hillenrich and I discussed that a couple of times six, seven years ago. I have always agreed. As I say all the time, right, I say about the council and I say about the boards and commissions. This is not a sorority, right? We are not. And now with a new and better supported and research knowledge that diverse groups make better decisions. And I think this council is a testament to that. I think that that is a great argument for not having commissions pick who's on. Yeah. Yes, Councilmember Negretto. I do want to agree with the amendment for the arts commission that it not go from 11 to 7, but to maintain diversity go to 9. Just so that we can make sure that we have all the parties that are necessary. I mean, we are Santa Monica. Arts is a big deal. And then I just wanted to ask one more thing. Was the talk, did you guys speak about at all having, I don't want to call youth on these boards and commissions? Yes, we did. And there was general consensus. I believe that if I recall correctly in the notes I'm looking at, that we want to look into possibly shorter terms for youth. We want to, you know, I think that we disagreed that youth should not have voting rights. We did because that came up a couple times and I from our ad hoc. Yeah it was did it came up a few colors raised it whether or not. Yeah in the town hall whether or not the the youth members would have a voting right or not. I think we talked about it in that session and I believed we at least what I noted was that they should have voting rights, but I don't want to speak for often. And I still believe that there's any way that we could do it, that we try and formulate over time a Santa Monica youth commission as well. And we also talked about, I think we all agreed that they should be voting members and we talked about strategies to try and encourage more young people to become commission members. For example, we talked about reaching out to people we know at SMC and perhaps even having commissioned membership be part of their political science program something they could get credit for something like that and that sort of thing. We're trying to meet the youth where they were. Yes, Samo high crossroads, St. Monica's, etc. There was a clear consensus that the goal is just more voices in the room even if it is for a shorter amount of time. And you know on the issue of consolidation and one of the callers brought this up to so I want to just sort of. It seemed very overwhelming that there was not a strong desire to consolidate. But there is at least from the public that called into this particular meeting and we obviously recognize what was in the staff recommendations so we're still dealing with that and have any formal decisions about that yet to recommend to you all. I just wanted to make the point that as we narrow who can be on the commissions, and as we need to recognize that some of these aren't as easy to fill. So as we talk about term limits and narrowing it, you know, that's something to consider as well when we're reducing the size that maybe the public doesn't realize. It might become even more difficult to find members as we reduce who can be on there. We limit that. So, but I'm really glad to hear about the youth specific a commission that's just comprised of youth in our community. I look forward to hearing more about that. And I think that rather go to the commission than the other commissions. I mean, I did this when I was in high school, some, you know, countywide commission. And I just, to the extent we have a youth commission, I think it would be more attractive to youth and than being on these adult commissions where their voices are heard. Anyway, so I thank you guys for adding that. I think it's on our radar for sure. It's been raised whether or not it's its own commission or Port of this sort of a subsec of this like possible diversity. More broad diversity commission that includes youth as a Subcommittee all that's still being worked through but. This is how full feedback. commission that includes youth as a subcommittee, all that's still being worked through, but this is a couple of feedbacks. I did want to address on the Urban Force task force and I don't know if you addressed this but I think at least two of you so we expanded that because we made a mistake in the appointment. I think that we barred somebody from it who we thought hadn't done ethics. So that was why we expanded that commission. But I think it was originally seven, but yes, it was seven. And I think that if we don't have if all nine people don't want to come back, I think that's a commission that could go back to seven. That's that's helpful feedback. I think that seems to be the consensus of the ad hoc, but we'll take that back and it'll be in our formal recommendations most likely. I think that's all we have. Unless. So I have one question. Oh yeah. Do we provide childcare for those who might need it to participate in a board of commission? No, and that came up. Council Member Davis, do you want to thank you? No, we don't. And some cities do in order to encourage participation by families particularly with young children. I mean, obviously there's a cost associated with it. And I think that's something we'd have to talk to staff about. But I think it's something that maybe we think about in the future, maybe rolling out with commissions that for example, it would seem to me the commission on the status of women would be a good pilot to run that. So we can try to get women with young children or something but it's obviously got a cost involved with it and I think that's something staff would have to think about but we do not do that. We don't fight child care for city council meetings of people who want to come talk when we're meeting in person so. I'm not going to be able to get the information that we have to make. I'm going to be able to make the information that we have to make. I'm going to be able to make the information that we have to make. I'm going to be able to make the information that we have to make. I'm going to be able to make the information that we have to make. I'm going to be able to make the information that we have to If everybody feels okay with it just to get some numbers back maybe or an assessment, what do we survey and we only find out that three people serving could potentially increase their participation with that type of support? Maybe we can provide it, you know. Are you saying you're going to babysit? Yeah. I'm down. Yeah, they can drop them off of my house. So did you guys have any discussion of what I heard in that meeting the two or three hours that you were on that I heard a general public sentiment against consolidation against instead having more public participation but no discussion and maybe this is what we need to do about how to limit how much staff has to do in connection with the meetings. Because I think that we may have been returning our boards and commissions meetings into many council meetings when in fact that's there's supposed to be advisory there's supposed to come up with ideas but whether they need to be fully staffed at every meeting is a whole different idea yeah councilmember Davis we did discuss that a bit and then people should know that prior to the public meeting we did meet with staff to get staff's input and they provided us with some pretty compelling statistic to show the number of hours that they have to spend to prepare for an attend and then do the post-talk drafting of minutes, etc. for meetings. And it is quite a substantial investment. We didn't come to any consensus but I think one of the things we discussed for example is some of the boards and commissions have reasons to meet on a monthly basis, but others do not. So could we maintain the commissions, but not have them meet, maybe meet on an ad hoc basis, for example, when an issue is coming before council that they should have some input on, or for the ones that maybe don't have the same number of pressing issues, could they be arranged, meet every two months or quarterly or something like that, which would obviously reduce some staff investment? We didn't fall on any solution, but we did talk about those as options. I think part of that is we had the public meeting that was our most recent meeting of the three of us. That ended and we have our next sort of the three of us, our next meeting is scheduled on Thursday. And so that's when we were hoping to take, sort of some feedback from you all. I know some participated and listened into the public tunnel, but couldn't talk to us about it until tonight. And then to take that feedback and then we'll go and sort of discuss that, discuss follow up from the public and hopefully get closer to wrapping this up. Well, so one thing I wanted to add which you may not be aware of is that during the pandemic, the housing committee did housing commission did continue to meet without staff. And we're able to do it. They actually somebody acted as the secretary and they move forward without it. So I'm not sure that we need to staff each of these commissions away we've been staffing. 100% agree. I think it's gonna, you know, should we go down that route? I think there's gonna have to be a sea change and sort of how we, you know, sort of teach commissioners what we share as the expectation of the role. Again, we don't want to make it so cumbersome that we don't get volunteers. We want it to be realistic, but we also want to reduce the burden on staff, which is why the concept of liaisons for certain committees is still seems to be one that we've been open to limiting so that we don't get into jeopardy with that situation from the past limiting sort of the number of committees and other things. But I think we're trying to find work arounds. And I think the Housing Commission did that successfully. And is a good example of what's possible with, well, we'll leave it at that. Yeah. And so what do we do receive and file? How do we, yeah, so I move we receive and file the report and our recent discussion concerning the ad hoc. I'll second. So moved by Himalorage seconded by Brock. Let's have a roll call. Eric and I will let me ask the council for clarification. So I heard and please, you know, let me know. So I heard that there is a field to reduce the urban forest task force from 9 to 7 and then the arts commission from 11 to 9. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And then the other thing is that the appointments. And so just to let you guys know the appointment process has been open since June, which is when we were supposed to do the annual appointments. However, we've heard from members of the public that they have not applied because they don't want to apply if they haven't, if they're not going to be considered. So there's a process that we need to notice and let people know that they are applying. So I want to make certain that we do that with proper timing. So I just want to clarify that these boards and commissions that have been recommended here the appointment will be on the first meeting in December. Well so let's uh I will be here the first weekend who will not be here the first weekend December. That's December 7th I believe is December 7th good we'll do it the first week in December nobody is allowed off that. You're not getting COVID. Nothing else. You're not getting sales concert. Children, no sick parents, right? Nothing, right? We're all vaccinated. The way she's doing it. And I'm writing and I'm writing to Christine about this. Okay. Okay. She must be here. Right. No college tours either. Right. So. Okay. So that's what I need at for clarification I mean, we're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're going to have to go back to the next meeting. We're important. There was one item that we want to add. All commissioners and board members also have to follow the city vaccination policies. So I appeal to all of our boards and commissioners to make sure they're vaccinated or receive an exemption in a timely fashion because we want you to be able to remain on our boards and commissions and contribute to our city. Thank you. Well, and I think too it's possibly having the mayor send a letter. We had we have this policy. It went into effect. We have compliance within our city departments. We need to get compliance with our boards and commissions and I think it's time I think assuming there's agreement on this dius that well the deadline is gone. Your deadline was October 27th. Is that right to 29th I'm sorry your deadline was October 29th. That deadline has passed. So if you aren't vaccinated and you are on a board or commission, then your risk of no longer being on that board or commission. I mean, we have not done anything about this because we do believe that people should receive ample warning, that you can consider this your first ample warning. The people who are not vaccinated and don't have exemptions will not be on our boards and commissions. It's that simple. So, and I'll be sending a letter to that effect, but this is public service and we're doing this for the members of our public. this is public service and we're doing this for the members of our public. Thank you Mayor. And now shall we vote? Okay. Council Member Davis. Yes. Council Member Nuggette. Yes. Mayor Potimba-Cowin? Yes. Yes. Council Member Brock? Yes. Council Member De La Torre? Yes. And Mayor Hillmourich Yes, and we would push our buttons Denise, but they aren't green and a very funny thing is happening on our screens Yes, I see that too. How did that happen? Isn't that hilarious? Do you have the same one? Jenna Does that mean we've been hacked? Or MacCuhan and Hara? Yeah, Council member Paul. But meanwhile, it is this item, right? Right, it's very interesting. Yes, because Council member Brock is on it, right? So. And it says it up there, but on our screens, it says motion made by the queue and Harrah. Wow and Denise just removed all evidence of that. Right. Thank you. Okay. So next we have public input. Public comment is permitted only on items not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. State law prohibits the city council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda including issues raised under this agenda item and I believe we have three colors. You're welcome. Esther we're ready for the callers. Welcome to the spot and you're in the meeting and your time starts now. Good evening you remember my public input as the last city council meeting October 26, 2021, right? Let me refresh your memory. It was about the energy building at 1314 Second Street and the negative effects of the permitted deviations from the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The raising of the south side of the building and the bright glaring, unshielded LED light which only negatively affects the 4th floor affordable housing units on the north side of the 13-18 second street. So the reason is the building deviates from Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.21.050 fences, walls and edges, section A, height, under number four, downtown Pacific Planned Part C, that walls and fences at or behind building above 42 inches in height shall be a minimum, 50% transparent, and the light deviates from 5.1 F of the downtown Pacific Planned, that lighting sources shall be shielded, aimed light, aiming light downward or back at the building or wall to reduce glare as well as the Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.21.080 lighting. Section C, General Standards Part 2, non-residential buildings, Part 3, shielding and Part 4 light and Part 4, Light Trafts Pass. So I would believe that this constitutes discrimination against affordable housing tenants who are seniors and disabled, objective classes. By leading the third housing, actually 42 point USC, 361, also known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of Civil Rights 24 CFR Part 100, where a list of and is providing housing that's different from that provided to others. Then since the city that's approved and permitted this planning that's discriminatory, might it also fall under subject anyone to segregation or disparate treatment? Thank you. Thank you Ms. Barton, and thank you for speaking so we could hear. We appreciate it. Welcome, Jonathan Foster. You're in the meeting and your time starts now. Hi, Jonathan Foster. Aren't you all glad you're not aborted? Boy, or didn't abort your own children. I thought I was still very upsetting. If anybody was upset with me, you know, if you can be upset with me, I appreciated the girl's stick enough formulas. Very nice. It was a word used few meetings. Umbrage, the mayor had to Umbrage, took Umbrage with the Gleam. Boy, what a East Coast word, a deep English, Baltimore government word, Umbra, Baltimore government word, umbridge. You know, I've taken umbridge with all of you. Yeah, that's a great word. Basically, you know, it's amazing. Still calling about the promenade 3.0. And you know, what's happening out there with me since I've been out there. Some of the worst stuff happened between 2000 and 2004 so long ago. Most of you probably weren't really around here. It's amazing how what Israel is doing to kill humans so that they can chop off a bull's head in a building in Jerusalem. And this is really sick. This is really, really sick. You got people on radio here, I listened to things like Prager and Levin and Ben Shapiro. They all say that America is the greatest country on earth except for no Jew thinks that America is the greatest place on earth. All Jews think Israel is the greatest place on earth except for no Jew thinks that America is the greatest place on earth. All Jews think Israel is the greatest place on earth. So Prager is a liar, Mark Levin is a liar, Dennis Shapiro is a, excuse me, Ben Shapiro is a liar. These people Bob Iger with his AT&T and his Disney crappies, another liar. And Thurstreet is just the biggest liar too. It's just. I didn't know this. You said I didn't know that that's what it was a big liar. I've been trying to be nice to people. I also think it. Do we have any more callers? No more callers. the bill. No more colors. Then we have adjournments. Phil. Denise, can you put that picture up? Thank you so much. It is with great sadness that we adjourned tonight's City Council meeting in memory of Los Angeles Times and Santa Monica evening outlook, photographer and writer, Bill Beebe. Now Bill was born in Los Angeles but then later he moved as a child to the city of Santa Monica, but before finishing high school at Savohai, he enlisted in the Navy. And later in 1946 became one of the first students to major in photographer at what was then known as Santa Monica City College. Bill's career as a photographer and author span more than six decades. He worked for publications such as the Los Angeles Mirror, the LA Times, the Santa Monica Evening Outlook. I met him when I was working at the Outlook. Bill retained the rights to all the images he produced while working for the Outlook. And as you can see on the screen right now, he made this iconic, absolutely iconic photograph of President Kennedy coming out of the surf somewhere around what we would call today, Station 6. And as he was President of the United States, he took a little dip to use the body surfing and security was a lot less existed back then. But in 1998, when the EWDN Outlook closed, he donated his collection of more than 100,000 photography negatives to the Santa Micah History Museum and his collection is no there. Obviously Bill's, the crowning achievement was the picture of President Kennedy. But you know he wrote a Saturday column, every Saturday in the sports pages of the evening outlook and he told you when the trout fishing season started at Crowder Lake when the fish were biting off the fishing boats that used to go out from Santa Monica Pier and he was just an exceptional person, absolutely exceptional. He was lauded during his life by Betty and the good thing about Bill is his pictures will live on through the centuries. He is survived by his wife of 71 years, Sonia. His daughter, Suzanne, his son, Bill, grandchildren, Brett, and Krista. On behalf of our entire Santa Monica community, we convey to Bill's family, his extensive network of friends, our deepest condolences, and thanks for contributing so much to the history of Santa Monica. And now I have an adjournment and it is in memory of smirk, co-founder, steering committee, and longtime smirk treasurer Roger Thornton who died unexpectedly from a heart attack on October 27. He was almost 80 years old. Roger and his wife Chris have two daughters, Jennifer and Stephanie and two grandchildren, Logan and Amelia. In 1978, Roger was a member of Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda's campaign for economic democracy. When he and Chris came over to Cheryl Rodin's apartment one evening, after we lost the first Santa Monica rent control campaign. Denny Zayn also a CED member, recognized Roger, who joined the meeting and became a member for life. A few years ago, Roger was giving a speech for election to the steering committee, and he said, the day that rent control passed was the best day of my life. And what a party we had that night. At that time, Smurr was a coalition of four groups, Santa Monica Fair Housing Alliance, Santa Monica Democratic Club, and the Committee for Fair Rents and CED. Smurrrrrrrr lack of money, lack of experience and lack of volunteers. But with Rogers and C.D.'s help, Smur won rent control in Santa Monica on April 10, 1979. Roger was funny, he was smart and skilled. He was a master of the quick but funny one-liner. He became a real trooper, although he had been a Navy swift voter during the war on Vietnam. He eventually learned to understand hard to understand computer languages. At a meeting with Denny Zane in computer programming, computer programming, Michael Adams at the Brandywine Cafe on Lincoln in 1979, Roger was bitten by the data bug big time. He learned the computer skills needed to enable Smurdy to highly sophisticated, targeted direct mail. The Santa Monica voters maintained our membership list, set up newsletters, managed smurf finances, and campaign reporting is a treasure for over 30 years, and by the way, he was my treasure for short time in 2014. And it was a great experience. In executive committee meetings, he argued strongly for what he thought was the best course. He could be cranky and had a temper as we all do, but it mellowed over the years. In 1978, it wasn't long after that first meeting before Roger also joined the Ocean Park perspective, a small activist local newspaper. Roger learned how to do newspaper layout and production. The paper was delivered by activist Han to every door in Ocean Park. The first article about rent control in Santa Monica appeared in the first issue of the perspective. We will miss Roger Thornton. I will miss Roger Thornton because of his work and the work of other smir activists, tens of thousands of Santa Monica renters have lived their lives with a level of security renters in few communities of experience. Thank you, our brother Roger. We will miss you. And this meeting is adjourned. Our next meeting is on November 23rd at 5.30 p.m. Thank you.