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 Let's call this meeting in order. I've been practicing it. I finally paid off. I really been practicing. Wow. Madam Clerk, could you please take roll call? Commissioner Blas. Here. Commissioner Douglas. Here. Commissioner Gary. Here. Vice Chair Goodwood. Here. Chair Todd Gellin. Present. And let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. A Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. OK. I don't have any slips for public comment. I do see someone present, but I believe he's here for later on in the agenda. Is that correct, Mr. Murawski? All right, so Madam Clerk, anybody, anybody that you're aware of? I have none. Let us move on. We don't not have a closed session today, correct? Yeah, that is correct. And then let us move on to the public session and item 3A approval of the minutes from June 4th, July 9th, and the closed session minutes from July 9th, 2004. Any motions on those? Move approval. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Seeing as no opposition. Those move, those are approved. And item 3B, consideration of amendment to ethics code section 2975 Mr. Murowski take it away. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. Good morning, Mr. Chairman This is we had had this on a previous calendar and then we brought it back for further consideration of an amendment to creating 2-975 and in the interim time our new city attorney, Mr. McConnell, has graciously agreed to sort of chime in on this and he I'll let him speak to how he came to add this language that is in there now. Just to return, welcome. All right, Chair. Thank you. Chair, Matthew McConnell, City Attorney for the Record. So I started in June, and one of my first projects from the City Council was to review all the boards and committees and try to clean up and have some consistency throughout. There's a workshop coming up on September 16th in which we will be moving some things around. And one thing I notice specifically for the planning board which I believe is page 3 of this item is there is this restriction on quasi-judicial proceedings and city council members appearing at the planning board and speaking on those items when you have forethought they're eventually going to come to City Council for approval. Now, quasi-judicial procedures are very specific. Everyone is sitting as a quasi-judge. In no way am I trying to limit anyone's first amendment right to speak or their public common opportunity. But I do think when you're focused on the record, which is what people appeal if they disagree with the decision, it is important to kind of monitor and keep it as controlled as possible. So I was going to on September 16th suggest that we remove this section from the Planning Advisory Board, powers and duties, and then after speaking with Mr. Moralski and seeing that there was an initiative already started. I thought it might be a good idea for the Ethics Commission to consider something more broad for boards like the Code Enforcement Board, Design Review Board, and Quasad Digital Board. Now there's already restrictions on the Code Enforcement Board, for example, a Code Enforcement Member can initiate a Code Enforcement violation and things like that that are at play but hopefully that gives a good synopsis of how I got to where I did right now. Just like to have your input on that as well Michael, your thoughts. So I appreciate Mr. McConnell's input here. When this issue first came to me, like I said, it was from one of the council members who saw something just inherently wrong with a, I think it was a design review board member coming to public meetings and expressing their view to council when that issue was going to be heard by council. He just thought there was something wrong with that. That section 2-552 just didn't seem to cover. So he wanted to fix that loophole. And so that was the first draft that we brought you. But I think this is pretty broad. I'm not sure everybody's going to love it, because from what I've experienced, council members do speak to all kinds of board members, and go to their meetings and discuss with them lots of issues that are going on, and this is going to be a pretty severe restriction on that, at least for these three boards. But I think it's worth sending to council for them to consider. So if we pass it, it would be up to them to then consider it and whether they want to adopt it or not. Council, thank you. So it's broad enough, but it also is specific to testifying because, again, the record is what I care about as a city attorney. There's nothing wrong with, there's no sunshine law violation essentially from going from one board to the next. It's horizontal is where it applies to. So I'm not trying to limit council members from saying hey I missed the meeting what went on at the planning board and vice versa. But if the planning board votes on a matter and then shows up at the next meeting hypothetically let's say the person that voted no is upset about it and all of a But if the planning board votes on a matter and then shows up at the next meeting Hypothetically, let's say the person that voted no is upset about it and all of a sudden starts trying to lobby or argue to the city council that they should say no I just think that that crosses a line of that I'm not which is where this amendment came from So it is specific to testifying they can communicate with each other It's more of showing up at the board and saying, please don't vote for this, even though I'm about to vote for it in two weeks. When you say crosses align, expand on that a little bit. Help me understand what issue you're trying to address here specifically. Specifically the record? Because when these things travel through for example design review board, planning board and then city council, if someone were to appeal these decisions it would be based on all of those meetings. So if the planning board already had their bite of the apple and they already had a decision at a hearing to discuss it and rule on it for them to then show up at a subsequent city council meeting and now add to the record I think is something that I'm trying to limit. So when you say record you're saying their opportunity to speak is at that meeting in their capacity. Capacity. They should have additional opportunity to is there a scenario in which the Council would want to hear from For example the planning advisor board because planning advisory board and design review are basically advisory boards up the chain to city council Can you think of a scenario where city council would want the testimony? Or the common is it is a testimony or comment because if they're standing in your Shoes at the podium during public comment. That's one that's? If they are standing in your shoes at the podium during public comment, that is one thing, correct? If it is, but is there a scenario in which they would want to have the testimony from planning advisory board or design review board that you can think of at all? So twofold, I do think that what staff does is it will develop a staff report based on what that meeting, what happened at that meeting for Council's review. So that is already part of the agenda on what the board decided and what criteria and conditions they added. The one scenario in which I think, or there's probably a couple in which testimony is important which is what we try to carve out here, is if you're an affected party. If you're adjacent neighbor, if your neighbor's at code enforcement or if this development is right next to you, then I think it's important that you are provided the opportunity to speak as a citizen of the city, not as a planning advisory board who just ruled on it. So there's two different caps there that they're wearing when they come to public comment. And I am working with the clerk. In other jurisdictions, I think it's important. We've annotated on the public speaking cards, whether you're speaking on behalf of the board, or as a board member or as a citizen, because remember you all operate as one body, so does the Planning Advisory Board. And if you have one person from that board showing up and speaking, someone could take it as, this is what the board told me to do. And the reality is this is their individual opinion because the board decision was already made. Okay. Okay. Okay, sure. I think it could be a moment. Time when council may ask someone to speak for further clarification is in that moment would they then send it back for instance to the planning advisory board for further clarification of a specific point that's before the council? They could or what I've seen and mind you I've only had the pleasure of attending one planning board meeting so far is though ask staff or the city attorney that was there what occurred and although I'm not providing testimony We usually do give an update on what occurred at the planning advisory board Additionally, these are live streamed and they can always there's nothing preventing them from watching the meeting It's more of testifying and if we need to be more specific this is kind of a first stab at this But this was just merely a suggestion for testifying. I think sometimes the devil is in the details and that's what council may be looking for when they appear before them. I agree that this language is broad enough and yet it has specificity to it So it's a good first stand. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just point out that in Mr. McConnell's draft, he does say from testifying or addressing. So I think you are encompassing that situation where someone is basically not being put under oath to testify, but they're just sitting in the audience and during public comment coming up to address council. And it goes on to read or addressing the City Council on quasi-judicial matters currently pending before which are reasonably likely to come before. So it's specific to those. And I believe we did carve out Mr. Moralsky some language on them being able to speak if it directly affects them. Because the first time we all address this, there were some questions about, well, you know, what if it's my property, what if it's going to affect me personally, do I, am I not precluded from talking to council about it and and the rationale that we came to was well if it's going to affect you personally while you're on one of these boards you would have to recuse yourself so it as long as you recuse yourself then you can speak in your own individual capacity on this private matter as since you won't be since you didn't participate in the decision. That's kind of the safeguard. I think one of the things I'm trying to maybe the distinction is that it's a specific quasi-judicial item. For example, if it was a variance or something like that, the opportunity for planning advisory board to provide their input and their advice as individual members is at their meeting. I'm envisioning though and I may be conflating this issue, there were times during our infancy where we attended City Council meetings as the commission, ethics commission, because that was our opportunity to talk to them about something that was going to directly affect us. And I don't want to chill that if that, you know, that, I think that's different than a quasi-judicial item, but I also don't want to chill that. If this is so broad as to say, well, look, in a meeting in the future, if there was a scenario where planning advisory or design review board needed to attend that council meeting, would this per habit them from doing that? It's a great question. So to your first point, first one I've had in four years. Yeah, thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm glad you're finally here to know. No. Your first one, I would agree with you that those are legislative. So you're focused on ethics changes. Those are not quasi-duitish. Those affect a broader scale of individuals. So those are legislative, which I'm not trying to live in here, because public comment is important. Now for your second point, I don't think it would. I think if anything we can add some language in here that says unless advised or directed by the board, right, just to go ahead and clean that up if the council wants the planning board to come in and have a joint workshop or speak on something and they should be able to do so and vice versa. And, Mr. Chairman, I also think the language right at the beginning, which exempts the proper discharge of their official duties. So if it is some sort of joint meeting that the council has called for, I would think that would fall into their official duties category and the communications would be permitted. Mr. Dunbar, let's test and see if technology's working this morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. We can. Good morning, please. I think it's been presented accurately. Mr. Murawski and I had looked at this while it was being developed and really it's a policy choice at this point I think it was well explained and it does exactly what was described. Any comments from the fellow commissioners? Anyone strong feelings? What is our, so our, our purview at this point would be to make a motion or how do you want us to address this? Yes, you're would be either to to pass this To to approve it or or not approve it if it is approved Then the next step is will it goes at some point in front of council for for first reading and they'll either vote it up or down They'll they'll make that policy decision. Mr. Chair, I move approval. I have a motion for approval in any discussion. Mr. Chair, before we do that, there was some, what do they call them? Scriveners, errors. That were pointed out by Commissioner Black. And I just would like to put on the record, if you all agree. In the, it's pretty much where it says further individuals, further individual members of the Code Enforcement Board, Design Review Board or Planning Advisory Board are prohibited from testifying before you see that paragraph right there. At towards the end of that paragraph, it says code enforcement board, comma, design review board of planning advisory board that should say or planning advisory board. And then just about a line below that, it says this provision shall not preclude the ability of the mayor or city council members or members from any board or committee that should be members of any board or committee. So just those two corrections there. At the risk of inserting a comma in here do you think there should be a cop up before work? Are you the... Before what? Yeah, we, we, we, they get it. All right. So planning design review board or planning advisory board period, this provision shall not preclude the ability of the mayor or city council members or members of... Right. Okay. Commissioner Goodlick would your motion for approval include these these requested changes. Yes. Thank you. Having the motion with the requested changes adopted into the motion is there any comment or just further discussion from the fellow commissioners? Seeing none I Madam Clerk, take a vote. Commissioner Black. I concur. Vice Chair Goodle. Yes. Commissioner Douglas. Yes. Mr. Barry. Yes. Chair Hargelo. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. McCommill. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. your consideration. Thank you. I think that brings us to the Executive Director Report. Yes sir. Actually fairly, fairly small report today. I just wanted to let you know that we had our budget workshop, the city's budget workshop. It was about two weeks ago and I presented our proposed budget to them. They didn't kick me out so I think it went okay. The first reading of the budget will be tomorrow and then the second reading will be on September 18th and so hopefully we'll get our new budget passed. The other thing that I wanted to just remind you all, our next meeting is November 5th. And at that meeting, don't forget that we need to pick new chairperson and a new vice chair. And some of you, again, are coming to the end of your terms. And I know Commissioner Black has already indicated to me that she would like to be reappointed by the state attorney who appointed her in the first time so I will reach out to the state attorney. I'm sure they'll have no problem with doing that. Commissioner Goodlett, you're with the sheriff who's appointed you. If you'd like to be reappointed I can reach out to him and see if we can make that happen. And Mr. Chairman, it's up to you if you want to get ready. I finally asked a good question. You're on the right. I mean, I want to have another good note. Maybe four more years. I don't know if there will be any more good questions. We'll see. Okay. So I just wanted to remind you all of that. The only other thing is that believe it or not, I've been working here for a little bit over three years. So when I first came here and we passed the ethics code, I started doing in-person training for all the employees of the city. And since then we've amended the ethics code to require refresher training after three years. So it's coming up, and I think next month that a lot of those people who got that training in person three years ago will have to contact them all and let them know that it's time for them to take their exciting refresher training, which is now available online. So they could watch it from the comfort of their own home if they wanted to do that. Where does the time go? Don't know. Don't know. Same place my hair went. That's all I have. All right. Any any additional public comment? Madam Clerk. Thank you. None. Okay. Next meeting is November 5th. Election day. Election day. All right. Seeing no other matters before the commission, I will adjourn the meeting. you you you you you you you you