[♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ I'm the city of Beverly Hills. Special study session today is Wednesday, February 5th, 2025, even though it says 2024, and it is 3.30 p.m. And we will start with public comment. If there's anyone who would like to communicate with us on any items not on the agenda, now would be the time and place. We'll start with anybody in chambers, not seeing anyone in chambers who would like to speak, will go to any electronic means or emails, well, to electronic. We do not have any public comments for this item or for non-agendice. Non-agendice, I say. Okay, so now we will go on to our rigorous study session. Item A, consideration of recommendation by the City Council elections, ad hoc committee related to the timing of the municipal elections and the election of mayor and vice mayor and our city manager Nancy Hunt coffee is going to be presenting on it. Well good afternoon Mr. Mayor members of the City Council as you stated today we're here to talk about policy manual issues related to municipal elections. So how did we get here? Back in the day, it was so much simpler. We had our City Council elections in March, every two years, and the installation of any new council members and the election of the mayor and the vice mayor took place in late March. Very simple. Thanks to our friends at the state of California, they took something that worked very well at the local level and changed it all. So Senate Bill 415 in 2015 and Senate Bill 970 in 2020. Made changes led to changes in our election cycle. So in presidential election years, so the one that was just passed 2024, for example, City Council elections occur in March is still and new council members are now installed in April which has to do with the LA County certification of election results. In non-presidential election years. So for example, in 2022 and in 2026, elections now occur in June. And new council members are installed in July. Regardless, mayor and vice mayor are elected in April of each year, regardless of the municipal election dates. We decided to stay consistent with the April installation of mayor and vice mayor. A third piece of legislation is playing into all of this. We here locally had measure TL, which was on the June 7th ballot in 2022. The words are here on the right-hand side but the summary is that a council member can have a total of three terms during one's lifetime for the offices of City Council and Treasurer. This item passed by over 80% of the voters. So again the implications of these changes are during non-presidential election years. So I think 2022, 2026, there are two installations in those years. One is in April for the mayor and the vice mayor. One is in July for new council members. And this is also led to the possibility in non-presidential election years for a council to be elected as mayor in April and term out because of measure TL or not be elected in June. So things got very complicated. That's what this means. I am going to try my very best graphically to explain this, particularly for folks at home who may be trying to follow all of these changes that have happened over the last few years. So, you know, on the one side of the screen here, we have the mayor, the vice mayor, council member with the highest seniority, second highest seniority, third highest seniority. Basically the way the rotation has worked and currently works is that the rotation is based on your election year and on the number of votes that you receive. Okay, so there's two factors that determine the rotation into vice mayor and mayor. So as an example, let's look at July 2022. I'm going to draw a line here. So in July 2022, we had a mayor and a vice mayor who were already in their roles. We also had an election in 2022. So we had the first vote getter who was elected to serve their second term. We had the second vote getter who was elected to serve their first term. And then we had a third vote getter who was elected to serve their unprecedented fourth term on City Council. In this same election however measured T.L. the term limits went into place. So from this election forward term limits now applied so this is where things get interesting. So I'm going to jump forward to last year. Let's focus on April 2024. It was an election year, presidential election year. And in that year, the number one vote getter from the 2022 election, ascended to mayor. That person is in their second term. The second place vote getter, send to vice mayor and is in their first term. The third place vote getter, ascended to the council member with the greatest seniority as of last year. Now we are moving toward April 2025 in a few months, so the second place vote getter will should everything proceed as it usually does, should rotate into the mayorship. The senior highest council member would rotate into the vice-mayors ship. And if everything were to proceed, quote unquote, as normal. In April 2026, the council member with the highest number of, or the third highest number of votes would ascend to my pensmelt working. Would ascend to my pens not working. And to mayor. Now the challenge comes in because the third highest vote getter is in their fourth term. And so now term limits are in place. And so that council member is set to term out in July 2026. So should things follow their normal course of things, you could have a mayor who is elected by their peers in April 2026, who serves for three months until they term out in July 2026, who serves for three months until they turn out in July 2026. The situation further gets complicated because somebody else takes over. In July of 2026, you would assume it would be the first place of vote getter from back in the April 2024 election. And then the question becomes, do they serve a nine month term to bring us to April of 2027, or do they serve a one year term, in which case everything gets shifted forward. So if nothing else, hopefully the viewers at home can see that this is very complicated and very messy. So I'm going to get rid of all this writing. I'm sure it's an easier way to do that. I'm practicing. Okay. Pretty clear now, I think it's pretty clear now. I think. Okay. So the challenge is that it's this is not just an issue, potential issue for the 2026 year. The reality is that you could come to a situation in April of 2030. And we can walk through this whole chart. But for now, just trust me, in 2030, we could get to a point where the third highest vote getter, if they're not re-elected in the 2020, sorry, in the 2030 election, we could again have a situation where you have someone who is serving as mayor for three months. The question then becomes who, you know, the next person did they serve nine months did they serve a year. So, as you'll recall, we talked about this previously. The mayor assigned the elections ad hoc to work through all of these many complicated issues. Our elections ad hoc are a council member Corman and council member Wells. They met a few weeks ago. At that meeting, five options were presented by staff. Certainly not the not a comprehensive list of possibilities, but it was some ideas on how to address this issue if at all. So the first option was we could continue on path, have a three month mayoral term in 2026 have the next person take over and then figure out what happens then. If someone can't be mayor, so there was an indication at the meeting that we wanted to have mayors that were able to serve for a year. So can somebody be vice mayor, if they can't be mayor for their full term? Another option was presented, which examined a scenario where a council member can only be vice mayor, if they can serve a full term as mayor. There was yet another option which was forget all this and move our elections to the November election cycle. There's complications with that which we can talk about if there's any interest. There's also the possibility which is somewhat related to the earlier options where the third highest vote getter in the non-presidential elections would not be eligible to serve as mayor or vice mayor. There were other options that were discussed many variations of all of these things that were discussed at the meeting. So this is not a comprehensive list. At the end of the day, it really boiled down to three main questions. This is my best way of summarizing the discussion. The discussion was not broken out in this way, but I think this is the best way to summarize the discussion. So the first question is, should the mayor serve for one year? It could be less, it could be more, or should it continue to be one year? Does it matter if the mayor is going to term out versus not being reelected? Does that matter? The ad hoc's recommendation in this question was essentially the mayor should serve for a year. We should continue that tradition. A second question that helped summarize the discussion is should the vice mayor serve if they cannot serve as mayor for a year? So they can serve the full year as vice mayor but they can't serve a full term as mayor. If they turn out, does it matter one way? If it's possible they wouldn't be reelected, does it matter another way? The answer was no. If someone cannot serve their term reasonably as mayor for one year, they would not serve as vice mayor. The third question that sort of summarizes the discussion was should the third highest vote getter in the non-presidential election year rotate in as vice mayor or mayor. What usually happens when the third place vote getter is that they rotate into the next term if they are reelected. So the answer was no, they would not serve as mayor or vice mayor. If they wanted to serve as mayor or vice mayor, they would need to be reelected in a higher ranking of one or two. So staff's best understanding of the ad hoc recommendation was that the mayor should only be a vice mayor if they can reasonably serve as mayor for a year. That would mean that if they term out they would not serve as mayor, they would not serve as vice mayor. If they have the possibility of not being re-elected, they would not serve as mayor or vice mayor. The resolution to this was that the third-place vocator in non-presidential election years would not rotate in as either vice mayor or mayor. This just shows the election pattern, so on the one side here you have the rotation of the mayor and the vice mayor. I'll note that in the policy manual, it indicates that the mayor and vice mayor are elected by the other council members to their positions. We usually, we do that every year, and usually follow a rotation. So, assuming we would do that moving forward, these are all of the April dates by which mayor and vice mayor would rotate and what you'll see in the mayor and the vice mayor. Columns is that it's 2-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2. You don't see a three in there. That's basically what the result would be is that the third place winner would not rotate in as mayor vice mayor. Since the time of the ad hoc meeting, one of our ad hoc has reconsidered and prefers an option that was discussed in the meeting, which involves moving the election of mayor and vice mayor to June. So as a result of that, as of today we don't have the ad hoc concurrence around preferred way to handle this situation. So today the City Council is asked to consider the recommendation that was made by the election ad hoc. Any other approaches that are shared today? We ask that the Council provide direction on whether changes should be made to the election of vice mayor, the timing of that, election dates, et cetera. Of course, Council can provide any other direction. Should we reach consensus today that the next step amongst the council members, the next step would be that the city council direction would be folded into the policy manual. That part of the policy manual would be brought to the February 19th, sorry, 2025. I did it to 2025 meeting for adoption. And without my report is complete, I think we were going to have the other option shared with the council members at this time. Okay, did you want to do that now? I have a report on that. So you want to do that now? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead. Oh, by the way, I just want to say that I also would like to go back to 2024. Instead of 2025, this has been a very rough beginning of the year, but I think we do need to change it. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. So as you know, I think staff report covered a a lot of what we discussed that our ad hoc committee meeting The the conversation was sort of all over the place so Some of the nuances at least from my perspective may have been May have been read a little different differently than I would already remember it, but I could be wrong But the gist of it just as the report is correct But as you know Mr. Merritt you charged council member Wells and I, as part of the ad hoc committee to take a look at the policy manuals dealing with the elections and the mayoral and vice mayoral rotations. And as staff report, I think correctly summarized, under that general sentiment, there are essentially two separate but related issues that need to be addressed. First, there's the impact of our recently enacted term limits. How should we treat the mayoral and vice mayoral rotations if we know someone won't be able to serve as mayor when their time comes? There's always been the possibility someone serving as vice mayor might be voted out of office before they become mayor and it's happened occasionally in the past. But with term limits, that possibility that the vice mayor will not serve as the mayor will now be a certainty every so often. And so the question is how do we deal with that? And in fact, we're facing that certainty as staff indicated next year. The second issue is, as staff reports said, we need to address the impact of the state's decision to move its primary elections in gubernatorial years to June, and we had to follow suit. This means in some years, council members are elected in June and some in March as in the past. So if we keep as the staff report showed, if we keep our annual mayoral and vice-meral installations in April, it's now distinctly possible that someone could be installed as Mare or Rice Mare in April and then get voted out of office three months later in June. And that would have several negative effects, I think we all recognize them. The outgoing Mare would only serve three months and whatever work was done on their agenda would likely be wasted. The incoming Mare would only serve nine months, which would be less time to accomplish what they want to do. The incoming mayor would also have had little time, would have little to no time to decide on an agenda, and would not have had a year of being vice mayor to repair for being mayor. So all in all, none of this would seem to be in the best interest of the city, which is what brought us here today. Now, if you plot out the next 10 election cycles, and I did, and unfortunately, I left my legal pad at home, I was not happy when I realized that when I arrived here today, this possibility that someone could be voted out of office and not serve as mayor is actually a possibility fully half the time in future elections over the next 10 election cycles. So it's a real possibility. So in an effort to find solutions to these two issues, Councilmember Wells and I met and examined some possible options on how to better arrange the Maryland vice-pronged rotations. And I think I speak for both of us when I say there is no perfect option that addresses both issues that we've identified. Every option we looked at has at least one significant drawback, and the question we face and the question I think the council needs to decide as a group is which drawbacks are the least objectionable. So what are the options we looked at? Well, there are, I counted five, but my five are slightly different than the staff's five, so I'll just go through I counted First we could maintain the status quo As I mentioned the problem with this is it would leave us with the frequent possibility and the occasional certainty giving our given our Term limits that will have mayor serving for only three months and other mayor serving for the nine months with little preparation As I said this would not seem to be in the best interest the city months, and other mayors serving only nine months with little preparation. As I said, this would not seem to be in the best interest of the city. And in fact, I think this was the main reason why the ad hoc committee was tasked with looking at the subject in the first place. That at least four other options that I recall that I remember when we identified. One of these options is to keep the annual, and this was sort of alluded to as part of the recommendation, so that wasn't, she wasn't really, it didn't need to be part of the recommendations because the ultimate recommendation of the ad hoc didn't need this. But one of the options is to keep the annual mayoral installation in April, but impose a rule that if it is not certain that a council member will be able to serve a full term as mayor when their time comes, either due to term limits or a future election where they could be voted out, then they should not become mayor or vice mayor until it becomes certain that they will be able to serve a full term as mayor when the time comes. This would mean that council members who ordinarily would be in line to serve as vice mayor one year and mayor the next would be entirely skipped over until they're reelected in certain instances. Aside from the fact that this would lead to a relatively unpredictable and marginally chaotic mayoral rotation, when you plot out the next 10 election cycles and you just assume people get reelected, it turns out the impact of this real would fall entirely on council members elected in the June gubernatorial primaries. In particular, when I stepped it out, the second and third place folks getters, vote getters knows elections, we blocked from being mayor or vice mayor roughly a quarter of the time. Now, we at the ad hoc committee, we didn't spend a lot of time discussing this option. I don't recall recommending it, but it was discussed. And- Second place is will you? Yeah, yeah, if you plot it out. The second and third places get bumped from the rotation five out of 20 times. That's the way I just plot it. Anyway. You've asked me, they're correct. I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, so if you plot out the elections and how they would step out, who gets elected, who's then up for the mayor and vice-mairorship, if you accept that rule, that if you know that the person can't serve as mayor, or if you're not certain that the person can serve as mayor. And they don't serve as vice mayor of the previous year and they don't serve as mayor of the following year until they're reelected and become certain they get back in line. If you step that out, that, the people get bumped a quarter of the time in the rotations over the next 10 election cycles are 20 years, 5 out of 20. in the rotations over the next 10 election cycles are 20 years, five out of 20. Anyway, so. You took it out 20 years. I just took it out 20 years. I actually stepped it a little more, but let's just cut it off 20 years. And when does that happen out of curiosity? I'm sorry. When does that happen out of curiosity? Yeah, unfortunately I left my, I left my no pad at home and I tried to call Karen But our puppy our dog is ill and I don't think she's by her phone So I was hoping I would have it, but it varies. It's not a regular pattern It happens and then it doesn't happen then it happens again. So I'm just Just that that's that's what I found when I stepped it out I really do want to let you continue without being interrupted by one question. Sure. How many times does it happen to the two or does it not happen to the two? So it happens intermittent to the second and third place. Interesting enough, interestingly enough, the way the- I mean he needs the two who are on the- Mark cyclic. In the Mark cyclic doesn't happen at all. They don't get bumped. So anyway, so as I said, we didn't discuss this. A great length. We went on other options. And there were three other options, primarily we discussed. And these are the ones, you know, I recall we focused on. The first, as the staff board indicated, moved the mayoral installations to July when all the council elections will have been decided, regardless of the year they occur. This was not favored by Councillor Royals. We did not spend a lot of time on it. Second, move all the council member elections November to November. Council Member elections in November. To coincide with the presidential and gubernatorial general elections and have the mayoral installations occur in December. The third option, as the staff in Port Indicator, was keep the council elections where they are, keep the mayoral installation where it is in April. But adopt a rotation system similar to the one used by the school board, which entirely drops from the rotation of the third place finisher in the years when there are three seats up. I'll discuss the pros and cons of each of these three options. First, moving the installation to July would eliminate the possibility of anyone serving only three months as mayor, and would also eliminate the possibility of anyone serving only three months as mayor. And would also eliminate the possibility of anyone serving only three months as vice mayor before becoming mayor. It would not eliminate the possibility that someone who was vice mayor and slated to become mayor in July could be voted out of office in June. Meaning it's still possible. It still would be possible that someone could be installed as mayor in July without having served as vice mayor the previous year. I know. would still be possible if someone could be installed as mayor in July. Okay, so we could move the installation to July, move the installation to July after all the elections are completed. Would eliminate the possibility of anyone serving only three months as mayor, and would also eliminate the possibility of anyone serving only three months as vice mayor before becoming mayor? It would not eliminate the possibility that someone who is vice mayor and slated to become mayor in July. His vote could be voted out of office a month earlier in June, meaning it's still possible someone could be installed as mayor in July without having served as vice mayor the previous year. Can I just interrupt for one second? When you say that they can't be vice mayor or mayor, it eliminates the possibility of vice mayor or mayor for three months. That's right. What it does it eliminates the possibility of vice mayor mayor for three months. That's right. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that you wouldn't complete your term the full year term. That's correct and I'll get to that in a minute. Just shifting from three months to nine months. Well, it so I will get to that in a minute. Okay. That is correct. Let's put Craig finish because it's a long time. It's a report. I'm just trying to go through all the permutations. So obviously the possibility of someone being elected, being installed as mayor, because the person, and without having served as vice-merderer before, is a possibility we've lived within the past, and it's occurred in the past. I think the last time was when Lily was, became mayor and when Nancy Crasney was voted out while she was vice mayor. Right. Now, if we know someone definitely wouldn't be able to serve as mayor because of term limits, we could add a rule that when we know that to be the case, the council member will be terming out, can't serve as vice-member year before. So the person who ultimately does serve as mayor has a year as vice-member of the mayoral position. That would be a limited rule to apply only to people who are terming out, as opposed to people who might be elected or voted out. Now one downside with the July installation option is that, and this is something that Councillor Mourwell has just alluded to, is that in some years a council member serving as mayor would be up for re-election to following March, and there's a possibility that they could serve for less than a full year if they are voted out of office. This would only be the case for council members elected in a March election. And over the course of three terms would apply only once to each person. And when it applied to that person, they would be mayor running for reelection. And one could argue that being mayor while running for reelection is actually an advantage. And if someone who has the visibility of being mayor is voted out of office, the voters are affirmatively saying that person shouldn't serve the last three months of their mayoral term, so arguably they shouldn't. Now another drawback to the July installation option is that if you plot out the next 10 election cycles, under this scenario, council members elected in March, and who are fortunate enough to serve three terms could only serve as mayor and vice mayor twice, whereas the council members elected in June could serve as mayor and vice mayor three times over three terms. But they would have to be reelected to do so. Yeah, assuming they served the full three terms, the council members who are elected and March are disadvantaged. My point is they would have to be reelected during their term as mayor in order for them to be able to complete their term. So if you look at a 12 year cycle, the first time, the second place finisher in the March prior March election, would be mayor running for reelection. In the second term, the first place finisher would be running for reelection. Well, mayor. So it's not the same person, and in the third time they both term out. And they can't serve as mayor of Icemer. So you're right. But it only happens once for each person, it would only happen once for each person, only when they're mayor running for reelection. But actually, for example, in your example, in the first term, for example, for you used you, you wouldn't be in that position, but I would be in that position in my first term, and in the second term. I would be in that position. You would be in that position. Assuming I was forced to get a reelected, yes. Right, so that's right We're elected to complete your year as much. Let's go. Well, okay, so so Finally another slight upside to having the installation in July is that the mayoral term would coincide with the city's fiscal year So any mayoral initiatives that need extra funding could be committed in a single budget cycle instead of being stretched out over two Now the next option we looked at was moving all the council elections to November. The advantage of this option is we would completely eliminate the possibility of partial mayoral terms. However, like the July installation option, it would not eliminate the possibility of a vice mayor being voted out of office before becoming mayor or the possible that someone could become mayor without being vice mayor of voted out of office before becoming mayor or the possible that someone could become mayor without being vice for the previous year. But again, we've lived with those possibilities before. There are two big drawbacks that were identified to this option. One, you would mean council elections and school board elections would happen at the same time. This could potentially lead to confusion among voters as to who is running for what and what everyone's positions on the issues are. The city has always avoided having council and school board elections at the same time, and I think that's a big reason why. The other problem that November option is that we would have to extend all our terms and office to arrange it. I'm personally not comfortable with that. The voters elected us to four-year terms, not not four years plus whatever we think is appropriate. My belief is terms should be extended only when it is absolutely necessary and only when it's in the best interest of the city. And given the fact that moving to November elections wouldn't solve all of the issues we're facing, given the fact that those issues most the effect, let's face it, the five of us up here, not the city in general, and given the availability of other viable options, I don't believe extending our terms would be the right thing at this point. I'll also note from a budgeting standpoint, a December mayoral installation is an ideal because it falls at the midpoint of our city's fiscal year, so mayoral initiatives that require additional funding would have to be planned out over two budget cycles. The last option that Councilmember Wells and I discussed was the so-called school board option. Where the third place finisher in a June election years is simply dropped from the mayor and vice mayor rotation. Now, if you plot out the next 10 election cycles, it becomes clear that this option would actually solve both of the issues we've identified. The possibility of partial mayoral terms would be eliminated, as would the possibility that a vice mayor might be voted out of office before becoming mayor. For this reason, Council member Wells and I ultimately decided at our meeting to recommend this option to the council as the staff report indicated. However, after further reflection as the staff reportated, I no longer feel comfortable doing that. Saying one council member can never be mere or vice mere just seems too much of a break with council traditions. And would limit the contributions of one council member even though we were all elected by the entire community. I also worry he would not be conducive the type of collegial working at that we've enjoyed that community has come to expect from us because someone might be viewed as less than the others. So for that reason, and the fact that there are no great options here, I would support the July installation option as being the least objectionable one in my opinion. I recognize I would be in the group of council members that would be negatively affected by strawbacks, not at the first instance but ultimately and equally. But that's something I'm willing to accept given the problems with all the other options we've identified so far. I note that if we were to move our mayoral installations to July, we have to decide how to deal with a one time three months transition period. But rather than go through all the possibilities now, let's see if that's up to the council likes. We can talk about it or if the council doesn't like that, there's no point in discussing. And if councilor Wells wants to add anything, you're welcome to now. So, so I'm clear, there are three things that we need to decide that is whether or not you can be mayor if you don't have a full term whether or not you can be vice mayor if you can't be mayor. Your in the last one is the issue of how do we handle that? So is there consensus from the ad hoc as to, or did I miss it, that you cannot ascend to mayor unless you have a full term? So there, I don't think there was a consensus. That was the preference voiced voice by councilman Rewell's. they should not serve as vice mayor of the year before. Cannot, cannot serve. Crypt translate as doesn't have enough time to complete. Cannot serve as, it's certain they cannot serve as opposed to possible. Okay. So, so it would be a term limit issue. It would be, that would only apply to people who are terming out and you know in advance they will not be reelected. And that was, that was, that was, that was agreed to or not agreed to at the, at the ad hoc. I believe we agreed on the beginning that it's in the issue right now. I mean, that's really what I, that's an issue, but, but, but we did agree that with respect to someone who's terming out, they should not, if they can't serve a full term, they cannot serve a full term. They're, it's, they're, they're barred from serving a full term. They're barred from serving a full term. Then they shouldn't serve as vice, whether they're before. The difference is whether if it's possible, someone won't serve a full term as mayor, should they be allowed to serve as vice mayor or mayor? That was the difference. And that's still an issue to be discussed. OK. OK. According to that, council member Coney. OK. Okay. Okay. Very good. According to Council Member Cornie. Okay. No, let's hear the, if there's another report, like to hear it. Yeah, I think so. Well, first of all, I mean, just where, the reason we're here is because of the fact that when the elections were changed and we added the June election, instead of it being on the same day alternating every two years, it's now on two separate months. And that creates really three issues and they weren't really identified at least to my knowledge until recently. And that's why the ad hoc was charged to address those three issues. And the three issues are if you cannot complete your term as mayor, should you be seated as mayor? And that would be because you could be terming out or you're not going to run again or, or, but those really the two things, you're going to turn out or you don't plan to run again. So if you cannot complete your term as mayor, should you be seated as mayor? And in the ad hoc meeting, very clearly we said, we would not see the mayor for three months. I think Craig said, and I'll quote, I think we all agree and everybody agrees that we would never see a mayor for three months. And it was really implied in what we talked about as we wouldn't see the mayor that could complete their term You may have we thought that now, but that was what we talked about I'm not sure we expressly talked about that, but it doesn't matter what we talked about or agreed to the questions What's the preference of the council? Right what exactly well and with regard to that We talked about the uncertainty of not having to marrow in their seat the full year, the impact of it from a planning standpoint, that traditionally we have one year terms for vice mayor mayor, that there's a succession from the vice mayor to the mayor, and that to see the mayor for three months, six months, nine months, how do you wanna talk about it? It doesn't make good, it's not good policy, it's not good planning, it's not good for the city to say here's our mayor for three months, here's one for six months, next time we have one for 12 months to keep it consistent, having a mayor and vice mayor for one year to serve those one year terms has been our tradition and it works and people expect it and it's stability and it's reliable and it's part of what makes our city and our council work well. With regards to the second question, it was, should we see the vice mayor if we know they're not going to be mayor? And you know, the question came up, if they are terming out and we know in advance, should we allow that person to be vice mayor, even though they won't be mayor. And the example that Craig brought up, Council Member Cormin, is if that is a case, the vice mayor, the person that would ascend to the mayoral position would then have to skip their year as vice mayor, which in this case with John would be Craig So and it would likely repeat potentially every four years where that would happen Which would mean Craig as accounts member who I think the words you use whereas as the number one goat goat getter in March You know he would be giving up his vice mayor term or in the case if we let them sit Let that person sit for three months He would be mayor for only nine months and that nine months didn't seem fair or acceptable Or the will of the voters in that sense because he was a first-place vote getter and so that was unacceptable I don't recall saying that it was unfair because that was the first place vote getter. I think you said that it was unfair or I have the quote so I can say that in this scenario the number one vote getter in April 2024 would get a truncated mayoral term, which doesn't seem in keeping with the voters will. Right, I may have said that, yes. I think when we- I didn't, I didn't, I didn't specifically make it personal to me. Okay. And then the quote that you said about the mayor serving a not serving a full year term was not a great idea to serve as three to serve as three months and then someone else serve as a fraction of the year. So it was unacceptable. And I think we all agreed on that because of creating stability. So we landed on the fact that you shouldn't be mayor unless you can complete your term. If you couldn't be mayor, you shouldn't be vice mayor. And then we looked at all the different versions of the different scenarios, I think as well, Craig on his own, clearly you went 20 years out and plotting it. I think I didn't go that far. I might have gone I don't know, 10, 12, but we all went and looked and tried to figure it out. It's really complicated when you're trying to map that out. And I think as well the city manager and staff did and really did a best that we could to play out all the different scenarios. And what we really found is that no matter the different scenarios and trying to solve one issue, it typically created more issues. And the more issues that were created made it more complicated. Even as we try and explain it, it becomes complicated. When the fact is, as the question was, there's three issues that came up. Should you see the mayor if they can't complete their term? Because we don't do that. It's disruptive. Would you knowingly as a policy, seat a council member, as mayor, to represent the city, the council, and in terms of planning and how we plan for the year, is that the best policy and the best way to run the city? That's really the question. And we decided that that was not ideal. And that we, and certainly not for three months. To me, it's three months, six months, nine months is the same thing. It's not a full year, we have full year terms for mayor. And the second question is, should you seat the vice mayor if they couldn't be mayor? And we landed on the fact that you wouldn't seat the vice mayor if they couldn't be mayor. We considered it, but then it's that it creates the issue of the person that would have been vice mayor not having the opportunity to be vice mayor. So when we looked at all the different scenarios, we ended up on the school board version per se, which is exactly what we just said. You're not vice mayor or mayor because you don't rotate on in that term. And the third question that can and really to use Craig's words, he said, I plotted out the option number five, which is what the school board does. And that pretty much solves all the problems in one fell swoop. No one would be eligible for becoming vice mayor without becoming mayor, and no one would become mayor without first becoming vice mayor. And you could keep the elections on the existing cycle and keep the installation in April as we do now. It's sort of a one stop shop. In addition, you said that going with the school board system provides no uncertainty, no partial terms, and it's just cleaner. We could adopt it tomorrow and it solves all of the problems. It has the fewest drawbacks. And I believe that that's still true today. I really do. The one issue that we didn't address and we started to address it and it was one of the arguments that I made as to why you wouldn't have the person, if they couldn't sit as mayor as vice mayor, is because of the fact that if we allowed them to rotate like the council has done in the past where if you weren't able to be vice mayor and mayor in your term and you were reelected then you would have a priority placement to be in the succession for vice mayor and mayor in your next term. And that's been the council's way of doing it. And that's what Nancy was alluding to earlier. And when I suggested that part of the reason why you wouldn't be vice mayor is because if you were to rotate on because of these two different months, it would seat you behind the seated vice mayor. And if that's the case, it works because then you would go to vice mayor and mayor and we wouldn't it wouldn't create a new issue. If you had the person be vice mayor before and then they got reelected and they wanted to rotate on you'd find yourself with two vice mares so then the question becomes again who goes to mayor and then what happens with this the other vice mayor do then what happens with this other vice-meric? Do they have two terms of the vice-mer? And that's why I created a problem. If you allowed the person to be vice-mer, but not because even though they were not going to be mayor and they ran in the next election and they won. And we wanted to see them in terms of having the next having priority to be the next vice mayor mayor because they didn't have that opportunity. They would have already been vice mayor. So when they when you look to where would you place them? We have that now they be mayor. No, but you have a mayor. You have a mayor that's already seated. So then at the end of the mayoral term, they would be. No, they would either have to be vice mayor for two years or they'd go back to being accounts remembering you'd have someone else be vice mayor. So you're changing the succession. Because here's an example and I'll just use this example for understanding and I really don't want this to be personal And I've said this before because this repeats so if in this case we use numbers Okay Okay, I'm just gonna give this example My concern is I don't like to have names associated with it this example. I just want to give you a little more complicated. We have this. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. My concern is I don't like to have names associated with it because I- I may be in C. That's fine. So you have a person just follow me with this. You have a person that is in the situation where they won't be mayor, okay? So you allow them to be vice mayor, okay? So then after to their vice mayor and the person that would be vice president steps in as mayor the next year. I have to show it to you on paper, but trust me when I say, if you let the person be vice mayor and then you rotate them, when they rotate on in June, because you elected your mayor and vice mayor in April, when they came on in June, you already have a vice mayor sitting there. But if you haven't been vice mayor yet, then you would follow the vice mayor. So then in April, the vice mayor goes to mayor, you go to the vice mayor, and then your number one person is the next person in line for the succession. They slip in in between. Before when the council did it, they didn't have the situation with the vice mayor and this is why we didn't come to a conclusion in our ad hoc meeting is because Craig's concern and council member Corman's concern was if we do this rotation, their situations where a person could be seated as mayor and they wouldn't have been vice mayor as in the past what John was just talking. So he was concerned about the rotation because it creates these other scenarios where people can be elected and seated as vice mayor or seated as mayor. And that's not the case now because the elections go March and June. And so if you do it in this way, that will never be an issue. Because if the person was not able to be vice mayor mayor, and they were reelected, they would go to the, like, first in line for succession to be the next vice mayor and mayor, and you'd never have a situation where they would go straight to mayor. So you could allow for the succession. And the reason that works is that this way everybody has a chance to be vice mayor and mayor. It's keeping the consistency that we've always had, which is the vice mayor term is one year, the mayor term is one year. It never creates a situation where you're extending the term of a mayor or a vice mayor. It also allows you to rotate in a way that's consistent and reliable. So it is the most simple solution. It allows us to keep the tradition of our March election and our April installation, which I think you've made the argument that it is good to have it be consistent. Our fiscal planning, we're doing planning during this time. We adopt the budget in June. We don't adopt the budget in July or November. We're actually well into it by then. And so from a planning, fiscal planning, the cycle of the city, it makes the most sense. And it leaves everything exactly as it is. You're not changing anything. You're not changing anything. You're not creating new problems. You're really just figuring out the solution for what happens with the mayor if they can't finish their term, what happens to the vice mayor if they can't be mayor, and how do you rotate that person in so that they have the opportunity to be vice mayor mayor first if they're reelected in their next term, which is how the council's always done it. And it's actually better now in many ways because you don't have a situation where you seat someone directly to mayor. And so I think it works really well. And it's the least disruptive. This issue of adopting, changing the installation to July, all it does is shift the issues to July, but it doesn't solve the issues. And in fact, in trying to solve the issues, it creates more issues and more uncertainty and more irregularity. So if, in the example that Councilmember Korman gave, if a Councilmember is mayor and they're running for their next term and they should lose. They come off as mayor and they're replaced by the vice mayor. That just extended the vice mayor's term. It also extended to mayor. So you just extended the mayor's term and the vice mayor's term. It also gives them an incentive to unseat the mayor because they're running. So not only is the mayor running for their next term, in effect, they're now running for two things. They're running to be in the next term, but they're running so that they can stay mayor for their year. No one else has to do that. Why would we put someone in that position, anyone, and why would we put the city in that position? To not know if your mayor is going to stay mayor for that year during an election, where now the seat for mayor is up for grabs. And we know how political that these elections get. So you could have council members gunning for that mayor's seat, you could have the community gunning for the mayor because not only are they running for their next seat, but in effect, you kind of bypass the process to try and unseat a mayor without even having an election for a referendum. Which everything about that is political. And it doesn't solve a problem. It creates a really big problem. If you wanna have a collegial board or council, that doesn't create one. It actually makes it worse. Isn't the person in the second seat running during their term as mayor? Under that scenario. Under that scenario. You're running, not running to keep your term as mayor. You're just running in your last year. With the advantage of the error, not the outcome. Well, I would argue that that's not necessarily an advantage. Having run as an elected, it takes a lot of time. You're focusing on your year as mayor as well. You have to run an election. But then on top of that, now you're going to be running an election to try and keep your year as mayor. So you're making it even worse. It's not necessarily better. And also I would add that in that scenario, I think council member Corman, your first year, you're not, it doesn't affect you. And it may affect you not in your second year, but it would affect you in your third year. Sure, you may. Your third term. No, it would affect you in your third year. Your third term. No, it would affect me. If I were fortunate to be real likely, it would affect me at the end of my second term. It would be in the same position. I'm not certain of that. But either way, I would say this, no matter who's in that seat, myself or anyone, I would not vote for that. And if it meant I wouldn't be mayor of icemer I would still not vote for it because it is bad policy. You're going to ask the city that and after the election say you are reelected and it's close. You have 30 days before you're certified. So the city has a mayor that's not certified to be there and you don't know if they're going to complete the term. That is not the scenario you would only- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's finish the, the, the, the, the lay is on report because I think I need to go to- No, finish. Because I need to go to- So let me just wrap it up and my point is this. The, the things that we address in the liaison committee were you shouldn't be mayor if you can't complete your term. You shouldn't be vice mayor if you can't be mayor. The question we didn't complete, completely answer is could they rotate if they didn't, if they weren't able to be mayor or vice mayor during that term. And it works if they didn't, if they're not seated as vice mayor mayor in the term before. And we could do that. And I'm really open to that and I think it's a great solution and I looked into it and I think I plotted it out and it works So that would be my recommendation because it's the best policy It continues the tradition of the council of having one year mayor one year vice mayor You never create a situation of an extended mayoral term or vice mayor term You're not asking a vice mayor to skip their term a person to skip their vice mayor term. You're not asking a vice mayor to skip their term, a person to skip their vice mayor term. It is rotating and it's fair and expected, it's stable. It is what we've been doing in the past. It adjusts the issues from the last decision the council made and makes it the most streamlined way to do it with the least negative impacts on our city and our council. The option for July to me only creates more complications. It extends mayor terms, it extends vice mayor terms. It creates uncertainty and stability. And it all really quite frankly is in my mind. It's using, it doesn't fix any of the issues that we're addressing. What it does do is it makes it better from a personal or political gain. It manipulates and engineers a reason to keep a person, to be mayor for three months. You know, there's a lot of reasons that it could be perceived purely political because it's not making a better policy. It didn't solve the other problems. So if you want to have a good policy and fix the problems with the least impact, I would really encourage our council to consider going with the options that we had already discussed and as well considering the opportunity for that person that's not mayor and vice mayor to rotate in because it works. And if you want to go with the political personal option then I would go with July. Okay, so is that the end of the, is on report? Everybody will get a chance again. Let me just add one thing. Yeah, it's important. Yeah, so first of all, I stand by everything I said at the ad hoc committee. I do not think it's a good idea to have partial terms. As I mentioned, with the July option, you only have that possibly twice over the span of 12 years. And the person could conceitably probably will get served an entire year and I would argue that if someone is voted out of office after nine months there's no city interest in having them continue for that last three months. It's not it's it's maybe a personal interest but not a city interest. But the other thing I wanted to stress is that at the ad hoc committee, we did not have a meeting of the minds on the question of whether someone who might not be able to serve mayor as mayor because they will be up for re-election. Should not serve as vice mayor of the year before. That was not an agreement and in fact one of the reasons why I landed on the so-called school board election is it short-circuit of that discussion. Because it was clear that council member Wells had one opinion and I had another. And this was a way to find a consensus, which I later regretted. And that's why I had a change of heart because I didn't think that eliminating one council member from the mail of rotation entirely was a good idea. And that's the only thing I have to add. But I did hear an option that the person wouldn't be eliminated. They would be stacked below. But let me let's go to public comment if any. And then we had our, this was probably the longest liaison report in my career. and I've been here for a while But um, is there any public comment? We do not have any public comment on this item. Okay so Okay What I'd like to do is put the questions up and see if we can go through the questions one by one, get an opinion on the question. We've had the argument already, but why don't we take them one by one? So there's the recommendations or there's the questions that the ad hoc's considered, which. So, I think the mayor has been asked to do. So, I think the mayor has been asked to do. So, I think the mayor has been asked to do. So, I think the mayor has been asked to do. So, I think the mayor has been asked to do. So, I think the mayor has been asked to do. So are there any exceptions or carve outs for that? So if we can go with that, starting with Council Member Wells and then we'll go around and see if we can come to a consensus on that. Oh, I'm sorry. Or comments? Or what? Let's do that. I'm sorry, John. You're absolutely correct. you're absolutely correct. You're absolutely correct. Well, we had the ad hoc report already. Let's go directly to your questions. And I beg your pardon, John. OK, so I think that a number of questions are being asked, but I'm not sure that all of them are or have been answered. So I'm not sure that we should simply answer these questions. There may be other ones for us to discuss as well. And I wouldn't necessarily frame it that way. I would note a couple of things. First of all, as a note, if we were a charter city, we could actually determine when our own elections were. We could go back to having them in all elections in March and they could be on non-presidential years, which we had in the past. I know that's something that we discussed before there are other advantages to being a charter city, but that would certainly be one of them. I'll also note that, you know, I know they looked at what other cities did. There are some cities where if you are, if you're up for re-election, you cannot serve as mayor. So that's considered to be an advantage that you're running as an incumbent, whereas other council members are not. There are also other cities, and again, I'm not saying I support this, where their mayoral terms to deal with this are nine months. Manhattan Beach comes to mind. In general. I thought there were going to be questions. If all I thought questions and comments go ahead. We just just come. I think that's what we should do in the comments afterwards. So if there are any questions let's do that. Okay then let me let me. This is complicated. I think there needs to be some form of organization. And yes I agree with the mayor. So then my question would be, know discussed about rotation was it discussed at all what happens if someone who's either sitting as vice mayor mayor moves to Miami in the middle of a term has that been discussed at all because these are real possibilities as well. So we did talk about this is based on my memory, we did talk about what if somebody terms out, what if they declare they're not going to run or they're not reelected. I don't know that we had substantial discussion around something. No, what if like someone is mayor and in the middle of their term they're like, I got the amazing job in wherever and I'm going to move and I sorry I can't continue serving. I don't believe we had substantial discussion around that issue. Because in theory that's sort of a form of as well as what do you do with the extra terms. Now I also want to ask I, for all of this discussion about manual in the terms, at the end of the day, the council elects. And whoever the council elects serves as those positions, correct? That is correct. Okay. So, for all that we're discussing. Was there any discussion about, like other cities, have moving to a directly elected mayor? In other words, where the residents would elect at large the mayor of the city. I don't think that was a charge of the lay of on. Well, if we're talking about rotation, and who's gonna be mayor and all that, you think. That would change the entire work. We didn't discuss that, it's a third answer, we didn't discuss it. Well, it wouldn't have to. I mean, you have sometimes someone where it's a, but I mean, again, if we're gonna look at these questions, maybe that's a question that should be discussed. All right, those are my questions, I guess I'll have other comments. Yeah, and that's fine. And any questions from the vice-versa? So one area that I need some clarity on is if somebody, I understand that if somebody would be mayor, we would want them to complete their entire term. But if somebody was going to be able to complete their term as vice mayor, and then run for office again, was that discussed? Yes. So that's sort, I think, I think I'm answering a question, if not, let's do it again. So I think it has to do with the questions on the screen that are here. So we talked about could somebody sit as vice mayor if there was certainty they would not be able to serve a full year as mayor because they would term out or they've declared that they would no longer run. In that case, the conversation at the ad hoc was they would not serve as vice mayor. If they, there was some conversation also if they were seated as vice mayor for the year, but might not be reelected when they are mayor. I thought we had concurrence around, no, they would not be allowed to serve as vice mayor. However, I will note that I heard Council Member Korman indicate I believe that he didn't feel there was consensus around that issue. I avoided that issue to be quite honest because I disagreed with Council Member Wells on that point. She was, I think, as you pointed out, saying that in her opinion that if you were if you were a vice if you were going to be vice mayor and correct me if I'm wrong but if you were going to be vice mayor and then you're going to be up for reelection you should not serve as vice mayor. Okay. And my feeling was no you should be able to serve as vice mayor but I didn't press the point because I saw a way out of that that sticky wicket by agreeing to the so-called school board option which now I'm going to disagree because we didn't continue the conversation. My reason for not being vice mayor if they were running again is that then they could rotate and if they rotated in the following year it eliminates the newly created issue of having two vice-mairs. Well, actually, if you didn't rotate, then you could say yes, you could be vice-mair. Actually, your point was they don't be vice-mair, and then if they get re-elected, they go back in line, and the person who was vice-mair the year that they were up for election would then serve as mayor and the person who was bumped would have to then become vice-murder them so they'd be two years down the line before they become mayor. Well in that case it would be nine months and they would be vice-murder and a year later they would be mayor. But if you did it the other way it creates an issue where you have two vice-murders. And what I was trying to eliminate is creating new issues by trying to solve the problem. So we never got there because the school board issue came up and that was what you felt was the strongest. And then we went back to talk about the rotation because I did bring it up again. And at that point you were concerned that it needed to be plotted out because you felt like you could have a situation where someone could be mayor and they talked about Nancy Crasney and Lily and those other different scenarios and that is why we didn't continue with that conversation and I hadn't plotted it out to all the way to that extent. But that was my thinking. It wasn't because for any other reason but I wanted to allow for a possibility to have that rotation because that's been the history and the tradition of the city. So I just want to point out that in that Nancy Crasney, Louis Bosse's situation, Louis had been mayor previously and then would you send it to an experienced person? But Craig's concern was that it could happen and that he wanted to be certain that it couldn't happen. Okay question. No, I think I don't quite- We're going to really. Yeah, we're going to really get through this. No question getting to this at this point so that we can go back. Your questions so we can go back to the three questions. Okay, I just want to take take a time out and and encourage all of my colleagues all of us. The reason why we have ad hawks is to kind of work out some of these sticky wikis, as you said, so that it doesn't happen, you know, so that we have more of a consensus and I want to encourage everyone to just have that simple. Well, I know that's something, but it's also fair for them to have it sometimes to us. It's also fair for them to have a disagreement. Right. The lay is on is not necessarily charged with coming to a conclusion, it's their position, but anyway, go ahead. So if we were to move to the July, would any of the terms be extended? So my understanding is they would not be extended. Are you sure? You mean the term is mayor or vice mayor? Yes. Oh, I apologize. It would. I apologize. OK. I thought you meant councilman. We would have us we would have a one A There be one there would be one it does someone someone would be extended three months as mayor or vice-miss Repeat so it if you want to go out 20 years it happens more frequently No, this is just when you make the switch from April to July installation No, if you are seated as mayor and you don't win during that election, the vice mayor and the mayor that replace them will have an extended term as mayor and vice mayor. We're not talking about that. We're talking about if you move from an April installation to July, there's a three month gap. How do you fill it? That's I think the question. I don't think that was a question. Okay, anyway, go ahead. I think the answer was it'll be extended. I think the answer is somebody's going to be extended. Yes. Can I just clear and I, you know, fools rush in, right? But can I just clarify that no council terms would be extended. We're talking about mayor and vice mayor terms that would be extended just to be clear because we also talked about the November option which would extend council member terms. So I just want to be clear that the July option would not extend council member terms. With regard to this discussion, I feel like there are two issues at hand. One is when someone's term is up and it looks like that's one of the scenarios that we're looking at right now and it looks like the ad hoc hat consensus on that. And is that correct? Ad hoc members. Please, though. That they should not be mayor and they should not be vice mayor. I mean, they could be vice mayor. It's not necessarily, I'm not opposed to it. I would consider it. But I think that the council's tradition has been that this succession is vice mayor to mayor. Okay. So with that said, if someone were to be vice mayor and run for office again, as vice mayor or as mayor, as vice mayor, you. That scenario, how would that play out in this situation? If they had an option to be able to run for vice mayor. So I'm going to repeat back the question, make sure I understand. So I am vice mayor. I am up for re-election in my term as vice mayor. Yes. Would I be allowed to serve as vice mayor? Essentially, is that the question? Okay. So I believe that... No, that's not my question. Okay, I'm sorry. No problem. Your vice mayor, you're running for re-election and once you win, you would be mayor. I don't know that we talked about that scenario specifically at the ad hoc. I do believe there was some. Well we did. Okay. Because that would be subsumed in the scenario or if you're going to be running for reelection before you become mayor, then you shouldn't be vice mayor the year before. This was the difference of opinion that I had with Councilmember Wells. And I don't I believe that someone is vice mayor. And they're going to be running for reelection. And if they're reelected, they'll be mayor. I think they should be going to be running for reelection and if they're reelected they'll be mayor I think they should be allowed to be vice mayor. I agree with that But that I think that's fair but councilmember Wells position was But I thought she just said the same thing The question is how you wrote something's trimmed out That's a somebody's termed out. Okay. If somebody is termed out I think that that's a whole different scenario And one of the issues that I'm having here, there's a very difficult discussion. And it's very complicated. And we need to look beyond the five of us sitting up here. And we need to think about this as a process for the well-being of our city and our constituents. And. I think that the discussion is that way. I don't. That's the way I'm not saying that anybody's not having that mayor. Yeah, I'm reiterating. So I think that that's what we're trying to get to. The reason why I'm saying that is because I don't want anybody to feel that this is personal. It's not about anybody terming out this year per se. This is about when we are in a similar situation because we all respect one another. We all appreciate the time that's been served and we want to be able to find the most clear transition as a governing body up here to be able to make it predictable so that the community understands the governing body up here to be able to make it predictable, make it so that the community understands who's next, make it easier for staff and to move forward from there. So that's why I'm asking these questions to kind of try to understand if someone or vice mayor has this scenario, when we look at this, would they be, has this been played out that somebody was Vice Mayor would run for office in order to get sworn in and then to be installed as mayor? So I can answer that and that's the question of the two vice-maris. I don't think it's two vice-maris though. I don't agree with that. The scenario is this, if you're vice-maris and there's a person that's mayor, right? And you don't go to mayor because you have to be, you're not going to be in a position I don't think what you're saying is if your vice mayor in the mayor sitting here and You it's your election year. Yes, and you run and win You're saying if you're it's your election your mid-year It would be when there's a So you you end on vice mayor and while your vice mayor you're running for re-election. Right. Okay. So then what happens when you lose? Or if you win. Because you want to be seen. If you win then you become mayor. That's very clear. And if you lose, guess what? But you can see the problem is this. The first seconder is a seconder. But you can see the problem is this. The problem is this. The first second or second or second or second or second. But you're not taking into account is that the election cycle is you're seated in April, right? So if you're vice mayor and you run, right? When you get installed there's already a mayor of vice mayor sitting there. So you can't go to mayor or vice-mer because they've already been installed. So you have to wait till the next installation period. No, you can't run as vice mayor if there's already two people there. You are the vice mayor. No, think about when you got installed as a June candidate. When you got installed, there was already a mayor and a vice mayor. You didn't re-install a new mayor and vice mayor. That's what I'm asking. I don't think any scenario would put it in a way that the vice mayor would run, or is that's what's happening here now. So I think, so I don't think there was any proposal that, you know, the vice mayor would run in an election or something like that. I believe that what I'm going to interpret what I think I've heard, if I'm vice mayor, I run during the term that I'm vice mayor to be reelected and then would ascend to mayor, I believe there is one opinion that you should not be allowed to be vice mayor. Because you cannot be guaranteed to be vice mayor, your full year, and mayor, your full year. I believe there is a second opinion that you could serve as vice mayor, be reelected, and then be mayor. So I believe there are two different opinions on that. In that scenario, if the person is vice mayor, there's a vice mayor. And then the first place winner who was not allowed to be vice mayor, but because he or she couldn't fill up the term, they could stack behind the next, the person who is vice mayor. And they get in the rotation at that point. Isn't that really kind of what we're doing now? I believe that that is what vice mayor, I'm sorry, I'm getting stuck on vice mayor. I believe that's what council member Wells was indicating I believe. That's not that's not we're doing now because people because right now you can serve as vice mayor even if you might not get reelected. So that again? So right now, that's not what we're doing, but that was a suggestion, right? That you would not run as, you would not be vice mayor the year before you were up, because you're not guaranteed to be elected and be able to serve mayor. So you would then stack behind the person who's vice mayor of your election. So then you'd be vice mayor, and then you'd be, that person would be vice mayor the year that you're elected. The next year you'd be vice mayor, and the year after that you'd be mayor. So it's between your second and second. So skip the vice mayor's shift. The person would skip. No, because they never were vice mayor. In other words, they were precluded from being vice mayor I'm just going to clarify, that is only in the case where if you couldn't be married, would you be vice mayor? If you could be, of course you would be vice mayor, or if you ended on vice mayor, you could be vice mayor and you would rotate around. It's only in that odd situation. Well, you know, we don't have a mayoral ship, like a certain city. We all five of us have the same amount of vote counts. Yeah, our votes count the same. And the community votes for all five of us. So to exclude one person, I guess that would be of concern for me. I don't know how to look at that. So I guess I'm curious to hear more on that portion of it. I think if I could, you know, again, full Russian, if I could say one thing, I think that, you know, I'll state the obvious, which is that we have elections every two years, and we have five council members. Right? So not everybody is going to get to serve. Right? Because there's five people in essentially four years. So I think that the ad hoc recommendation said third person just, they don't get to rotate in. I think the other option is that they do rotate in, but they come in later in their subsequent term. I'm the third person, third, third highest bill getter. I am not going to serve as mayor in my term, right? Because I'm essentially number five. So the question is, are they allowed, if they get reelected, are they allowed to serve as mayor and or vice mayor in the next term, if they're reelected? They could slot in somewhere in that next term, right? They could slot in somewhere in that next term, which is closer to what we have done in the past. It is complicated, as you can tell, which I think is why the ad hoc initially was trying to simplify, but it is possible for that third person to slot in if they are reelected for a second term. So, let's just be clear that right now in the June election when there are three people the person who comes in third place is never guaranteed being mayor Because there's only four that's a four-year term. They would have to be reelected the one exception We had is when the state, not the city, extended terms, and Bob Wonderlick was able to be that even though he was the third place. Let's get that clear. That in my mind, that third, that slotting the person below, delays that person from being coming there by one year. By two years. By two years. The way they're looking at it. The way that it's been suggested. Because in the past coming there by one year? By two years. The way they're looking at it. The way that it's been suggested. In the past, it's one year. In the past, so let's look at Bob. You're right two years. Right, exactly. It's an extra year of right here. You could slot them in. Earlier, the question is, then, what do you do with the sitting mayor and vice mayor? It just creates an issue. So at least I'm not fixated on that. I was trying to solve the issue so that we could actually have the rotation because I think the rotation was a nice thing to have so that everyone has that chance. Let's go back to the questions if you have any others. Okay. So we need to hit the issues and I know that at least one of our council members hasn't had enough time to give his comments. So I want to make sure I give him that opportunity. I would like to go through the three questions and see if we can get those answered. What is the three questions? The three questions is should the mayor serve for one year and we need to go down the line and say do you need to be you need to be guaranteed or partially guaranteed or most likely to be able to serve a one-year term in order to be mayor? Yes. So, it's not your turn. So let's start with Council Member Wells. Yes, I think that is true. You need to be mayor for the full year to be seated as married. That's whether you're terming out or there's a possibility you may not be reelected in the middle of your marriage. Okay, that answers both those questions. Councilmember Cormick. Councilmember Cormick. I think that's the best policy. No, I don't think the mayor, I think that's the ideal. That's the goal, but I think I don't think that if everyone would serve as mayor for a year, unless they're voted out of office while they're mayor, that I don't see how it serves the city's interest to say that shouldn't happen. So just so I'm clear, so they should not have to serve a full year. No, that would be the ideal as they serve full year. That would be the objective but if someone is mayor and as I said it's just a quirk of the system. I would be willing to do it. I'd be subject to it. If someone is mayor while they're running free election and as a result they lose three months because they get voted out of office, I don't think that's, I would not say don't take that option because of that. Okay. I go with my other. It could be anywhere from three to nine months. So it's tried to get, there'll be nine more. Someone's trying to get, and it's worth a more. So I think there's also the issue to consider. There's sort of an inequity between those who are on the cycle for two who are, you know, for the full year when they're running and then the people who are running in June. move, they get to June, tips it in the other direction, which means that 60% of the council in theory don't have that problem, but 40 do. But I think that this notion that we're going to drop somebody, I think Craig, you said it very well. It makes it feel like someone is not equal even though they're elected. In theory, the person who came in third could come in third by six votes. And that person could have maybe more votes than the other people who were elected in the other cycle. So I think, yes, there's the issue that, and there have been a couple of times, I think there's been only one time where a sitting vice mayor didn't get to become mayor because he wasn't reelected, Bernie Hect. Nobody's gonna remember him, that was in the, yeah, okay. But aside from that, what year was Bernie Hacked? He was before I was sick. Okay, so we're talking about 50 years ago. So, you know, it's about 35 years ago. But you're just sitting the burden from March to June. So you're the second place person versus the third place? Well, you could, you could look at it that. But again, so from my perspective, from my perspective, I also, you know, the notion of serving, if someone can serve out a year's vice mayor, and of course this is my situation, we'll get to it in a second. Of course, I feel that I could serve as vice mayor. And I think in situations where people have had to step in is mere that's fine, but will come to a suggestion that I have in a minute or after. But so I think before we said that this is or an answer or somebody said that it's very individual and I almost think that you have to consider the specifics of the situation. I mean we're ideally we would all be elected on the same cycle. There is the possibility to do that. We can also petition Sacramento to move, to synchronize the election so we don't have this problem. But certainly I think it is an advantage to if someone is able to run as an incumbent mayor, they can put it on the ballot designation. No, you can't. Yes, you can. No, you can't. If you are mayor at the time, you can put it on the ballot designation. No, you can't. Yes, you can. No, you can't. If you are mayor at the time, you can't. That's a question. You have a question for you, Larry. You cannot, my understanding is that the only designation you can put on there is what you were elected by the public to do, not what you were elected by your... I thought you could, and we'd have to check but as far as I know you can put mayor if you are mayor at the time correct. Well you can write former mayor if you were before and you could you could you can only my understanding is you can only put we should check those offices which you were elected by the public not by we should check and certainly people and certainly people in their campaign material can put it so So, I mean- Do you have an answer to that or do we need to research that? There isn't, anyway, but the point is that's, you know, unfortunately because we're looking at different cycles, there's no way that you can square that. But as said, this is not something that we're talking about in theory. Shirona's about to become mayor in a couple of months. And we're talking- Maybe more. Well, I don't think so. And I think- And we begin in a couple years. Well, maybe. And we're talking about something very concrete. We were all elected. I actually, you know, if we're going to do this after the fact to sort of put the person who is in third and take them out, you could argue that you shouldn't change the rules after the fact. If someone had known, maybe they would have spent more money or whatever because it's going to be more important, that said, I don't think it is fair for the person who comes in third even if it's by a few votes to get kicked out of the rotation. I don't think that's a fair thing. What about a delay in the rotation? I don't. But it's better to have the second person. I don't see a need for that either as said because it's worked. In most cases, people will get reelected unless there's something very egregious. We've only had very twice in the last what, 50 years were an incumbent who was running was not reelected. Right. We also talk about it. What if the possibility is they may not be reelected? Well, I'm saying that's only happened twice. But also then let's discuss, okay, we haven't discussed or solved. What happens if someone moves to Nevada in the middle of a term? How are you going to solve that? What if they pass away in the middle of their turn. Well, certainly that can happen. And when that happens, the rotation moves up. Let's not talk about that. But anyway, from my point of view, even if you have the election on the same date, you're still going to have five council members and four years. So you will be rotating. Are you going to decide not to? You will be rotating. And someone will have to get reelected. And they'll have to get reelected and where do they fit into that rotation? It's the same question we're asking now. It doesn't solve the issues. I'm going to ask a question if I can, which is we are now at the five o'clock mark, which I was told was a time we needed to go into close session. So I want to ask whether or not this doesn't look like we're gonna finish it in the next half hour. But we kind of have to because we need to get the advantage. I understand that, but we've been talking now for an hour and a half, aren't we? So let me, let me make a suggestion. And again, this is very concrete, because this is about Sherona's being installed as mayor. And it's a, I'm sorry, she is, we need to get the invitations out I'm not making it personal I want to be able to do that in fairness to our next mayor needs to get to get the invitations out and that's that of course you know I think we're all smart people vice mayor is vice mayor I guess it means you fill in, if in theory that argument, if a Sharon or somebody would move to Rome or wherever then the person fills in. But certainly, look, I'm here for the next year. I would be next on rotation. I feel that this is in some way, even though you're trying to make it not personal, it is. That said, I would be willing to entertain a suggestion if everyone would, where if Craig feels it's appropriate, because he would be the to entertain a suggestion if everyone would, where if Craig feels it's appropriate because he would be the next in line to split the term as vice mayor. So we both have a chance so that Craig would either the first six months or the last six months and to do it that way. And we would both have an opportunity to serve as Sharon as vice mayor, which would be an honor. And then I certainly agree that a mayor needs to serve a full term, unless we would, if we would move it to another time, then you've got a gap, that's a different situation. But we keep it in April, then my feeling is, Craig would, again, according to what we're discussing in this rotation, would be the next mayor. And to me, this is a way of solving it. Look, I would love to participate in the installation in April is more than a potted plant. And that's a suggestion that I may have. May I say something? There's a fellow potted plant there. Mayor? You're the outgoing mayor. You're not a potted plant. May I say something? So if I'm hearing you correctly, what you're suggesting is that we leave it in April, that we agree that you don't serve mayor if you're not going to complete the term for whatever the reasons are if it's uncertain. The question of vice mayor to mayor, if you're not going to be running as mayor, you would not go to the seat of vice mayor if you weren't going to be mayor. Except in this case, you're suggesting that perhaps Councillor Member Cormin. Because it's an unusual situation. We're not aware of what was going on. This is a new thing. I'm just, I'm recapping and I think that's okay. And then I think that the last piece would be, do you rotate if you, how do we determine if you rotate? I'm fine if you want to have the person that's not serving as mayor and be vice mayor. My question would be, and I think we would need to work it out is the question of whether how you would rotate in if you were not able to be vice mayor and mayor that next year you ran how does that rotation happen if at all that's the question I don't understand the answer to it we may not have the answer today for that part or maybe we could decide but I would agree that you're not mayor unless you complete your term. We leave it in April. Typically moving forward because this will repeat, you're not vice mayor if you're not certain to be mayor under those conditions because this is an unusual condition for Councilmember Marish. If Councilmember Corbyn is comfortable with that, I'm comfortable with that as a solution. And we can make a decision on whether we rotate or not. So let me go back to my other question. Do we think we can get through this or not in terms of what we need to do on closed session? Well, I agree with those things. We need to get going. We need to finish it close session. I agree with those things. We need to get going. We need to finish it today. I agree. Do you? OK. There's a, there's a, there is a, there is a, well really because you're, it's your turn now but can I just, can I just, can I just, do to move this along. But I will say this, I think then the one thing we could do today is say for sure that we are not interested in the so-called school board option and we are not interested in the November option. And then we can say for this one off, we can arrange, we can reach some arrangement and take some more time to study how we wanna go about this in the future. I would have that we're not interested in the July option because I think that just creates a whole host of issues. Excuse me, July or November? Yes, I agree. I want to just say I and I want to make sure that we have, I agree. That's a discussion, Craig, are you okay with the? So if we get rid of the November option and we get rid of the school board option, you have no other options. No. Other than the status quo and maybe it's a big deal. Or the July option. No, I think you do. But the thing is, we get rid of the November option, the July option and the school board option, then we're back to the status quo with maybe a tweak here or there. That's not true. Keeping the installation in April is not the school board option. I know the school board option is dropping a third person and I'm saying the person who finishes third. Why are we dropping that off the other person? The only change it sounds like they're not dropping the third person but that person is not getting to be vice mayor. They're going to have to wait two years and so. So the school board option is dropping entirely. And so we're not in favor of that. That's the way from- That was the judicial recommendation of the Anacronis. That's what I mean by April, because I don't know. We're not saying that. We're not saying that. We're saying that you're staying in April, but the school board option is third, if they got elected would come in as vice mayor. They wouldn't be not eligible to be mayor. They'd come into the rotation after they won the second time as vice mayor. I think we have to work that part out. That's the part that's not clear. So let's restate what we can't agree upon at least. Okay. It sounds like we can agree on, we're not going to the November option. We're not going to the November option. We're not gonna do wait Let's do it one of time correct everybody good on that not November not November. Okay, we not November Not July not going to the school board option where someone one of the counselors gets dropped entirely from the vice mayor and mayor Oritation We're not gonna do that. Okay, we could look at that We I think that needs I think that You want to look at that? My preference on that, well, I shouldn't say. I think we should consider how it works. I don't think this is the moment for that. I think what's at hand right now is deciding what is rotation. I disagree. Because if the school board options on the table, it solves all the problems without having, yeah, I'm. Because if the school board option on the table it solves all the problems without having, yeah, I'm sorry. So it's something. If you're not willing to say no to that now, then why would you say no? And I said no. What? For the school board option? Which is dropping someone entirely from the third place. Well, the problem with that, yes, I do agree with that, but the problem is where do we slot the person in and I agree but if we don't slot the person in We can come back to that but but do I mean the question is do you want to drop them entirely from the rotation? That I don't want to do okay, so I agree with so we have a consensus on that It's right but we need to determine how that's like correct Why don't we don't need to determine that today. We do have a little time for that. Rolled it out, we can continue. That actually does not need to be discussed today, because the election's not for over a year and plus. So we do have time to discuss that. So that's the opinion of, let's, Larry, we okay with that. Huma, whoever wants to. There's so much uncertainty in this case. Okay, so- Can we delay the decision on that part of it? On whether to rotate in or whether the third person- How we're going to rotate that person- How we're going to rotate in the third person. That is fine, we need to bring this back to the next meeting to incorporate it into the policy manual. At that point, if this is the question how they're rotated in, we can plot that out and council can take a look at which option you prefer when they rotate it. Because if I understand it, anyone who's running in the next cycle who comes in second or third may not have a chance to be mayor or vice mayor you mentioned that Craig. Right if you plot it out this is that's the that's the that's the scenario is that that's what Craig said. I don't think that's correct. You know we're planning so far in advance and there's been so many times that council members decided to move or they decided not to run for re-election or they decided to- I think what you're saying is that we can't consider every possible in this truth. But we are all elected to serve at the will of the people and we are all elected to, and we all hold the same value to our vote. And so for us to just completely ex someone out all together. We're all there. We're there. We're there. This is why I went off the ad hoc recommendation. Okay, so now, okay. We're not agree. Okay, but now the issue at hand, I guess, is not these questions because what's coming up is now that that we're going to have two vice-mayors. Well we're going to discuss that I thought oh wait wait you talk about two vice-mayors during the next year. My suggestion is we haven't done that yet. Okay the question this question of leaving the installation in April. Can you be mayor if you can't complete your term? We agree on that. We agree on April. We agree that you could be vice, you could not be vice mayor if you will not be mayor, except in this one situation with regards to John. That's what we agree to. If you agree to that, if you agree. If we agree, if you agree. Okay, that's something he proposed, but that would go against everything that's being... Well, except the difference is, is that, as said, when you change rules after the fact, it's a different situation going forward. But we're talking about the possibility of having an exception to that because of that. Because of that reason. And then I thought the way we left it is, we shot it over to Craig because a proposal was made by John as to splitting the term and then we have to vote on that to see whether or not. First of all if Craig doesn't agree, accept that. I would have trouble voting on it. I'm not going to stay in the way if that's what it tastes. You can be reaming out of this council. So if that's what everyone wants I'm gonna live with it. But I will say this. There is a benefit to being vice mayor before your mayor There are certain things you get to you get to go your meetings you get to go to Well, I would propose you get to go to so so so so I would propose you to sure but then so for example for an example If there's a regional meeting of one of the city organizations that know the mayor of the vice mayor go to. No, no, no. I think all, there's certain organizations such as contract cities, etc., that any one of us and two of us, usually, should not be three unless we go to different sessions of it can go to. So if I'm the second six months and the trip to New York is in the first six months, that means when I'm mayor, I will go on the trip having not been vice-period. Oh, you should go on the trip. It's an October, but by the way, less didn't you go on the trip, you can have in theory three people on the trip. Didn't you go on the trip with Bob and Julian? There was an exception because you weren't there because of this code. I know, but it's an expense to the city that you don't need to occur. Craig, you can go on the trip. I don't. Why do you want instead of six months, would you be comfortable with an honorary one month and then allow Craig to serve the rest of his term? So because he's never done it, John. And so I think that if he had served as vice mayor in the past, I would understand this would be your fourth term. It's unprecedented. Nobody's ever done it. So in title, you would be able to get the title. And I would love for both of you to be my vice-mairs, you know. But I'm just trying to- Oh, I can't. Do you have two vice-mairs? Yeah. Theory. Well, that is all the road to theory. Okay, you could. You could have two vice-mairs. You could have two vice- As long as I have whatever experience I need to get as vice-mer during the six months that will prepare me to be mayor, I'm fine. Whatever the government- It's just really confusing though. I don't know how we're going to change terms. I mean, how is this going to work? We do- As far as- My suggestion was in life. going to work as far as staff is concerned in all of our logistics in our paperwork and our positions in make you know like there's certain for example our charitable foundation has the vice mayor serving as the chair person and so what are we going to do keep switching off in the middle I just I don't know. I'm. Let me answer the New York question. The way I count on my fingers, it's in the second six months. I don't know when it falls. I don't know when it falls. No, I just made that. It's October. This raised that as an example. June, July, don't know. Okay, so let's go back again because we're eating up our time. The concept of splitting as an exception for this year is acceptable to the two affected parties, correct? As I said, it's not my preference, but I will live with it if that's the council wants. Okay, and council member Wells, if they're accepting of it, are you okay with it? I'm okay with it. And the one who is most affected by it, are you okay with, secondly most affected by it? My only question is to staff. Now is your time to speak up. Do you ever see this? I'm looking at all of you being an issue as far as consistency because we've never done this before. And as someone who is serving as vice mayor right now, I see the role. And so I think, you know, this is new information. So I'm answering off the cuff, which always gives you the best information. So what I would encourage the incoming mayor to do is to obviously make your liaison ad hoc assignments, regardless of who's going to be mayor, vice mayor. There will be at least one that you've identified, the charitable foundation, where we will have to consider how we will handle that. I believe I feel confident we could work that through. We will go back and see if there are other implications. But I don't see anything big. I think we'll need to just talk through mayor installation in April and vice mayor installation in April and then vice mayor installation in October and what that will look like. Yeah, I'm not going to call an installation to have me become vice mayor. That's a waste of the city's time. So the definition of the vice mayor is in our policy menu. It hasn't been changed yet. What is that definition of the vice mayor? What is it mayor? So as I'm reading it, the vice mayor position is rotated each year. The vice mayor becomes the mayor, except in case of where the vice mayor does not run or is reelected, and that's not the part I wanted to read. Well, that's to answer the other question. It's in here somewhere, I think. Last minute, it's seating. it's in here somewhere. Is it not? I mean, my recollection is that the vice mayor position is one that in case the mayor cannot do that duty. Like if it's a society for With your away from the current. I don't think there are specific definitions of what the vice mayor does other than any other council member. It's just that person is really the next in line. I thought it was in here. Regardless, doesn't John have a seniority and he would be in line? Oh no, the vice mayor would and then John. No, this, yeah. The mayor, if I could, Keith, Deputy City Manager, just want to talk a little bit if I could, I know as Nancy pointed out, this is a little bit unprecedented. We are about to start preparing for the April 1st installation. Typically, when we promote that event, we will list out the incoming mayors name and the incoming vice mayors name. So I think it would be helpful. I know this is getting into a lot of detail here, but is it the council's direction that we perhaps we, in our messaging, referred to it as the installation of mayor, the Zarian, and vice mayors, Mirish and Cormin, designating the months that they would serve in those roles. That's a good idea. So at least they both have their names on there, and we could recognize both council members. I think that would be more fair to recognize our colleagues because I would hate to have council member Cormin both council members. I think that would be more fair to recognize our colleagues because I would hate to have council member Korman not recognized when he becomes vice mayor. Yep and I agree with that too and my the on our screen right now is what the role of the vice mayor is and I will read it in the absence of the mayor the vice mayor will be the acting mayor and this shall assume all functions and duties of the mayor at the public meetings. That really is the definition of what the vice mayor does. The mayor has equal, as we all know, has equal voting power amongst all of us. And that person is the presiding officer of the meetings and that really is the role of the mayor. Is that mayor? Is he or she is also the spokesperson for the city and that is the person who should be speaking on behalf of the city. And the vice mayor would do that in the absence of the mayor being able to do that. Okay. Do we need to go any further on this? We have to just I think we're I think we're clear enough at this point where we can move forward in the immediate term or clarity. Yes. If someone is termed out, do they get to run for re-election? No, no, no, just your termed out, you can't run. Okay. I just wanted to that was there was consensus. That is actually was decided by the voters. And so, for example, in Council Member Marius' case, he would be trimming out as Council Member. Total of three terms. Correct. Well, let's just take one day at a time. I agree. Correct. So I think we have enough information to move forward in the immediate term. When we come back on the 18th, we'll talk a little bit more about rotation and try to get the manual cleaned up. But I appreciate all of your effort. I know this has taken a lot of time and effort and I appreciate you working together to come to a resolution. Okay. Very good. So with that, we will go to roll call for our closed session. Roll call for closed session. Council member Wells. Here. Council member Korman. Here. Council member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes, here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. And we do not have any public comments for close session. Okay, so with that we will adjourn to those items on our close session agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Let's stop for this month. The ocean covers more than 70% of our planet, and NASA's Pais satellite is showing us the colors of the ocean like never before. From a single satellite we get to learn about water, land, and air as we continue to monitor Earth's changing climate. On February 8th, a little after 1.30 a.m. Eastern, I got to see the Pace satellite launch. And lift off. It lit up the sky as it made its way into space. There goes pace. The Pace satellite, plankton, aerosol, cloud, ocean ecosystem. Helping keep pace with our-changing ocean and atmosphere. We're looking at tiny things, so microscopic life in the oceans, tiny particles in the atmosphere. I'm excited about peace, not only because I love the ocean, but also because the paste satellite will give us more information about tiny particles called aerosols, which affect climate by absorbing or reflecting sunlight. Paces helping us spot harmful algal blooms and monitor the health of fisheries, benefiting people right here on Earth by looking down at our planet from space. Back in February, I got to travel to Florida to learn from NASA scientists about peace just before it launched. Bridget Seagars and Ivona Setonich are both oceanographers affiliated with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and they're here with me today to talk about pace. It's so nice to have you here. Great to be here. Thank you for inviting us. So pace is going to tell us a lot about the ocean, but it also has information about the atmosphere. And so, Ivona, can you tell us what pace will help us understand about the atmosphere? Pace is ocean and atmospheric mission. So on one side, we're going to get, we're going to extend the knowledge that we have been already collecting using other NASA satellites, you know, both clouds and aerosols. But in addition, some specific twists that we're going to be talking about later, is going to allow us to see so much more into the atmospheric properties, especially how aerosols and clouds are kind of like working together to control our climate. How do aerosols and clouds affect climate? Yes, that's a great question. So both clouds and aerosol, you know, interact with light. They can reflect light, they can absorb light. One thing that is really interesting from the climate perspective is that aerosols actually initiate formation of the clouds. So when we want to know where the clouds going, where they coming from, hard-eformed, we cannot just look at the clouds. We have to understand the aerosols they're around there. So by using the information the pace is gonna be collecting, both from our main instrument and polarimeters that we have, we're gonna be able to look at different types of aerosols, different types of like little cloud droplets, and how do they interact? And once we understand that interaction better, we can talk about the climate, but also like just talking about day to day weather. It's also going to be helpful for that. Oh, that's fascinating. Understanding these aerosols will help us better with weather and better understand and predict climate as well. Air quality and everything, but really that interaction is really important for the climate perspective. Well, I do want to talk a little bit about ocean. One of the things that I've found fascinating is I've been talking to people on the PACE science team is all of the different ways that PACE will help us understand what's happening in our communities and the impacts will have on coastal communities. So Bridget, can you tell me a little bit more about that? Sure. Historically with our satellites, we've been really good about telling us that there are phytoplankton somewhere or algae somewhere, and if there's a lot or a little, but we've never really been able to tease out what type is growing there. And for coastal communities like fishing, swimming, recreation, the type of algae really matters, because you can end up with a situation called a harmful algal bloom where you have lots and lots of algae, which we call bloom, and it's causing problems often because the algae themselves produce toxins. And so that's going to have all sorts of impacts on the community. You might have to stop fishing, people can't swim, like here in Florida, there's the red tide. You can't even go to the beach and walk around. And with pace, it's going to allow us to kind of tell those harmful algae from the non-harmful ones, and it is going to allow people to kind of monitor better and then respond to the situation. Oh, that's fascinating. So I want to come back to talk a little bit more about phytoplankton, but first I want to move outside of the coast into the open ocean. Ivona, can you tell us a little more about how pace will help the open ocean? Definitely. So as Bridget said beautifully, like, you know there's fight up and close to the coast but there's fight up and out in the open ocean and they do kind of a little bit different service to us. What they do there they once yes support the the oceanic ecosystem because they are the base of the marine food web but only other side while doing so they're helping carbon flow from the atmosphere into the ocean. So through the process of photosynthesis which is a complicated word they kind of like inhale carbon dioxide and convert it into the sugars. And now these sugars are feeding all the other creatures in the ocean, you know, ultimately fish that we eat and and dolphins they we like and things like that. But the past that the carbon will take and how long will it stay in the ocean ultimately starts with the phytoplankton. And for the typofytoplankton. So currently now, as Bridget said, we kind of look, we're like, oh, there's phytoplankton. It's taking carbon, we know, but where does that carbon go? We don't know. By being able to see the diversity of the phytoplankton in the open ocean communities, we're going to be able to model much then be returned to the atmosphere, because then ultimately that controls that exchange of the carbon dioxide with the atmosphere itself. Yeah, and that exchange really matters for climate as well. Exactly. My understanding is, pace is really going to help us with understanding fisheries. Can we talk a little bit about that? Yeah, the phytoplankton are a really important part of the fishery because they're the base of the food chain, right? So, you know, the phytoplankton grow and little things eat them and then a slightly bigger fish and then, you know, you end up with, uh, you know, larger fish in our fisheries. Also, our shellfish, they filter the phytoplankton and eat it directly with pace because we can tell again that toxic from the non-taxic algae, it's going to be really helpful if you have like an oyster farm and the satellite alerts you to an upcoming toxic bloom then you might be able to like harvest those oysters a little bit earlier or respond to that information. So it's going to be really like a nice tool another you know a little bit of information to allow those uh features to make decisions they need to make. Oh perfect and what about like open ocean and other fish? Yeah yeah so you can use this information that you can get from paste, so you can say how much carbon is in each group. And if you know that specific fish likes to eat a specific type of phytapein, then you can actually pretty much model how much food is that fishery type of fish get. So if you're interested in your fishing yield and in predicting the fishing yield for like big fishing industries, you can take paste data and actually model that. So we've been doing lots of collaboration with NOAA, tried to work with them to get them the data from pace so they can actually put it in their models and try to understand the changes in the fisheries. So it's pretty cool. And you mentioned something about when we're working with NOAA, that's a really important part of the pace mission, right? Working with the people that are used the data. Exactly. We have a really good applications program where we have been for last three years or so training people not just in U.S. based agencies, but all around the world to understand what kind of data will paste bring and how can the data help them and train them how to use the data right away as soon as we start making them. Bridget, could you tell me a little bit more about how different communities will benefit from paste data and how NASA is working with those communities to use it? So if you think about paste very generally, you could think about it as a water quality like monitoring tool. So it's going to benefit people in all sorts of ways. So you know, definitely like fishers and things like that. But also the water quality has a big impact on economically too. So it's going to drive things like tourism. So it's going to allow regions to plan, like, hey, for having more tax like algal blooms, like maybe we can use the satellite data to find a better area where we could direct people and then still get a draw into the area. So it's going to inform people like that. Also, it can be used on fresh water. So drinking water monitoring is really, really important. So it's going to give some insights into that. And water quality has impacts on other things like home prices. And it just really trickles down. So it's a very broad group of people who can use that data. And that's something that's really important in NASA in general is how can we benefit people and help them understand what's happening where they live. Well you've both described very different types of phytoplankton that have different impacts. So from harmful algal blooms to transfer of carbon, I think phytoplankton are a lot more diverse than people think. So it's one word, but it's capturing a whole host of different communities. And so let's watch a video to learn more. One phytoplank it cannot do too much, but so many of them actually control everything what we have, our food, our air that we breathe in their climate. They're so powerful. Fight up, fighters! Fighters come to worry as many folks do. These tiny tanks, the fight-off fighters are out to do battle on the seas. The evil Alexandrium is up to his own schemes. My socks and toxins. We're poisoning our precious self-pesh. You're no match for Dardo, Fightsus. Dino Fightsus steals pigments from the Fido Fighters, but Proto-Paradinium lights up the battle with its bioluminescence. Who will reign marine supreme? Go, Amelia Anna! Only the Fido Fighters will decide the true fate of the seas! Each soldier. They're just insanely important. I mean, there's many things they're important, but these are insanely important. Plankton generally doesn't really mean like a taxonomic group of things. You know, we think about mammals and then plants. And plankton are not that. Plankton are really defined by the way they live. Plankton's me is a wanderer in Greek. And these are just oceanic organisms that really just don't swim that fast. They can fight the ocean currents. It's a really non-traditional way of thinking about biology in a sense. Plankton, we can define traditionally in zooplanktons, it's something that is kind of more animal-like, and phyto plankton, something that is more plant-like. Old phyto plankton does, pretty cool photosynthesis. To take carbon dioxide and carbon in an organic form, capture some of the sunlight, and then produce carbohydrates, or just simply said sugars, they now are carrying that sun energy and push it into the food system of the ocean. And while they're doing all that stuff, they also produce the oxygen. So all visits from us, we inhale oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide. So that's why they're really important. That's why we love them so much. And that's why they're really crucial for the whole life on the earth. Phytoplankton itself, it's diversity is gigantic. I think there's like 10,000 species and each of them has a specific role. Why is there so much diversity in something that is so teeny tiny? It's fantasy science fiction and horror comes together. I mean, it's just so beautiful. But there's certain type of fight-up things in Coca-Cola's a force. And specifically, the most famous one is a Milyania Huxley eye. But they take this inorganic carbon to make that something like a shell in which they live in. They're causing carbonate, which they make, which is pretty much chalk. They make it in a shape of these hubcaps. And if you think about how teeny tiny they are, they're like, you know, I don't know, I can put probably like 30 or 40 or 50 of them in the width of my hair. When they bloom, once they die, not only they take that normal sugar carbon that they produce, but they also take that calcium carbon, that inorganic, that chalky material down to the bottom of the ocean. So they're really, really good for exporting carbon, removing it from this contact with the atmosphere, which is really important when it comes to the flow of carbon in the whole, you know, earth ecosystem, but also control the carbon in the atmosphere. So, Alexandria is a very specific type of plant and it's called a dinoflagellate. So, it's kind of like maybe plant, maybe it's your plant, maybe it's animal, maybe it can be both, no? But one thing that it does, it makes this very, very, very, very powerful toxin. They're causing problems in Gulf of Maine. Alexandria you don't have to have a lot. Actually, really low numbers of Alexandria can be present and produce really detrimental effect on humanity that feeds on this shellfish. So the changes of the color of the ocean due to the presence of this phytoplankin are just so miniature, you know. We cannot see it with our eyes, but if we have sensitive instruments such as ocean color instrument on pace, we're going to be able to differentiate not only because it's sensitive to the intensity, but it's also sensitive to the colors. Having this high-perspectral view with really high sensitivity is going to allow me to differentiate my