Good evening. It's April 10th, 2025, and this is the scheduled meeting of the Howard County Board of Appeals. Work session to continue the rules of procedure. Before we get started, oh, for those of you listening but can't see, and attendance are Miss Fiery, Miss Harris, Miss Phillips, and Mr. Ryan. Before we get started, board members, we've received the meeting minutes for April 3rd 2025. Are there any questions comments? Seeing none can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes for April 3rd 2025? So moved. I move I'm sorry at first by a misferecum can I please give a second? I second. I second by miss Phillips. Madam I'm not sure if you can please call the roll. Chair Ryan. A approve. Miss Spear call. A approve. Miss Harris. A approve. please give a second. I second. I second up by Miss Phillips. Madam minister, can you please call the roll. Chair Ryan. Approved. Miss Fear call. Approved. Miss Harris. Approved. Miss Phillips. Approved. The motion carries in the meeting minutes per April 3rd, 2025 are approved. Moving on to our next order of business for this evening is our continued work with the rules of procedure. So there are a few amendments. I would not have objection. I would like to offer a few and then we will go around and see if anybody else has any objection. Okay. So under the section applicability rules specifically page 2 line 19, I would like to recommend that we add language at the end of that last sentence. It says unless otherwise specified the term board of appeals, shall be deemed to include the board of appeals hearing examiner. Anybody have any objection to that? No objection? No objection. That's right. Okay, moving on to the next recommendation. I'd like to amend the introduction rule page one line five We're going to change one word so the sentence currently reads the board of appeals shall regularly review the rules to ensure currency accuracy So and so forth. I'd like to change the word currency to the word currentness. That's consistent with code, how they refer to a matter of being current. Any thoughts? I thought we did that last video. Do we do it in a different spot? Oh, yeah, I kind of into spots. OK, this is a different spot. OK. That's Ms. Phillips is correct. This is a different spot in the previous meeting. So any objection? Any change in it? No, objection. No objection. The next recommendation I'd like to... The next page too, just for your... You know, you have page one, line five. Oh you're right. I apologize. Thank you. Page two, line five. Thank you. I'd like to recommend that we amend rule 5.0 meetings and hearings. Page 26 line three. The sentence currently reads, any person wishing to testify in opposition to a documented petition must do so before the end and then so on and so forth. I'd like to insert the word sign up after the word must and before the word do. So the amended sentence would read, any person wishing to testify in opposition to a documented petition must sign up to do so before the end of the appellance case. Any objection to that, Mo? No. OK. Thank you. Where are we? Next recommendation to a men rule 5.0, meetings and hearings. Specifically, page 28, line 1. The sentence reads reads now, the correspondence shall not become part of the record comma and the board shall not consider the communication. I'd recommend that we strike and the sentence now read, the board shall not consider the communication. Any objection to that? No objection? No objection. None. Okay. I'd like to recommend that we amend rule 6.0 cases, page 29, line 19 through 20. The sentence currently reads, a final decision in order of the board of appeals may be appealed to a court of law and accordance with these rules. I'd like to strike in accordance with these rules and the new sentence would read, a final decision in order of the board of appeals may be appealed to a court of law pursuant to section 501D of the Howard County Charter. Any objections to that? No problem. No objection. No objection. Last, I'd like to amend rule 22.0 electronic submission specifically page 56 line 5 The line or sentence currently reads the board administrator shall maintain the online currency for each docketed matter I'd like to strike maintain the online currency for each docket of matter The proposed new sentence would read the board administrator shall ensure that all do that all document matters are current and up to date in the online system. Any objection? No. No. So that concludes my amendments. I know I think this Phillips has one for rule six. Anybody else have any? Okay. This Phillips. Let me just pull it up. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I'm going to go to the page number. I was your rule 6.8. Oh, is that page 28? That is really kind of sad. I was trying to figure out how I was trying to figure out. We did mention this last time when we were together. And you said, well, it's in the document. But it's very confusing in the document. It's the Board of Appeals educates case 6.0 to page 28 line 20. Sorry. Mr. Reinhard, can you put that on the board too? Give your a mic. Thank you. It talks about that it's falling into two main categories. And the second of the two guys further divided into distinct subcategories, each defining the apple. And it talks and it talks and it talks and it talks. And when it gets to the two main categories, which I believe are land use matters under original jurisdiction and appeals of an, no, appeals of administrative agency decision. I think those are the two. They're listed as C and D. So it's hard to know that it's one and two and I was Thinking that we could put just in parentheses Lannus matters under original jurisdiction comma appeals of administrative agency and just in um clarify Perence Perenties right? Gosh, I don't know. I'm not there so that we know what the two the document. So the recommendation is to add friends, what's that? Can you read it the way you'd like it? Yeah, read the way you'd want it to be. The board of appeals, adjudication cases, falling into two main categories, open parentheses, land use matters under a rigid jurisdiction, comma, appeals of an administrative agency decision, and parentheses. And then that's it. I think that makes sense. I believe Mr. Herbert actually suggested that in his comments. So I think that's a good addition. And those are the two main categories, aren't they? Right? Don't let me. Yeah. Yeah, it's time to double. I'd like try to pull it up. I'm like, why are you talking? I'm trying to pull up the draft to make sure those are the two. And I have to say that the way it's here in the, in the document itself, it, it is confusing because it goes on to talk about a. Yeah, yeah, it talks about a B C T. There's not like a one and a two and the sub. It's correct. And then everything that falls under one and two. So I think that's a good correction. Sir, is your read thoughts? Well, I just want to make sure it makes sense to keep the remaining part of the paragraph. I like the addition, but is everything else clear? Is it flowing? I think it flows because once you identify it, then you can look and you can see what everything is that's under it. So you can, I think it, you know, the document is good. It just needed to clarify that so that you can go, okay, these are, okay, these two categories. And then as you read on, then you can see what, but you can correct me if I could. No, no, I just have a question. The distinct subcategories. Which are they? Did that, that's the Genovo and on the record. So it seems like we're talking about a lot of things before we get to that part in the paragraph. So that's what is just joining for me. Yeah, but if you go, if you know the two main categories, and then you go to it, you'll see the subcategories. Because they both have subcategories. That's why. Can her also to add those to distinct subcategories? Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. So it's clear. Or just... Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. So it's clear. So if I or just say that the appeals of the administrative agency identified has two subcategories and say de novo and that because you wouldn't want it the second of the two would not be, you know, I think you'd have to put the. So if I could and I just proposed it with the same outcome just a different potential solution. So as I looked at, I agree with you that it is disjointed, right? And that while the content seems on, it seems like a forum, I'm trying to pull it up, but I can't do this up top of my head. It seems like it's a formatting issue. If I'm not mistaken, I don't have it. But it says that paragraph that you read, and then it talks about definitions, and it throws in a few other things. So I was wondering perhaps, I don't know, if we just simply move the opening paragraph, and I wish I could get my PDF document to open. So if we, like, you're back. So if we were, for example, if we were to move the first paragraph starts the board of appeals, the duty case is falling into. And then so we would move that down to just before C. So in other words, that rule 6 would begin with definitions and then venue and then timeliness and then you get to that sentence that says it falls in two main categories and then right after that it describes the two main categories are. So would it flow better if the definitions were at the end? Well where are you? Rather at the beginning and it's before. So I don't have a particular preference. I think that was, we may have heard some testimony before, that they were going by how the Howard County style guides as definitions come at the beginning. But my point was I just think we should connect that beginning paragraph to the, like just have it just right before when it says these are you know divide in two cases then have the next paragraph after be okay where are those cases right in terms of where definitions appear like I don't have any but but or go with yours I think either one achieves the goal it is kind of funny how it goes ABCD and it's like Yeah, that's really a tribute to Deity. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It doesn't follow. It's a format, yeah. Yeah. So what do I do? I think that that's what I think that it would be a good idea. When you do an outline, you want things to follow. So I would think that you need to put those cases ahead. That's what the cases are. And that's what we're talking about. I think that's a good idea. I think that it would be a good idea. When you do an outline, you want things to follow. So I would think that you need to put those cases ahead. That's what the cases are. And that's what we're talking about. Roll 6.0 cases. So put those first. Then you can follow with the venue, timeliness, attendance, and then the definitions before or after. So we've seen the, instead of moving the first program down, we've seen the up, and then do definitions. definition after so move C and D up instead of moving that first program down move C and D up and then do definition And there's one there's also Floating that C and D should be like almost like one and two. Yeah, they're not they should be C and D Yeah, that's that's where I have an account. I mean, I know it's a continuation, but if you want to kind of I'm sorry in their home. See this is A the venue, A the time when S, C. Well Mr. Reinhard would letter correctly, I'm not following. Yeah, you're right. See, this is A, the venue. Yeah. The time when this C. No, I, well, Mr. Reinhard would letter correctly. And D. I mean the content, not necessarily. I just mean the content within C and D. It would be lettered correctly. So, I think what she's trying to get at the lettering isn't the issue. There's like, you have, like you said, there's categories. categories and then there's subcategory. So you'd have category one and then subcategory ABC, category two ABC. Well there's only two but category one doesn't have any subcategory yet. I understand that but I'm just trying to for the flow of the of the paragraph to follow rule six cases you identified the two cases first the board repeals and the other case cases you know following the, one and two or A and B, and identified them, and then this is the second of the two. Which I think should just put the name. Yeah, instead of the second of two. And say, you then say the appeal to the administrative agency decision. So we're going back to the first part where you want to reword the first paragraph. You don't want to reform that. Now I'm fine with that. I just, we need to get a consensus what we want to do. Do we want to reformat it or reword the first paragraph? Well, I would rather reformat it. And can I just go back to the way things are formatted? I'm looking at rule 5.0. Begin with A. Goes to B. Goes to C. That's the formating pattern. Okay, so when you make the next rule, you have an introductory sentence, then you should have an A. A. We do. And that A should be, that A should be, land use matters under original jurisdiction and then B will follow with the administrative agency. So that's the reformatting. Right, and then the subcategories under B, 1, 2, and 3 instead of A, B, and C. So I think we're all seeing the same thing there, right? Yeah. So Mr. Reinhard, do you get to just to that? I want to make sure that you hear what we're saying. But yeah, I believe I understand. So from what I'm hearing, you put essentially a colon right here, page 28, line 20 after categories. And then you move paragraph C and paragraph D, including D1 and D2 up to follow this. And then this sends the second of the two categories It's for the divided list the subcategories. Then there are. And then restart this numbering at say paragraph B or paragraph C. Whatever it is, right. So that would be the next one would be C. So we start with because we already have A and B and then one, two, three. And then the next item Would show up as see when we're starting to talk about the definitions. Yeah understood Everybody okay with that Are there any other Memories to the rules before we move to the office of law stuff No, okay So, where less we left off with the Excel spreadsheet. Would that be more productive to just start there, Mr. Cook? That's spreadsheet reason. Sure. If that's what the board wants to do, that's fine. Let me make sure, let me put my own quick. I've got item 19. I have opened the back closing. Oh, before I forget, I think we did this last meeting. I just want to make sure we're reading agreement that this spreadsheet in all of its parts will go to that we're all okay with releasing that to council when we send it so they can see the rationale for our decisions. Yes. Okay, I just want to make sure. We got that last meeting right. Okay. Always show your work, right? Yeah. So 19, 17, let me scroll down here. Let me just shrink my a little bit. So we're at 19, okay. So I think, so you're okay with 14 that's resolved. I was going by the margin on that that says start here for next work session. We skipped around in the first one. So I'm just trying to figure out because some like that we answered took out two or three. So where I see on my version is item 14 which has to do with TSRs. Page 17 line 15 16 this would this should be one of the updates to total 16. Correct. The office's input on item 14 is that the procedural rules prohibiting DPC from doing something is really a code issue that the council would tell planning and zoning you're not to do something you are to do something. That was the main point of item 14. Okay, so I had a question. And actually right now all that the law says that DPC may do is make findings and provide an analysis in the T.S.R. Yeah, I think, and I correct me from wrong, I think we adopted this and I think you write it in your review from language use elsewhere where it says, and I'm trying to see if I made a citation that, where, because you said, hey, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that you're asking for your, you're directing the DPC not give you an opinion, but just speak to the criteria whether that proposal meets or doesn't meet it. And so we wanted that language specifically that they shouldn't offer an opinion whether this should be approved or disapproved, but just stick to that. So my question became, you said that maybe I'm a sort of said, it says they can communicate that through a different thing other than a TSR. And so my question was, I'm just looking at my notes. I said, well, how would DPC communicate approval or denial if not through a TSR? So, yeah. Yeah, so, right now the county code tells DPC to do a technical Staff report for the board for all petitions relating to zoning matters which fall within the board's jurisdiction it's Section 16.801 see C is in cat, the number 7. And what the departments required to do is to prepare findings and analysis in the T.S.R. That's all it's required to do. And so that's all it should be doing. The rule, proposed rule, is actually banning the department from doing something that it's right now by law not going to do. And in banning them or prohibiting them, it's actually a substantive regulation of DPC, which the procedural rules can do. So is there not a rule? And I'm sorry, I don't have the marker. Because I remember where this camera, this camera, the specific citation, is there not a rule somewhere in the code? I know it's a big place to look, but where it specifically says, it may be it's an additional use process, where it says DPC shall not offer an opinion about approval or denial. Because if I remember right, we didn't make a stop, we just took it from another part. It may be that it is in the code, but the point is it's in the county code. The council through legislation regulates what the department does, not the rules of procedure of the board. That's the point. So right now, on page 17 line 15 through 16. Could you put that up a search by her if you don't mind? On page 17 lines 15 and 16 say, at no time shall DPC recommend approval or denial of a petition. So right now by county code they're not doing that. So, is everybody okay with striking number five? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. It was that was right. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then I show, let's see. 15, 16, 17, 18 all resolves. Right. Right. We then go down to 19. So 19, right? Yeah. I don't have any objection to being strict in the line with being strict as you recommend maybe. Or do you want Mr. Cook to go over? We are in line 19 of the Excel spreadsheet, which is page 26 line 2, Mr. Wright Hartwell. And I noticed actually the same languages on the bottom of page 25 and line 21. It's really a notice issue for the public in both places. It's talking about somebody who's going to testify at a hearing and the language says that the person must adhere to these rules before being called to testify during a hearing. And we all read that and thought, what is that? Sign up. What does that mean? Sign up before hearing. So then if that's the issue, then say sign up. Because must adhere to the rules, it's the entire set of rules, it's not specific. So with, so I guess the thought, I'm just a bit bored with you, I mean, because I'm just doing a soft time, I have, whatever rules will apply that you should probably know. And this comes from our experiences where residents are like, I didn't know that, like where they start, why are you doing this? Because you want to develop the land, that's prohibited. You can't do that before you can't ask that. You need to know that before you come to testify. You can't question a witness's motives. You also can't preclude a question with a statement. So they're like, this is. You can't do that before you can't ask that. You need to know that before you come to testify. You can't question a witness's motives. You also can't preclude a question with a statement. So they're like, this is going to decrease my property's value. That's a statement. That's not a question. You can't do that. So I guess the point was to try to give people as much advance notice as you can. Listen, you have to know the rules. I don't want to be cruel, but you have to know that there are certain rules of conduct when you, when you particularly are hearing. And I guess that know the rules. I don't, we don't want to be cruel, but you have to know that there's certain rules of conduct when you, when you particularly hearing. And I guess that was the intent. Maybe there's a better way to deliver on that intent, but. Yeah, I, I guess the point, at least based on the way it's written now is is that really no one reading. And here, maybe that might be too strong a word. No one reading this is going to know what specifically in these rules. I'm a witness. I'm going to come rules, I'm a witness. I'm going to comment and I'm going to testify on something. What part of these rules am I being asked to comply with? I guess if you all of them, all the relevant parts, and that would be you as a witness to figure out which part that is. But a witness is coming in. They don't even know what they're coming in. But personally, I like, I'm fine. Do you guys want to strike it out? I'm fine. Because at the end of the day, we're still going to enforce the rules. I just thought, I'm just thinking about this now. These are over the last year we built these. So I don't remember exactly what we were doing at the time. But I remember the overarching goal was to give people heads up so they don't feel like sabotaged. So maybe you could just say that in the beginning of the case, let people know when they're witness, these are the rules that you need to hear to. I know. I'm just saying that will be the way to handle it. Make sure you get your point across. However, and we may maybe go ahead, but this word comes in more than one time with it. The adhere to it comes in in several other places. So if we change it in one, we need to. Well, no, we're not changing the adhere to it. I don't know, thank you, she. One thing that you could do is just before being called to testify during the year. They just must have heard these words. And the story. That's what we're trying to change. So I think the rules. I think the last point is that I remember they said their legal sufficiencies is it clear the plain language clear the public when they read it do they understand what they're being asked and if if they're co-gotta on the words you're not but I think what you're saying is that listen this isn't specific enough for our witness for somebody to know what you're telling them so I think changing it in any form or fashion without being specific doesn't achieve with the loss of advising but that's I'm only 20% or 25% to other board. So whatever the board wants to know. Is there anywhere in here that we reference the how the, because I can't remember, reference how a case is conduct. Yeah, who calls when? Yeah. And where And where is that second? I think it's under cases. It says petitioner calls when it is. So that's that. And then I think we're even offering a user guide at one point. Now that I'm thinking about this, don't we have a user guide that people can use at a time? Well, we don't have it yet. But I mean, our rules call for us to develop one. but that's our way to see if the rule gets proved, then we'll develop it instead of quote to that whole process. From there. There's several sections here, OK? So. to develop one, but that's our way to see if the rule gets proved, then we'll develop it instead of quote to that whole process. There are several sections here. So ethical service, record of hearings, evidence, admission of evidence, those sections. I'm wondering if we could refer to those sections and that would make it very clear. So I have no judge. The only thing is, we're go through each rule and figure out which one we want them to know. Well, in this particular section we're talking about signing up though, right? Well that was just me, what's this title of the section? Witness participation. Witness participation. That's the title of this. Yes. That's it. Oh, meetings hearings. Yeah. Um. And we took off before being called. Oh, I see. Wait is British. Okay. I'm sorry. If we just take off being called to test what during hearing, I mean, they, you know, you have to apply to the rules. And I take back. that you have to know them, but you have to adhere to what they are. And, you know, you have to apply to the rules. And I take that question. That you have to know them, but you had to adhere to what they are. And, you know, saying that, you know, there is some, there's going to be something expected of you. And, you know, I mean, instead of, you know, you need to like read this book before you even come and sit down and testify. Yeah, maybe it is, maybe by the intent, I think it was admirable. is just where we a complicating something that doesn't need to be done. I think the recommendation would solve the issue. Which is strike it. Yeah. That's strike it. Change it to. Wish it didn't get where it was. Must instead of it here to the rules sign up before being called to testify. But then I just read it and that is rule one. That was just an example. How bad if it says must adhere to the rules herein? Does that cover the rules herein? You just confused me. I confused you again. So let me put one proposed law and then if we shoot it down, just go around and see where I'm both striking it. Anybody gets that whole rule, that whole section, whatever. Number three, strike the whole thing. What are we striking? No, no, that's the point that the officer law flag. Where is it? That is that's what it says 26 line do I like 26 25? It's in on both page 25 line 21 and page 26 line 2 Can I can I share with you if you look at this? One three or not the same? One in three or one is individual is the testifying sign up and that three is the appellant petitioner respondent and any supporting witnesses who were to testify in a docketed matter must adhere to must adhere to rules or must sign up before being called to testify during the year. But they're here to these rules before being called. So it's not identifying the who in the, is saying any witness in the first one. So the three, so I'm sorry, I thought we were, what, so now we're talking about two different officer law issues. Which one, or I thought we were on 19, which is eight ways to say, I know, but let's think one at a time, if we could. because I think we're complaining to two, because I see the meaning two different things, and that's probably why I also laws it as two different things, instead of one thing. Because so we're completing the two because I see the meeting two different things and that's probably why they also laws It has two different things instead of one thing because so So we're talking about page 26 line two correct, okay, okay? Am I right? Yeah, okay, so let's look just at that one any person opposing a position who wishes to test find a Doctrine matter must adhere to the rules before being called testify during hearing but not after after. So I'm going to throw a pose that we strike it. But you disagree if that's fine. But is anybody opposed to just strike it? Strike it. If so, that's fine. I'm just trying to throw a one solution. Then we move on to the next. I need more time to process it. OK, we'll hold. We'll come back to you. OK. I'm fine with striking it. It's the same as number three. It's the same except it just says any person as opposed to this says the palant petitioner responded any witness. I mean pretty much is we could put it or witness or person we could actually put it. Oh no no no preserves let's get the first proposal clear first because that's where we're just going to go no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no that line, which is item four. And we have OK to strike by you. OK, strike by Ms. Veracop. OK, strike by me. We're waiting for Ms. Harris. OK to strike if we're striking three as well. We didn't get there yet. I know, but it doesn't make sense to strike this if you don't strike three. So we're going backwards. Any person who doesn't find opposition? It's like almost the same sentence. different fashion to find opposition to a doctor position must do so before the end of the penalty case that's a totally different thing. That means you have to notify before the penalty case is over. No, they're talking about witnesses testifying during the event. But they have to sign up before. But no, the purpose of that is in order to be a part, and Mr. Cook, a priori articulate a little more clearly. In order to be a party, in case you have to make known that you are a party before the chief in the case in chief is arrested. So where's the other one's just, if you're going to testify as a witness, no matter who, opposition witness, this is, I don't want to say party status, but it's establishing a status is the second role that you just mentioned, line three. Is there ever talk about line three or item three? I'm talking about item three. I totally misread with you, Matt. I thought you meant line three, which is page 26. You're talking about item three, line 20. Yes, page 25. I apologize. And that's nothing that's signing up. The whole section is about signing up. Yeah, let me just read it with a little bit of a picture of a spot and he's pretty much this. Which is participation signing up as just a part of it. So this just is a so as I read it is a notice that anybody that's going to testify must up here to these rules, right? So that's that's the same sentence that we were talking about in on, page 26. So I'm just- Yes, so it's almost redundant, right? Yeah, like- Except the opposite party, right? Appellant petitioner responded. You know, so this is any principle. The first rule of our read-its is any principle essentially, right? The other says, a witness, right? But at least change that to make any witness. We had changed, a pellant petition responded and any witness says. Can we call on Mr. Cook to give us some? My memory is what Miss Phillips is the last time you were here and it wasn't on this, but it wasn't on the issue that is in the spreadsheet. My recollection is you all agreed to take out in line 20 on page 25 the word supporting. We did. And we may have we purposely asked Mr. Reinhardt he's keeping a log of what we've changed. We're not seeing it here because we didn't want confused people with the different versions. Mr. Reinhardt, do you show that as a record? I changed the proposal. Because we. Yeah, we. I show it. Yeah, that was something you all did decide on. Is that after on page 25 line 20. So the news and reads what? Right, I'm getting there. So after and it would say the appellant petitioner responded and any witness who wish to test any witness who wish to testify and a document matter. So you were striking supporting. So then four totally is irrelevant. You're right. It doesn't have relevance anymore because it is encompassed by the prior rule. So that brings us to our UK was striking for Item 4. OK. So yes. So then, as you know, as we will strike on page 26, line one and two, which is item 4 in its totalality, yeah? Yes. And then that brings up the question about it here to the rules, which was the original thing that Mr. Cook brought up. It's still in this sentence. What are we going to do about it? Okay, I follow you. Can I give my suggestion? My suggestion is they must adhere to the rules. It's that all of us must adhere to the rules and the sentence, not before being called to test why during a hearing. Anybody who comes in here must adhere to the rules. That's part of going anywhere. You have to adhere to the rules. But we're trying to stress here is them signing up beforehand. That's already up there and the thing. We don't need to. That's the other things. There are other rules that they have to adhere to? And not that they have to come in here knowing the rules back and forth, but then we can correct them. You can't do that. If I can add so, I think getting back to the original point, Mr. Covey, she gave me a moment to clarify, is this clear to somebody reading it? That's what I keep on asking, because I think that's where the motivation is for everything that we have been up to a lot, right? Is that what you're, correct? I think, so this, the subject of this is a witness. Somebody who's gonna give sworn testimony to the board, right? Not all these rules relate to a witness testifying before the board. So our point is that reading this sentence just as it's written, for the layperson coming in, it's not going to be terribly clear to them what aspects of these rules they're being required to comply with before they're called to testify. I mean, the only one that I can think of specifically is, you basically gotta sign up ahead. You can't just like walk in, you have to sign up. But that's the only rule I'm aware of, that a witness would have to comply with. If there are others, I'm not saying there aren't others, but we haven't done an exhaustive search to see what other provisions may address. I can only think of it as conduct stuff, but if we do as Ms. Phillips, I think, proposed a period afterward of rules, so strike before being called test-fighting aren't hearing. You must have heard of these rules. Is that a leavey to the issue that you're talking about? Because I mean, really all's worth saying, hey, here's the rules. Otherwise, like, a team self-explanatory must follow them. But if it's telling people that somebody they must follow, it's like not, I don't understand how that's a problem. I would recommend that if the board's gonna put the period there, it should probably have a list of things from the rules. when they say, what is it that I'm supposed to do, again, just in fairness to like your average resident of the county, what it is that I'm gonna be asked. The day we could just change it to sign up. What? Or we could just strike it all together. No, I think we want to strike the whole thing. I hear you, I just like at one point, I there's so many variables there. Well if you're an appellant and what type of case are you an appellant? And is this a appeal? Is this a hearing center? There's like any relevant rules that it applies to you. It's very, there's so many to list them all out. We'll be keen back to that and be type, you can't be an appellant of this type. Let me ask you a question, Chair Ryan. What have we said in the individuals in parentheses, including appellants, petitioners, respondents, blah, blah, blah, witnesses, shall sign up online at the board of pills before the day of, and then members of the public who wish to appear in person or wish to testify, don't sign up on line. And in advance, still do it at the computer at the public access computer at the hearing room. So will that cover everybody if we just have one and two. But you clearly speak into testifying right that's the only really you're speaking to. I'm talking about witness participation. That's all that they do right. But Mr. Cook no Mr. Cook is saying which rules do you want if you will do here too? And he would like a full list out each rule for each class of the class of the class. If we're not going to be, he wants us to do that correctly from wrong. If we're going to not change. I don't want you to do anything. People are going to want to know. It's just a practical thing. Right. A witness is going to want to know what it is that they're going to have to adhere to in the rules when they come and testify. Because the subject of the sentence, line 20 is testifying. So it's just about testifying. if I drove down the street and I saw this sign for the hearing and had a really strong feeling about something and I came in and I signed up appropriately and I started to testify and I get lambasted for violating some rule. I'm saying I have no idea what you're talking about. I also see, I think, you just highlight something for me. So, L, witness participation title. But then we talk about a pellant petitioner responding, which are not witnesses per se. So why are we talking about them in this part of them? So any of those people could be a witness. I think the issue is this is about a member of the public. Well, wait a minute. Hang on. Well, any of them could be a witness. They are. Actually, that is because the addressing is any member of the public. They requested to testify in any meeting or in which the board accepts that. That's the general your opening statement for this section. Right. And one and two. And one and two. If you're talking about anybody from the public. Right. One and two is consistent with that. Right. But then three changes it. And now it's like we switched from members of the public to now parties, right? The appellant the I think it's not that now That's what I was concerned against strike four we should take out three But like yeah, everybody okay with that strike taking out item three as well. Yes, okay, so we're gonna lead three as well Well, it's nothing yeah, it doesn't contextually doesn't make sense, wait, you're talking about witnesses. Why would you be talking about that? Okay. Next, we, okay, so we're striking three, three and four. Four, yeah. And they'll just see five while we're at it. Any person wishing to testify to opposition? Oh, do we address it? Is that still true number five? Mr. Ryan, all right. This line is the subject of the next item on this spreadsheet. Okay. Is item five? No, you didn't you have not taken any action on this yet. So let me see what's the issue here with this one. Because this was essentially, I don't know. I actually think this is line 20. I think this is fixed. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say line 20. Item 20 on the spreadsheet is signed up. It's signed up to 20. Oh, this is, yeah, we think this has been fixed. Our observation with this one was, is that it must do so before testifying. So that's resolved. Okay, cool. So we are next onto item number 21. That resolved. I think you guys fixed that. We fixed that. That's the correspondence part, right? Correct. Item 22, language has been changed already, so it's resolved. So, item 22 is just the current. This is getting at, let me get to the page. The live thinner right now, yeah, we've already fixed that. I think we did it yesterday for our last board meeting. We changed the language in the code. 22. Maybe Nick can share what we changed. Yeah, let me see. I have it as. So I think Mr. Reinhardt could pull up so we can see 29 lines. Is that part of your case? Can you sit in the body area and my brother be filled up? Yeah, I did this. I said, per I think Mr. Reinhardt's going to pull up so we can see 2917. Was that part of your... Can you say goodbye to here, and my brother be fielded? Oh, yeah, I did this. I said, for... I did today, that's the part we changed that says, in accordance with the Howard County Charter Code. I used, as you said there, you know, this is in the code. So we said maybe field in accordance with the charter, you know, or whenever... whenever however you want to. I'm sorry which item are we on? We are on item number. Let me make sure I'm right here. 22 22 22 22. Chair Ryan, if I may, the item you just referenced, the amendment you made earlier refers to item number 23. I don't know which. So yeah, so I guess we'll let Mr. Coat because I so yeah, so the office's comment on spreadsheet item 22, which relates to page 29. line, lines 17, I think the lines shift a little bit. It's probably more 15 and 16 now in the draft rules. The idea of a choice. Oh, we struck that, we changed it. So yeah, just at least right now the code sets it up where anything that the board hears it must be heard first by the examiner. Yeah. And this is a change for that. So if you're going to propose this venue thing. So what we did was we changed it. You're going to have to recommend the code change. Exactly. So we changed it to maybe heard by hearing examiner. Not either. Maybe heard by hearing it. Right? Right. And then we're recommending corresponding change to the code So they take that the they took out must choose right okay That's why I'm like I had it checked off of something 23 And that's what we did today right a file decision issued The board of appeals maybe peel to the cooler 20 23 is resolved okay, we're good there Okay, 24 that's all to remember stuff. We're ready. Right. Yeah. That's been going on. 5, 25. Oh, this is an operational thing. Let me get to the page. Yeah. So I have that if you look at it in our rules, I'll wait right here, if we look at our rule, 1, C, 3, which is P to 11, line 7. I think it helps clarify your question. Essentially, we're saying that, listen, all five board members must sit. Because you're like, what happens if board member sits on the first night and then doesn't sit on the second? We second we're like listen whoever sits on the first night of a case must sit for the duration of a case that's one of our proposals right so so you have cohe you know so that the okay so I'm looking at page 32. I understand what the, I understand your point, Chair. On page 32 lines 8 through 10, right? It says only board members who participated during all portions of a hearing or work session shall be eligible to vote on the matter or decide the docket, docket a case. Two observations just for the board's knowledge. Case law says that as long as a member basically familiarizes themselves with a night that they missed, they can still participate. So I know, I know. I'm just, so that's the first thing. The second point is that in application, if you had five people, right, five people, let's say it's a three night hearing, five people night one, somebody gets definitely ill and they miss nights to three. We won't have it. Are you postponing? Yeah. Okay. All right. Because I was thinking we that's what's happened and we didn't want that Yeah, okay. Yeah, all it. It's supposed to be. Are you postponing it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Because I was thinking. That's what's happened and we didn't want that to happen anymore. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right. It would jam up the board because of the effect of the other rule, which says if you miss a nice camp, oh, right? And that's how the alternate member plays into it too, because, okay, so yeah, if an alternate member, if you can't make an I-1, then we have an alternate member. But whoever sits on I-1, shall sit for the remainder of the case. Yeah. That was the only point on item 25 on the sheet. Okay, so, and I agree, but I have a question, though. Yeah. I'm for seeing circumstances and somebody's removed or not. What? And the board's somebody gets removed or. Alternate member. Alternate member? Yeah. Oh, I want to go ahead. If anybody just all of a sudden can't make it, we're going to have to start the case all over again, because those same people aren't going to be involved. When I think of when I came in with a case, I couldn't hear the beginning of it, I had to go look at everything to get familiar with it. but if I am doing that in the middle and can't come back, you started the case, somebody's say I expire. I can't come back. Would it be starting the case all over the room? Well, that would be an extraordinary situation. I think we'd have to get guys. I think that would be very like, I don't know, a board member dying. I mean, what happens when I judge guys in the middle of the case? I think I say every story. I don't know. But that would be, I'm sure we could find. And I'm saying you're absolutely right. But I think that... I mean, what happens when I judge Dysonville case? I guess they every star at. I don't know. But that would be, I'm sure we could find. And I'm saying you're absolutely right. But I think that we have to go with the, I think this was the conversation we have that time in, that based on our experiences, like you said, like that, you know, oh, I think you can see appearing in a district for whatever reason. And that's why we said we need all to remember then. We need to be able to pull this person up. But because what happens is somebody's like, I've watched the video. And. for whatever reason. And that's why we said we need an alternate member then, we need to be able to pull this person up. But because what happens is somebody's like I've watched the video and then we, I mean, we're not, we all know. We've seen it and they can answer basic questions because they haven't watched it. There's also a part of the Open Public Meeting Act that says the distinction between a member of the public and a board members is participation versus observation. If you can't ask questions in real time and you can't look at exhibits which the public doesn't have the right to do, then you're observant. You're not participating. But we don't have to go there. So I agree. I think anything I've heard, right? You could wreck your car pulling in the parking lot, not be able to participate. Just one minute. So my question is maybe you should have a safety net so the chair can make a decision on pulling in somebody and having them get up to speed. I'm just I know it's completely all for all the rules. When I came on there were only four members and there was a case and they didn't want it to hear until there was five members but it had already started. I had to do a lot. Yeah, a lot. That's good as we don't do those anymore. Now that we're eight hour day hearings, we haven't got more than four hours in a single day for any case. I mean, look at a hearing time or an hour and something per hearings with they here. They don't go multiple days. Like we we refine our practice become more professional so that doesn't happen anymore But I didn't want to put a fly in the white man. No, that's actually not a bad idea. Just create something that has us, we don't get a stop gap. I think this will be my position. I'm just for a cover one of your years, because you haven't weighed in. My thought is that, and I'm with you, I'm not saying it's unreasonable, I'm just saying that if we try to account for every single possibility, that would be a problem in terms of possibility. Well, it would be like there would be some little caveat written that the chair is a final decision on something. It doesn't like unless the chair deliberates and says, OK, basically. So let me ask you is if the party said the rights and you went to the parties, listen, we've had a member die unexpectedly. We can either start from fresh or, and Mr. Cootman's made me question for you, or both parties can agree to proceed. The rules say we can't proceed, but if you agree, we can't otherwise we have to start from scratch. Does that, is that something that would happen? Like, what in your experience have been happening? So, death is an awful thing for the person and their family who has died, but it doesn't require a do-over. What would happen in that case you'd have a vacancy in that seat and the council would appoint a new board member. And ordinarily that board member would slot into those cases and they would have to catch up. That's the way it normally works. Yeah, but with this rule they're saying if you're here on first night you should be the one. you know, I forget how we do it. Any board member or participate? Right. That was the point I was making earlier is that it's like a straight jacket. And like if if you're not there, right, the reality isn't a scenario that I just postulated, they couldn't have been there because it couldn't have been on the board because the seat was occupied. So I think that it could break down on the board and then you're kind of stuck. So how do we then, because let's talk about the problem, and then we can get the solution to the problem, and that's how we address all of our issues. The problem is our experience where board members may or may not, or may say that they oh I'm fully up on it and then start to ask questions that were answered in the previous session. So you clearly don't understand what happened and I would think that would be grounds for appeal. Listen this board member clearly didn't listen to the video and as board members we deliberated in public about that saying we think we have issues here where board members are not up to speed as they should be and that doesn't do well for the county. So we're like how do we alleviate that issue by requiring like listen our citizens depend on us to be here. So that's why we said like you have to be here in person so you can ask questions you can look at because right now they don't have a right to. Like, you know, they're like, oh, I saw it. I asked the board members that were absent. One missed 66% of her meetings. I said, if you look at exhibits, no. How can you be weighing in when you've never even looked at an exhibit? You know, so they're supposed to. Oh, I know. I'm not saying that I'm supposed to, but But it doesn't happen. So that's why how do we fix this problem without getting stuck Which you need just a little caveat that the the chair should be able to That make it but so the chair can allow The board member to to participate if like say We've had hearing I don't think she'd be chair though. I think she'd be board decision. I don't think she'd be board I think it should be the chair and only the chair. Mr. Clique, you brought away and on that one. Well, so you're bound by your rules. Right, so if the rules are going to delegate that kind of decision to the chair then it needs to be in there expressly. And when you delegate that kind of, what is otherwise a board decision, on a fairly delicate matter, you're gonna wanna provide some guard grounds. I would if the chair is the one that's gone. Well, in that instance, the vice chair would step in. And if the vice chair is gone, there'd still be a quorum. And the three of them would pick a new chair and vice chair. And they could, but you'd, well, actually, that's not true. Yeah. No, it could still work. But, you know, you'd be stuck with needing all three members, right? So, so, so, so Miss Phillips says we should add language for justice, Chair. Okay, now I'm with you, I think we should add language. I'm saying we should add language for the majority of board, it should be a majority board decision. I just feel like, I think it's a big decision. But- Because we've had cases where we'd like call the docket basically. So basically if you're that they start and they don't you know Where we call we've had cases where we've called the docket and they'd say you know what we're gonna postpone it to another date So the case wasn't really hurt but the case was open. Yeah, so if you weren't there on that date You're saying no you can't right you didn't miss anything right you didn't know you're right you didn't you're correct You need to be there So, but now, if you know you can't miss anything. Right. No, you're right. You're correct. You need to be there. So, but now, if you know you can't make it to that one, you just have enough for a form. I think we've done this before, too. Not saying that we haven't. But now, the person who didn't make it to that meeting now can't hear when the case finally goes on. No, I think we agree. I think we're all agreement that there should be language added. I think no, no, we agree with you. But the question is, should it be a board decision to allow to move on with less than the ... the case. No, I think we agree. I think we're all in agreement that there should be language added. Oh, no, no, we agree with you. But the question is, should it be a board decision to allow to move on with less than the full board that heard it on the first night, or should it be, you know, language saying that it's at the chair's discretion where they're moved up. I think it should be at the chair's discretion because he's the one who sets the or she because he is not going to be much longer. Well, I think that thing you always go to the heat, but it's always masculine. Anyway. But anyways, I think it should be the chair to make that decision because I feel that the chair, that person, has the knowledge of the case, has the sees if this person can make that decision where can ask questions or whatever to see if maybe we need to let this person do it or not. And I don't think it's not a popularity concept. OK. In my, you know, it's a decision that needs to be made and one person needs to make it. Because now there's four people who can be split. Well, that does bring up a good point. Because then you need to be in another public meeting to hold an open vote at the post-duty chair making a federal decision. So what you could do is you could sort of have your cake and eat it too. you could make it be the board's chair subject to, I'm sorry, the chair's decision subject to a board override. If the majority of the board's chair subject to, I'm sorry, the chair's decision subject to a board override. If the majority of the board disagrees with the chair's decision, they can just override it. Yeah, I like that, yeah, because you're right, because I'm just thinking through it, because we'd have to be in another meeting because you need the full board, then you have to vote, oh my gosh. And in reality, the magnitude of that decision is commiserate with the other decisions that the chair makes solely. So that's makes sense. And you'll hear that with Ms. Fierrope. I am. Ms. Fierrope. Okay, so now we need to give it the actual language that it needs, which is, let me just look at it real quick. Where? Can you help us with that? What was the sentence? What was the sentence we're looking at? Mr. mr. Cook said it pretty clean But I just want to see how it's a mr. Right heart has the knowledge yeah She'll be eligible to vote on matter and decided cake the case in less How Can you restate that? Can I suggest something just don't monkey with the language that's there notwithstanding the foregoing the chair May decide to allow Allow a member, an absent member of the board to participate. To participate. Well, subject to, subject to, you know, the board, a board, you know, So version. Repeat the two sentences you had in beginning. Then we can make some decision on it. Can you repeat those two sentences you had two sentences you said that were the qualifier? Notwithstanding. I wish you were actually by the chair to the contrary. Wait, how about notwithstanding a direction by the chair to the contrary after the document case? That's a couple of decooc. The first sentence sets the rule. Only board members who are there 100 percent can vote. The second sentence actually just talks about the degree of agreement. So maybe between the first and the second sentence, notwithstanding the preceding sentence. The chair may allow a member who has missed. Or just to the contrary, right? Why get so specific, right? Just not to the contrary. Like, here's the rule. Unless. may allow a member who has missed. Or just to the contrary, right? Why get so specific, right? Just not to the contrary. Like, here's the rule, unless you'll do otherwise. I'm just thinking to make it simpler. Well, basically it's an exception to the sentence without making the sentence longer. But that you may allow an exception in a dire circumstance. No, I'll show you. It's like, it's like honor matter or dissonance. Yeah, it's it's circumstance. No, I will show you how it's like on a matter or it's not on a matter. It's vague. Yeah, it's vague. Now, unless directed contrary, unless the chair. Unless the chairman to the contrary, you're by the chair. Unless the chair, do you, allows otherwise? Yeah, something like very simple. This is the rule unless, rule otherwise by the chair. And don't get into like, it's a chair. If you're delegating it to a chair, then let the chair determine what that criteria is. Right? Yeah. Like, we don't need to like, delineate every single. So we don't need to just add a sentence instead of adding a sentence. I'll take common accurate. Doggie case, you know, notwithstanding, you know, however something simple. Now we're setting a ruling by the chair to the contrary. For... you know, notwithstanding, you know, however, something simple, notwithstanding, uh, a ruling, uh, by the chair to the contrary. Or unless or until, no, it's not. Unless, unless, um, an absence is excused. No, we get to it that means later. We're putting guidelines. Yeah. Yeah. No. No, just a ruling by the chair to the contrary. Like, if we're truly delegating it, then delegate it. Like, don't try to make our manage with the chair to do it. Like, if you wanted the chair to make decision, let the chair make the decision. Yeah, unless the chair decides to allow and less decided to concentrate by the chair. Yeah. The chair percent. Where's it presiding? Or maybe the chair can maybe be atticent to leave that one alone and say that the chair may revise the chair may overrule or chair may allow. Yes, the chair may allow participation in unique circumstances. May, there is a baby by who, for what? For members who participate during all portion of the hearing or work session, shall be eligible to vote on matters or decide on a documented case. Unless the chair or presiding official decides otherwise. Yes. Okay. Right? That works. And that is still like otherwise. And unless it allows participation, unless the cheer allows. Why is this? I thought it was. I'd like to wire it. OK. I'm good with it. We'll go on. Are we OK with that? Would Ms. Bilpsa said? Ms. Spiracover, you're OK with that? Yes, that's fine the way it stands because it says a final decision shall have the concurrence of a majority of the board. So what final decision is that a decision on how to proceed, is that a decision on how we vote, is that a decision? I mean, that kind of gives you very broad – It says any – I think it's like any decision, right? I don't say decision in order. It says a decision shall have the concurrence of a majority of the board. But I'd like to leave things. I know that this is from writing policy procedure myself as an administrator. You have to not hem yourself in too tightly sometimes. Leave yourself a little wiggle room and I think that covers it. I don't think that sentence would cover not having the chair be able to decide. So I don't think that sentence would cover the not having the chair be able to decide. So I don't think that that that leaves it where the chair is not deciding that's the concurrence that's the final vote that you're talking about at that stage. Oh, you're saying that the final decision. It says here a final decision shall have the concurrence of a majority of the board. Yeah, yeah. What if the chair is not there? Yeah. have a final decision, she'll have the concurrence of a majority of the board. What if the chair's not there? Then you have a final decision shall have the concurrence of a majority of the board. You're right. So you're right. Think about that for a second. So the rules say this but a final decision on this is subject to the majority of the board. That's what you're saying now. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's really clean and clear about you. Yeah. I don't have to make more of it than it already is, in my opinion. Maybe a final decision, and I don lot of to make more of it than it already is. In my opinion. Maybe a final decision, and I don't want to make more of it, but maybe a final decision on participation shall have the concurrence of the majority of the board. Again, I would leave it alone. And do not limit yourself like that. I agree. I think you're, like, is then you're like, well, We do that and we should do this and we should do it as opposed to leaving it. I think the board of the interpretation with that means is that I'm... I think that's good, then. I think that're like, well, if we do that, then we should do this. And then we should do it as opposed to leaving it. I think the board of the interpretation with that means it's not. I think that's good, then. I think that's good. It's kind of like when you, and I think about it, akin to like the, did they make a good faith effort for posters? I'm like, if we list out what constitutes good faith, like you need to leave it open. Yeah. So, going round again, where are we on this? Leave it alone. Leave it alone, please. Yes. This is ours. So going around again, where are we on this? Leave it alone. Leave it alone, please. Yes. This is ours. I'm not going to be the trouble maker tonight. No. You're going to get in trouble. You're going to get in bad weather. It's the longest you've ever been. Okay. Okay. If you write a policy procedure manual for every kind of contingency that happens in all the world, it's going to be 300 pages. You've got to stop somewhere. And I think that last sentence is very clean and clear. It's just concise enough, and you have leeway in that sentence. So leave it alone. Where are you miss? Harris, miss. I just want to see a final decision on participation. She'll have the concurrence of the majority of it. When you're only talking about voting, within my limiting. That's the only thing in this paragraph is voting. It talks about eligibility to vote. Members who participated? What's participation? Like, it's about voting, though. A final decision on voting is what we're talking about. So it's just clarifying. And I don't think it's him and I say. So you're saying that, OK, so then this case, we're not delegating it. It's a final decision shall have the current majority of the board. And so we're not delegating it, and we're going back to the full board will decide it. But that's a problem. The decision may storm what we've just discussed. On eligibility to vote shall have the current of a majority of the board. Is something like that? Is that what you're saying? But that's not what we want to say. But yeah, then we're not delegating to the chair. We're saying the full board side. Yeah, that's, I mean, that's, yeah, that's what, if we leave it alone, that's what happens. Then it's delegated to the full board. So maybe a final decision on voting shall be determined by the chair unless overturned by the majority of the board. So what else would it be if the subject of the subject line is voting? Yeah, you don't have to put voting in again. It's voting. You just said that yourself. You're only talking about voting. I'm not talking about a time on this. It's just, it's very small. I'm going to bow out to the nation. It's very cool. I'll go with the majority. a board decision as opposed to just one person's decision. Yeah, which I'm fine with. I rule that way to be getting. Are you okay with it? Okay, so we have two, one of staying, or what? Or the deal? a board decision as opposed to just one person's decision. Yeah, which I'm fine with. I see that way to be getting. Are you okay with it? Okay, so we have two. One of staying or what or do you? Well, but we, but are we going to run into any issue if you, if the chair is not the person. No, this side is the way the person is. No, the chair is the board. The chair makes the board decide. I know, I understand that, but as we discussed this, there was something that came up about the chair. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. This doesn't work. we're going to leave this and that's what it is. So that's what I'm trying to do. In order for the board to vote, we need to be in a public meeting. So OK, so that's why. Well, I think this is such a rare car. So that this is going to happen. We make it very clear. in order for the board to vote we need to be in a vote meeting. So, okay, so that's why. It is, it is. Well, I think this is such a rare current. So that this is going to happen. We make it very clear in multiple places. But you're right, it could happen. I'm not saying it can't. I'm just saying that we're talking about the inevitability of like an F6 tornado hitting Howard County. It's like we could plan for that. Is there ever going to happen? Probably not. But I'm going to cancel. Yeah. But if it would give us more flexibility to have the chair, be that person. Actually, if. probably not. But if it would give us more flexibility to have the chair be that person. Why wouldn't we add that? A final decision. So that means it should be determined by the chair. So you'd have to vote. It's not like you could just call up for one second. So it negates the rule kind of almost. Well, no, it says this is the rule unless the okay So are you saying that you want to change the language so instead of Carried some majority board. It'll be a final decision Shall be the ruling of the chair. Yes That's that's what I thought we wanted to They want to change the majority. Well, you need to pull. I know. You need to. The chair or the presiding official. Okay. But is that what we want? Okay. I guess the question is, do we want to postpone and have a public hearing about a vote? No. No. So, let me propose a language. which a final decision shall have a final decision shall be made by the the chairperson or presiding official. It's got to be by the board. No, we're saying we don't want to buy the board. That's what they've been talking about. They don't want the full board to say it, which I would have to say. Make a going to say you've got to have the board. No, you can delegate responsibility to the chair. Scheduling to the chair. The rule is there. You can overrule it or not. They're leaving it to chair. No, I want the full board to. But you want the full board to say it. No, I think what's getting confused is I think this Harris wanted a rule for like an absent person to be able to participate. If the chair allowed it. Right. But when you say the final decision, that's talking about the voting on a case. No, it's talking about voting. The sentence is only a board member who participated during all portions of it hearing or work session, shall be eligible to vote on a marriage cited by a docket. You're right. The second part of that sentence is not some procedural thing. It's the case. The merits of the case. You're getting your way, you're variance, you're not getting it. That's got to be a board decision. It's, yeah, it's not. OK. No, no, but it's been just being clear. I thought this was going on if that member was absent, it's going to vote. Did you say that? No, no. That's not taken out of these rules. Yeah, and that's right. There's a saying that would not have barrices saying she thinks that provision should be in there. So that's not a variable. That rule is the rule. There's no like, but if. Now it's, that's the rule. And the second part of it is a final decision. So a quate that to be a decision order shall be a majority, you know, a final, that's what we're saying. A final decision shall be concurrent. The term final decision, remember, is we define that. There's a, there's definition for final decision. That's what she wanted clarity on voting. So right now there is no provision. This is the rule. Only member to participate in your reportions of a hearing or section, shall be eligible to vote and decide on a document case. Period. There's no if, decide whether to share or if this. That's our rule. I think, and I'll sign up in the sphere cover on this, that we should not over-complicate it, but that's my version. That's my position. Is that your, I want to make sure I'm, is that what you're saying? That's correct. Okay, so then Miss Harris and Miss Phillips, what is your position? Because we are definitely getting lost in the sauce. Oh, no. We're like a half hour on this. We can leave it to you. Okay. Miss Phillips, you okay? Is that leaving it out? We'll leave it out. Okay. But we're tying our hands. We are. In the very odd situation that happens, we have to then think outside the box and ask people to agree to move forward or whatever. So the next is item 24, we talked about, okay, did that, 26. Item 26. Yeah, so these are ethics commission. Okay. So on page 33, lines four 7, I'm sorry, 4 through 7. We'll just go through these because there's a number of comments about this particular page. So on lines 4 through there's sort of the peg around which this whole rule hangs is that a member has failed to comply with the Howard County Ethics Law. Whether somebody has or has not complied with the Howard County ethics law is within the sole jurisdiction of the ethics commission. So it's not entirely, it's not clear what exactly this is getting at. So, I'm going to finish before I weigh in. Yeah, so there's the commission would, if they charge somebody and they still found that they had violated the ethics law, there'd be a public decision to that effect. And that would be a violation of the ethics law. I don't know what other violations are contemplated here. So when you look, so I had a, I looked your question. I'm like, okay, what does the ethics law say? So if you go to Title 22, Subtitle 2, which is the ethics mission, it actually talks about an employer or the supervisor, the employee, and it talks, I thought it was as simple as I'm like, what are we trying to do? It talks about having conduct that the employee is prohibited in the workplace and that they must notify their supervisor and supervisor must take certain action. And when I read with the ethics commission's role is, there's nothing prescriptive. It's not like the ethics mission must rule, the ethics mission. It says, it's all about like employee conduct. And it says, most notified their supervisor must do this with their supervisor. And so I'm like, okay, well, who's our supervisor? How does this apply to us, the ethics law? But clearly it does, because we have to fill it out every so we're subject to it. So my as I start to look at the code of my this gives real is this applying to us, the ethics law, but clearly does, because we have to fill it out every, so we're subject to it. So as I start to look at the code, I'm like, this gets really tricky, because the ethics commission it says is advisory. It says the employee, if I'm not mistaken, it says may seek an opinion, doesn't not require to seek an opinion. If they think they have a conflict, it says, may seek an opinion. So I'm like, who is this a problem? So what if you knew you had ethics complaint or ethics issue, like say, for example, hypothetically, I'm rule I can initial use, and it's, I don't know, my neighbor's property, I don't know, that's probably not the best example. But something where I would clearly have some conflict of interest and the witness gets up there and says, hey, you know, you're my neighbor and you've been saying you don't want me to have a farm stand forever. but something where I would clearly have some complex interest and the witness gets up there and says, hey, you know, you're my neighbor and you've been saying you don't want me to have a farm stand forever. And now you're waning on it. You need to disclose that ahead of time? I didn't have to. It says I may. Well, somebody has to notify the ethics commission that we have an issue here. So, okay, so let me back up a little bit. So, it's within the discretion of anybody's subject to the ethics code to request an advisory opinion if they want to. That's one situation. The other situation is a person believes a county official, employee elected official officer, is doing something or has done something that violates the ethics law. The code provides that that person files a complaint under oath, making that allegation. It's then investigated. If it's found to be substantiated, a charge is issued. The person answers the charge and there's a hearing. And then there's a decision out of that hearing. It's at that point where a determination is actually made that's public that somebody did yes violate, you know, the public ethics law. But does it, so in that case, I can say a lot of questions. The reason that we put the county council is because they're the appointing authority, right? So there if were determined the appointing authority and correct me from them, it's like because the code says the supervisor, I'm like, okay, I guess that's your supervisor, right? Your appointing authority, I don't know. So I think this clarifies that, that when the code, essentially the code says must notify your supervisor. I guess my other question is, and we could pull it up the ethics law to look at it, But when it contemplates, in the example you just gave it contemplates that a person, you know, could file charges, whatever, is that, say, an employee or a supervisor, must go to the ethics commission and report them? Or is that like a citizen? I don't know how to word it, that's why I asked. It's literally any person, a member of the council and employee, a member of the public, a witness testifying before the board in a case. So they're mandatory reporters. It's not mandatory, but if they believe that somebody is violating the ethics law, they can file a complaint to that effect with the ethics commission. But it's not mandatory. And this makes a mandatory that you must. That's somebody must notify the ethics commission. The idea is to create a sub-bub, you know, reproached. Okay. No, and I kind of assume that that's where this was coming from. The issue is that these are like substantive law requirements that the board doesn't have the power to put in their rules. And it actually conflicts with the way the code is set up now. If the recommendation is to change the ethics code to require a complaint be filed against, I guess, a board member? I mean, I'm not sure who, you know, right, I guess it's a board member. Then you can recommend that. So, so, okay. I was trying to think to break it out. Yeah, go ahead. So, what if it's red, and we forget what you're trying to do? But with the intent, you're trying to get to. So, we're all on same page. Right, so what if we change this language? I don't know if it's going to solve what your issue is, but we'd say the chairperson or the board clerk shall immediately notify the county council and writing and I don't think it's gonna matter because if if If someone is found in violation of the ethics law by the exit ethics commission So if the ethics commission has a rule that they have violated it that's when we notify the chair, the chair notifies the county council. I would think the ethics commission would notify the council themselves. So that's consistent with how this system is set up now and that's more understandable. So we struck the second sentence, such written, but you're saying, so, okay, so take it like don't do the consequence part, which I agree. Okay, so take out that, but you're saying the first sentence is still an overreach, but I don't know that it is. I think, I don't think it's outside our scope to say, because you, if I'm hearing you right, say, It's not mandatory. So for example, if our boss is, I don't know who, I don't know who you would be like Say one of us had a conflict. You're saying it's optional or a report that. It shouldn't be optional. And you're saying, Jean, that's subject to the law. But this is going to be codified in law. So there's a difference with, I hear you. And so that could be a recommendation specifically for the board of appeals of Howard Cammy, is that I'm still having a hard time getting my head wrapped around. I get requiring somebody to file it. That would be a change. But we have to be a change to the ethics code, which these rules can't do. Why do we have to be that? Requiring to. Because the ethics code is what governs filing complaints with the ethics commission. are a mandatory reporting in the ethics code and right if I'm hearing you so no one is required to file a complaint against a person who's subject to the ethics code but we can't require that we can as a board you're saying we can't that would be contrary to the ethics code to require require. You could follow complaint yourself. No, no, no, but we're saying that we want to require that somebody notify the council that listen this board, which has a high level of responsibility. It appears to be an ethics violation. But you wouldn't, but what you like to do. So if you believe, I'm sorry, I'm serious. Go ahead. If you the chair or any of the other four members of the board believe that somebody on the board is violating the ethics commission reported to the office file you don't have to though it's not right but if you want to you have that option if you really feel like somebody is violating the ethics code, you can file a complaint against them. Okay, I'm not trying to be dramatic here, but how many, though, just think I take it into my other job, right? So child abuse, you are mandate to report it, right? It's not an option. So why are we making it optional, whether you want to report it, given what we do here. So it's not a choice of the board though. You say why are we can make it. The county code specifies that any person can file a complaint against someone's subject to the law that they're violating it. You're talking about changing the ethics code for board of appeals members, which is substantive law making. And I'm not saying it can't be done. but what I am saying is it needs to be done in the ethics code by the council. It's not a rule of procedure. So this doesn't even say who files the complaint. It just says, if any member fails to comply. Chair Clark, shall immediately notify the County Council on its own. If any member fails to fully comply, but how would the ethics commission ever know that they fail to fully comply? Because they've been notified by the, unless someone falls a complaint. It's been a determination that they've failed. It has to be an accusation. It's not going to. So it has to go through the ethics. OK, so this is my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, guys. There is no obligation here. You could know the fellow board member who is a clear ethics violation and is now inappropriately handled a case. And there's nothing requiring you. No, it doesn't matter. I wasn't required. I could have thought there's nothing requiring me to notify anybody. Well, we would hope that. But hope are well. This whole inspector general is not hope. It's like it's the whole point of what the meeting was before ours. Like people aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. Or there's an allegation that people aren't doing supposed to be doing. Wage fraud and abuse. I mean. It's still someone has to file to the ethics commission. And it's sort of like, you know, you're saying that now that they require, you're requiring them to, but it's like, well, how do you feel they know they've violated? You have to prove it. You're going back to it. No, no. It's sort of like you're going in an almost in a circle because I'm not. No, I don't have to report it, but I have to report it because I know. But how do you know I know that they file it? So to move it along, I've said my part. You don't want to strike it. You strike it. Right? No,, I just think if we're gonna keep that in there, it needs to talk about having gone through the ethics code before it goes to the county council. They have to find somebody guilty of- Who's reporting it though? That's irrelevant at this point. No, that's the intent of this is to make mandatory reporting. Okay, so we, yeah, we, so, so I would say if that's the will of the body, it should be a recommendation to the council to amend probably, I guess, the subtitle for the board that requires, the harder, the harder issue is who's supposed to, who's being required to make the complaint? That's where I thought I was. But leaving that aside for the time being, forget about the complainant. That there's a requirement that a complaint be filed with the Ethics Commission against a board member. What if the Ethics Commission of Board member was the same? Like we need to go to the council to be pointing authority, like we have a concern you need to handle it. That was the intent. The county council isn't the ethics commission. They handle it first. They're going to figure out what to do. They would have to go to the ethics commission in order for somebody to get convicted, not convicted, but to be found guilty of violation. Just because you think someone's in violation, you have to prove it number one. You can't just, you know, you can't just, are you sure? What do you guys want to do? So we need more of a higher argument. I'm like, I'm like, that's the bottom line. I mean, you can actually, we could get in trouble in from my point of view. We could get in trouble if we accuse or go someplace and say this person has gone against the ethics law. If you know that for a fact, I think advisement, by, I don't know who, but advisement? That's why I would say, and I don't know, maybe it's too protracted then. If you guys are okay, like you would have to read yet the law to see, it's a very detailed section. It's a very detailed, I'm not happy. It's a very detailed, I'm not happy. It's a very detailed, I'm not happy. It's a very detailed, I'm not happy. right now, like because you'll see exactly what it says, what the violations are. And when you read it, it becomes clear why this rule was there. But it sounds like we're not there, so to get through this tonight, which we need to do, I think, what do you guys want to do? Because I think we should strike it. That's fine with me. So do you want to strike it? That's one for strike it. Miss Harris, Miss Kirka. I would say strike it. Strike it. Okay. So we're striking. What was going to be worded? Oh, you can tell it's a word. Yeah, you know, it's not a word, but we need specific language that achieves it without overcompending. So I just think we need to, okay. Okay, so the chairperson or board clerk shall immediately notify the, shall merely file a complaint against any board member. I can't say a word. Whom they think has been in violation of the ethics code. You can't take it to the council until they have been proving guilty. So that's where I'm stuck. I can't prove it. That's what I'm saying. That's exactly what I just said. You can't take it to the council until it's been proven that they have violated the code. I just wanted to hear how you're going to reword it and let's strike it. Motion strength. It's a wolf. It's late. We understand. She's hungry. She's hungry. Get another Snickers bar. Okay. So strike strike. I say strike. So we, so three strike. Three strikes. It's out. Okay. So we're striking E. And you can still do the right thing. Oh, yeah. If that was the only truth. No, I mean, we can't, but so few do. Uh, I'm going to say strike strike. I say strike. So we're striking E. And you can still do the right thing. Oh, yeah, if that was the only truth. No, I mean we can't, but so few do. Okay. Okay, so the next one is item 27 on the sheet. That's page 33, lines 8 through 14. So these, this is paragraph F and G. And it's basically setting forth circumstances of a member that would make them unqualified to sit on the board. So right now, there are four qualifications to be on the board. You have to live in the county. You have to be a registered voter, depending on your political party affiliation. You might be boxed out because there's already the requisite number of people from that party on the board. So you couldn't participate. And then the fourth thing is, you know, you still have time left. You know, you've got the term limit max, the ceiling, and then once you go beyond that, you're not qualified to sit anymore. So the charter sets forth those four qualifications. These two things fall into the qualification category category which are set forth in the charter. There are similar rules for like the county executive and the county council. There are certain things that would disqualify them from holding office. Again those are in the charter. The state law gives the county council the power to establish what the qualifications for the board are. And so they they aren't proper material. This is the substantive versus procedural distinction. This is this is law making right here F and G. And you can certainly recommend to the council that these be added. But isn't that what we're doing with these? We know because the way this is set forth in these rules, if while I would not expect these to be adopted by the council, they would be in your rules of procedure. So I guess that brings me to a good question Which is kind of off topic, but is exactly and I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole It gets to the charter And I need some clarification. I think we need to be on the record about this so I understand it It's my understanding So the language, because you say it would be in our rules procedure, but if the council didn't accept this, you said if I'm paraphrasing correctly, I don't expect the council to approve this, but it would still be in your rules procedure. How could we have rules procedure not approved by the council? You couldn't. Exactly. You couldn't. So my point is that the point of the office is with regard to item 27 on this sheet, paragraph F and G on page 33, is that these are qualifications of Board of Appeals members, new ones, right, new ones. And right now, the qualifications of the board are set by 501A of the charter. So these would have to be added to that provision and the charter to make them qualifications applicable to board members. You can't just put them in your rules of procedure because they would contradict the charter and the charter qualifications govern. So second question. So you're saying that 501c is an exhaustive list of qualifications. And it's 501a. I'm sorry I say, we know I meant. So you say the charter. So you cannot make additional qualifications that are so long as they're not in capital. You're saying the only qualification to be a board member in the charter and it's an exhaustive list. Anything after that is not allowed unless it's in charter. Correct the charter the charter is the only legal document that the county has that that establishes the board and the subsection F of the charter provision delegates to the council, the power to pass an ordinance to specify jurisdictional issues, right? The kinds of cases that the board may hear, but that's it. And it's been that way since 1968. Mr. Rob. That doesn't make it right. Number one, and number two, I will not absolutely not let G go. G, yes. I will not let that go. That needs to stay. Well, I think that is, I think that's actually a requirement of law, right? I think it is. Well, not according to what I'm hearing. I'm pretty sure it's a law already. So ethics commission, that's a rule of the ethics commission. For sure, for sure the elected official piece of this is. That's not the charter. It's a case law concept. You can't hold two offices of profit. But it's not a charter. You said charter is the exhaustive list. For qualifications. Yes. You're right. You're an elected member. What? Of office, your public office holder. If somebody were to become an elected office holder, they would automatically forfeit their board of appeals seat. You can't hold both at the same time. I know I understand that and that makes me try to understand the prior sentence that says the charter dictates all qualifications for a board member and it doesn't say anything about elected office. You're right, it case, but the ethics commission. But where's the charter? So the charter isn't the exhaustive list. There are other instances where it's called. The charter sets the qualification for a member at those four items in 401A. There may be other attributes of a member, i.e. they run for elected office and win, that then would automatically by operation of law, they would see it seat would vacate they would forfeit it and they take office that they were elected to or they could give up that office and stay on the board. It's more I think the elected office you can't be a member of the board. No, but you understand what I mean. And then this you can't be an elected office. The plan I'm trying to follow with is if I understand what I'm being told, what we're being told is that we can't recommend to the council that they codify further restriction board members should not participate in many other municipal county board commissioner and gas force because it's not in the charter implementation. However, neither is elected official part in the charter. So how can that be okay but the prior case not that it's, I think it's part of the elected officials charter that they can't be in the other another charter. So, so you, so is that what you're saying? Like the rules for that. The, there's nothing in 501A that prevents you from running for an office, right? But if you're elected to it, the Maryland Constitution boxes you out from holding both, and you have to pick one. So my point is that the Maryland Constitution and the charter, so it's not just the charter that's exhausted. There's more places that tell you who can serve. So why can't we add this as further qualifications? Well, I mean, recommend. We don't add anything. We can't. The council will have to approve it. But why can't the council further restrict this office and say that without having a charter amendment? If the Constitution says it, and then this says it, why can't local law say we as a council say, if you're going to be in this board, you can't serve it. You're right, they may not be able to do this. But why can't they restrict it through legislation? The current qualifications, let me back up. State law says that the board sets the, the council sets the qualifications for the board The council way back in 1967 68 set those qualifications in the charter and so to add to them to remove them Expand narrow whatever that whatever the council may want to do you'd have to amend the charter with regard to the qualifications. So you're saying this requires a charter amendment? Is he in order to put any further qualifications outside those very four basic ones written 30 years ago who requires a charter amendment? The less it's in state constitution, the less it's in some other doctrine, but here local law not allowed to do it. Well, no, that's okay. Now we're waiting for case law too? No, he cited case law originally. I thought he said to stay Constitution. The office of profit provision is in the Maryland, it's actually in the Declaration of Rights, but it's part of the Constitution. And it provides that a person can't hold two offices of profit. And a board of appeal seat is definitely an office of profit. You're exercising some sovereignty of the state of Maryland. That's the most important thing. Yeah, and the Exclamation Provinces as well, which I guess they get that long from wherever. So, I don't know. I don't know. Like, I'm very, uh, it seems so, it correct me if I'm wrong. What you're saying is that, though we've written it here, those are already in place in another, on another level, like. Is not F. Well, somewhat F. What is that? Because how economic government boarded this? Because that's for profit. So it can't be a full product. It seems like it covers that. No, you could be a multiple, we have people right now that are multiple boards here. Are they paid positions all of them? Are they all paid positions? Oh, I don't know, but there are multiple county boards. That might be the difference. No. Because no. There's no prohibition for being a multiple county board here. I mean there may be I think the liquor board is something. And is that, am I in the right tree? I don't know. It seems like what you said, these things pretty much already exist somewhere else, but in the state, in the county. Well, with regard to G, you know, it really... G is narrow and low. G, that is... Yeah, the elected official part is just already part of law. Now, if you're talking about a different board, it may be okay, right? It just depends on the nature of the two positions. But with regard to this board and like an elected office, you definitely couldn't do both. So you could be on other boards, but just not this board? There's a yes. So that will be identified. It depends on the facts of each circumstance. So I mean, my yes is a qualified one. It kind of depends on the circumstances of that situation. With regard to employment with the county. Can you tell me what municipal county boards there are in the county? Well, I think the word municipal shouldn't be there because municipality is a city. It really should just be county. There are no municipal county boards. It's just county boards and commissions. Where's municipal? It's online town. So what county boards are not paid boards in the county? Most are not paid. or not paid. It there paid. So that's liquor and ours. And state law governs the baby board. The baby liquor board, as I call it. Yeah. And commissions. There's no payment in commissions or task forces. No. No. No. What about the ethics commission? No. No. So there's no violation if they're not paid. No, I don't know. Yeah, they're allowed to blow the two boards right now. But we're talking about that freight. Is what we're talking about there? Yeah. Yeah, but two boards can those two boards be this board? And because this is the liquor board because it seems like you could not be liquor board in this board because the liquor board also exercises it's probably an office of profit. So that falls under G. It definitely exercises some sovereignty, the state, and issuing liquor licenses and enforcing liquor laws against against someone But you can be on this board here and any other board It depends it really does it depends on the other Even if it didn't pay there could be boards where it could be problematic because there's there are other There are other doctrines that can prevent it. So the county has a policy of secondary employment which could be an issue for an employee, right? No, no, no. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. No, for an employee, I would agree with that. For an employee, right, this is talking about, I think that's in G. There's the incompatibility doctrine, which is another doctrine that might prevent somebody from being on two different boards. Like one board sets your budget on the other board, or one board superv the people on the other board those kinds of kind of kind of superior subordinate kind of circumstances Probably doesn't allow you to be on both but it but it depends on the law that's written that says You know, I'm you're saying oh maybe this board to that board if they work for this board. What is the, how would somebody know? Yeah. How would you know? What would be the law that says you can't do that? What, what, what, what, what would be, where, where is it written so that you could decipher, you can be on this board, but not this board or that board or not this board. What is, what is written to say which board you can have multiple, join multiple boards as opposed to only one. So for a county employee, it would be the secondary employment provisions in the employee manual. For a member of a board, it would be the office of profit rule, or it could be the incompatibility doctrine. And those are standard tests that are applied. What's the incompatibility? Generally speaking, it's the idea that you hold two different offices with two different units. And it's permissible unless there's a relationship between the two units. one sort of has oversight or supervision of the other, or one controls the budget of the other. And so there's means of coercion or at least power being exerted by one over the other. And so you can't be sitting in both. But then that's further broken down, right? Because I mean, you could understand where that's an issue right now. And I think we got previous counsel from you that says, well, you could belong to it, but you'd have to recuse yourself of certain issues of reason. Like, it's so fitting. That's why this cleans it up. Like, talk about some agency, having to understand it as a part of it. I, like I said, I understand where this is coming from. And look, our role is to give you the best defensible legal advice that we can. And so what we're saying is if you wanna do this, the proper way is to add these as additional, they're really not qualifications, they're disqualifications, right? They're saying, if you've got these two, three things, whatever it is, you can't be a board member. But right now the charter says, they can appoint anybody as long as they meet these four things. Well, and then we have all this W's talked about, big compatibility, yeah, Mr. Curve. I have a question. So can somebody who is on the planning board or zoning board be on the board of appeals? I suspect. I believe that decisions of the planning board can come to the board of appeals. So probably not. Right. What was the other one? Planning or zoning. Zoning board. Is that any board? The zoning board. Yes, zoning board. Well, that would knock you out because it's elected official. So you're alive. I mean, again, they already hold an office of profit, right? So they could. Yeah. Right. Licker board, no, planning board, no. So you really can't, anyway. I think the commission you can, although I don't know how, because you'd be over viewing ethics, potentially about this board, but whatever. What else? I mean, there's all those little boards. It's just like, you know, that's where the planning board and the planning board and the board of appeals could be accomplished. It's a certain preparation. You could be part of, I guess. Here's a question. We let this thing go in. What what happens to Not sure to counsel you forward this to counsel you forward this to counsel. What happens to it? I forward it to the council He's gonna say you can advise and you can't do this for a charter I think thank you I Think I said it maybe once before but Whatever we we are telling this body, we are going to tell the other body the same thing. I think I said it once before, that was sarcasm, radiation didn't pick up on that. He's like, yeah, so he's a good child, but think about a boy without a charter amendment. So either he's a striker or really what do you want to do? There's no mending it so either strike it or leave it. Leave it. I mean, you know he can tell them and they can figure and they can have this discussion. Yeah, and let them say we don't want to further restrict the board without a charter moment. Yeah, so are we okay? We need a charter. Okay, all right, so we'll leave it. We need to leave it with some comments. No, we just leave it. And let them, because there's no many, yeah. He's good to tell them and then they can do their thing. We tried and they didn't want to do it Okay, we're next item is number 28 Right item 28 on the sheet It's page 33 L lines. 15 to 21. So, so that the financial disclosure, this is really just a jurisdictional issue again. The code currently already requires people's subject to the ethics law to file their FDS financial disclosure statement, but April 30th. And then the second piece is- Yeah, I think we're all dreaming. We must drag it. And not want to strike this. Okay, we're all dreaming. We'll see you a lot of time. We're just trying to- Okay. Yeah, and this. Yeah, we're thinking, I should have done that earlier. And then the thing about, well, there's two things about I. I'll focus on. We're great with you. We're striking the whole thing. There's fake. Oh, OK. OK. We're with you. You're the one. All right. Not about winning or losing. I'm just trying to help you guys TF and Defensible Set of Rules. So now you're on item 29, which is page 41, line 5. The first sentence is actually an incorrect statement. It says the Board of Appeals is a quasi-judicial body. I know it sounds nitpicky, but actually the Maryland Appellate Courts have described this Board of Appeals as an administrative agency, right? That performs quasi-judicial functions and that's what we would recommend. So, June's language too. Is an administrative agency that performs quasi-judicial functions? OK. Right. You got that, Mr. Ryehart? Yeah. Any objection to change that language, guys? So the board of appeals is, and what was there? I don't just say. It's an administrative agency. It's an administrative agency. Yeah. Yeah. So 2.101H does not apply right of our code because that's where This came from, but I think I understand that that doesn't apply to a SFC administrator, PTA, and Jack, but I think because it defines a Public body as a board commissioner or other entity, a kind of government. But you're saying specifically that doesn't apply to us because Right,? I think you said that once before to meet. Yeah, the local APA doesn't. That's actually the rule. Right, doesn't apply. But even, I think even the local APA talks about an agency performing a quasi-judicial function. It's still an administrative agency. Yeah. Right. 30 is resolved, right? Yeah. I have it as resolved in my list. Yeah. Okay. There's lines five through seven. What else is there that I'm not getting? I see paid five and six so far. I'd see. Yeah, I think you just would say. No, it says proceedings before the porch will be governed by the Maryland and Teddy codes. Howard County. Oh, I know the other I know the other thing. Yeah, this is minor. We flagged this one. We originally got the first draft back in the late fall last year. It's almost too narrow. It says, governed by the Maryland Annotated Code, the Howard County Code, and established case law. The list of things that you are governed by is actually broader than that so you might think about maybe Before the board shall be governed by All applicable law maybe including Fed you know federal law Right, and then you have That way you're not boxing yourself and I see it. Good but no we're rolling so we are now on 31 right this is a timeline can we come back to that? We'll put that up on the board so it's a very easy but answer your question yes we talked about this. So actually and Mr. Sanders and I talked about this in the office before coming over here a few hours ago. And actually, I don't know whether the board is seeing the same thing we are, but it's actually a fairly narrow issue. If you look at page 48, it seems like there's a timing disconnect. On page 48, lines 7 through 11. It talks about the administrator posting and delivering a final DNO within three days of getting it from our office. However, on page 47 in line 6 through 7, is that right? No, I'm sorry, 16 through 17, I misspoke. The board administrator has up to five days after getting it from the legal advisor to get the to get the members to sign Right, so it's like it's like it's obligating the administrator to post the decision While the window for the members to sign is still open I so yeah, we put the timeline up remember I let me just so I'm not sure the language if you just wait. Yeah, so if we meet the language max that timeline and it works. So I'm trying to understand. Okay, so maybe, all right. It's the preliminary. No, this is the final. So when you're on line 1617, the administrator shall arrange to have the document signed by all board members. No layer of the five days following receipt from the advisor. That's the final Dino, yes. Correct, right? So, the... What do you say to the board? Sorry, hold on? So. But you said it's over 40. Hold on a minute. Wait a minute. I'm finished. Right. And then, but when you go to the next page and it talks about issuing it and public publishing it, it's within three days of getting it. I'll wait. Yeah. If you go to the next page, Nick, I'm sorry, line, I'm 48 lines seven through 11. See where it says, with in three days of receipt. Oh, from the Cadillac list. So that, oh, yeah, because it goes back to you after we sign it, you sign it last. Well, I guess I... So five days for us to sign it, then it goes to you then three days to come back to us. No, we... Oh, I'm sorry, then it goes back... Okay, let me back up. So five days for us to sign it, then Barry... Because I asked this question, I remember during the hearing, I said, what ordered people to sign things in? So, or the officer law doesn't sign it until after we've signed it. So it goes back to you and then you return it back to Cal and then she is three or I'm sorry to Miss Burr and then she is three days to post it. So the last person signed it is Yves-Law. Well, so that's good to know because that's not. I don't see what I can do. But then the, okay, hang on for a second. Yeah, but you know. From final receipt from... 27 lines. 16 to 17. 16 to 17. I'm fully executed. Yeah. Um... I think this is not the final... Until it's signed off, we... I guess it's the definition of what the final... is. The DNL was final one day. What's the least sign off? And then he's saying that the days don't line up, but when it comes, I guess because the county solicitor gives it just to sign off on it. Yeah. And we have five days to sign off. Five days and then once we send it back, the county solicitor has a sign on that. Yeah, that's what we're talking about. And then you have the three days, but he's thinking that he only has three days when we have five days. Yeah, yeah, no, I know. That's what we just said. Right, so that's what we're talking about. Right, but they're separate. The county solicitor sends it, Kelloggates, I'm sorry, Ms. Burgert, the signature is from the board. It then goes back to county solicitor first signature again, and then it's issued to the public. All right, yeah, but he's thinking that, wow. So I understand, so we need to clarify in that line right there that's up on the board, section 11 publication. Should it be signed? Middle final signed decisions? Or make a definition of final decision order what it it is when signed by a party or a decision order. Because on 47 lines 14 through 17 line 15 talks about an unsigned final decision and then line 16 and 17 talk about that decision being signed by the members, right? So, yeah, so the... And then it comes to the office, we sign and then... And the back to us. The administrator then must post within three days of getting it from our office. So I think maybe just some... I'll be right back to you. I'll be right back to you. I'll be right back to you. Okay, you'd like to call it final document with like execute what would you like? Well, I mean, so I guess on page 47 the language as is works. I think to distinguish it with what's on the next page, maybe electronically mail the signed final decision in order to each name party within three days. The fully signed or because it doesn't matter. Yeah, or fully signed. Okay, electronically mail the fully signed final decision order to each. you guys, all right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. That was the way we executed kind of catch it more in a legal way. I don't know if that's cute as a different connotation. I would stick with sign. I would just stick with sign. Yeah. So, electronically mail. Because that's what you're doing. Fully signed final decision. So, between mail and final. Fully signed. Are we okay with that? Yes. The spirit of your career with that. Say it again. So the sentence will read electronic. final decision. So between mail and final fully signed. Everybody okay with that? Yes. Yes. The spirit of your career with that. Say it again. So the sentence will be electronic A, right? Part 11, subsection A, electronically mail the fully signed final decisions and orders to each name party or the representative with three days receipt of the I got used to this, sir. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. That's different. That's your distance. OK. Yeah, Yeah. That's it. Good. OK. Yeah, nice. OK. Next we go recommend that if you're moving from the code, we're trying to get solidate all code five board of appeals stuff into one location to separate you through the code. Like this appears in some random location, uh, in its own thing called trading under. Yeah. So I, I, I appreciate, I appreciate what you're, are doing. The point here is that your rules of procedure are meant to deal with procedural issues, not substantive law issues, and you would see this requirement in county code, I guess probably where it currently is, because you said it there now. It's somewhere, it's like something. But is it the rules, county code? Well, but see, there's a difference. The rules are physically part of the code, codified, right? However, their nature is very different. The nature of procedural rules is very different from the ordinances in the code that actually establish legal obligations and impose legal requirements that are substantive in nature that are law making, that the council has the power to pass. And so just because it's in the code doesn't mean it's all substantive. In fact, most of it is substantive, but your rules of procedure are literally that. There are rules of practice and procedure before the board, which is separate from whatever training requirements that council may want the board to meet. You know, they put that provision in the code not too long ago. I forget the number. But it's in title 16. Absolutely, please. Nobody can find it. When I brought the council members attention that put it in there. She's like, why did I put it there? And that's why it didn't appear. And it gave me a light bulb went off and like, yeah, if the council member doesn't know why she did it. So that's why I don't understand, I guess what I'm struggling with is if it's all code, right? And so it's all has the effective law. Yeah. Then. If the council member doesn't know why she did it, then so that's why I don't understand, I guess what I'm struggling with is if it's all code, right? And so it's all has the effect of law. Then why can't we just consolidate it? Because they swear it would logically be. Well, it's all in the code. I would, that's a true statement, but they're substantively different. Your rules are procedural rules. They're not substantive laws. The training required for the board of, in other words, you can, propose your procedural rules and- They change it over there where the laws are and our rules would differ. Is that what you're saying? No, I guess what I'm saying is all these all these all these all this information is found in the code that is true. But the provisions in titles 16 for the Board of Appeals are substantive laws whereas the procedural rules for the Board of Appeals like entitled to what II of the Code, I think it is, or maybe it's Title III, are the procedural rules for the Board, but they're not substantive rules of law. And what's the distinction there? I'm just trying to, I want to understand you, I'm just not. Yeah, so I guess I would say, take a look at the memo that we sent over today. I did, I'm so confused. Okay. Well, maybe we can talk about it some more. But the idea is that like the cases that we cited in it, the procedural rules are meant to state for the public and people who have business for the board. How it is they are to go about getting what it is that the board can give them. So you file a petition. And if there's a hearing, there's a time frame for that. And this is how you do your case. And this is when you can expect to get your decision from the board board and it'll be in writing and if you don't like it You know you can take an appeal those are procedural rules the the provision and the code in title 16 that says A matter within the jurisdiction well first of all it sets the jurisdiction of the board That's a that's a substantive law that only the county council can pass. But you're saying it can't be, I follow you, but you're saying it can't be in whatever section that is titled Rule of Procedure. You're saying that rule cannot exist, even though they're both code, they can't exist there. Correct, because they are there of a different nature. I wouldn't get too hung up on the fact that they're both found in the county code. Because they're not a procedure. Correct. They're almost like a requirement of a board member, almost like a qualification. Right. So all the code sections which have been put in there by different ordinances over time past enacted by county, are substantive rules governing the board of appeals. The procedural rules have been proposed and adopted by the board and approved by the council, and they've been put in the code just so that there's some place convenient that people can access. So if we left this, what would you advise? Well, Miss F Kovz, I want to address this. I'm going to ask you a question, but don't answer yet. So where would we put our rules for training of board members? And the reason I asked that is because somewhere here, when you have a new board member come on, they need to know what they need to do. The orientation I received, and I'll repeat this, for the third time in this work session, not today, but prior. It was the shoddiest orientation I have ever had for any kind of role in my life. I was handed a stack of papers like that. This is this, this is the, by, that is not in my estimation. Any way to orient a board member for a position as important as this when you are making these kind of decisions that affect the public, that affect the citizen of our county. We're really unacceptable. So where do they go? Don't tell me the county code because if you have to hunt and peck through that, that's Malarque. Is that what you're going to tell me? That's what you're going to say. And if I could add on to that. You may. So, I guess what I'm struggling with is if it's up to the council to codify this, whether it's in 16 or whatever I don't understand it is still an enforceable law under the code that board members must have training whether it's in section 16 or section 2 of my wrong is it not enforceable because under our rules of procedure it's still a requirement whether it's in that part of the code or this part of the code or my wrong wrong? I have a question too. So my question is, which is the crust of everything that we're talking about. How can we ensure that we can add additional training on to our term? So we feel like we are getting We feel like we're getting the, you know, the preparedness from training to do this job. Well, I'm not worried about finding it. I just want to know how it can be added so we can do it. I know we'll know where to find it. We'll know where to find it. We'll be convinced to the council. Go ahead. No, I mean, the way is that the council passes a law that says that the board must receive Training in the following areas. It's specified who does that training by when it needs to be done If there's a refresher required, but these are all policy judgments by the county council Okay, that they would make put into this subtitle for the board and And in terms of like ease of use, for example, I'm just looking at council staff, I mean put together like an orientation sheet that says these are all your training requirements, see code section. Respectfully it's what we did. And that's where we put it a lot. To give it to the council to quantify laws. So what I would recommend is if you want these things that you would say to them, please, these should be added to the provisions that govern the code. I mean, the govern the board. So what I would suggest is we leave it right there and let them tell us or have them tell us where they can put it for us. I think that's what has to happen because they're completely unaware in my humble opinion. They're completely unaware how disorganized this process, not this process, but the way the book stands, it's disorganized this process is not just a process, but the way the books stand, it's disorganized and confusing. But there's so much, and I think you have to agree, we've heard so much about inconsistent and senior compatibility, and a lot of these things speak to that. But I do want to point out one last point. I agree, I think we should just leave it. And I'm still not clear on why if it's a forceful law, whether it matters, whether it's in one section or the other, I just don't understand. It seems, this isn't like a board, like the baby board, the liquor board, or the planning board, those rules aren't codified. So I get that. Those are procedures. They're not codified, but we're required to be codified. of the effect of law. But I just want to share this one and this is from the charter section file one C and won't read the the law. But I just want to share this one, and this is from the charter section 5.1.C.I. Won't read the whole thing. But it talks about the board of appeals that have the authority to adopt and amend rules of practice. We've all read this a million times. The last part of the final sentence says, it talks about what rules we can put. It says, and other pertinent matters deemed appropriate and necessary for the board. So how is this? Yeah. That's a cut, Joel. So I am a. is an other permanent matter deemed appropriate and necessary for the board. So how is this? Yeah. That's a cut, Joel. So I am aware of that provision. I'm sure you are. And it is not an open-ended sentence. It is understood in terms of the subject of the provision overall, right? So it means things like those which are specifically mentioned, right? It says we can do fees. When have we ever done fees? Well, I don't know. It says DPC director recommends fees. So there's so many problems here. But at the end of the day though, the council would be the one that passes the fee resolution for the board. Right. But we've never recommended it. It says DPC director recommends an executive branch person. That's with the council resolution. So I know where into the weasus. I don't want to do that. If the board is out, nobody's following the charter. If the board wants to recommend fees for their cases. Of course not. But we need to point out to the council where there are holes in things and where are there are needs in these rules so that they are aware of what needs to be done. Otherwise they don't know. And I, what was that last sentence that you wrote? Other pertinent matters deemed appropriate necessary for the board. Yeah, and I would argue, and I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that you could put holes in that one in your explanation. Because as we all know, lawyers can find all kinds of holes about all kinds of things. But these issues have been litigated before and the courts have pulled back on using these kinds of things. So these issues have been litigated before, and the courts have pulled back on using these kinds of clauses as some sort of invitation to legislate all kinds of different things. The provisions been there since 1968, and it's been applied consistently over time, so the way in which it has been applied in terms of like the... It's never been updated. It, it's where they were made. And the current set is what the understanding is. What I would say is that the procedural rules for this board are really not unlike the procedural rules, frankly, for the council, for their legislative procedure or for lots of other boards, you know, planning board. They all prescribe, you know, the things that the public needs to know in order to engage the board to get from the board what it is the board can give them. So let me ask you this, would it be appropriate to put such information in the employee handbook for training for the board of appeals? And then be in a place. We are part of the handbook. The section that talks about, yes, we'll be held. Remember we limited to what section is training and not what section is included. So adding something there that talks about what training we will get would be an appropriate place because it's. So I guess what I would say is that the employee manual is actually under the other branch of the government and it be an HR issue. There's got to be a simpler way to do it than try and I thought it would be easier to put it there than someone. I was Mr. Acabin move for it. I think we should leave. But I do want to leave it with this is the point and maybe time will help this answer come true. The single point I'm struggling with is if they are enforceable codified laws and we all agree and know that we don't have the authority to set any laws, only the council does. And when I'm hearing from you, board, only the council can act these laws. Well, that's what we're saying. We're making a recommendation to the council. If they choose to put these rules in Section 16, that's on them. We're saying these are recommendations, but we don't have any authority to do anything. So that's why I'm struggling to understand the point of you can't do this as a substantive or we're not doing anything. So maybe let me tell you where we are when we see the rules come over. What we understand this to be is the board wants all these provisions in its rules of procedure. Our feedback to you has been some of these things require a charter amendment. Some of these things are substantive in nature. They're not rules of procedure. They need to have counsel action and be added someplace else in law. That's all we're saying. Right? So with regard to, if you want to use this as a vehicle, if you will, of communication, right, I think, you can. And the conversation will just change to a different venue, you know, whenever the rules get to the council. Yeah, and I think you're obviously right. I think it's the only vehicle we have to communicate hard eats. And if they choose to split it up and we would explain why we don't think it should be, and on them ultimately. I guess the takeaway I have is that the chair proposed some code changes, right? The packet went out a few weeks ago. And those are, that's a separate message to the council to these, this is what we think that would need to be changed in the code to sync with the proposals that are in our draft rules. What I would say is our advice you have and the suggestion that we make is to the extent that we are saying these are either charter amendment items or substantive law changes as opposed to a procedural rule. They be part of a communication that's separate from your rules so that when the package goes over, it's clean. But that's up to you all. Okay. Okay. That brings us to, is that something? We did that one already. the online docket. I think it's through fixed right? We fixed that. 33 was resolved at the start. Okay. So that keeps... I think we've done a great job here and I'm ready to ship it. So there's a motion that I'd like to make. I don't know if this is time, but. Yeah. Pursuant to Section 501C of the Howard County Charter, I moved that the board adopt the proposed rules of procedure, a practice procedure for the board of appeals as amended and transmit them to the County Council for approval by the legislative act Act. I further move that the rules shall take effect upon enactment by the council. So is the motion? You just heard that motion? Is there a second? Second. Okay, second. Any discussion? The only question is we won't see them before they go or we will see them before they go. So the rules of the mediation, I mean everything we've, and I hear you. Right, everything that he's going to pull together, of course. Yeah, we're still going to see it. Okay. But it's as we've amended it. Yes. So essentially we're not waiting to see the track. And then I'm good with that. I'm going to get a vote. Any other discussion? First, we need first second, then discussion. I can say thank you, Felita, for making the motion. I appreciate it. Do we get a vote? Any other discussion? First, we need the first second, then discussion. I can say thank you, Felita, for making the motion. I appreciate it. Oh, no problem. Mr. Cook looks like you. And I would also want to say thank you to our chair. He's done an incredible amount of work and guidance. And I really appreciate that. And I thank you, Mr. Cook, for your guidance. Thank you. or we're misscook since being I'm sure there's more. And there'll be more to come, like all fairer boat, we need to get through. The only point of clarification. Thank you, Mr. Cook, for your guidance. Thank you. And I'm sure we're, Mr. Cook says, being I'm sure there's more. And there'll be more to come, like all the other folks, we need to get through. The only point of clarification on your motion, the rules would actually go into effect 61 days after an actment. They would not be effective on an actment. It's a separate step in the legislative process. So should I change that? I think the record reflects that. 61 days, we can go back. When they're effective. Yeah. OK. Any other comment? Chair Ryan. Yes. I'm sorry. There is one more item in one of the feedback from the members of the public that you all had agreed to hold for this discussion. It's related to- So can we table the motion, resume our discussion, right? Is that the proper procedure? We're in a table of motion, I guess, right? And then, okay, and what was that issue? So it's on Mr. Herowitz's comments. It's related to specifying which court of law in a couple instances in the document. Oh, we rectified that with the Canapel subject to provisions however we just reworded it today. Yeah, the charter says that an appeal from a decision of the board isn't accordance with the Maryland rules. And so it's really state law that would govern where you go. So that's the proposed pursuance of Section 501D in language. Yeah. All right. Apologies. No, no, no. Thank you. You guys are awesome. Yeah. And thank you. I know everybody gave me a coup d'oeuvres. But we'll do that after we call this call. I want to thank Mr. Rolman for all his. So we have a first is second and can. Miss bird, please call the roll. Sorry. Chair Ryan. Approved. Miss Spear call. Approved. Miss Harris. Approved. Miss Phillips. Approved. Great. The motion carries and is approved and the administrator will do it. The administrator will do. As an aside, there will be more, but we have other stuff we have to do, like Mr. Cook referenced in section 16 things. We'll talk about that a lot in our next meeting, but for now, the rules will go off. There's some other issues, we'll just take up our next work session, but for now, that is where we are. Let me stick, I think there are. I think there's one or two other items, real quick. I don't know if I'm going to notice. So the next meeting, the calendar is a little in flux. So based on this tonight was, I did not anticipate that. So I'll just allow Ms. Bergeni to sync up about the calendar for when our next work session. Just hold the dates as you've been advised until we sync up, which will be later tonight, because I'm going to Mexico in four hours. So you will have answers tonight. Anything else before we return? Yeah. Oh, your microphone's off. Do we need to still hold on to the 17th? Yes, by tomorrow morning at the latest, we will have an answer for you. Okay. Is my red on that? We're going to be dropped already. We are dropped already. Oh, I paused. Sorry I should have let you answer. So it was dropped. 17th is dropped. I'm sorry. Yes. And now send up early next week the schedule. Yeah, because this changes our time. Thank you, Miss Burr. And I want to thank staff. I know you guys get it, but. I'm sorry. And now send up early next week the schedule. Yeah, yeah, cause this changes our timeline. Thank you, Ms. Berg. And I want to thank staff. I know you guys get it, but seriously, it's been a year, over a year, 14 months, Ms. Berg. We've come so far. I mean, all of us, we have really, we are, I can't express how grateful we are. Thank you. That's really, it's really, it's here, it's like, I miss Harry, I miss the right heart. Yes, we could have done this for that. Approved. And Mr. Sanders. And Mr. Sanders. And all I Howard. Mr. Wrighthard. Yes. We couldn't have done this, but I. Approved. And Mr. Sanders. And Mr. Sanders. I know, I'm Mr. Sanders, of course. I'm sorry. Thank you. And the officer law, thank you. It's been a huge lift. And we will now leave it on the council's doorstep with some advising. hopefully they will take this up and take action. But thank you, and this meeting is adjourned. All right.