All board members have received those. Are there any questions or comments? But first, let me back up. So for those joining without being able to see what's going on, board member Phillips is not with us. She will be joining us later. All other board members are in person. Now back to our point. So January 30th, 2025 meeting. Minutes, any questions, comments? No. Okay, having none, can I please have a motion to approve the meeting minutes January 30th? Moved by Ms. Harris. Can I get a second? Second? Second by Mr. Huracob. Ms. Berg, keep please call the roll. Chair Ryan. Approved and for the record, I was not attendance, but I did watch the video and agree that the meeting minutes reflect what was in the video. Ms. Faircobb, approve. Ms. Harris, approve. Ms. Schoen. Approve. Thank you. So the motion carries in the meeting minutes for January 30th, 2025 that's been approved. Moving on to our next order of business, we will, let me just look at my agenda here. So there's been exactly one year ago, the Board of Appeals began its first conference of review and update of the rules of practice and procedure in over 30 years. Since then, we've held 14 public work sessions, two public engagement sessions, totaling over 300 hours of work to reach this point. The rules continue to be a work in progress and our deadline to complete this initiative is May 15th. Based on that, as the project is still in development, Do any board have any additions that they want to, or any changes they want to offer at this moment. Knowing that there will be additional opportunities in the future as this document develops, but I think it's a good practice that at every meeting we ask if any board member has any change they want to make today to the proposed rules. Chair Ryan. Yes ma'am. Ms. Harris. So I have been going back and forth with our decision to restrict the virtual participation and I think because of the state of the world that we're in and just because we all have our own responsibilities I think that's something we should leave as is in the rules. Sorry, I think we should leave the rules for virtual attendance as is my thing. As is in the proposed, you're saying or as is in the current? As is currently where we're allowed to participate virtually. Are there any other suggestions not related to that? So would I ask then are you comfortable if we wait until Ms. Philips get here to investigate that a little further? Is that okay? Everybody okay with that? Okay. Anything else? And as we go forward with future meetings, there will be more opportunities to discuss this further, but it's the point of this process. Any? Okay. Sorry, going through the whole document? No, not right now, no, no. I just was asking. After this, are you? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Yeah, so the vision that I had had, and I'm just one, but we're a board, so we'll do it as you know, anyway, was that we'll revise or revise or revise. And then ultimately, before May 15th, we will again meet to comprehensively review everything from the Office of Law, everything we've decided, everything to public input, everything, and to get to agree on one final document. Does that make sense? Yeah, okay. Okay, so we're, I won't say we're in a table, but we'll revisit that, Yeah, once we have a full board Okay, so moving on to the next order of business Is legal sufficiency so you may recall back? I want to say it was November December We had sent the Draft document the time to the office of law with the With the ask of them providing legal su. I think subsequent to that is when we actually formalized what the board agreed our definition of legal sufficiency was. And for the record, the proposed rules defines legal sufficiency page 9 section 51, legal sufficiency review, formal analysis conducted by a legal expert to determine if material subject to review complies with existing law, constitutional principles, legal precedent, and in short, it's legally sound and enforceable. We receive feedback from the Office of Law. I believe the board had some thoughts on that. So before we got into the nuts and bolts of the feedback, the Office of Law has been kind of, there's many attorneys here with us today. And they have been kind to send some subject matter experts that we can have a discussion with so that I think it's important that as a board, we have very clear expectations. And we're able to communicate that effectively with the Office of Law. So the board's okay with that we'll open it up to the officer law, I'll let them give us their thoughts on how they believe would be the best path far. Is that work? Yes. Somebody want to join us? Anybody? Or if that's not how you'd like to do it, we can talk about what we think, but I think maybe it's better if you start with how you in your experience believe this should be done. I think I'm going to defer to Gary on this. Yes. We'll get your microphone. In the meantime, why, why, why the Office of Laws get insituated. I passed around in my own personal kind of delving into how one possible solution has been done. I found a legal sufficiency review from Connecticut, which is at your desk. It's just a reference of how a board of appeals did their similar kind of thing. It's an energy environment protection from Connecticut. It's just an example of how one jurisdiction approached their illegal sufficiency. My hope as an individual board member was that we can develop a document or the Office of the Log provided documents specifically identifying areas of concern. And then in that same document we can capture the board's response to it hopefully providing you know either you know what our response is here we you know we'll strike something we'll mend it whatever the case may be and then and then hopefully carry that document forward to counsel so that counsel can appreciate all how how thoroughly this has been vetted without having to reopen this whole thing up to Council to explain them why the decisions are being made. However, that's just me as one board member. So Mr. Cook, what do you think? I can give you a little bit of background about form and legal sufficiency. The charter requires our office to sign off on form and legal sufficiency. We can't hear. For it. the physical sufficiency comes in all different shapes and sizes. It can be literally one line. It could be a 10-page memo. It could be an email of a couple paragraphs. It really depends on the issue and the volume of work that we have and the complexity of the issues, some issues just aren't complex and they don't require a 10 page memo. If the board wants to get our sufficiency input like in the form of a memo on the issues as opposed to red line comments or strikeouts in the draft. That's fine. I don't really have a preference other than to just know what form you want to get it in. And we'll be happy to do that. So I'll add this and I'll open up to the board for their thoughts. So what are your thoughts? So my vision was this and maybe the method that I'm thinking is wrong. I anticipate that when we have something final going to council, they're going to look at and say, oh, well, we don't agree with this or we agree with that, or they're not going to take it in its entirety, which I would love if they did. But I'm sure they're going to want to tweak our proposal. So I want them to understand the basis for the decision why that rule is or isn't there, why it's word a certain way. And I thought the best way to do that was to, on top of these meetings, was to show how the Office law had reviewed it and determined made certain determinations. I'm just going to be completely, epithetically, or for example the alternate board. So, on top of these meetings was to show how the Office of Law had reviewed it and determined made certain determinations. And I'm just going to be completely, hypothetically, or for example, the alternate board member, right? Hypothetically, the Office of Law says, listen, that we don't believe this, we believe this needs a charter amendment. Okay, fair. So then it would come to the board and the board at some point I imagine would have a discussion about that saying, OK, this is what it is, either we need to strike it or do it whatever. Alternatively, the board can say, OK, this is what our research shows. Now, OK. would have a discussion about that saying, okay, this is what it is, either we need to strike it or do it whatever. Alternatively, the board could say, okay, this is what our research shows. Now, council, you need to make a decision. That was my vision for it, but maybe I'm not right on that. Like, that we need to give them a choice. Either you take this or you take that. Like, this with the officer law says, this is why the board thinks this, decide which do you want to do. So, let me back up by telling you what legal sufficiency is. It really asks two questions. One, does the person acting have authority to take the action? and two is the action taken, whether it's physical or in writing, clear enough so that people understand the action taken and the basis for it. That's all legal sufficiency is. So sometimes if somebody says, you know, what are the options here, then we'll give legal advice along those lines. But if the issue is, is this rule, for example, legally sufficient? It's a two-part test. It's, does the decision-maker here, the board, have the authority to adopt such a rule? And if so, is the rule stated clearly enough so that somebody reading it can understand how they're supposed to conform their behavior? Which is really what the rules are intended to do. supposed to be a written set of rules that parties are required to use in order to get some sort of relief from the board, right? I want a conditional use for acts. So the board says to the world really, if you want a conditional use in Howard County, you need to present your request for X in the following way, right? And the rules sort of do that. And then if there's gonna be hearing, how that hearing's supposed to run and things of that nature. So, you know, I don't know, I mean, if, again, if you're looking for options on things like that, then we need to know that. But if it's just like the draft that was submitted to us that we gave you guys a memo on first and then a red line. Second, when we got the full draft of rules, we identified some things that we thought were legal sufficiency problems, i.e. probably not legally sufficient. And then there were some other technical things that we flagged for the board to consider. Those are kind of the main two buckets. So the first one was really kind of what we're supposed to do. And the second one was an attempt to try and help identify some things that board might want to think about, at least based on the last draft, right? Yeah. OK. It's all open up to the board. Any questions, comments? I have one. You're back. I think it's very clear. I would like to go through the comments one by one. And some of the comments I need clarification. And I think that's all I want to do. Yeah. OK. So yeah. Your. So, thank you. My question is, when I think of legal sufficiency, I'm hoping that I haven't missed anything in the charter and in the other documents that we have to abide by to pull this one together. So, that's what I'm thinking that you're giving us the go ahead. Yes, we can do this because it aligns with this and this. Correct. So in other words, pick, pick, pick, it doesn't matter. Just pick a rule that's in the draft, right? When we look at it, we ask ourselves, is this a procedural rule under the charter provision for rules of practice before the board? Yes. Is there anything that prevents the board from saying that this is their rule of procedure? For example, if the rule were, you can talk about anything related to your petition, but then identifies certain subjects that would violate the First Amendment. We'd say that rule to that extent is not sufficient. Okay. But yeah, Ms. Harris, I mean that's kind of what I'm getting at. And then the second thing is, is it written clearly enough so that a layperson can read it and know what they're supposed to do, right? If it's about signing up to testify, it's like, do I really understand where when I'm supposed to sign up and what kind of what my cutoff is for signing up those kinds of things? Just so that people are unnoticed that if the board's going to do something different from what they want, there's a reason. Because the rule says you must do it A, B, and C. And you did A and C, but you didn't do B. The board would be within its rights to not give the person what it ever it is that they wanted to give them. So let me expand upon that to see if I'm capturing it what you're saying, right? So in other words, if I and I will use in that example, just a rule, right? Any proposed rule, you say, listen, board, this is, you know, I understand you want to do this, but section such and such as the code contradicts that, right? It says, no, it says the opposite. So we would say, okay, that's good. So then the board, I would imagine we have discussion guys, do we want to strike this? Or do we want to propose the council? If you take this rule, then you have to adjust the code. And that's what I'm talking about developing that document. Like if this, then that. And if you don't, if you don't strike the code, then this is the resultant of not only do you have to change this rule within the proposed rules, you have to change this one, this one, this one, because they don't stand in isolation, they're all in the main room. Right. So that's why I'm trying to figure out how we do that. If I'm thinking about one in particular, so what we did in the draft that we last sent back to was we identified maybe like three or four rules that proposed something that currently can flick with a code provision. And I think we talked about before, there's a hierarchy of law. The highest law that we're all subject to is the US Constitution, any federal law that might apply. There are some with respect to the work that you do, but not a lot. Then the state constitution, then the state code, then the county charter, and then the county code and the zoning regulations, which are on par with each other. So that's kind of the hierarchy. So if a rule draft provides for X and the current county code provision on that same subject, it says the opposite, then one or two things has to happen. The rule needs to propose rule needs to change, or what I'm hearing you say anyway is that you really want the county council to amend the code to require this because it would help the board. And so the council, it could go to the council with the proposed rule and you would just, we just have to flag it. You either put it as a footnote in the draft itself. It says adoption of this rule requires an amendment to section upping up over the code to whatever effect, right, something like that. Or you could leave all of those conflicts out of the proposed rules, make a separate list of them and say to the council, we would like these code provisions amended, and then these additional rules made part of our rules to sync up. I don't know which way is more efficient, because once the council gets this proposal, even if there are 100% legally sufficient, legally sound, beyond, you know, beyond dispute, they can do whatever they want. They could strike them all. They could say no. We're going to make two tweaks to the existing rules, and that's what you guys are going to have to live with. So, you know, they're the policymakers for the county, and so they'll be the ultimate judge. So in terms of that issue, I mean, you can do one of two ways, like I said. You can add it, but I think you need to flag it. So that's the document I'm talking about. So once the board comes to a gremot bond proposal, be like, and here is, and maybe legal sufficient to write word, but here is the analysis. It's been vetted through the laws of law, state holders, and here's what we find. So forget our proposals for a second. I mean, the courts of Allen, you would agree that there are existing incompatibilities and inconsistencies within the existing regulations. So not only are we trying to update the rules, we're trying to resolve all these inconsistencies. We see it all the time in our hearings, like for example, let me give you a clear example. The hearing examiner right now, so when there is a matter in circuit court that is substantially the same as a matter before us, right? We don't hear it because like you said, the hierarchy, that rule does not apply in here examiner. That just came up in a case. They have a whole different set of procedures. I'm like, and I think that was an accident. I don't think it's just an oversight. So these are things we're trying to reconcile while also updating rules. That makes sense. That's why I want to give the council the option, like, hey listen, like, this is an existing problem, whether you look at our rules or not. So why not fix it all at once? rules, that makes sense. So that's why I want to give the counsel the option, like, hey, listen. This is an existing problem where you look at our rules or not. So why not fix it all at once? So you can either do this or this. And if you do that, you do. And that's why I was thinking the way to get that point to counsel is through a document like that just quickly very analytical. Rule one, here, you know, only to flag stuff like you said. But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. Yeah. That makes sense. very analytical. Rule one, here, you know, only to flag stuff like you said, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know if that's good. Yeah. It makes sense to me. Yeah. Yeah, we can do that. We can essentially take the comments that are in the draft, the last draft. And if there's sufficiency or conflict issues, well, let's start with the conflict issue, because that's easiest. The conflict issue is something we can just flag and then identify the code section that needs to be amended. Sufficiency issues are gonna be be a different conversation because we'll give you our opinion on sufficiency. And I mean, our recommendation would be if it's not legally sufficient, either don't put it in or flag it as such. And then say, you know, and then these are the steps that would need to be taken in order to make it sufficient. Yeah. Absolutely, because you're right, the council makes the policy. So I envision a board, like we're just giving them choices. Like you've hired us to do this or not hired us, but you are entrusting us to do all this work. Now you make decision. You also lost the community there, but the board appeals. You guys are ultimately a decision maker either you take it or you leave it and if you take it it means this, if you leave it means this. And that's why I was thinking what you're saying, this document. The second part of what you just said, so maybe I did things out of order. The inconsistency and incompatibility is our next item today. So the plan was, and the board, I've talked to some people about this already, the plan was, I think it's good, I think the more we read the code, the more we learn, right? I've learned every day, the more nuances I read, especially particular types of cases we can hear, that I didn't fully appreciate until recently. But the plan was to divvy up the code and because, you know, the land use regulations, it divided up a bunch of board members with each other, respective section, and compare that to our existing draft and identified. We as board members identify, I think that kind of takes some of the work off of you, but at the same time, it allows us to really digest what we're doing and be like, OK, how do these rules impact this part of legislation and this part? And then bring that back to you once we have that. To be like, here's what we've identified, here's what we think we can do. What is the opposite of the law thing about that? That would be my thought. Yeah, I mean, you guys are the board. I mean, if the body wants to proceed in that fashion, I mean, we'll respond whenever it is that you give us your, I guess, review input in like, I guess it's, I guess what you're saying is that, ultimately, a majority would say to us, we'd like our rules to address this, it's in the code, or, I guess I'm trying to figure out this, I'm trying to figure out the scope of what the end goal would be of your review. All right. I think we would be duplicating what you're going to do at the end goal would be of your review. I think we would be duplicating what you're gonna do at the end based on what you're saying and not that that's bad thing because we would be learning, but we would still need to depend on your legal sufficiency to know that we did it correctly. Yeah, so when we reviewed the draft that we got, we went through line by line, three of us, and we said, wait a minute, there's a provision in the code on this. And there's a conflict, and so that would need to be fixed. And so we just put it as a comment next to that provision in the draft. Yeah. Yeah. So back to your two recommendations to resolve the conflicts. One is to take those languages out but have a separate document. That's the way I understand your suggestion. Prepare a second document saying this is what we want to do and here are the charter or the codes you need to change to make that happen, right? That's one suggestion. Two is we go ahead with the rules we proposed. Although there are potentially, there are conflicts. We flag them. Here is what we think the conflicts could be. be and this is what you need to do to resolve this. Is that true? The two suggestions? That sounds about right. The one thing I would say about including them in the rules as opposed to separately in a memo is that the office would not be in a position to give sufficiency to the rules with provisions that currently are legally insufficient. So we're working off of a final product of rule changes to the council. If you want legal sufficiency on that document, it really can't contain currently legally insufficient provisions. It's inconsistent. Or we could give sufficiency to all of it that's sufficient and then just reserve and say there's no sufficiency provided as to the ones that are currently insufficient. Could you give me a hypothetical example to understand? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Yeah, if if like, well, can I interject something? Be mine. So I have can refer to this document here. Oh, that's so just to be clear, the document Mr. Recovery is talking about is the comments. I guess the review that the officer law made, the board staff has condensed that into an Excel spreadsheet as opposed to a red line revision if that makes sense. So essentially the comments that the officer law made, they've just been reformatted for a different way for the board to understand it. So what can't hold on? I mean, so I'm going to refer to page two line. As an example. As an example. So, I'd be a respond to my question. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's, I'm going to propose that to Mr. Cook. So with regard to this item here, I understand that according to the charter, I don't get it at all, that we're not employees. But yet we receive a W-2. How can that be? Isn't that contrary to law that we get a W-2? But we're not employees of the county. I'll have to get back to you on that. Yeah, you sure will. So that's what I'm talking about. That's a perfect example. And that, that's that's that's a hold on a second. That's the kind of thing that is we're gonna take this before the council and that needs to be changed because yes, we are employees if we get it W2. So I guess I would say this, you might be employees for some purposes but not others. So you could be an employee for the income you're paid by the county for purposes of your income tax obligations. But if you as the way the employee manual and the code defined an employee of the county, you would not be an employee. For purposes of the personnel system. So it depends on the purpose for which we're talking about the label employee. Believe me, one word can have a host of different meanings depending on the context. So the context really does matter. So I could actually see, you're in one or two buckets. You're either an independent contractor, a paid volunteer, which is essentially, you know, from an IRS standpoint. And that's why I deflected and deferred, because I don't know what the IRS requires the county to do with regard to the payments that you all received. And it's possible that the county needs to update their charter on that. Yes? If I could just interject real quickly on this. So this is exactly what I'm talking about. This kind of discussion. What is the proper format for us to have it? So just along this hypothetical, you did give us that comment. I think it was on your first one many months ago. So I did research, right? So it's not what I think an employee is. Not what you think an employee is. We have subject matter experts. They're human resource people. And they've issued a written opinion on our statuses and pleas. But like you just said, it's all about context. So we may all be saying the same thing, just not using the right words. So how do we have that discussion with the Office of Law? It's not saying one is right or wrong. It's like, when worded this way, it's wrong. But human resources has held that you are employees county but only certain provisions of the code apply to you. So how do we have that discussion with the officer law so that we can give the council, like we're going through all this, so the council doesn't have to, so that they can under, how do we get to that point, where we can, where you can flag these issues, the board can bring its perspective, we can bring third parties in, for example, human resources, say, help us understand this. So we can word this correctly. Like you said, so it's clear to the reader what is the intent of what they're trying to say here. How do we have those conversations? It's a much broader conversation than just our office. Yeah. It really is. You're talking about probably finance from the tax standpoint. you're probably talking about human resources from the employee manual standpoint. I mean, how do we have those conversations with you so that we can give it to council? Because obviously we're not gonna have council, like you're gonna cite issues, where you've done your homework, you say this is what we found. The board has done their homework, this is what we bring to you. How does the board interact with the Office of Law to say, This is the information, is that change your legal sufficiency opinion based on what we now have given to you with additional information, or conversely, does the board now say, okay, we need to tweak that language to say, employee means X in the definitions. Like, yeah. So, I need those other agencies input before I can help you, is my point. And can you get that done? Well, I, I, so you're, so my vision, right? You're gonna flag it. The board is gonna have a response. That response should be evidence-based like factual. So as I see it, tell me if I'm wrong wrong for this payroll issue, for example, the board, you know, or individuals may hear, or whatever, went and did my homework. They're like, okay, how do you reconcile this then? Let me go get you. So now you flag something as, listen, at first glance, your rules don't appear to be sufficient with the law. It appears to be inconsistent with the law is written. And so we go into our homework and we say, we'll move to the law. This is what the subject matter experts are telling us. In this case, it's HR, another case it could be about a charter, and it could be all different subjects. But it's our burden to come to you, as I see it, to say, hey, this is the opposing argument. Now, in light of that, where do we stand? Is there a way we should reword this? Does that change your position? Should we change our position? How does that come to see Shanna? So I guess the point that was made about this particular part of page two, because we started from the premise that because you are not currently recognized as an employee under the county code and the employee manual for purposes of the county's personnel system, not tax reporting purposes where the employee manual. We read that provision as an affirmative choice by the board to make itself subject to the provisions of the employee manual. Okay, which the board, I guess in theory could do, and there's probably not necessarily a kind of high level problem with that, but when you start looking at the different sections of the employee manual and what it is that the board does with what the scope of your role with the county government is and who you are subject to. The use of the employee manual starts to break down because it's enforced by the personnel officer. You guys aren't subject to the personnel officer you're subject to the county council Definition I'm sorry. Yeah, there is I go ask for Definition in the employee manual How to define who employees are? The who an employee is defined by the county code To employee manual it is but. Okay. But there are two categories of employees, and I don't have it off the top of my head. So it's classified as that? There's classified employees, and there's executive exempt employees. But I guess I'm trying to step back because I don't want you to get too worried about needing to amend things. My understanding is you guys want to make yourself subject to the employee manual. So what's the purpose of doing that? So this is what I want to. So thank miss you so that to that point right We could go right now point by point but I I was hoping and curving for all because we could go on about employee Right, and it's a great question like well, what's the point of it? Why do we do it? I'm trying to still get clear on how we have this conversations with your office So we can get to to a final conclusion. Because this thing is what we need to do, but how do we do it most effectively? So my answer is what I said just a moment ago. We need all the players in the room. It's not just our office. Right. But we're going to bring it to you as my expectation. Well, so I don't collect people together for, you know, the board. If the board wants to have a conversation about making the members subject to the employee manual and questions about, you know, taxing, really should be three agencies in the room. Our office, the payroll finance department folks that do payroll and the people in HR that run the HR system. So collectively, you can get our input about how this would work. So from my perspective and wanting to make yourself subject to the employee manual, I don't see a legal sufficiency issue with it. If you want to do that, like you've proposed, you can. We flag this issue mainly because once you've done that, once you've said the employee manual, and I'm using that as broadly as a compostable to be applied, and as applicable to the members it's going to raise a bunch of issues this time goes on as to how do I apply a document that's not really written for me. So and I give to the boards to the boards. I want to try to say something when I've been trying to say something for a minute. When I first joined the board, it was told that I'd get a stipend and I immediately knew I wasn't an employee and I was a volunteer. But that changed when I got a W2. Well, at the end of the year is when I figured out that that's not the case. So I don't know if the council is aware of what we are considered legally, I guess. I'm not sure. It's like Mr. Cook said, for payroll purposes, you're an employee of the county. Like you're on the payroll system and that's how we issue payment to the board. because it's a a it's a permitting fee as per permitting amount as well as the annual amount that you're paid right okay so miss you yeah go ahead and then I'll share to your question how we want to communicate this more efficiently I would say it really dependsto-line. It's different. So I would suggest to answer your question, instead of answered broadly as a general rule, we should go to the line items. And if we encounter a line item that we need to bring other offices before we make a decision. We can just table that and then gather them together so you know which other offices we need to bring. If for example this line, the page 2, line 11 employee menu, if we decided as a work that we don't want to be subject to the employee menu, what's the point of bringing all those department people? I agree. I agree. So, I want to try to move this forward, and I think, as you kind of hit it, I don't want to us right now to focus on one particular issue. We're just using this as an example. Overaraching is when a conflict or not, a conflict might not be the right word. When an issue is brought to our attention by the Office of Law, how do we engage in that particular issue? Because if I play it out in my head, you say, okay, just employee manual. Employee manual is an issue. This is why now goes to council council Council is like, well, no, we're not going to let that because the office of law said it's a bad thing. Well, no, because the board has other documentation that counters that argument. So I want to give the office a law the opportunity to take that additional insight, give us feedback, and then ultimately have the board make a decision. Does that sound like the right pathway? So you said one thing that we don't do, which is the office says that's a bad thing. Okay, well, that's a policy judgment. That we don't get involved in. Remember, we're gonna tell you whether these rules are legally sufficient or not. Do you have authority to adopt them? And is what you've adopted clear enough so that the people who are really subject to these rules, which are the residents of the county and the businesses of the county, can they know what it is that they're supposed to do when they come here for variance, for conditional use, or alternatively, if there's an internal appeal coming up from an agency decision that the people in that case know what to do when they come before you. Let me ask you one second. So whether it's a good idea, a bad idea, we're not gonna comment. And I'll go back to that, that's poor they were. But I think you give my point. So the question then, let me ask you this. So the council comes, we propose regulations to the council, or I'm sorry, we propose these rules to the council, then I guess they would do what they do, and ultimately reformat it into some kind of legislative, you know, legislation. Will they be asking the Office of Law for a legal sufficiency review? On that on our proposed rules IE that is asking me to talk about our Services our services for the council and connection with our legal work for them. So I really can't. You okay, tell me if the council routinely asks for a legal specialist. I can tell you what I just say. I can tell you that what the charter says, at some point a bill does get a sufficiency review. So that's why do you see my canundrum here? Like, okay, so we're gonna go through this whole process and they're never gonna know it. And they're gonna say do it all over again, Pruss. they're never going to get to hear the board's input on the legal spissity part of it. No, I think, I think, press. And they're never going to get to hear the board's input on the legal specialty part of it. No, I think I think Mr. Ryan, maybe maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm sure it's my it. It could be me. It's what I'm going to. Whatever you guys finally decide on. Is either going to be 100% in our minds, legally sufficient or depending on what you do about these things for which you don't have consistency currently because of some conflict or some other sufficiency issue. Let's just forget about how that gets addressed but it will be clear what we've given legal sufficiency to and what we haven't. And then how will the council know? How well? OK. clear what we've given legal sufficiency to and what we haven't. And then how will the council know the how well? Okay, that's a good question. How will we clear? Well, we will once we have a final draft, send you a final memo that basically says this is legally sufficient. If there's exceptions, we'll have to flag those. Okay. And when they go to the board, they go to the council. My assumption would be is that they would essentially take your format, stick it into a bill form, move some stuff around from the form standpoint, but it's basically the same substance which you all have adopted and just put it into a bill. And then it'll go through the legislative process and if they want something amended, they'll amend it and so be it. And then it'll come out at the other end. There will see your memo as the legal sufficiency. Are they going to see our report? If the board wants us to show them the sufficiency memo that we give to the board, well, we can do that. But we're going to get asked the same question. And so we're going to give them the same answer about the bill because if the bill is no different from what it is that comes out of this body, then the answer to them about is this sufficient or not is going to be the same. I don't, I'm sorry. I guess the question is, is it going to be submitted with our proposed document or after they ask you to do the legal sufficiency review? Our sufficiency review is going to be for the county council. Correct. The, our office isn't in the position of kind of like rattling sabers for different pieces of the government. There's one entity that we represent Howard County, Maryland, and we're the legal advisor for all its different components, subparts, the council, the board, and so on and so forth, the different departments, it would have you. And so we give you our best professional judgment about whether something is lawful or not. And then those people who are in positions and authority to make decisions make their decision. Right. They may completely disagree with us and we might get sued and we might win, we might lose. It's happened both ways. Right. I guess I need. If I may. If I may. For the legislative process, just to speak specifically, when the board approves the rules of procedure, Mr. Reinhart will take that document, draft it into a bill, follow the legislative process process which Mr. Cook has indicated, part of our process is to submit the bill with the document to the Office of Law for Legal Sufficiency Review. Okay. We do not share any confidential document that was presented to the Board of Appeals. That is beyond our authority. as Mr. Cook stated, we're going to be sending your document in bill form to the office of law for sufficiency review. And they will conduct sufficiency review and provide that to the council on the bill. Which essentially if I'm here and you're right would be the same legal sufficiency review that they've given us. Basically, yeah. Yeah. Okay, so essentially they are getting it, but okay, I think that helps me. So what's in here? Yeah, yeah, I think that, well, yeah, but right. So we have to either work on this or change it or eliminate it. Okay. Before, that's what I'm hearing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's why I think I'm just trying to think how to move this conversation forward without putting us back in a hole again. Using the payroll example, there is additional information that's come to light and like so what I'm hearing Mr. Cook say is that, listen, the way you've worded it, it's not legally sufficient, right? I mean, well, that it's not clear because you aren't subject to certain provisions of the personnel manual, or I'm sorry, what do they call it here? Yeah. But then we've sensed that, based on feedback we have from the officer of Law, we've sent reached out to other agency heads and we have emails from them saying that, well, yeah, you are. So I guess we need to internally reconcile how we're going to move forward in addressing that with the Office of Law. And yeah. Right. Yeah. And it's an open session thing. So we've got an information from you, from the Office of Law. The board maybe says, OK, that's how full-slot strike that. Or maybe there's other input that's come in. Is that conversation about your legal advice for the disability? Is that closed or open? I mean, it's up to the board. I mean, if it's legal advice and you want the world to know, then you do it in open. If you don't want the world to know, you just want to have a conversation amongst the five of you. When Ms. Phillips is here, then I would recommend you close it, assuming that there's a valid basis to do so. OK. You know, and again, the comments about the employee manual, don't believe said it was insufficient. I guess it's work of usually because we asked for legal sufficiency, but then we got that back. So I'm figuring it's sufficient. So, fair, right. We could have been clearer. This is sufficiency issue. This is a non-sufficiency issue. The point of raising the issue about the manual was, there was actually two issues there, but let's stick with the employee manual. The employee manual part was, look, if you guys wanna make yourself subject to the manual, fine. But what we were identifying was you're running into a buzz saw because the manual is written in a way that you guys don't clearly fall within it, right? And so how is, I don't know, the HR administrator supposed to handle this? When based on the manual itself, you know, it's hard to squeeze the board into it. It's more, it's really what really we're doing with that is flagging a lot of administrative issues that primarily the Office of Human Resources would face depending on how it is, the manual would apply. And that may be a way of thinking through this. Do you really mean the whole manual or do you mean portions of the manual, those kinds of things? Well, I guess that's what I'm saying. And do you know which parts apply to us and which don't? The employee manual currently? Yeah. None. None of it applies to the board of. Not according to the code and the way the manual is written. And there's nothing that we could be held responsible for in that manual. That's my answer question. No, no, I agree. And that's the question. I guess it doesn't have much to say to you. I'm just like, this is contrary to what we've been told. That's why I, you know, not that Mr. Cook is long. I think we're just, but I want to hear it. And because it's going to, it impacts how I make a decision. Yeah, we're not signing that today. The point, right. The point of this whole project, okay, and you've heard me say this before, Mr. Cook, is that I came, I came, volunteered to be assigned to this board, okay? And I got little or no explanation, education, orientation to what this job meant. It's an honor to be on this board, and I take it very seriously to fulfill the duties of this board. But I think the county owes us the opportunity to make it very clear to him whoever comes after us that, that they have a way of learning what this job entails, and what we're responsible for, and what we are not responsible for. And that's the point of this. So we need you to make it clear to us how we go about doing this. So I would love to find out who told you that you're subject to the employee manual so that I can at least talk with them. And that brings me back to our beginning question. How do we have those conversations with you? I think Ms. Zhu brought that up. Like we have to do it on a point-by-point basis. There is no one. I don't remember who wrote this line about the employee manual and what was the intention. It was the code of conduct. We wanted to follow specifically the code of conduct that's contained within employee manual. But it was not in the previous one. It was added in. This line was added in. This was from months and months ago we added that in. I know who added the CNN. What was the intention, what was the original intention? We need to discuss that. Okay, being. Why whoever wrote this in, we need to understand what was our original intention and what is that person's main? Yeah, so why the purpose of making ourselves is subject to the employee manual. Sure. So, and I agree, and the board like this is what we've agreed to, right, we've got these debates, 300 hours we've done this. So, we've agreed that this is where we are. So, now the question becomes, how do we identify areas of conflict, say, by the else's law? And I guess to measure this point, it's like, there is no one. I think we need to have communication about, hey, this is what we have. Office of Law, what do you think about this? This is the emails we got. What do you think about that? And you're like, I think, okay, I see what the Office of Human Resources is saying. This example, I see what Human Resources is saying. and that wasn't clear in your draft, that that's what you meant. So you should change the language to say this. And I think that's what you said when you first started talking today. You're like, is it clear to the reader what you mean? So like. and that wasn't clear in your draft, that that's what you meant. You should change the language to say this. And I think that's what you said when you first started talking today. You're like, is it clear to the reader what you mean? So like in my mind, I think we know it means to be tabbed at a belief manual. But HR thinks it means something off-slaw. So we need to work on that language. So it's clear to portions of the employee menu, whatever, you know, whatever. But maybe we're all saying the same things, and we just need to tweak that line, which so that it's clear to everybody what we're trying to say. Does that make sense? I don't think it's like, who's wrong or who's right? I think it's, we're just not communicating in the same way of like, yeah. Yeah, and also I have the mid when I saw this line, I didn't really think about it until Mr. Koch brought up. Why do you want to subject yourself to the employee menu? Somebody brought in, I don't even remember who wrote this line in. And I was like, okay, there's no hurt, right? What's the hurt there? I didn't really think about it. And that's how the meeting goes, right? We add a lot of things and different people wrote different lines. And we just went through quickly without digging into every single words and every single code or a menu. It's stated here. I think it's a good time that we rethink. Since Mr. Cook brought this, we should rethink why, first of all, why we are subject, why we want to subject to the employment in the first place. Before we talk about something, other things that brought in other departments in the whole three whole three departments and that's I think we don't we don't want to do that before we discuss among ourselves. So what I'm hearing is that the best way to move this forward because that's what I'm trying to leave this meeting today for you how do we get this to the finish line. So the best way to do that is we have what you know what we asked from the Office of Law and correct me board members if I'm wrong in this. We're going to do, we're going to next our goal business today. We're going to talk about the board identifying incapacability and inconsistencies, which will bring more questions forward after that review of how do we reconcile these things. So then the next step after that would be, okay, we now have this information as a board we, we should now meet, based on all the information we've gotten, come up with a proposal, ask questions. I think that's the best way to always solve the problem, is to ask questions, don't make assumptions. And then I think one final time, go to the office of law, be like, okay, after all that input, here's where we are, what do you think? because that would be the legal's efficiency then that would then help us to present it to the council. Does that make sense? Does everybody agree with that path? No, yes. Yeah, we will definitely follow your lead. I guess what I would say about the draft that we sent back to you the last time is that unless something was identified as being legally insufficient, it's sufficient. Yeah, so it's not that many things to work on. We did flag what I would call two other buckets of items. Would you like to appreciate it? Were these, there were technical things and then there were inconsistency things. I guess maybe there's four buckets. The fourth bucket might be the employee manual issue. I'm agnostic on it. Let me just... Maybe it falls into the bucket of like, if you do this, which you could, you then enter into a whole host of additional issues that it helps to think through before you hit go, because once you hit go, you're stuck with it until it gets amended again. And so to Ms. Shoes Point, maybe you really think twice and hard about, do we really want to do that? And if we do, does it need to be from page one to the end? Does it just maybe this section? Because I mean, there's lots of provisions in there that under the current state of the world, it just wouldn't apply to you. Or to our point, our point Mr. Cook the like first analyzing what's the overarching goal? Why do we do this to be with and if off-sales is this problem is there a different way to achieve that same goal? And so I think that's right I think to analyze what was the purpose of this because now the officer law says listen Maybe you didn't realize these are the consequences if you do that and then we're like oh, okay So how do we, if our goal is still the same, how do we achieve that? So I think that's, yeah, I think it's good. As far as going through, I mean, I sat down this morning and went through the list. There really aren't that many things. If you all want to do whatever it is that you talked about for Miss Adams and I got here. And then we meet again and we go through. Maybe knock out the easy ones first, get through all the technical things, and then get through the conflicts things, and then leave this efficiency things for last. And we actually did. I know you, I don't wish that you intimately pay attention to all of our work sessions, but we did actually adopt pretty much all of your technical recommendations ready. You we've deleted things we've like it's only these few that remain. So you'll see that we've already made a bunch of changes. Yeah, and I will say that I haven't seen an updated draft since the one we sent back to you all so I yeah the December I think it's 19th or where we incorporate You know the employee manual Not that type of thing the other buckets that you spoke of like I'm like, oh, yeah, that's right like where we didn't use I think it was like we didn't use a work consistently like it's calendar days business days something like that I'm like, oh yeah, we didn't realize that. So I took that and I made those recommendations at work sessions. And I attributed it to the Office of Laws that based on their feedback, I recommend we change this, this, this, this. So I think we've very knocked a lot of it out that based on what you guys said, now it becomes the deeper stuff. Yeah. So the main document I'm reading is the one dated January 31st. It's the this one with your comments. And and and the refer back to your your October 31st letter. Some of the comments refer back to that. And I also noticed that the page numbers and the line numbers on October 31st is different from this one because it was the old document. Yes, you're correct. You're correct because that memo is based on a portion of the current draft, but not the entire draft. I had to do the same thing. I had to go back. I think Mr. Ryharkin speak to that. So, go ahead. Yeah, Mr. Ryharkin speak to that. I just did like a rat. I'm happy to clarify that. So the spreadsheet that you all have is the comments from Office of Law from the December 19th, 2024 document. I went through that compared it to where the comments were in the January 17th, 2025 document that was presented at the public hearing on January 30th. and cross-reference it and then what's reflected in the sheet now is the updated line and section and page from the January 17th document. Does that make sense? So he just did all the confusion everybody just experienced. Mr. Rihar, God bless the soul, managed to because the rules of procedure are constantly changing. So at the moment in time in which we asked for an opinion, it was version X. But then we subsequently continued working on it. So the formatting changed. So Mr. Reinhardt compared all those versions and condensed it into one spreadsheet so that if you're looking at this version, it was on this page. If you're looking at this version, it's on this page. But it's still the same substance. It just appears in a different place. And so now the comments have been, and my correct Mr. Reinhardt, and that's essentially saying what you just said. Correct, yes. So the January 17th version of the Rules of Procedure is probably the one that you should refer to when comparing it to this spreadsheet with the Office of Law Feedback also the feedback from the three individuals who testified at the public hearing. So the January 31st comments from the Office of Law, it's based on our final draft of January 17th, is that? No, it's based on December 19th version. But as I said, this spreadsheet has the updated sections and page and line numbers for the January 17th document. And can I just add a bit real quick? And it's just to clarify this a little further. And I did watch the meeting, and I know we're going to look of course here. So for those that may be listening or will watch this later, I did watch the meeting when I was absent. I definitely have was absent I definitely apologize I wasn't there and there was a lot of debate discussion about well Why is it this way and why is it that way you're using different sets of rules? I think there needs to be clarity around that There are not different sets of rules. They are substantially the same the formatting may have changed But the content has not it has been consistent from the rules that were in November and the rules that were in December. In preparation for getting ready to go to council, it continues to be reformatted in a format that meets stylistic guides as requested by this board. But nothing has changed. So the comments maybe off the law are still valid. The points that they're bringing out are still there. So, and Mr. Reinhardt has now made a guide that will tell you where to go. So, use the most current version of the rules, which is the only one that's now public, is, and I think that's dated, whatever it's dated. And now is, yeah, sorry, January 17th. Yeah, January 17th, he's now created a schematic to show you, if you want to go back and trace it back, here's how you do it. But the comments are valid whether it was the November version, the summer version, because if you remember, we didn't add any new rules. We only changed style and formatting. Yeah. I would agree when we reviewed the complete set of rules that was sent over last, we had the prior version, our memo, the version that was sent over. And we went through what I'll call the first half and match stuff up. You're right, it was all the same. And then just finished up the review with the new information that we got. Problem is you got double whammy because you ended up with a table of contents which pushed things back and then you had stuff at the end which puts things farther back so I can see why I'd be confusing but I would agree that the draft, the final draft that we last sent you back input on is really the same as the prior one, just the new sections after the original. And for the public that maybe, you know, I watched their testimony and it was, you know, disheartened to hear that they thought, you know, I apologize for any confusion with the formatting, but their comments, whether it be November or December, are still valid, right? The rules of not changing, the Office of Law comments, still valid. So the formatting I apologize for any confusion, the Office of Law and staff did just what we asked them to do. We told them this has to keep moving forward so they just were updating formatting. But to that point, there's been no extra effort or lost effort, does that make sense? Like we're still where we need to be. So I think what we need to do is what we just said, we need as a board of all scheduled future sessions to discuss the information we've been provided, and then ultimately, as a group, decide what positions we want to take on it, and then revisit with the officer law. I think that's the best plan forward. And I think, I'm glad, I mean, that's how I feel. Does anybody disagree? Can we have a copy of the January 17 draft, which is this based on, which is this document based on? Okay. Thank you. And one point of clarification. Is that still, I know it was available for the work session. Is it still available online for the public to access? The January 17 version, everyone was actually given a copy, but I'm happy to make another one, and it is also online. Okay, awesome, thank you. So yeah, so moving forward, the only version we should agree, the only version we should really be referencing, because we now have this cross document to crosswalk everything, is so we're all on the same page. I had to delete off my hard drive all the previous it was too much so now I'm just working off one version which is the only and most current version. Can I ask that we put the date on the versions if we are going to have any more multiple because that's where I don't see the dates. The dates are on the bottom of the page for at least for this, the one thirty one one is I'm looking at this one here that I have this particular one. Mr. Reinhardt, what do you think about that? I don't know what the date is. Just for one. I'm happy to work with Ms. Bird to put the date on the RP, the most recent version. Just in a footer so I'll make sure I'm looking at the correct one. Sure thing. The, this one at the bottom of the line is the date where, when the comments are, it's not the our draft date. Yeah. So, so we need that, we need the, the date for the draft, our draft. Not, yeah, right. Not the missing code, so comments. Because this date is his comment date. OK. So regarding the legal sufficiency, I think Mr. Cook, anything. Do we cover that? I think everybody, we have a plan. Yeah, when you set your next meeting, we'll hunker down, we'll come in, and we'll just move through, move through the draft. Well, I think we as a board one, because first we're going to do this, when we set the meeting, right, we'll set a meeting with you, but I think we first got to do the inconsistency and compatibility stuff that we're going to identify. Okay. And as a board, we're going to get out, but so by the time we meet with you next, we will Okay, this is we've isolated things and now let's talk about what we need to talk about Understood because after that review, yeah, so yeah I'm so passionate what is this? So that's what I'm about to talk about, we need to talk about. Understood. Because after that review, yeah. So, yeah. So, that's what I'm about to talk about. Yeah, so that's, wow. And this talk was supposed to be the short one, so I can't imagine the next one. That's going to be a blast. So, I'm going to move on to the next point. So, this was the plan. So the initiative needs to be complete by May 15th, this initiative. So that council can take action. They're obviously busy with it or they're about to get busy with the budget. They won't have any time for this. So that gives us a very narrow window now in which to finalize this so by time they conclude their budget and they have the bandwidth to address this that will put it in June, which means we need to have this done by May 15th. Fully finished done all of our conversations. Here's our proposal. The main, so with that said, we're now going to enter the second phase as I call it, the process which will involve reviewing the proposed rules against existing codes and regulations. the main and follow me on this, bear with me. The main goal of this phase is for the board members to identify any areas where the existing code or regulations may conflict with or be incompatible with proposed rules. So let me take a moment to explain this phase in more detail before we open it up from questions. I've compiled a list of relevant legislation, specifically the code and land used regulations that will need to be analyzed. I'd like us each to take responsibility for reviewing specific sections. And I'll share that list of relevant code. Utah School B to identify any regulations that might conflict with our proposed rules. Once identified, please enter your findings into a shared live Excel spreadsheet, which we're going to review in a minute. The list of legislation to be reviewed will be given to you and you can either pick what you want or we'll just give assignments out. You'll see the list I've already denoted areas that I've begun to review. The advantage of using this approach, the live spreadsheet approach, is that the spreadsheet will be updated in real time as users enter information, as board members enter information. So there's no delay for staff processing or turnaround. However, to short consistency it's going to be important that every member enters their information in the same format. Once each board member has completed their signed analysis the board can then convene in a public work session to discuss and review the findings. I've been working with staff to develop the live spreadsheet and ensure that it's user-friendly. It still needs a few tweaks, but before we begin using it, I have an example that I'd like to show. Are you able to pull up? This is just an example. For those of you that may or may not understand a live spreadsheet. So it's an Excel document, right? But it lives online in real time. So there will be a folder in which you can enter stuff. And Mr. Reinhardt's pulling up, this is just a conceptual draft because I want it to be on point and very easy to use. I use it in my other workplace. We collaborate across hundreds of employees on projects and this is how we do it. It really makes it easy. It's not showing on the screen for some reason. There we go. So this is the my understanding. This is the shared external share drive that the board of appeals members have access to. And we'll get into all the technical parts a bit later. I just want to show you the example of the spreadsheet for now. And when it comes time to actually executing the spreadsheet, we'll go over it. But it's the thing that misused you held up. You have a hard copy event, Mr. Reinhardt's about to show you it. So essentially what it does is it's loading. That's what it does it loads. Yeah. So essentially what it does is, as you review the rules, the key here is you're going to have to understand the rules like inside and out, like our proposed rules. You're have to understand because you're then going to take the assigned section of code, like for example, if I wanted to look at charter section 501, which is currently the board of appeals rules procedure. Let me not get ahead of myself because I actually did give you an example. So why he's pulling it up? Why don't we just reference our hard copies? So if you use the hard copy, so for example, this is the spreadsheet as it might look. So if you, from left to right, so there'll be a column that lists the items, right? And so you will, as you read things, you'll say, okay, so in this example, rule one organization, alternate member. So all I did was I copied and pasted the text from the proposed rules, and you see there, if one regular board member, blah blah blah. Okay. Now, as I'm reading the code, I said, Oh, this doesn't appear consistent with the charter. So I now, in reading the code, I said, oh, this doesn't appear consistent with the charter. So, I now, in the next column, I say, okay, where have I identified as a board member that I think is consistent, Howard County Charter? What section? Section right there, section five, five, oh one, board of appeals. And then I simply copy and paste the part that I, as a Board member, believe might be an issue. And it says here, you know, the County Board of Appeals shall consist of five registered voters and residents of the county pointed bubble blah. So. the part that I, as a Board member, believe might be an issue. And it says here, you know, the county board of appeals, shall consist of five registered voters and residents of the county pointed blah, blah, blah. So, based on my individual review as a Board member, what's the issue? That's the next column. The charter appears not to allow alternate members. And that's it. There's no debate, there's no discussion. which you simply capture in, here's the existing code, here's the proposed language, and just very generally, why do I think there's a problem? We're gonna formulate the spreadsheet, and... simply capturing, here's the existing code, here's the proposed language, and just very generally, why do I think there's a problem. We're going to formulate the spreadsheet and then come back as a group and say, okay, so what do we think about this? Does that make sense, guys? Okay. So, but there's a way because not everybody's text savvy, so I have additional things. So it seems to me it works like a Google share. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So everybody else can be on the same page to see everything immediately. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it's important because that we don't have discussion, right? Because we can only do that in an open public meeting. So there can't be any discussion on this online document. It can only be capturing of information. Does that make sense? Because yeah. So is it available to the public? No. OK. And also, I did have a question. All these comments made by Mr. Cook? Are they open to the public or is it for internal use? It's a great question. I don't know. There would be a question for Mr. Cook. You might ask questions. So I had a question regarding your comments. Are they available to the public? Or it's just for internal use? Comments? The legal sufficiency comments. They're not intent. They're there are legal advice to the board. So ordinarily we would say no. It's's not, it's for your consumption only, not the public. Just want to clarify, because this is the open meeting and everybody can hear what the comments are. I mean, it's not, it's not the document available to them, but they can all hear what the comments are if we kind of discuss it. But the whole document is not available to the public. Is that correct? Seems the information is- Correct, we did not post the document online. Okay. But it's not confidential either because we're discussing openly. Well, I thought you were talking about the dynamic. No, just spreadsheet. The legal sufficient. We're talking about your memo. Okay, so that memo was specifically marked as privileged and confidential. And so it was intended to be treated that way. Our office certainly has not made it publicly available. If the board chooses to make it publicly available, that's up to the board. And could I just add clarity to that, Miss. So I had a conversation with your office of law just before this meeting, just so I can get clear, because I think it's what you're talking about. So we must have discussions, correct me if I'm wrong, based on legal advice, like what steps we take based on must be in public, but the advice receiving the advice is closed. So in closed session, we will give you our legal advice. But if as a result of that advice, the board has choices to make and policies it decisions to make, that has to happen in public because you are actually developing what you want your next version of your rules to be. And that's a public topic. Particularly your comments on this document. Are they public? No, they are not public. They are not. Okay. But we still can discuss it in Opamini. Yes. Okay. Yes. You, What, once you've received the advice, then the board has an idea of the next step. The, the, the next step is not to talk about the advice. The next step is to discuss based on the advice, which way do we want to go, right, to move forward? And the attorney, and the attorney from your office, and I apologize, I'm, her Miss M-Mahill. Miss M-Mahill had given an example in her experience the way boards and other bodies discuss this is in open session is based on the legal advice we've gotten the board how would you like to proceed on this item. So you don't suppose to say, hey, the Office of Law said X, you say, basically, and that way remains privileged, but you can have an informed discussion. Does that make sense? Yeah. So I even had a good client. I've read all those memos. I still had a good guidance on how do we technically handle this and to be compliant with the law. OK. So the last part of this spreadsheet thing is for those of you who may not be comfortable with entering data online, I'm happy to work a one-on-one with you to guide you through the process. Additionally, as a backup, anyone who prefers can simply use colors highlighters on a printed hard copy to mark sections that you identify in need of further review. We will then have that information entered separately into the live spreadsheet. The process itself is straightforward. Members will open the Howard County Code online alongside with the proposed rules that we have in draft form. When you spot a section that needs attention, simply copy and paste the relevant text into the appropriate cell to the spreadsheet, just as I've done in that example, and it's literally that simple. It's simply find and select. And that's it. The code may seem overwhelming, and I'll show that parts for you, because certain parts of it, the vast majority of it just doesn't even apply to us, right? Although it's informative, it's good to read. For example, I didn't even know this board could consider certain tax appeals. I was kind of surprised to read that. But it helps you, but there's only certain parts that really directly impact our policy practice. So, and we'll go over that at another time, because the spreadsheet's not even ready to go live yet. but I just want to give you an overview of the approach, I think, as a strategy for how to move this part. Does any... and we'll go over that at another time because the spreadsheet's never ready to go live yet. But I just want to give you an overview of the approach, I think, as a strategy for how to move this part. Does anybody have thoughts on that approach? I do, I just want to make sure I'm clear. So we're going to go through the document side by side, put it on the spreadsheet online, not discuss it, and then what happens to that spreadsheet? Then we come back to open session because we're required to, and discuss the fighting. So for example, in the spreadsheet that we had up there, that was about the alternate member. We would say, I've identified, assume that the officer law didn't flag it. We're the first ones to flag it. We would then, as a board have to discuss, well, you know, Mr. Ryan, you're a flaggedist. Why do you believe it's inconsistent? And we'd have to have a discussion, and the board would have to develop a consensus. Okay, we agreed to inconsistent with the charter. I move that, we strike that from our rules. Okay, we strike that. Or I believe it's consistent because ABC, what, and the board have to decide what to do. that then would be coming updated. So I understand that part. So my question then is after that document, after we've gone through it, then it's going to go to the draft rules. The draft rules. Yeah. The draft rules. Not our specie. No, no, I understand that. So I guess my question is it feels like it's duplicative. And I just want to make sure us looking through it and then them looking through it. It sounds like we're looking for legal sufficiency as well. No, no, we're looking for incompatibilities and consistency. Mr. Cook, am I correct to say that maybe you're right. I think so. I didn't think we were duplicating, but are we duplicating? By us evaluating the code compared to the proposed rules, are we duplicating efforts? It sort of appears so. I mean, we've in the draft that we sent back to you, we identified the provisions of the draft rules that we believe currently can flick with a code provision. We even flagged the provisions. So at least based on our review, at that time, we did not see any other conflicts than those which are identified in the comments in the draft. I guess the question is what's the purpose of doing this again? So that's what I'm trying to, I'm like thinking through my head, how do I give you an example of what I'm talking about? So for example, the hearing exam rules are procedures. I've used that before. We've identified that they have a substantially different standard for what types of cases they can hear as opposed to us. That wasn't flagged. And I don't blame Mr. because it was anistic repair that hearing is ever rules procedure. Taurus. Yeah, I mean, I was anistic repair. I was going to say it earlier, but I let it go. But your responsible for your rules, there's a separate set of rules for the hearing examiner. I suppose the board could say to the council, you know, the way our rules handle this issue is X. and our hearing examiner handles the same issue. Why? We think itiner handles the same issue. Why? We think it should be the same. But it's up to the council, per the county code, to change the rules or direct the hearing examiner propose a change rule to their rules. So to that end, let me point to the point the review that I'm just talking about. So this was my thought there. As I read more and you know, I spent an unhealthy amount of time reading the code, it occurred to me, it just as a single board member, why do we have two separate rules? If in fact, the hearing examiner falls under the board of appeals. So how do we deal with these and get to seek about abilities? Theoretically, the board could convene when we identify these and say, why don't we incorporate parts of the hearings, just one thought, right? Why don't we incorporate relevant parts of the hearing examiner's rules into ours, make sure the language speaks to both parties, and then recommend to council making one solid set of rules that apply to whoever hears your case if it comes under the board of appeals. And that way we do away with inconsistencies. So does that make sense? So I thought the only way to find those kind of issues and come up with those kind of solutions because this hasn't been updated in 30s up years. So it's not necessarily an inconsistency but but it's like it's a redundancy, it's an incompatibility. How do we do that? It's through this process. As well, we've all talked about our lack of training. Well, how better to learn the code than to read it? And that way you're not, I think maybe it's redundant. Maybe you're right. If the board agrees they don't want to do it, and I will, you know, I'm just one person, I'll go with it. But I don't see the harm in reading more and learning more about the code and how our rules interact with other regions in the law. So the way I understand it is we can all of the big paid rules for the hearing examiners it's up to the council to make the change. So I suggest to make a separate documentation of our suggestions of changes that we can think of to make this. I think what you said, totally make sense. Why do we have two rules? But I think it's not under our purview. Right, I agree. I would say it's become a, I completely agree with you. I think we're saying the same thing. I think that realization's become a byproduct of this work. And so when we pros the rules, right, I completely agree with you. The rules, this isn't the rules, right? This is a separate, which I would like to say, listen, the council. We've done a lot of work. We've identified not just the rules that you've up to. We've identified these other issues and how we can, you know, kind of make things currently up to speed. We recommend this. It has nothing to do with our rules. But... the rules of the update, we've identified these other issues on how we can, you know, kind of make things currently up to speed. We recommend this. It has nothing to do with our rules, but we recommend the sake of simplicity, you minimize the likelihood of inconsistencies and compatibility when you condense things. In this particular example. And so you don't have to do it, but this would be our recommendation, this is why. So but we've only learned that by actually diving deep into the code, it might be. But if there's, if there's not a consensus around that, then I'm, you know, it is what it is. The one thing I will just say to the extent you're not, you're not aware that this county code currently requires the hearing examiner to have its own set of rules. So, but they change that code. So that would be another inconsistency if you decide to go down that rule. That's what I'm saying. So if you say to the County Council, listen, you should have one set of rules. And if you do that, if you agree, and this is the reason why we think you should, you have to change this part of the code, this part of the code, and this part of the code. part says they have to have their own. The part says, because if you truly are just a branch of the border fields, why do you have a whole separate, why do different, why can one type of case be tried before a hair-zimmer but not before the border, yeah, there's all these debates. We truly are just a branch of the Board of Appeals. Why do you have a whole separate, why do different, why can one type of case be tried before a hair examiner, but not before the Board, yeah, there's all these debates. So, but that's just one particular area. So you're right, Mr. Cook, you have to say, and the council could be like, we're not even interested in that. Yeah, I, it's probably better to say that the hearing examiner is a separate unit. It's not a branch of the board. I thought they were enabled to assist the board because they were brought on a legislative intent with the Brigham and the board is overwhelmed. The hearing examiner exists as a separate decision maker and its decisions. But we are still subordinate to us. Sure, but you don't appoint them and you don't consider them. Right, but they're subordinate to us. So decisions don't... No, I'm not taking any of that away. All I'm saying is that they're not a branch of the board. They're a separate decision maker whose decisions are subject to review by the board. Okay. I hear you, but tomato tomato branch, separate decision maker, subject to the board. Okay, but the point is that they're not a standalone entity, right? They're not like the board of appeals is one venue, the hearings have an ours completely separate. No, they're part of the board of appeals. Am I right? Because in land use, they're referred to as the hearing authority. They're were referred to solemnously in land use. true refer to as the hearing authority, we're referred to summously in land use. True. The zoning regulations refer to the thing called the hearing authority. Which they create their own definition. And then, you know, for some purposes, the hearing authority is the board of appeals. And for other purposes, the hearing authority is the hearing examiner. So those are the types of inconsistencies and incapality, right? Like in certain parts of the code, it has its own definition for what we are. These are the things I'm hoping we can fix once and for all. So that like you just said, anybody reading it can reasonably understand what they're reading. Like wait, the hearing authority means the board appeals and the hearing examiner? Yes. Oh, but wait. Only if it applies to a land use issue. If it's an animal matters case, no, they're not the hearing authority. They're two different things. That definition doesn't mean anything. So you're like, what? The same thing means two different things in different parts of the code. And this is kind of what I'm talking about. It's been like epiphany, as I keep on reading stuff. I'm like, So I'm just concerned that we're changing things that we're recommending changes for the hearing examiners that may not align with everything they do because we aren't part of what they're doing per se. So that would be part of the process, right? I'm just, this was just the hypothetical I threw out in my own, when you start to read the rules of procedure, I would encourage you to do that. You'll see that they're almost perfectly lined. And if we change some language in our proposed rules, just gene Ryan's position, we could potentially incorporate so that people, the public, wouldn't have to be like, what rules do I have to look at now? And in a recent case, you may have seen. It was a subject of, it's a resolved matter now so we can talk about it. It was a subject of a motion. Like he's like, wait, the hearings, Emmerer, can hear cases that are in superior court earned circuit court. You guys can't. And I'm like, that can't be right. And I write the rules. I'm like, holy cow, they're right. I don't think that was intentional. I think that was an oversight because logically if the circuit court is superior to us, why would they then be hearing cases? Right? I don't wanna go too far down that rabbit hole, but my point is that these are issues that have been longstanding and create confusion and parties are now coming for us like, I don't understand this. I feel like we have responsibility to fix it, but I can be wrong, just me. I don't wanna go too far down that path. I just want to say that that would be the purpose of us to review, think about your point. That would be the purpose of us reviewing the code was so that it's not just inconsistent capabilities. As you read it, like, does that make sense? Why would you have two separate rules for one entity? So I want to say, if the code explicitly the hearing examiners should have a separate set of rules, then must have some reasons behind it, which we probably don't know. And if we go down that path and do all the research and understand why there are two separate rules, it's really out of our scope. If we go down that pass maybe one day we find we have to amend the US Constitution. I don't think that would be the case. Out of our scope, we have to narrow down at the very first meeting as we need to narrow our scope to what we are tasked to do. And I know they're all intertwined and there are inconsistencies then, but it's not up to us to do all the research. No, I agree, but to the extent it does impact our case, which it just did, right? We're faced with a decision as a board. Do we dismiss this case or not because of incompatibility between the codes? So clearly somebody should be looking at this. That's just my position. We get this debate later, and I agree, Ms. Ju. If the board doesn't wanna do this, then so be it. I just wanna make the argument for why I think we should. But ultimately, I guess we'll quickly go around here. So do we or do we not want to, do we or do we not want board members to review certain sections of code and evaluate for, I think it's just the incompatibility, understanding that, you know, the different reasons why. Before we go there, should we include conversation with the council to see if that's something that they even want us to do? Or the board? And then what they're going to vote like we asked one council member, we asked five, we asked it as a resolution, we asked it. I think I agree with you about it. I think we do it or we don't. If you don't, we don't do it. Like we just need to make a decision. And if you don't, that's fine. But we also can't say, oh, I didn't know that was in the code, right? This is your opportunity to learn. So you can't say nobody taught me anything when when here it is you're being given an opportunity to dive deep into the code to understand how you must apply it when you're hearing cases. So that's just my opinion as one guy. But if you don't if you think it wouldn't be beneficial for this process, then I respect that and I'll do whatever you want it because we're aboard. So I have a time constraint question. We have to be done everything by May 15th, right? Or is the suggestion that we take a certain number of these rules? Is that what we're doing or we're just... So the rules, the yield the rules now. So the suggestion is that you take sections of the code in light of those rules. So you should know the rules right because we made them. So we know them, right? We know what it says about, you know, subpoenas, we know what it says about this, we know what it says about that. Now your view, a given section of the code, A, say, is there anything in my section that I'm test with reviewing that would potentially be an issue? Or after my review, I realize that, hey, listen, like, why do we do that? Does that make sense? But you're not responsible for you in the whole code. No. Just the rules in a given section of code. I don't know how we're taking, I'm trying to figure out how to structure how I would go about researching. So am I taking the first five, for instance, am I taking the first five rules, and then I'm going to look at the code for those rules. Is that what you're saying? No, no. So if you read the charter right now, we'll give that as an example and it reads, right? So you were tasked with doing Section 501 of the charter. That's the board of the bills. Okay. And it says the board shall get to the five members. Well, you know, we just adopted an alternate board member. Right? You don't need, like you know that because you did it. We did it. So you'd be like, oh, that's going to be a problem. And I'm just giving a very basic, easy example. He's understanding. an alternate board member, right? You don't need, like you know that because you did it. We did it. So you'd be like, oh, that's going to be a problem. And I'm just giving a very basic, easy example. He's an understanding example. As I personally read it, I'll tell you that I started to realize parts about fees that can be collected. I started realizing other stuff in the code. I'm like, oh, We can't have this rule if the code says that. So who sets the fees? Like, that's a problem. If the code says that the DPC sets the fees, but the charter says the who sets the fees? Like that's a problem. If the code says that the DPC sets the fees, but the charter says the board sets the fees, well who sets the fees? Because that's currently in legislation, in contained in the existing board. Like we're not making new rules about that. That's in the existing rules. So, but. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. So before we go to the detail, what's the purpose for our research? What are we researching for? Because the office of law have already researched all the legal sufficiency part for us and everything like what Mr. Cook said, everything he did not mark as legally in the sufficient, that legal is sufficient. So what are we researching for? Yeah, yeah. What, why do we do this? I mean, it's already done and we should go through, at this point, we should go through the line items that compiled by Nick and just look at, you know, whether or not the changes are not. So I'll throw that question out to the board, right? So do you believe that we've addressed all the inconsistency and compatibility that we have a thorough review when we're ready to discuss it, make decisions? Because if so, then let's just do it. I personally do not think we're anywhere near that based on what I've reviewed in the code. There is so much unreconciled information, but I'm just one guy. So reconciled in terms of I just reviewed in the code. There are so much on-reconciled information, but I'm just one guy. So reconciled in terms of... I just give you the example of the hearings ever. Example. Like, why can they hear a separate case than us? Okay, then this is one of the lie items. That's what I'm saying. But you wouldn't know that unless you read the hearing examiner's rules of procedure to realize there's a consistency. I think we can single out those that we need to do research for. We can just go through if we've already agreed on the lion's, so we can quickly go through that. And for those that we have debate on that, or we need more clarification or more research we can go back to research. That's what I expected how we proceed as a board because we do have this document to base the pop. I have a question. Let's take the hearing examiner example that you put out but there's inconsistencies. So we come up with all the information on that. What do we do with that? That's exactly. That's what we'd have a work session discuss. What do we do, guys? What do you want to do? What would we make new rules with regard to that? Well, I think we'd have to realize if the hearing examiner has a different set of rules, and our rules say that this is the way it is for all board of appeals matters, that is the wrong language. You can't say that because the hearing examiner hears the case that we can't say this rule applies to all board of appeals matters because the hearing examiner is part of the board of appeals. So we'd have to change the language because now certain rules of the hearings the hearings owner. Or in my mind, a more logical solution would be like, OK, the board of appeals rules and logically explain that if it's in circuit court of matter is substantially the same in circuit court, we shall not hear it. The more logical explanation would be like, OK, we need to then we can't, well, we can't trade anything. In my opinion, if we were to have this work session discussed, I'd feel like guys, like, it makes sense, right? Circuit Court, Board of Appeals. Why then, when we have, we can't hear a case, but yet, the hearing exam or can, and what to purpose does that serve? If the Circuit Court ultimately makes a decision, why would both entities be hearing it? So it seems like, in my opinion, looking at that specific example that was brought up to us recently via emotion. I feel like... ultimately makes the decision why would both entities be hearing it. So it seems like in my opinion, looking at that specific example that was brought up to us recently via a motion, I feel like it's clear in oversight. Well, that's didn't that what we're trying to do fix all that? Like I'm like, and we're ready to do it. But can we fix it? Well, we can only recommend we can't do it. And that's why, as you review it, you're like, well, why start thinking about it deeper? Why, you know, as a board member, why do we have two sets of rules? You're right. The law said that the hearing examiner has to have their own. Okay. But can we accomplish the same thing, minimize confusion, minimize and get this to see by simply incorporating the hearing examiner rules into our rules, which I've already looked at, and it's almost There's very little that would have to be done to do that. And then recommend to the council that you can, you know, address these existing issues by simply adopting our rules. I think we can change our rules to be consistent with hearing examiner rules. We cannot change hearing examiner rules to be consistent with ours. But if we did that, that make us inconsistent with the court system, that our rules are out the problem, it's the hearing examiner rules. That's what I'm trying to say. So there, you have to make a recommendation to change the code, not a rule of a procedure, not the rule of procedures of board of appeals, but other code related to this. Which we talked about, I agree. That's a totally different path. You can go bigger and bigger and totally out of our work scope. We have to narrow down, we have to focus what we should do as support of appeals and we have time limit and I think we need to go through this document and see whether there are at least some agreement and limit is something like the employee menu. Do we want it's a single question? Do we want to subject to the employee menu? If the answer of the board is no, then we don't need other discussion. What are the tests? Then we can discuss. I know, that's what I'm saying. So that's what we're talking about. Everything is a discussion. We want to ask that. I think at least we need to do something that quick. And if it turns out not quick, then we can go down the path. Okay, as a board, we need to decide whether we want to it's a simple question, whether we want to subject to the employee menu. If it's no, it is a quick no and we move forward. And it's done, that line is done. Instead of discussing like in the circle like on and on? Okay, so board members, what do you want to do? It's been 35 years since it hasn't been updated If you think we have enough information to move forward with what we have now make file decisions We will skip everything and we'll set it to get work session and the board majority will rule We will make decisions and I hope you all have enough information to debate those decisions at our public work session So that we're not being foolish, but if you believe me, no, no, I'm not accusing anybody of that thing. I'm not saying skipping everything. I'm saying go lie items, some lie and we can't quickly decide. And some maybe we need further research. I'm not making a broad statement of every lie. I'm talking about some items at least we can go quickly. So I recommend a path forward. Miss you's recommended alternate path for what we'd like to do. Okay I still have questions unfortunately. I'm sorry. Sorry I'm sorry I still have questions. And a lot of it is based on my time constraints. So your suggestion is that we actually read the code. Not the whole code because that would be ridiculous. You would pick a section. So, and I have, let me see if I can pull it up for you. Okay, so I'm not, I don't know how many sections actually apply. That's what I'm going to show you right now. That's what I have right now. Thank you. I think that's going to So because I because when I started looking at it, I said, well, how much are we talking about here? Yeah, because it's already like I'm like, I know I know I have other organizations I'm dealing with and I'm going to have another homework assignment. Give me one second to pull out. So what are we I still have a question. What are we research for? Give me give me one thing me one, let me just answer that question and then we'll go on to the next one. Let me just pull up really good. Okay. So, can I share my screen? That'd be all right. So we said not all parts of the code are relevant, right? I got logged off. I'm just having my word document up like I'm going to like you guys can read it. Give me one second. I was logged in. But, give me, it just, bear with me one second guys. because I think this will be helpful in helping the Board make a decision about what we want to do next. I'm going to put go. Chair Ryan. Yes, ma'am. Do you have any idea how much longer this meeting will be before the... Well, I'm hoping we can conclude. I may... If I answer this question, I'm hoping we can move right to the closed part. Okay. I'm just asking for the captioners I'm hoping we can conclude. If I answer this question I'm hoping we can move right to the closed part. Okay I'm just asking for the captioners. Oh yeah I'm hoping I didn't think we'd go this one. Okay. I'm going to go to the office. See me now. Okay. Yeah, spinning. Okay. Share, okay, gotcha. And I apologize I got knocked off before. Okay. Uh... All right, we're good. Okay, so this, so right, so I reviewed the code and a lot of it like, you know, plumbing code, building code, all that, like that doesn't apply, right? So it's more or less these areas. I'm trying to scroll down. But essentially it's these areas, right? You could see it up there. So you might think, oh man, this is a lot right here. So the Howard County Charter, these are some examples. So if you were to pull up, just let me show you by way of example here, if you were to pull up, and let me get it pulled up for you real quick, Munich code, right? So say you were asked to look at section 502 or you said I got to look at the charter, I'm going to be doing a sex article five. So I'm going to pull it, Munich code real quick. Just to show you how you could just talk about time constraints and how much work we're talking about, I'm going to give you a real time example of it. And let me start my screen again so I can show you how it works. So the purpose of the research in this is to let me just show you. The legal sufficiency or inconsistency, what's the purpose? What have we, I know you've asked that a few times. Let me just let- Why are we looking for that? I want to just show her this so that I can then answer your question because I'm going to lose my thought otherwise. So what am I doing right here, Kel? Why won't it let me- I'm trying to- I'm trying to switch to my, show you the munico thing. So it would be simpler if- Oh, you have stop sharing in the area. Okay, one second. Now we're, Kenny Chardle, you're going into section five. So now I'm going on the munico. I'm going to show you actually how you can look it up really easily. Okay, now I can share it. Let me show you. Let me go back to my WebEx. Share. Okay. Okay. Okay, so this is municom, right? So on the left you see the code ordinances. All right, she's zoning. She click browse. And it's loading up. Okay, so now on the left. So say you were responsible for the Section 5 of Charter, which is the Board of Pills rules, right? It's like click charter. I go to RG5, Board of Pills, and there it is. There's the text right there. I scrolled out. And that's all you got to redo. Those paragraphs, compared to our rules, be like, OK, I know our rules because I wrote them, you have me speaking on your behalf. What part of this charter do I find there to be a conflict, a consistency? So that's when you isolate it down. Now in totality, to answer Ms. Ju's question, why are we evaluating this? So that's part one, right? Where does this think it's this and the compatible? And Mr. Coker said, hey, listen, the office of law is already doing this, and you want to do it, it's great. Okay. of this what you achieved by reviewing this is you have a deeper understanding of the code. So now maybe in this section you see that. But now when you go to review another section later You're like wait that doesn't make sense because why would it say this here? Why would it refer to the hearing authority as the board of appeals and the hearing examiner in the land use code But then in a different section of the code The hearing authority definition doesn't apply now it here is referred to as this. You'd be like, wow, that's a problem. We should try to make either hearing authority the definition across all fields, or potentially say, okay, we recommend the council. Listen, this part of the code is hearing authority. We recommend you change it so that it's consistent. So no matter who reads it, the word, you know, border appeals means this. Okay, let me stop you. Okay, because you're getting farther after me than I was. Well, that was point two. I was trying to show you why the other take away from this is. So because I need in my brain to understand exactly where I'm going to go to do what I'm going to do. Are we all doing exactly the same thing? We're all going to the same place. We're not. Oh, yeah, yeah, the website. Yeah, we're all going to this place and we're all going to read this section. No. No. We're all going to the same place. Oh, yeah, yeah, the website. Yeah. We're all going to this place and we're all going to read this section. No. No. So hypothetically, so going back to that word document, we each apply a section that we're going to search. So say you said, hey, Jean, I'm going to do article five of the board of appeals. I'm going to review that against our proposed rules. Say, OK, Jean, Ryan, I'm going to do just hypothetically articles. appeals. I'm going to review that against our proposed rules, right? Say, okay, Jean, Ryan, I'm going to do just hypothetically article six. Okay, now I'm going to look at article six. I'm not going to look at article five. Does that make sense? Okay, well just hypothetically, article six, does that have anything to do with our rules at all? No, I don't know if it does. I just was giving you examples. Yeah, yeah, it doesn't right now. I just was giving you example. I are there places in here that we need to focus in on and people in places that we I don't know if it does. I just was giving you an example. So yeah, it does it. Right, now I just was giving you an example. Are there places in here that we need to focus in on and places that we need to do? Yes, that's what I'm telling you. That list I came up with at the beginning. Like we don't need to worry about the International Building Code and these other things, right? Okay, because I don't remember the list. I saw that list, but I don't really remember what's in there. But after hearing this, maybe you're right. Maybe. Mrs. Chair, I think given the time constraint here, I think we need to focus on our rule of procedures. And not looking at every single code lines and the child lines, the research, everything, and try to make sense out of, or make fine inconsistencies, or find things that we think doesn't make sense. That's not our job. We are doing somebody else's job. Actually, what I think is, I have a, this would serve a purpose for me personally, okay, because I haven't read all this. I will grant you. It will increase my familiarity. But what I'm looking at is this takes, this takes time and for me to read these things takes me, I have to read it over and over and over and over again for me to digest it. So that's where I'm looking at how does this get done in a certain amount of time so that we meet our goal from May 15th. That's my concern. Okay. Miss Harris. Your bike falls off. I think the exercise would definitely serve us well to learn. I'm only concerned about the efficiency of our time. And if we're looking at all of this and it's something we can make a difference in change and I'm all for it, I'm not against what you've proposed at all. I'm just wanting to make sure we do it appropriate way and it's not for lack of, you know, it's not for not basically. If no one's going to do anything with the information, then yes, it will serve for us to be able to learn something. So I'm okay with doing it. I'm concerned about the I guess the way we're going to put it on a spreadsheet and we can't talk about it. That's just for us to see what everyone else found. But I think if we're doing it, I think we need to read the whole thing because we may miss something in another section that may apply. That's the challenge. So if we're gonna do it, shouldn't we read the whole code? If I had my preference, it's what I've been doing for the last two years. I read, but I don't expect people to do the craziness I do. Like it's if you want to be in, you know, I agree with you. I think like that's why it frustrates me when a board is like, well, we don't get any training. The municote has been around for years. You just click on it and start reading. It's self-explanatory. But to that end, I get it. I get it. I'm like, I get it. So that's why I'm not going to impose my personal belief on what is wrong with it. It's individual board members. So whatever you want to do, I agree. If Ms. you're saying that we work with what we have from the Office of Laws that exists now, we answer the questions. Am I summarizing that right? We answer the questions that they've posed to us, call up with what we want to do with that information, and then we present it to Council. Is that right? At least that's a starting point, instead of doing like a broader research without a goal. And we have, we do have a timeline in here. And also, you know, it can be bigger and bigger. And like today, we brought up the employee menu. We have to read the whole employee menu and understand all the provisions for us to move forward, to have a meaningful conversation. I think it's not doable. No, I don't think, no, that wasn't one of our things. I think we were just understanding. Yeah, no, the expectation wasn't. The employee management, employee management, that was an example. Yeah, just an example. I know, but it's there. Do we want to do the research? Well, it would not want. I mean, if you're found by the terms of it, you should know. And that was the conversations we had during the meetings. Was why do we want to do the research? Well, it would not want. I mean, if you're bound by the terms of it, you should know. But that was the conversations we had during the meetings was why do we want to do this? And talk about the Kodakon, about it, talked about holding ourselves to a higher standard. I think you're the one that brought up the X part A over and over and over. Well, it's in there. So I'm like, we want to hold ourselves in standard, we have to know it. So this was the culmination. And I apologize if I sound frustrated. I'm just like, I feel like we're going in circles now. the standard we have to know it. So it was this was the culmination. I apologize if I sound frustrated. I feel like we're going in circles now. Yeah, I agree with you that we need to do our own exercise training, education, educated ourselves, but for the purpose of making rules of procedure, I think we need to stay focused. My only concern is with the hearing examiner's rules and our rules, shouldn't they, like when you look at a court of law, there's a higher court and a higher court and they all have different rules, right? In general, is that, so it's not wrong for them to be inconsistent because we're the higher court and we can overturn something. Oh, now so that's where you really need to read and to understand like what I'm talking about so and it's yeah that's why I'm trying to say we all need to read right? To understand like we have a responsibility. Why don't we just do that? And I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, and I apologize. I'm trying not to sound, you're correct because I'm not. But I'm like, for me to try to explain it to you, it's just easier if you read it. You'll be like, oh, now I understand. But like, if I try to sit here and explain to you what I'm talking about, you could have just read it in less time and understood what I meant. So yeah. Let's take a vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. So number one, Ms. Phillips is on the line. She should express her opinion. Number one, number two, I would like to have that list that you first put up there. Because to me, that's a starting point for where I want to go with this. And I agree. We all should know about this. We all should be doing the work. I just don't think we have the time between now and may I know I don't have the time between now and May 15th. Maybe I have the time to do a section. Yeah, well that was the idea. But being able to digest it might be another story altogether. I get it. And that's why you know, I first I was resistant to my shoes, thought I'm I'm like, listen, maybe what I'm hearing is that the board is not on board with the jean ryan drive here. So, um, well now I'm like, listen, maybe what I'm hearing is that. The board is not on board with the Gene Ryan drive here. So, everyone does think like you. That's, you know, I don't know. And I have to say that I really appreciate the work that you do. You do have to be prepared to the board. Yeah, I do all agree that. We need to read and we need to educate ourselves. It's just a little purpose of this. Task, we want the staple. As the chair, I'm trying to figure out how, and it's what I'm trying to listen to everybody. to read and we need to educate ourselves. It's just a little purpose of this. Past, we want the staple. As the chair, I'm trying to figure out how, and it's what I'm trying to listen to everybody, and put my belief second to be like, OK, what am I hearing the board say? So as a chair, I can help us move forward, right? And I'm hearing, like, listen, Jean, this is great, but we don't have the time bandwidth or energy. So at the end of the day, we're just not going to get this done the way we're not going to address the inconsistencies and capabilities. We just need to put our rules forward and we may very well add to the inconsistencies and capabilities. But that is not something we have the time to deal with right now. Can we also make recommendations when this is submitted based on those inconsistencies? Is that something we can do? Yeah, yeah, that was the plan, right? That we're gonna, the law's gonna, yeah, yeah, that's the plan, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, she on? Oh, I apologize. Miss Phillips, you're there? I apologize miss Phillips you're there I apologize I got a note that says you are under the weather Yeah, no, it's fine I didn't really do it there this whole time I thought you were homesick. I'm sorry Do you have any thoughts? I'm feeling better, but I'm not quite. I've been listening. Could we all just take maybe a little section and then just come together? To re-coruse the whole thing would be hard. Well, yeah, that's what I was proposing. The sections that we all take a little bit. And if you saw what I signed up for, I'm taking like three quarters of it. So it's like, it's like, yeah, I signed up for like almost all of it. I'm like, so because I've been doing this for a while. I've already have all my notes. But it, but. Tell us what's left. So tell us what's left. Okay, so what do we do this? Why don't we take them beat because we do have to get to the closed session and revisit this when we have a chance to digest a little more. I want to. What do we do this? Why don't we take them beat because we do have to get to the closed session and revisit this when we have a chance to digest a little more? I personally want to think about what I'm going to do. She was saying a little bit better. Maybe there's a different approach to this. I know Ms. Howard can attest to this that sometimes I need to just take a minute and rethink things. When I feel like we're stuck, maybe, does everybody agree maybe we just take a minute? I don't think there's like, I don't think a week is going to kill us to take some time. Because we come together next Thursday for a hearing, so maybe we can do this. So when I feel like we're stuck maybe, does everybody agree maybe to take a minute? I don't think there's like, I don't think a week is going to kill us to take some time. Because we come together next Thursday, that for a hearing, so maybe we can do this as plenary matter or post or whatever to say, okay, so now we've had a week to think about it, what do we want to do? And then those that don't have the time or don't have the bandwidth to, you know, assess, It takes a skilled mind to do what you're asking, and not that skilled, but it takes someone who thinks like that to be able to come. don't have the bandwidth to, you know, assess it. It takes a skilled mind to do what you're asking, and not that skilled, but it takes someone who thinks like that to be able to compare and contrast. So maybe it's not everybody that does it, and those who want to do it can just raise their hands and say, we'll take care. I will help you is what I'm trying to do. No, no, I don't. I guess. And maybe there is another solution. Because yeah, so if everybody's OK with this, we'll just take a beat on it. And we'll recovina on next Thursday when we have a- I guess. And maybe there is another solution. And because yeah, so if everybody's OK with this, we'll just take a beat on it. And we'll reconvene on it next Thursday when we have our meeting. And we can kind of see if we have some. Because maybe in the intervening time, maybe off the law, maybe staff, maybe they have some thoughts. Mrs. Drew, maybe, or I could talk, maybe come up with some plans. You know is that work? Okay, all right is that work for you miss films? Your input was pivotal. Thank you. So, I believe in next we're going to move in a closed session. Miss Filves, are you clear on how to do that via, and I'm going to go through that process, but, okay, you, yeah. Okay. So, Board members, based on the General Provisions article of the annotated code of Maryland, there's a need to meet in close session and in accordance with section 3-305-B8 to consult with staff, consultants, and other individuals about pending or potential litigation. Is there any discussion regarding the need for closed session? Now, seeing none, I move that this meeting be closed in accordance with Section 3-305-B8 to consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending potential litigation. The topic of the case is C-13-CV-25-00106 Lubnicon, verse the Howard County Board of Appeals at L. Can I please get a second for a motion? Second for a Miss Fierrecom. Are there any objections to proceeding to closed session by any members' attendance in accordance with section 3-305-8? Will the minister or please call the vote to close the meeting in accordance with section 3-305-8? Chair Ryan. Approved. Miss Fierre called. Approved. Miss Harris. Approved. Miss Phillips. Approved. Miss Jiu. Approved. Great. The motion carries. The motion to close the meeting. Accords with section 3-305-BE-Passes. We'll now adjourn our work session to go in a closed session. After the closed session, no further business will take place. This work session will conclude at the end of the closed session. For those watching us online, you'll be ending our live stream now. Thank you.