you All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. So good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Board. Supervisors regular meeting of October the 8th. It's now in session. Speaker's joining the meeting via teleconference. Please unmute your microphone with a clerk. Please call the roll. Supervisor Howard, excuse supervisor Marquez. Excuse supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Howard, excuse, supervisor Marquez, excuse, supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Carson. Present. President Meiley. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Board of Supervisors, welcome you to its meetings. Board allows in-person and remote observation and participation by members of the public and its meetings. County of Alameda recognizes the important and valuable role of public participation in government. Be reminded that disruptive conduct that renders orderly conduct of the meeting, unfeasible will not be tolerated. This includes disruptive conduct that may occur through public comment. The chair will order the removal of individuals who are woefully disrupting the meeting, so that the meeting may continue in an orderly manner. For those attending the meeting in person, if you would like to speak to an item on the agenda or during public input, please submit a speaker card to the clerk. So your name can be called to speak at the appropriate place on the agenda. The clerk will now provide brief instructions on how to verbally participate in public comment through online teleconferencing. Detail instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines. A link to the document is included in today's agenda. If you are joining the meeting using that computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak. When called to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name. If you are calling in, dial star 9 to raise your hand to speak. When you are called to speak, the host will enable you to speak. If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting. As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's web page at acgov.org. When called, you will have two minutes to speak. Please limit your remarks to the time allocated. Public comment will generally alternate between in-person and online speakers as determined by the president of the board and subject to overall time limits. Thank you. Thank you. We will now take public comment on items on the agenda, except items listed as 11 o'clock in two o'clock set matters. Public comment on items listed as 11 o'clock in two o'clock set matters. Public comment on items listed as 11 o'clock in two o'clock set matters will be taken after the item is called for presentation or discussion at that time. Do we have any speakers on items on the agenda that are not listed as 11 or two o'clock set matters? Yes, we have in person and online. We'll go to the first speaker. not listed as 11 or two o'clock said matters. Yes, we have in person and online. We'll go to the first speaker. We'll alternate between in person and online speakers as necessary. Please state your name, the city you live in and which item you are speaking on. You will have two minutes to speak. First speaker is Alicia. Speaking on item 42.1. Good morning. Supervisor Miley and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Alicia Guerra. I'm with Buckhulter. I represent the castle wood property owners. Association of the board of supervisors. I'm with the board of supervisors. members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Alicia Guerra. I'm with Buckhulter. I represent the Castlewood Property Owners Association. The purpose of my comments were set forth in the letter I submitted on October 4th, concerning the public works agencies proposed resolution to essentially impose a rate increase on my client to support their mismanagement of the water services, sewer services, and other services being provided under the county service agencies, procedures. This pertains to CSA R 1967-1 and we indicated in our letter and I will not repeat the letter that the work that has not occurred that the public workstagency has purportedly been treating our clients for requiring more funding in support of requesting a revolving fund that they want our client to pay for for services that the public workstagency has not been providing. So we reject, we object to this matter that's before you, it's premature. It's in violation of local and state law because no action has occurred pursuant to conducting a prop to 18 vote following the procedures of increasing the rates or any associated matters. And so if you have any questions, I'm here to answer your questions. I set forth the legal arguments as to how this violates the county code and CSA law. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. Please state your name and the item you're speaking on. Yes, this is Alan Dones and I'm speaking on conference with real property negotiators, item A. And I am just wanting to call him because there's a lot of fast-moving activity regarding that matter. A lot of misinformation and I just feel compelled to make sure that I take this time to let the board know I'm trying to write a more comprehensive address of some of the concerns which I'll provide. I'm going to send a letter and try to see if I can get it into your hands. I sometimes when these matters are such that they're taken up in closed session, I just feel out of an abundance of caution necessary to make sure that I let people know that there's always, you know, different, more, more two stories and statements and information than maybe present it and to remain open-minded because there are records and finally I'd like to say that the ultimate resolution for this that can make the current situation and challenges resolve as quickly as possible is the counting movement expeditiously to acquire the property and authorizing staff to execute and close once all of the conditions have been met. And I think it's in the best interest for everybody involved, including the Oakland School of the Arts, the kids, and everyone. So I will, again, with that, I will look forward to this being talked about in open session hopefully and in the meantime just want to let everyone send information. Thank you. Bye. Doug speaking on item 42.1. I have a number of questions. Hello, my name is Doug Ricketts. I'm from Pleasanton, California. I am speaking on item 42.1. We last spoke about two and a half months ago about a water rate increase for the Castlewood Property Owners Association. I said at the time that I believe that the justification for that was pretty thin. So subsequently I worked with the public works organization and I probably spent over 100 hours analyzing the information between fiscal years, 21 and fiscal years, 24. Short, first primary point I wanna make it was not a transparent, open, collaborative and communication session. I felt like I was subject to, it's actually the relationship started out wonderful, but as I asked more penetrating questions, it became a little bit challenging. I kind of feel like I was subject to bunny trails, missing critical information and radio silence when I was subject to bunny trails, missing critical information, and radio silence when I was asking clarification questions. Having said that, I have been a spare amount of time now, and in two minutes I can't go through any examples this, but I will just summarize to say, what I believe after I have spent this time is that we have out of trendending growth without invoices to justify that growth, that spending growth between 21 and 24. At the same time, and by the way, the time frame is identical, there's been no public reporting of financial CSA results between 21 and 24. The last report was in 2020. So this has gone on all this time without formal notification of significant spending increases. It doesn't end there. As I've looked at it, I see significant operational problems. We have a very leaky water system that's been let to go. I see poor fiscal stewardship spending money, significant money with little results. And I think the coup d'agra at the end is we have significant public health and safety issues because we have a water system that has failed three times in the last 13 months. Water drain, no service, the need to test and delay water boil alerts. Again, this is this happened three times in the last 13 months. So I would love to, I'm going to spend more time with public works, but I think this 42.1 is way premature in that it's not clear to me these costs make sense. Jackie, you're on the line. Please state which item you're speaking on. Thank you. I'm speaking on item 34. I'm going to spend more time with public works, but I think this 42. Please state which item you're speaking on. Thank you. I'm speaking on item 34. I noticed in the attachments that the Oakland and the Berkeley School Districts are not listed as requesting consolidation or the upcoming election. I like when you get to this item, please, to ask the registrar voters, are we actually administering the Oakland and the Berkeley School District elections? And then if we are, how do they plan on doing that specifically in detail? The public would like to know because of the fact that they will be implementing underage voting and how are they planning on implementing and administering the elections for the school boards in these two cities without disrupting the certifications of our systems. That is why the public would like detail as to how if the registrar voters is going to be administering these elections, we would like to know that detail. Since it is not included on this memo, it's a great concern to the public. And then not only that, but with regard to the underage voting, that information has not been released to candidates via the registrar of voters because he says that it is not available because the voters are considered pre-registerants however they're getting ballots. Why is this a second question? Why is it that the public can get the information from PDI but not to register our voters. Why is it that PDI has these voters registered and classified as voters and not pre-registered and so therefore that information can be released but the register our voters will not. This is the two questions that we need to have answered on this. Thank you very much. Richard speaking on item 42.1. My name is Richard Hamill, a resident of Pleasanton, California. I had an 42.1. First I want to make clear that the Casua and I'm the president of the Casua Property Honors Association. I want to make clear to everyone in this room in the board that Casua property owners does not represent all of the individuals affected by the CSA that we're talking about and the county items that we're talking about. In past meetings, there has been no discussion of any shortfall. On an annual meeting of March 19th, we had the county director present to the members of the Property Owners Association. In that presentation there was no commentary about a shortfall, but there was a commentary about 172 percent increase in the fees for water maintenance and operation. In the mid-year meeting in August 20th, we asked the county to participate. The county public works. They chose to decline and not participate, but 60 minutes prior to the meeting, I got a slide deck of 10 slides, eight of which were just generic slides about the services and what they do for the property owners. What the last two slides were was in notification that there was a $1.43 million shortfall. Now remember that number. And the request that here is a payment schedule and could we have the members vote on that schedule that night and make it a fact that we would take care of that. The last two slides, then on the 24th of September, I got a formal letter from the Director of Public Works. He requested emergency reading. He said, do not contact any individual and that we end their no circumstances. And in no circumstances were they able to provide the services that we end their no circumstances, and in no circumstances were they able to provide the services that we requested. This is the basis of that. I would like to talk about one other issue that affected the safety of our membership. There is a major power outage in the Casua over the weekend of June 29th and 30th. I'll be pleased to wrap up, because I can't allow you to have more, would you please wrap up? Because I can't allow you to have more, would you please wrap up? Because I can't allow you to have more time than I allow. Will the speakers, so please wrap up? I will do that. In that shortage and that power outage, the water tanks failed. There was no water in one tank and the other tank ran dry. We had a number of individuals in the community that were without water for eight hours. And this was due to the county's dereliction of informing us that there was a new contractor very well who was supposed to respond to that. I think this demonstrates the lack of efficiency of the county. Thank you, sir. Kelly, you're on the line for the state which item you're speaking on item 42.1 and 18.1. I want to thank Supervisor Howard for paying close attention to these items online, obviously zoom. On item 42.1, there's one common feature with this has to do with Castro Valley roads, the road collapse on Redwood Road, and that's the public works agency. The kind of misdirection, a black's this kind of county inefficiency, public outworks agency is not doing anything to fix redwood road. And when we get to item number 18.1 first, this is a fiscal management rewards, and it's very routine. It's been done half a dozen times in the last year. And what I did, I looked at all of the numbers for the last year. And if you look at, for every dollar that's going to the 170,000 or so people in Fremont, you've got about $4 going to the 175,000 people in Tri-Valley, the constituents in the Tri-Valley. That might sound a little bit imbalanced, you know, $4 for $1. But that's how it works. And it all boils down to your board's redistricting. You know, just a couple of years ago, the redistricting happened. And all the districts are, you know are kind of aligned. Let's say we know that Supervisor Carson is representing the Berkeley in Oakland very well. But over here we got a split district where one part of the district is so far away, it's out of sight out of mind. And it's only getting a minimal short shrift on when it comes to the dollars for community services agencies. It's really something. It all boils down to gerrymandering of district one. Thank you. Kelly speaking on item 25. Good morning supervisors. I'm Kelly Ferguson with NG services, NG energy services in Oakland just eight blocks away. It's been so exciting to discuss with GSA staff the refursishment of the entire CAC campus, this building and eight others in the area which are in dire need of renewal of their building systems like HVAC. This refurbishment will not only create energy cost and climate emission savings but will greatly improve the physical work and civic environment for county staff and the public alike. But there's a roadblock. GSA has not been given authority by the board to negotiate the county's boilerplate contract. Signing the county's boilerplate contract as is would mean NG would take on unlimited liability, obviously a showstopper among other items. NG has successfully negotiated energy design build construction contracts with 20 California counties and order of magnitude greater than our smaller competitors. In fact, we have successfully negotiated six prior contracts with Alameda County itself and delivered exemplary award-winning projects to you through the years. The recent change in counties approach is a bit head scratching. That said, if the Board of Supervisors were to authorize GSA and County Council to negotiate terms with NG, I'm certain we could come to terms in quick order that are fair to both parties. GSA says the problem is they don't currently have the authority from the board to negotiate, which is something you can easily solve. It is not so much the specific contract items, but that the staff can't negotiate at all. NG has proven itself to be a great partner to the county through the years. Our National Public Sector Division headquarters is just eight blocks away at 12th and Broadway. We have an unmatched track record of hiring small, local, and minority subcontractors bringing well-paying union construction jobs to the local economy. These are reasons why we scored number one and significantly higher in the competitive process than our competitors as shown on page five of your staff report the scoring. Would you kindly wrap up one more sentence. We are so enthusiastic to start renovating these these buildings for you. These are sophisticated buildings and the county would be well served to work with the best. All we are asking for is a process that allows for a contract to be negotiated that is fair to all parties. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna let the speakers know once again, you have two minutes, I'm gonna have the clerk turn off the mic, because once again, if I give you more time, I've got to give everybody more time so be respectful of the two minutes so turn the mic off after they get to two minutes and they can conclude their remarks because of things some people are taking liberties this morning and quite I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. knowing other homeless with mental health outreach for independent living community, God, no accord, partnership, LPN. We're talking about human rights. The United States don't have human rights. It turned it down, now I'm votes about 20 years, 15 years ago. And this is what's happening here in society. We have people with mental disabled, can get services because y'all click the program, put them in streets. Now you want to lock them up cause you put them in streets. Do something crazy. You do the problem with your solution, free us. Just a slavery. We find slavery. It's a miracle. It's causing problems. The doctor came on YouTube, but I see it. It's a meal, it's causing problems. The doctor came on YouTube overnight and I see it. It is true. We know we're going to do something about this. We are going to help good food. The food will change everything. They help all this with the food will change everything. We have to start eating good food. Just stop eating GMO. It's mentally dangerous disorder disorder conducts in society. You'll be all recognized as sad. So I'm trying to get the good food program together and proceed for our understanding of John Bolton. I'm going to go food and grow food and out of the accounting. I can find some vacant land for the public. We're going to full food for the public. And we're going to change the system around. where he's been able to save around We'll change his home as well. They were doing on go back to God. He's white not God away when we don't get help This series is sad going 19 bro. I'll be happy it's sad Is she not on this reason bro? Day light Oh, folks got about past that's wrong. It's shit. It's sad. We got feel you came up We can't get your support from the public, from the many officials you got. We need some help. I'm trying to iron charge you, my untold forgot. President Miley, there are no additional speakers. Okay. Well, thank the speakers for their comments this morning. And before we go to board comments, if I could just get a motion on the minutes for June 18th and the special meeting minutes from October 3rd. Mr. President, I will move approval of the June 18th and the October 3rd minutes. Second, just flagging that the third was a special meeting. Yes, moved by Tams, Mr. Marquez. We call the the role please. Supervisor Halward. I supervise a mark is I supervisor Tam. I supervise a Carson. Yes, President Miley. Yes. So I was in our kids yet comment. Thank you, President Miley. I just wanted to thank all of the county staff that assisted with science in the park this past Saturday. The theme was a greener future. It was produced by my office want to give a huge shout out to Gabriella Christy and Rhea Long. And our contractor, Jerry Jonesstone, they did a phenomenal job. We had thousands of kids out there in their families learning about steam education. The event was hosted at Cal State East Bay and it was just a remarkable day, very interactive, innovative activity. We had animals, jumpers, rockets, NASA was there. It was just really incredible to have everyone come out and learn the importance about steam education. Also want to thank the county administrator for stopping by who is an honor to have you. And also want to give a special shout out to director Chala. She assisted us with many last minute requests due to the heat. Public health donated over nearly a thousand bottles and there was a water refilling station that was desperately needed as Everyone knows the day was extremely hot, but happy to report that everyone stayed in the shade The campus the canopies of trees really provided a space for us to be in community and Stay as cool as we possibly could so So it was a very fun, packed, educational day. And just want to thank all the sponsors and everyone that contributed to its success. And again, a huge shout out to my team, Gabrielle and Maria for making this possible. And we hope to see you guys at the next event. Don't know the date yet, but kids were asking, are we doing this next year? Are we doing this next month? And we would love to, but as everybody knows, it's a lot of the labor of love to put on these events, a lot of time and energy. So hopefully we could do more programming around steam. Parents were definitely excited about the opportunity. So thank you to everyone that made it to success. Right. Before we recess into the closed session, any other supervisors have comments or remarks? All right, seeing none, the board will now recess into closed session. We'll be back for the set item at 11. Thank you. Recording in progress. Okay, the board's back from closed session with the clerk. Take the role. Supervisor Halver. Excuse. President. Thank you. President. Thank you. Supervisor Marquez. President. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Carson. President, I'm here. We have a call. Right. So what hasn't concluded closed session? So there's no report out at this time. We'll be going back to the closed session a little bit later. So we're going to take up the set items for a level of clock. I apologize for being a little behind. So we'll take up item 46 at this time. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We kind of preference the accommodation and the proclamation today with at least for the last 30 years plus our office way before became popular, the phrase diversity, equity and inclusion, an action that seems to be fading, in my opinion, in this country. Our office was very engaged and still is in a number of unrepresentative groups, if you will, in Alameda County, LGBTQ plus, disability, community, Spanish, speaking Asian, Pacific Islander, African American community in terms of mobilizing, working systemically with those communities and still are around the issues that people mouth today in terms of diversity, equity and inclusion, but in a real substantive way worked on those. I wanted to preference my comment because our opportunity to participate, especially for the Filipino-American History Month, our last time I won a one-ack knowledge, Ermina Sanchez, in my office, for the reason that over 20 years ago, 20 years ago, she established the Asian Pacific Island or collaborative, which still operates today, working with a diverse group of community-based organizations, I think 30 plus, and all things in terms of equity inclusion, not just in county opportunities in contracts and programs, but in terms of maximizing the presence of Asian Pacific Islander communities throughout not only Alameda County but throughout the state of California. And so I want to acknowledge that as we recognize the Filipino American History Month, recognizing Alex Academic Student Service Group as well. My colleague, Supervisor of Marquez and I are happy to co-present the Filipino American History Month Proclamation. It is celebrated annually in October, commemorating the arrival of the first Filipinos in Mar-O-Bay, California in the United States, October the 18th, 1587. This year's theme is struggle, resistance, solidarity, and resilience. It signifies the importance of acknowledging the historical challenges faced by Filipino Americans, including systemic oppression and discrimination, along with their ongoing efforts to fight for equality and justice through collective action and resilience in the face of adversity, highlighting the strength and the preservation of the Filipino-American community throughout history according to the Pew Research Center. Filipino-Americans are the third largest Asian-American group in the United States, roughly 4 and 10, of the 1.6 million Filipino Americans live in the state of California with Los Angeles and San Francisco, I mean the largest Filipino population behind Manila, which is the Philippines. Filipino Americans have significantly contributed to the American labor movement, specifically the United Farm Workers Movement in the 1960s. Filipino Americans were the first to walk out of the vineyards prompting the little anal grape strike, which many of us clearly remember if we were of that age, because this community participated and went up to the little anal to support Cesar Chavez and Dolores Wethan in that movement. And others, they joined forces with the labor leader Cesar Chavez from the United Farm Workers Union. Filipino Americans worked in the health field, service industry, hospitality, technology, education, government, armed forces, and construction among many others. As we commemorate October as Filipino American History Month in Alameda County, let us also recognize the UC Berkeley's Phelenex Academy, Academic Student Services, or PASS. PASS as an equally, is an entirely student run organization established over 39 years ago to address the educational concerns of students in their pursuit of higher education around the same time that many of the ethnic groups were engaged in making sure that they also had their history and their presence on our academic campuses highlighted. They put on a lot of effort to address the lack of representation among the university students population with respect to the growing population of California. And the focus is on increasing the educational opportunities available to the students through the implementation of various informational resource support and referral services. We want to thank them for their advocacy and continue support to encourage and empower Filipino students to higher education help them stay in school and become a contributing member of our society. And so we commend past for their leadership and their commitment to preserve educational interests for generations to come. We encourage everyone to commemorate this important occasion and recognize the history and legacy of Filipino Americans and all their contributions in our communities locally, nationally, and globally. And now I'll turn it over to my colleague, Supervisor Marquez. Thank you, Supervisor Carson. I want to acknowledge you. Thank you for being a champion in our county for not only equity and inclusion, but truly a sense of belonging, allowing every resident in the county to fill scene and welcome. So thank you for your decades of leadership. And today I am honored to present the proclamation that was read by Supervisor Carson to the Filipino American National Historical Society, which was founded in Seattle in 1982. Ten years later, the organization began commemorating October as Filipino-American History Month. It wasn't until 2009 when state Senator Leland Ye introduced a resolution which was passed. That California began to recognize October as Filipino-American History Month. During this month, our state recognizes the lasting and significant contributions of Filipino Americans to our community. Contributions as educators and artists, elected officials and labor, veterans and judges, and frankly too many vocations to name. With Filipino Americans being one of the largest Asian American groups in the county, with the most important that the group is in the county. With Filipino Americans being one of the largest Asian American groups in the county, it's important that Alameda County recognize the triumphs and legacies of the Filipino American experience and better familiarize ourselves with the culture. They brought to this country and continue to share with society. The proclamation that I'm presenting today will be accepted by Simon, Peter Gutiere's Bufette. And I'm going to ask and later to come up and say a few words. He's someone I believe that personifies the amazing contributions of Filipino Americans here in Elimita County. Peter grew up in Hayward and attended Hayward Public Schools, Go Farmers. He graduated from Hayward High. He went on to attend college at the University of California, Santa Barbara, majoring in political science. When he returned to Hayward after college, Peter immediately got involved in several nonprofit organizations, and in 2020 was elected by the public to serve on Hayward Unified School District Board of Education, where he now serves as the board president. Thank you, Mr. Profetti, for your service to your community and to the students you support in your role as board president. I also want to thank the Filipino American National Historical Society, East Bay Chapter, which has been preserving and promoting the history and culture of Filipino Americans here in Alameda County since 1991. I thank them for their dedicated work over the years and I applaud the vast contributions and experiences of the local Filipino community that they have continued to highlight. These are just a few of the reasons that I consider my pleasure to hear by Proclaim October 2024 as Filipino American History Month in Alameda County. Also want to acknowledge their board secretary, Dennis LaFlam, Eveleno Casio Treasurer, Linda Conlas, co-president, and Peter Bifetti co-president. Thank you so much for your contributions and congratulations to all the young people in the audience and I think Peter is an extremely important role model. He's someone who's dedicated and rooted to his community and we all have choices in our life but he decided to come back and invest in young people in our community. So thank you for those contributions and congratulations for your leadership. Applause. Mr. President, if I may, wanted to thank both supervisor, Carson and supervisor Marquez. We're taking the leadership and recognizing Filipino-American Heritage Month. The city of Malamita just held its first Filipino Heritage Month celebration this past Saturday the hottest day on record in the Bay Area but had a huge crowd which over 5,000 people. Filipino organization and has been continuously active since its founding in 1936 when it provided a place where newly arrived immigrants to help in job and housing referrals over a communal meal that tasted like home in the Philippines. So thank you again for this opportunity to recognize the contributions of the now over 88,000 county residents of Filipino heritage. I didn't know if anyone wanted to make a statement. And if so, you may at this time. Just on behalf of the Fonds and Filipino community here in Elmina County. I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for making sure that we get recognized. I stand before you as a very proud Filipino, but standing on the shoulders of many that came before me, shaped the way and paved this path for me. I really just want to make sure that we continue to tell the stories and the histories of Filipino Americans that came to America and really celebrate the rich histories and contributions that everyone has here, here specifically in Alameda County. Thank you so much for recognizing us. I'm gonna ask my colleagues, is there another speaker or yes? Hello, I'm Lexi Bayot, and I'm the community in the Law of Nier Relations, coordinator for Pillopeanx Academic Student Services. As explained, PASS is a student initiated and student run organization at UC Berkeley. That focuses on recruiting and retaining first-generation and low-income Filipino students into higher education. On behalf of the Pilipinx Academic Student Services, we want to extend our deepest gratitude to the Alamedic County Board of Supervisors for this recognition for our work for the Filipino students across California. Reflecting on Filipino American History Month, the efforts that we do in the present are truly informed by our past on behalf of all Filipino students in the future. Lastly, with our roots in struggle for true liberation, E-Sung, Bucksackock and Free Palestine. Thank you. Are any other students and or individuals want to make a comment before we come down and take a picture with the board members and our guests. I'm going to also ask our manager to join us too for the picture. And that's our colleagues to come down so we can take a picture. I'm going to go to the bathroom. you you you you I'm going to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the speakers and item 46. There are no public speakers. Sorry, we just got a hand raised. John, you're on the line. You have two minutes to speak. Yeah, I'm actually at the Pacific Island where I've sent in so and also a husband about the full female immigrant for 37 years, she passed away a few years ago. I didn't associate it with that family for quite a while. I'm sure they ever felt they're proud to be Filipino. They have a great heritage of their great people. But, and I'm very happy to hear that they're pushing their heritage. I've seen them. They've attended a lot of little penal parties. Like if they have local towns and townships, if they have been provinces that they gather together here and celebrate. But in the over 40 years that I have been associated with them, I have never heard them complain about being discriminated against. I have never heard them say that they've been oppressed here in the United States. And they are just about everyone says that the people from the Philippines Would love to come here and they would love to live here and Yet to bring up the bring in this oppression and Somehow some kind of discrimination. I think it's Disingenuous with so. That is not true whatsoever. You didn't hear anybody who's heard about that. So that is completely out of place. Thank you very much. There are no additional speakers. Okay, thank you. Right now we'll go to item 47. Thank you, Mr. President. So item 47 is the National Depression Screening Day, and I wanted to present this proclamation with some statistics that show that the state of mental health care in America, 2024, had these following findings. 23% of adults experience a mental illness in the past year, and 5% of adults and 13% of youth report serious thoughts of suicide. And in 2022, it had the highest number of deaths by suicide every quarter in the United States. One in five youth had at least one major depressive episode in the past year. And suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 10 to 24 in the United States. 40 million American adults struggle with depression or anxiety, and 43% of adults with mental health needs do not receive treatment with people of color even less likely. In particular, Asian Americans are 50% less likely than any other racial group to seek mental health care services. Within some families, mental health is rarely discussed, leaving many who suffer unaware that other family members have experienced similar issues, thus leaving them to believe they are alone in their pain. National Depression screening day was established in 1991 to encourage communities, schools, military bases, and workplaces to institute depression screening. Screening will help drag depression out of the darkness and be the first step to obtain the help they need. Are you feeling okay.com is a free anonymous quiz which will be available online from October 7th to the 13th to help participants consider ways to feel better. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim October 10th, 1010, national depression screening day and encourage all county residents to check in on your mental health by taking the free anonymous quiz at Are You Feeling OK dot com from October 7th to the 13th. behavioral health care department, crisis system of care, who does an amazing job in connecting those in crisis with the services they need. If she could, could she please come up and say a few words because we, at least in my office, depend on her a lot when we have constituent referrals. Good morning. Thank you so much to the board for being so thoughtful about bringing awareness to depression. Your data is overwhelmingly accurate. And so I am here on behalf of the Behavioral Health Departments and just wanna express our appreciation to you all for your thoughtfulness, that reducing the stigma. And I recommend that everyone check on themselves and check on someone you love to see how they're doing as well. And so this screening is pretty simple. And there are resources available throughout the county to support individuals having a difficult time. Thank you. And we have Nara Gis-Dillindic, Executive Director of Crisis Support Services, who oversees our 24-hour crisis phone line if she can come up. Thank you. Thank you so much, Supervisor Tam, and the board for acknowledging the depression screening day and also acknowledging mental health issues as a valid topic of conversation at your level and signaling to our communities that mental health is an important part of taking care of ourselves and our communities and that in in Alameda County, there's help, there is hope, and we want people to reach out. If they need something, we are here. Our team is here 24-7 by phone or by text, if someone wants to check in and know about resources or just talk to someone. Sometimes people aren't ready to be diagnosed or get formal help, but if they just want to talk to someone, we're here for that and we appreciate the board for acknowledging mental health issues as an important one in our communities. Thank you. Can you please provide the phone number? Sure, the easiest way to reach for crisis support is dialing 988 nationwide. So that's the way that you will get connected to us. And for our local number, you've got to give me a second. We'll memorize it by next week, I promise. Our local number is 1-800-309-2131. So 800-309-2131. Or you can text safe to 201 21. Thank you. Thank you very much. So remember an answer prevention is worth a pound here and we encourage everyone to take the depression checkup by going on the anonymous survey of are you feeling okay.com? So if I may ask Stephanie also to come up and my colleagues and we will. Well, I'm sorry again, thank you for three and a half hours yesterday, along with your other CBO colleagues in terms of helping us to think forward. Appreciate it. Thank you. you the the committee. Okay. Do we have speakers on item 47? We have no speakers. No speakers on 47. All right. Well, thank you. Okay. So let's go to the consent calendar. Mr. President, before you take up the consent calendar, there's been a request from Supervisor Howard to continue item 61 to October 22nd. All right. Before we move on that, let me just say this, I said it last week, because I totally respect my college's ability to pull an item or to delay it. I totally support that ability to do it. And also, I appreciate at least what is on the agenda, the reappointment by the president to the CSAC Association, little disturbed from this standpoint, whatever the outcome is, I'm completely okay with that part because of the fact, and I didn't want to say this, but a number of my colleagues on CSAC unsolicited over the last month and a half, and I don't have a lot of time, but called me because they were feeling very uncomfortable about some of the contact that has been made regarding this hopeful or potential appointment to CSAC, to the CSAC Board Directors and CSAC Executive Committee, board directors in C-SAC, executive committee, and which I've had the privilege of serving on the executive committee for quite some time. Matter of fact, I'll be at executive committee meeting in the middle of the state beginning tomorrow, another part of the obligation for two day meeting with other county colleagues, both South and East, as well as the middle part of the county. I just wanted to say that I've appreciated serving in that capacity and thank you for the consideration to fill out the term until January the 6th, 2025. But I've never experienced even when Don Parada was in that position, serving on the California State Association, never experienced the kind of what my colleagues have said has been the approach around representation and being there, both from the north as well as the south. And again, I feel a little uncomfortable talking about it because they were concerned. presentation and being there both from the north as well as the south and again I feel a little uncomfortable talking about it because they were they were concerned they reached out to me unsolicited to say that they were feeling a little uncomfortable around what's being executed lately just so that everyone will know and I hate to say this because again it's kind of diverting from a real business here. The executive committee for the state of California for CSAC is made up of representatives from rural, suburban and urban counties. There is a formula that have been worked through for a number of years. There are rotation because there are so many urban counties in the state of California to make sure that there is some balance of representation geographically. Whether your rules of urban are urban, it's not a popularity contest, but it's an attempt to balance the voices as we work with our governor, his administration as well as the legislature around the issues that affect local government and county government in particular. So I just again, since my colleague, David Halbert wanted to pull the item, I want to put things in a context and just never have experienced hearing from my colleagues, their sensitivity of not concerned about the activity to ob before these positions. President Miley, I look forward to discussing this when I'm able to do so in the room. And I thank my colleague for his long standing service, wish him well in the next week and can't wait to talk about it when we are able to do so. Thank you. Okay. Any other board? Comments on consent? So I think we have the consent calendar with item 61 being continued. 61. Okay. All right, there's some emotional consent. I'll move the consent calendar and looking to see the exact second. I'll second that items 49 through 60 correct. Move by Marquez second by Carson. The board comments or questions. Please call the roll. Supervisor Howard. Supervisor Howard. I. Supervisor Marquez. I supervisor Tam. I. Supervisor Carson. President Miley. Yes. If we can have the mass motion. President Miley before the motion let me just go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. I'm not going to go to the item. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the there was initially a request to continue item 42.1 that request was withdrawn to move items. Two, three, four. Question number four. Five. Question number five. Six. Question number six. Seven. Eight. Is nine in the mass motion. Item nine's continued. Continued, okay. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 in the mass motion. 16 is also continued. the bill. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. on that item has been pulled. So it stays in. So it could stay in except for that one item. Okay, 19, 20, 21. Question 21. 22, 23. Question 22. 23, 24, 25. Questions on 25. twenty-four twenty-five questions on twenty-five twenty-six twenty-seven twenty-eight twenty-nine thirty-one thirty-one twenty-nine and thirty-two thirty-three thirty-four thirty thirty four thirty five thirty six questions on 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. And we should include again 42.1. And 42.1 is also back in. I'll second. Second. It's been moved by Carson Sector by him. There are a number of questions and various items. So let's start with item four I think. Thank you Mr. President. Item four is a request to approve an increase to $18 million for 18 housing support programs to provide licensed board and care services to our clients with intensive. The question I had is what kind of safe guards are in place to ensure that these board and care facilities continue to provide a safe and healthy environment for those that are most vulnerable particularly with issues like code enforcement and inspections. Thank you, supervisor Tam Colleen, Chavla, agency director for Alameda County Health. These board and care environments are co-managed by our agencies, housing and homelessness services and the behavioral health department with primary being housing and homelessness services. So in each case, both of our behavioral health department and housing and homelessness, staff provide technical assistance, oversight and support for contracted board and care facilities, including on-site visits, ensuring coordination of care for residents, advocacy, and quality site habitability. It is required that the sites be licensed by the California Department of Public Health's Community Care Licensing. They conduct scheduled visits, scheduled and scheduled site visits and inspections, which include demonstration of physical, plant, environmental, operational, and regulatory compliance. And annually, the Community Care Licensing Division of the State also requires operators to obtain a fire safety inspection and a copy of the current fire clearance certification to be available upon request. Our housing support program facilities are all required to be in good standing at all times with no restrictions, no unresolved citations and approved by CCL to serve people with severe mental illness. Thank you. So it includes basically, I would just you call federal onsite visits and inspection. In terms of the qualifications, you said of on site visits and inspection. In terms of the qualifications, you said of the Board and Care operators. How are they evaluated for working with the seriously mental ill? So the licensed operators take part in monthly trainings and meetings that are led by our housing services team and the facility super visual real staff are required to take 20 hours in mental health program training annually. Thank you. My, the question I have on item number five is also with Alameda County Health. So if I may continue. So item five is to accept funding bridge housing funding in the tune of $14 million. And I'm sorry. I just wanted some clarity because the the partnering agency is human potential. They're based in Massachusetts. And I was trying to understand how would they be able to administer this really important program from Massachusetts. This is the State Department of Health Care Services. Third-party administrator was chosen by the state. And so all of the recipients of the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing must contract with this provider. And they're doing grant administration, technical assistance, gathering documents, ensuring compliance. So that's their function, they're not in on the ground kind of an organization. And it's required that we go through them in order to receive these funds So they do mainly the procurement type work or No, the Department of Health Care Services did a procurement themselves to find a third-party administrator to administer all of these funds and they are the ones that won all of these funds, and they are the ones that won the state's procurement. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Director Chala. My question is related to the funding for item number six, youth alive. My understanding is this is to provide hospital-based violence intervention services at our trauma centers. So I believe that includes Highland Children's Hospital, Eden, and now Washington hospitals are latest addition to providing trauma services. So I'm just wondering specific to like St. Rose, if someone presents there, maybe they weren't directly impacted by violence, but they're reporting an issue in their neighborhood. I'm just wondering, are referrals given to these other trauma centers for youth that might be experiencing violence in their home or their community? The program is responsive to gun violence. And gun violence victims go to designated trauma, art, and by ambulance, they are intended to go to designated trauma centers. Of course if somebody's brought in by a vehicle that would be another another matter. I don't know if there are referral mechanisms in place with St. Rose but certainly we could we could make sure that that that was shared. Yeah I would just hope that that information could be shared widely with basically all the hospitals in the county. We've seen alarming statistics of the numbers going up. So I know this is something that we're gonna be looking more into and had conversations a couple weeks gonna work session related to measure C. So just wanna make sure information of services that are existing is readily available to anyone that needs it. So thank you. Before you sit down, so because I'm trying to follow this. So it's a question about trying to have youth alive talk to St. Rose because, you know, I've been a supportive youth alive since its inception. Kid named Sherman Lewis was shot, he helped to start youth, the life with some other folks long, long time ago. So I know they'd be open to having conversations. So I'm trying to understand what is the, what's being asked here? At the minimum referral to the existing program in the closest trauma center. So if someone presents at any hospital that they could give the referral, like this is where the contract is held, it's not specifically maybe that hospital but the nearest trauma center but how that individual could connect to those services. I see. So maybe it might be good. Director Shawa, if the supervisor Mark Hans, I know you'll get the information, if she could talk with folks from youth of life, I mean that would be the easiest way of resolving this. Yeah. Sure. They do excellent. Yeah, but I make that connection. Yeah. And $50,000 is just, you know, minimal contribution to support their work around gun violence. Yeah. work around gun violence. All right. Our next item is item 21. Thank you, Mr. President. So item 21 is a expenditure of ARPA money to build as part of the affordable housing funds to rehabilitate sparks way common, part of the affordable housing funds to rehabilitate Spark's way common, which is an affordable housing project to the tune of $3 million. So I just needed some clarification on the ARPA funds between the deadline for allocations versus the deadlines for having spent all the allocations because the term of this contract goes to the end of 2026. Thanks for that question. San Diego Rivera Community Development Agency Director for ARPA funds. The funds have to be obligated by December 31, 2024. They have to be expended and that's why the contract is at the term date of December 31, 2026. Okay. Thank you. You want to just go to item 22. So item 22 is to provide operations funding for housing opportunities for those with AIDS. And I just wanted to understand, in our contracts with these facilities, which are very important for silly serving the most vulnerable, do we have regular health and safety inspections? And then there's repairs that need to be made. Are there compliance checks to make sure that they have been complied with? Thanks for that question. The, of course, the funding that is provided for this project, it does trigger, you know, the annual and quarterly inspections or compliance reports and that's in the contract. And then with that comes site inspections and those are usually annual. But there's the reporting requirements. They have housing quality inspections and for health and safety, they require repair within 24 hours and if it's other type of repairs, they can have about two to four weeks for completion. And somebody goes in to check that the repairs are completed. Okay, thank you. Okay, the next item with questions is 25. Thank you. Thank you, Director Gway, for being present. We received a public comment earlier, my office has received some communication. Not specific to this item, but it's along the lines of the same type of work that's being proposed for the county in terms of the facility condition assessment, looking at how we could improve sustainability and environmental features. I just wanted to have a better understanding in terms of how these contracts are negotiated and specific to the comments made by Kelly with NG. It sounds like there's been a shift in past contracts that company had with the county versus how they're proceeding this round of bidding on the, she mentioned the project specific to downtown, but just want to understand in terms of what the changes it sounds like they were actually at the table and negotiating the agreement and for whatever reason there seems to be a difference in the approach this time around. Kimberly Gasway, Director of General Services Agency. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. I'm going to go to the committee. did in this situation, we pre-qualified three energy services contractors and then presented them with our contracts and the key terms and the scope of work. Two of the contractors have accepted that. We're still in discussions with the third contractor. It's a little bit different than the energy services contracts are, these are different than our normal Design build or design bid build contracts where we post a bid and they submit their proposals and then we talk through I get authority to negotiate And so that was the discussion about authority to negotiate. This is a very different type of contracting. All this is doing right now is an investment grade audit. That's the first phase. So we don't even have the proposal of the scope yet of what construction will take place. It's a very different procurement than design build, design bid build. So I don't know if I'm very clear, but step one is they do the investment grade audit. They return to us and say if you upgrade I'm going to make this up you know the HVAC system you'll save this much money on your utility bills. If you install solar you'll save this much if you upgrade the water system. So those types of things and after that phase is completed the county can look at those returns on investment and decide if they want to move forward with those projects that they've identified for us with the guaranteed safes. So it's a completely different process. Okay, but if I'm understanding correctly the conversation still occurring that that has not been finalized in terms of the public comment earlier. Okay, well I appreciate that ongoing discussion and we could discuss it further offline, but appreciate your response. Thank you. Item 36. I think that was me. Yeah, it was me. So just wanted clarity. This is a new policy adoption and I didn't have a chance to discuss this in advance with the county administrator, but I believe there's an update. This isn't specifically changing our parameters around FMR? So the issue before your board today is a change, proposed change to the accounting policy that provides for up to 7% of funds can be designated for capital. That's an increase from up to 5%. Any changes, formal changes to the fiscal management reward program will come forward as in prior years as part of your budget policies that you will be considering and adopting. And what's the timeline for that? When does that take place? That should come forward by the end of the year. Okay. And those policies are those embedded on the Budget and Finance Committee. Are they reviewing in advance typically? I'm sorry. I didn't. These policy changes are they typically reviewed at the budget and finance committee? They take place in two phases. They take place at Pyle, policy administration legislation committee, followed by second by the apple, and overviewed by the traditional budget. Okay. And we've actually been talking about this for a number of years to insert That it's an issue this being observed and monitored outside of Alameda County Got it. Thank you Okay, oh, we didn't pull 42 but I want to get 42.1 rather I want to get a report on 42.1 in light of the comments we heard from the speakers. So either public public works agency if they can be respond to what we heard and if there's any response from county council. Good afternoon, Daniel. Well, there's some bad director of public works. This item is requesting the board basically to authorize establishment of a revolving fund and funding it so that you board through a legal mechanism under government court 25 to 14.5 establishes a legal mechanism to provide the opportunity for temporary financial assistance for the county service areas. In this case, Castlewood service area was experiencing significant shortfalls that has become a challenge in order to maintain funding continued services with a vendor who is providing these services specifically for water maintenance. So we're requesting the board to approve these revolving fund and funding it at 1.4 million dollars appropriations. And so that we can continue to operate the water maintenance services. In the meantime, I think the one thing I want to clarify is there is a 2018, a prop-to-18 process by which the community will have to vote on a protest vote basis to see how they want to fund this reimbursement towards this loan. That process is ongoing. We've had several meetings with the leadership of the CPOA. We've attempted to present some of this to the general meetings that was held in August. So we will continue. This does not stop that process. This is really an opportunity for your board to provide the opportunity to be able to continue to provide the services. So really the fundamental risk and the financing rests on the county. The county is kind of taking this risk on the hopes that the community will eventually approve the reimbursement strategy, which we can develop an amortization schedule. The law allows you to provide this loan for up to 10 years. A maximum is 10 years repayment. So we have put together various options. Is there a lump some payment or a three year or five year or 10 year payment planned and that will be shared with the community and see if the community is what their appetite in terms of the funding strategy would be. So this action today is nothing more than an establishment of this revolving fund and funding it with 1.4 million dollars has no direct impact on anybody but the county at this moment. I'd be happy to answer any question. And there was assertions that the agency hasn't met with folks. Is that accurate or do you anticipate having meetings with the community as a result of what we authorize today? Yes, we actually don't have a choice but to follow the two-eighth in process and hold these community meetings. The communication that I have made with the CPOA is actually requesting this community meeting so that we can explain some of this financial information. There was a lot of statements being made earlier today. Unfortunately, I would say most of them were fairly inaccurate because we have made all the information available in a link that anybody could access. These are public records. These are not something that we keep hiding or anything like that. So these are all available. We've held meeting, our personally held meeting with the CPO staff as well as attended several meetings at the Castlewood Country Club, explaining some of these things. And previously I stated that you board heard a public hearing where we raised the forward-looking assessment for water, maintenance and sewer maintenance. And that report clearly states in the report that was done in May, sometime past May, that there is an additional shortfall that we have to deal with. So the information has been there. We have been extremely transparent. Probably some of the challenges are some of these financial data unless you're a finance person might not be easily understood that could be a contributing factor for folks making that statement otherwise we have made all the information available to everybody. And at this moment this action that the board is taking really is to provide me the opportunity to continue to provide this critical public health services. And we can't shut off water because we can't pay the vendor. This is a critical public utility that we have to provide. So I strongly recommend that the Board approve this. And just one other question of you. So, will there be outreach done to all the property owners? Will there be outreach performed, are undertaken or conducted to all the property owners, in reference to this? Well, the outreach at this time is directly to the CPOA and the club telling them we intend to come to the CPOA and the club. Telling them we intend to come to the board to present this item. And I think that's why most folks came in. The most important outreach is going to be going through the 2018 process where we will be informing the people. Where was the short forthcoming from? What was the services provided and who was paid for? What all that is going to be absolutely transparent. And then we will show them these are by the board taking this action. Actually, you are almost offering these folks a short term, but low interest loan. Because if you go out to the market to get a loan, this would be like five six times more. I mean, five six percent more, an interest rate. This one will be tapping it into the county's pool rate, which is substantially below market. So this is a win-win for the community, while at the same time giving us the opportunity to continue to provide the service. Okay, and then just with county council, I just taken this action. I'm assuming we do take the action. Are we doing anything prematurely? Prematurely that would put us into any legal jeopardy. Well as Director Waldoz-Nbet said the action before you today is this is Kathy Liam a deputy county council and the office of the county council and as director will does and that said the action before you today is to establish a revolving fund to provide financial assistance These county service areas are generally self-financing there in many ways Similar to special districts. They pay they receive additional services and they pay for them. Normally general fund monies are not extended to county service areas. The authority being used to establish this fund is a way for counties to provide short term financial assistance. That is the action before you today. The expectation is that it will be repaid, but the service charges will need to go through the standard prop to 18 service charge process. Okay, I too, very much the outward, I think, it's just hand up. As far as outward, this is your district. Yes, yes, sir. And, Supervisor Miley, I appreciate, I think you had all of the questions that I had to ask the last one I have for Mr. Odessa that is the timing of 218. Before you answer that though, let me just say that I considered continuing this item but was able to ascertain that this item is important to do to maintain the provision of water and maintenance. And that if we don't do this, we put the community at risk. If something were to happen, there would be no funds available to extend those services. And so while we still have other issues, many other issues to result, and while we still have the 2.18 process to go through, this is simply the most prudent thing to do to protect public health and safety. So I support this, but Daniel, what is the timing of 2.8? I would like to follow up on Supervisor Miley's point to make sure that we outreach to every community resident and that we do that as quickly and as efficiently, but as thoroughly as possible. Thank you. Yes. I'll speak. I'll speak. I'll speak. I'll speak. As we we speak staff is preparing The information that will be sent out to every resident in the castlewood area My initial letter to the CPO a president was to pass on and to call in fact I even asked for an emergency meeting with the community so that we can actually share a lot of this information and prep them to understand why and why we do and what we are doing. So we will be setting up within the next month or so with the help of the CPOA, hopefully, if not, we will have to initiate that community meeting ourselves, inform the public what we're asking them to do in terms of choices about financing this deficit and then bring that up through the whole process of Prop. 18 where they get to do a protest vote in front of this board once we set up the hearing date. So we are right now in a process of actually deploying that. So it's just a matter of quickly setting up a meeting with the community, hopefully in collaboration with the CPOA, so that we get to reach as many people as possible in this meeting. So I would say within the next three months, we should be able to maybe four months, because there's a certain timeline, Prop. 18 requires us to follow within three to four months we should be out here having these votes in front of you to make the decision about how to pay for this, this loan. Thank you, Daniel. Could you respond to some of the earlier comments around I'm sensing and hearing the angst and the quality of service and the cost of service in the amount of money that is in interiors. You know, we have had several speakers speak to that. How do you respond? Absolutely. So the services are provided by third party vendors. We go out, issue an RFP and go through the process of selecting one that can provide. Historically, if you recall, but prior to four years ago, CDO Pleasantton used to provide that service. CDO Pleasantton used to provide it at a rate of about $200,000 a year, but in 2021, they indicated they can no longer provide that service at that rate and raised it to $900,000. At which time we said, hey, this is way too much of an increase. Let's go look for somebody else and we did, and we hired Coleman engineering, and Coleman provided it for two years. And now we went out again to bid, and we got breast well engineering to provide the same service. The services are provided basically as a standard water and sewer service can be provided. The unfortunate thing about some of these things are some of these lines are old just to give you an idea. Since breastwell started on July 1st and a month and a half, we had to spend nearly, nearly $300,000 in repairs, damages, leaks, power shut off that caused the pumps to dysfunction. These things cost money. And these are all documented. So the services provided in our judgment are extremely well. The current provider has been in business for a long time and they do provide excellent service. So I would say, you know, these are simple accounting. You can see fairly straightforward enough. It costs you $50,000 to do some repair work. And you can distribute that among the 190. And you can say each person is going to cost them that much and when you reach that assessment level and you begin to exceed that means the cost has to be recovered somehow and this is what exactly this loan will do. So there is no service provision problem that I'm aware of. We have been responsive all the way back from city of Pleasanton to Coleman to right now, but as well. And if there are anything that we can improve, I've always been personally available to discuss these things with the CPOA and the community. I've attended their meetings, general meetings, I've presented the previous presentation that was done for the assessment increase that we did at the country club. So, I would say, I don't know if this notion that this bad service shared by a lot of people, but like everything else, I'm sure we have a few people that would think otherwise. So, hopefully... Thank you, Daniel. No other questions? Thank you. Yes, the first. Thank you, Mr. President. Daniel, if you wouldn't mind just some additional clarifications because clearly establishment of this county service area revolving fund is necessary because she said time is of the essence. A lot of the issues that some of the speakers identified with the leaking tanks, the power outage that caused some issues have resulted in need for repair and you have basically run out of money and you need this loan from the county's general fund because it provides the best rate to pay your vendors to make these repairs. And I understand that the City of Pleasanton is no longer providing the water service. So that has shifted to the county, to your department. What role does the homeowners association have? Like in the past, they just pay the city of Pleasanton, and now are they paying the county for these services? Yeah, so the city of Pleasanton was just acting like the vendor that we have today, Breswell. So the county service area is the framework through which the homeowners pays for assessment for these services. So basically the residents will call and say I have a leak on my property or some damage here or we figured out that the pump is not working properly. So the vendor will go out there and fix these problems just in the past. It was pleasant and was a vendor paid same way like we do pay the folks here. Now the other thing that you raised is the tanks. It used to be two redwood tanks that were leaking water at a rate of about 25 million gallons a year. So we had to go to the state Water Board borrowed $3 million that a 1% rate very low interest rate came to the board got authorization And we borrowed that money and the tanks are fixed And and that's substantial amount of leak that we we saved through this process. So those things are, you know, these things cost money. I mean, everybody knows that this water tank replacement is about almost a five million dollar project with about three million dollars coming from the state loan. The rest has to be paid through these assessments. So this is how we operate this function. So to tell the truth, I think it's been functioning very well. Very efficiently. We've been extremely sensitive to the payment that folks are making. In fact, some of the reasons, some of these things took so long is because of us willing to accommodate everybody who has different ideas and complaints and all that stuff. So, otherwise this should have been things that should have been paid up as time goes on. But Prop 18 and other regulations kind of tie our hands in terms of how we go about raising revenues. So, you're absolutely right. These are expensive things. These are things that cost money. Ultimately, they have to be paid by the residents through the CSA by collecting these assessments. Thank you. Okay. So if there's no other questions, we have a mass motion. It was moved by Carson and seconded by Tam. All right. So let's call the roll on the mass motion. Supervisor Howard? Aye. Supervisor Marquez? Aye. Supervisor Tam? Aye. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Miley. Yes. Let's go with the ordinances now. 29 is the second reading of salary ordinance. The title and ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2024 2025 County of Alameda Salary Ordinance. I'll move to wave the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendments. I'll second. Move by Tam, segment of our kids. No board comments or questions call the roll. There is an item B included in that motion. Yes. Item B is in the motion moved by Tam segment by Mark is. Seven. Supervisor Halbert. the committee. The committee is the committee. The committee is the committee. The committee is the committee. The committee is the committee is the committee is the and administrative code amendments as well as adoption of the side letter of agreement with zone seven local and local 21. An ordinance amending certain provisions. I'm sorry. An ordinance amending certain provisions of the full reading and introduce the administrative code amendments and also include the adoption of the side letter agreement. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, move by Tam's seconded by Marquez. No more comments or questions call the rule. Supervisor Halbert. Aye. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Halbert. Aye. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Miles. Yes. I believe that's all the ordinances. That should conclude your regular calendar. Other than your two o'clock set matter. Okay, so the board will now recess back in the closed session and come back for the two o'clock set matter. But now we'll go into closed session. Recording stopped. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Recording and progress Okay. Recording in progress. Okay. Board's back from closed session. You want to report out anything at this point? Getting counsel over later. Oh, wait a minute. Sorry. Take the role. Supervisor Halbert. Excuse. Supervisor Marquez. the committee. We have a committee. Wait a minute. Sorry. Excuse. The supervisor. President. President. President. President. We have a quorum. We will be going back to call session after the set item. Okay, so we have the set item item 48. Is there a staff report on this? Item 48 was continued from your October 1st meeting. It's a recommendation that came through the personnel administration and legislation committee and the specific recommendations that came from the PAL committee are you numerated on your agenda? Any board members have any comments or questions on this item? Yes, I right to him. Thank you, Mr. President. I served on the PAL Committee with supervisor Carson, and I had continued this item today, because when we met last week, the governor had just signed SB 132828 and I wanted to give my office, my staff in particular, an opportunity to understand the implications of 1328 on the directive that we had prepared at the PAL Committee in directing the registrar voter to adopt the policy to release the text, cast vote records for the November 2024 election. And I wanted an opportunity to also get some clarification from some of the advocates that had been a part of the election commission in particular, specifically my appointee to the election commission. And I had a chance, along with my staff, to review the legislative record and the history and was somewhat disappointed in how ambiguous the release of cast vote records seems to be in the legislation because I mean if you read it independently it could be interpreted that any release at any time might be non-conformance with the law and absent a clear statement that say this says that congregate electronic cash flow records is permissible. Someone could read it to say that any entity releasing any such data would be in violation of 1328. So 1328 at this point makes it nearly impossible for anybody outside of the Secretary of State or the registered voters to actually double check the accuracy of the count, which is a problem for me in particular. The reason I supported the release of the cast vote record and will continue to support the release of the cast vote record is because of what happened when I first got on the board, we didn't even have a regular meeting, we had a special meeting having to deal with the errors in ranked choice voting on the count with the Oakland Unified School District Board, and I think that error was discovered through a cast vote record examination that was after the election. And I would like to take as many steps as possible to prevent that and preamp that. So what I would like to suggest is to modify the recommendation that is under item 48 in terms of directing the registrar voters to adopt a policy, but allowing the registrar of voters to basically use some discretion in terms of the frequency, for example, instead of immediately or having to release the results on the election night, work on something that is feasible. And frankly, I would like to see it confined to just Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Albany, the cities where the voters had adopted ranked choice voting, rather than having to do it for the entire county. And instead of having the reports release each day at the same time that a new election set of results come out to have it done perhaps on a weekly basis. So that's my recommendation. Do we want to hear from the registrar based on that suggestion? Because maybe you could talk about your position and whether or not this would, what supervisor Tam is just suggesting would alter your position. So the suggestion on the floor is to really focus only on the rank choice voting cities, the four rank choice voting cities, Tim D Dupuis register our voters, sorry. And to, and you said whatever frequency was, was possible. So as I said last meeting, we're now 20, 28 days away from the election to do, going to do that for the election. I'm going to do that for the election. I'm going to do that for the election. I'm going to do that for the election. I'm going to do that for the election. I'm going to do that for the election. I'm going to do that for the 100% booked with programming all of the equipment for this election, running our logic in accuracy testing, and then processing the vote. So in terms of Alameda County staff having the ability to put this together to create that kind of an extract and validate it, internal staff simply doesn't have the time to do that. Thank you, Mr. President. I last week when Supervisor Tam asked to take this off and put it into the future, I made a comment that corresponded with what the registrar said at that time, that the further delay made it much more challenging to implement. And so the defense that he just laid out in terms of making more challenging is what we're experiencing. Although I'm not him and I respect him, I think it still can be implemented. Cas vote can be implemented. I as one board member and might be the only board member and that's okay, I think that we need to follow the recommendations that came out of PAL. A part of the discussion today and the ability to delay it and try to, again, additional information, is a part of the democratic process, is we try to process these things and make these hard decisions. And especially on an issue that has a lot of national focus today, which is the integrity of the voting process and of the elections. Every single day, that integrity issue is being eroded because of the lack of transparency. It's eroded because we have many states that are currently enacting more restrictive laws, more restrictive laws affecting our elections than before on some level, on multiple levels, which is my personal thought. I think we are going way back in history on a lot of things that people have died for, fought for in this country and it's a shame that we are going so far back after people have given their lives. But transparency is what's needed more today than ever. And I think that the Alameda County Register should implement the first CAS vote record process. And again, I respect the register. I'm not him. I don't know all of the things that he has to address, but this is just my personal opinion. In Alameda County today, some of the more trusted by the residents of Alameda County, more trusted organizations, from a nonpartisan position, historically voting organizations, organizations that historically observed the voting process have come out and said that they support moving forward with cast vote record. These are organizations that monitor this historically, they're trusted organizations This is one of those, the Calamita County Democratic Party is one of those. A number of other organizations have come online after looking at this to say, if we're talking about transparency, this helps us in that regard, and that's what sorely needed. On top of that, there are a number of other organizations that have come online after looking at this to say, if we're talking about transparency, this helps us in that regard, and that's what sorely needed. On top of that, there are a number of trusted legal organizations, with hundreds of lawyers that have come out supporting this California come and cause, fair vote, the ACLU, organizations that have lawyers that we have relied upon to advance our causes around equity and inclusion and the ability for people to vote over the years have come out supporting that we move forward in this regard. And so to totally just dismiss that, I think is problematic on some level. The Cal, the Alameda County Democratic Party basically said that we should direct the register of voters, Tim Dupu, to implement the CAS vote record policy proposed by the Alameda County Elections Commission. The elections commission has gone through this process. Secondly, then we heard from, we also heard from a city that has already implemented CAS votes record. And not only did we hear from the city, the city of San Francisco's election commission, but the past president, Chris Adjodynack, says besides being a past president of the San Francisco Elections Commission, I am professionally, professionally, a software developer. And I also have a PhD in mathematics. I've been following with great interest to the policy discussions in Alameda County around caste votes. San Francisco has been publicly releasing caste votes records for many years. Over these years it has provided an unprecedented level of transparency to the public. Accountability and accuracy to the residents of San Francisco. It goes by further to say that the cash voter records has proven to be simple and straightforward to implement during the election. It also says it has created a standard location on its elections results, web pages to which the CASFO record file is uploaded and where the public knows it can be found. Once the file is uploaded, any member of the public can download it using a standard web browser. It also goes forward to say that the task could be more simple as creating a new website, a new web page on the register's election website for cast vote record files and then adding a single link on that page each time a new cast vote record file is uploaded. Creating the page could be done with election day before election day and shouldn't be, shouldn't take more than a couple of hours once the page is created. The process of uploading a new CVR file shouldn't take no longer than 15 minutes to do. Just one opinion from a person who alleges that they have the ability to look at this from a technical point of view as well as the fact that the city and county of San Francisco has already been implementing this. In certain circumstances ill intention actors could determine how certain voters voted. Incidentally, this issue doesn't have to do with rank choice voting, which we're talking about restricting it only to areas where rank choice voting. But we have other cities that are going to be going to the polls in November. If we're talking about transparency, we shouldn't be talking about a little bit pregnant. We should be talking about it in its full sense. It should be a transparency throughout all of Alameda County, not just a part of it, it even raises even more attention to not having it transparent by selectively identifying certain parts to implement it and others not to. It equally affects standard vote for one contest and the traditional statement of vote table for precinct sub-totals that counties in California have used for decades based on at least just this one person's opinion where they've implemented and have experienced it. And then we've also received a letter that I wanna refer to from the legislative director, not the legislator themselves, but the director of legislation. And I would assume if his director of legislation and the director's office, who was the author of the bill that we've been talking about, SB 1328, Stephen Bedford. I would assume this person wouldn't have done it without there, wouldn't have sent the letter without having their bosses approval on it. And probably more than than not would have probably been the person who basically wrote the basis of what was out. And so let me also read what they have to say. We don't have to accept it, we could refute it. I'm sure we got a lot of arguments to say why the misinterpretation here, but here we have the author, the California State Senator from the 35th district, which is the author, legislative director, not just a staffer, not an intern, but the director writing, I'm writing to provide information to you about the legislative intent of Senator Bradford's office in authoring and passing SB 1328. There is no language or changes made in SB 1328 that seeks to prohibit the release of the CAS vote records report early in the canvassing period. This bill does not change existing law regarding the release of the CAS vote records. Currently law provides no limitations on when the reports can be released. Currently current practice by other municipalities such as the city of County of San Francisco, see that these records released during the Canva St. Period. It also goes on to say from legislative director Chris Morales, I would assume with concurrence and support from his boss Stephen Bradford or we can call and see if he's still employed there for doing this. He goes on further to say, the release of the CAS vote records was not on our main intent for SB 132028. Our intent was simply to clarify existing law related to the storage of ballots following an election and to better define the violations and penalties for attempts to breach election security. The only change we have made in the aforementioned area was removing the unclear sentence in section 17600, which has been referenced a lot in the last 24 hours, maybe even shorter period in time, of the election code that read a valid image can be considered a CAS vote record. To be clear, SB 1328 does not prohibit or limit the existing practice of releasing these reports. So what are we asking to be released? I'm asking either the register of voters or council, what are we being asked to release here? So the CastFot record is a record that the system creates not automatically, which I've heard stated in some of the statements. The CastFot record is a record that has to be created by our election technician who is our technical lead. We only have one. It's contrary to popular belief. It's not automatically created and it doesn't take minutes to create it. We are much more complicated than San Francisco. San Francisco has 500,000 voters. We are over 950,000 voters. San Francisco has 500,000 voters. We are over 950,000 voters. San Francisco has one city. We have 14. San Francisco has one city that they run ranked choice voting for. We have four cities. One that has multiple choice. We have Albanese that the choice, the ranked choice is for multiple winners, which is not in San Francisco. We also have youth voting for this selection, which our one technician has to figure out how to tally properly and integrate into the system. So to say that the CASFO record is an easy record to put together is downplaying the sophistication of the system. Now that CASFO record has just technically has a row of data that represents each and every voter that has voted and how they voted. So it's not simply an, it's not an aggregate of votes. It's each and every voter. Now the voters name is not attached to that file. There is a valid ID and there are precinct numbers. So in Alameda County we have precincts that are quite small because we have rural areas. So we have precincts that have 10 voters or less and we actually have precincts that even have one voter in them. So it's conceivable using the Cast vote record that you could isolate if all the data is there in the CASFOT record, you could isolate down to those precincts and expose the secrecy of somebody's vote. So there is a risk there. Now I've been advised by the Secretary of State that to address that issue that you need to create a CASFOT record that doesn't have that data that could potentially expose that secrecy. I don't have anything in writing from them. This is all verbal conversation with the Secretary of State's office. But that is the cast vote record. In its pure sense, has every single individual voters votes across the board without their name on it. So San Francisco has ranked choice voting. They have ranked choice voting for one city. Okay, and again, I don't know the magnitude of all, I have an idea, but I don't know the magnitude of all the work that you have to do in order to get ready for this, especially since we even have a further short and time period from last week was still meant that you had to do a lot of that. So I'm acknowledging that and recognizing that. But at the same point in time, is it completely impossible? And since you're not mentioning, since it doesn't register the name, and most of the attention is on the turnout and who's been what that number is as opposed to the specifics of it. And we're using the exact same, we're using Dominion, which already generates the CVR reports in San Francisco. I mean, exactly the same. And again, we got more cities, we got more people, I'm not minimizing that. But we're creating a page that could be done before the election. I mean maybe he's over-emphasizing this Chris John the act from the former president of the San Francisco Elections Commission. The guy that has a PhD in mathematics, a software developer. I don't understand software development so maybe he's over-emphasizing it, but creating this page could be done before the election and it shouldn't take more than a couple of hours, I guess is still that impossible. To take one page created a process of upgrading a new CVR file. Maybe that's way more complicated than I can fantom, and I respect that. But I guess we can't do that. So the timeframe is the issue supervisor and the resources. I have one resource who has the technical capability to even work on this project. If we rush this and we do something wrong, we're releasing information to the public that could be faulty and would actually do the opposite of being transparent and validating our election. So I would caution that rushing a 28 days in to put programming together and I'm sorry, I will have to respect Chris Jardonic. I know of him, I've spoken with him, but it just simply isn't as easy as Chris is painting out. It is not a 15 minute project or a two hour project. This is a project we would have to work closely with Dominion Resources if they're available, because they're pretty stretched thin right now with all the elections that they're supporting, 28 days before the election. To put together coding that we can test that would create the extract that would protect the secrecy of our voters yet allow for a file that's transparent enough to provide the transparency that we all are seeking with the release of this cast vote record. That is, is a heavy lift for our office given the fact that this election is hitting us squarely right now. First day of voting was yesterday. I believe our tally right now is that we had 60 people in the office which is unprecedented for the first day of early voting. So we expect a heavy turnout which means this resource that I would need in order to put this programming together. That's the resource that's dealing with this heavy turnout as well. And I mean I continue to stress this but we are not as simple as San Francisco. San Francisco doesn't have two cities with youth voting. San Francisco doesn't have four cities that have ranked choice voting. And again, this resource that we would be stretching would have to be focused on all of this and I worry about his capacity. Thank you. County Council, have we actually received anything in writing that is saying that someone's going to take us to court on this? Not to my knowledge, no. Thank you. Okay, I just have a couple. Thank you for the board letter. Just have a couple clarifying questions and I have met with members of the community advocating for the release of the cast vote record. And I apologize that I didn't ask these questions in advance, but I was curious as to whether or not the Elimitie County Elections Commission and or Pell took a position on SB 1328 before it was signed by the governor. I know I'm clear on what the ask is now, but I just clear if we took a position to support or oppose or recommend any language to the bill. Not that anyone's aware of? So my office did not bring anything forward to pal to take a position on 13, SB 1328. The Election Commission and my office, me, both wrote a letter to the Secretary of State asking for clarification on the Secretary of State's position on the CAS vote record given that we saw SB 1328 going through the legislature. To date, we have not received any formal reply from the Secretary of State. Can you repeat what the question was for clarification? Say that again. What was the question that was being asked to clarify? What, we wanted clear direction from the Secretary of State on how we could handle the cast vote record. Could we release it and how could we release it? And when was that communication sent? Oh gosh. I was at the beginning of August. Okay. And have we communicated with the secretary of the state in the past, and received a quick response typically, or is this? I've spoken with council at the Secretary of State prior to this letter, and I've spoken with the Deputy Secretary of State after this letter, get clarification on what their direction is. But they have not responded in writing. Nothing, nothing formally from the Secretary of State. Have you had a conversation subsequent to September 25th when this bill was signed into law? I have not spoken with the Secretary of State since then. Okay, thank you. I have a few questions. So let's see, where should I start? Okay, let's start here. Let's suppose the suffice I start? Okay, let's start here. Let's suppose, because Suvice Carson asked you a couple, a number of questions, and let's suppose we could, you know, we could handle everything. Would you do it? So if I had clear direction that we, was no issue with the law that it was something that we are able to do, then ideally following this election I would follow the recommendation from the Secretary of State to preserve the secrecy of the voters and work very closely with our vendor to make sure that we had a very clean extract and procedure in place so that we were sure that what we were handing out to the public posting on our website was completely tested and vetted so that it would match what we were actually posting for results. That's what people are trying to do. They're trying to use the CASFOT record to run their own routines and algorithms against the data to see if their algorithms come up with the same answer for tallies that we're posting on our website. So I don't have an issue with that. I understand why people are trying to do that, but I do want to be able to give them a file that is clean and accurate. And without the proper time, and I think, Gerr-Donic would agree that you don't just program something through without testing and create a data file without validation. You don't rush it through, you make sure it's clean, you don't want bugs. And so I would take the time to make sure that we could get a clean extract with good code that is repeatable, that our technician would just have to press a button and say, that's the cast vote record, I can trust it. And it's validated by our vendor, validated by our own staff. We know the processes, and it's repeatable, and then we can go on post that. I'll have the time to put a nice website together, test the website, go through the acceptance testing, post to production, and it's available then for download. My problem right now is barring the legal issues where 28 days away from an election and I don't have the staff or the time to go through that proper vetting. So you're asking, should I rush it through? Should I rush to create a file that I haven't tested thoroughly? That I'm not entirely sure of that's going to be exposed to the world for them to run their routines through to see if we've done everything correctly. I understand the intent. My concern is do we have the time to put together a solid product that can be used for that purpose? And my concern is that we don't. We just don't have the resources or the time. Okay. So you also mentioned borrowing any legal issues. So clarify, like maybe you can't clarify, maybe it's kind of counsel, that's to clarify. What are the legal issues? Because I mean, obviously we have correspondence stating we can do this, but you're saying there are legal issues. Why isn't this clear? Why can't we, you know, why is it a definitive weekend or we cannot? Right. So SB 1328 did not clear up the legality of releasing Casphot record. It clarified how we handle the retention of electronic data. The election code didn't have any guidance about how long we could hold electronic data. It had clear language that in certain circumstances for the paper that we have to hold in warehouses that we can hold on to it. We have to hold on to it for 22 months and purge it for federal races for state and local six months. It had that for paper. It didn't have that for electronics. So they're very clear on putting those stames to populations on electronic data in SB 1328. The Secretary of State hoped that there had been further language restricting the Casphot record and giving guidance on the release of the cast vote record. As SB 1328 is written today, as I understand it, it can be read that if the cast vote record, the electronic cast vote record is released, that if you expose secrecy, you violate secrecy of a voter's vote, that that could be punishable as a felony against the individual who does that, and I'm the one who's authorizing it. So I understand that the, as Supervisor Tam has mentioned, SB 1328 wasn't very clear and it can be interpreted several different ways, but there is an interpretation, a legal interpretation as I understand it, that says that I could be committing a felony in releasing that data because I could potentially be exposing the voters vote. And that's why we've received guidance from the Secretary of State that you shouldn't just release the cast vote record without any kind of scrubbing, that we should be putting code together that takes that risk away of exposing the secrecy of somebody's vote. That's why they're recommending getting rid of the precinct data. They're recommending getting rid of the ballot ID data. And then they're also recommending that after doing that, that we search through the results to see if there are any other isolated races where we may have 10 or less voters that could potentially expose those votes. That's a lot of code. So anyway, so those, that's the direction I've gotten verbally from the Secretary of State and answer your question, Supervisor Miley. That's why it gives me pause about releasing the data. Okay. So, if County Council can help me out here, so council basically is of the same opinion that 1328 is ambiguous or the legislative history or intent is ambiguous or do we have From your perspective sufficient on clarification on 1328 and the other related laws or would it be to our best interest to get an attorney general's opinion on this and at this point in time, do we have time to get an attorney general's opinion? So just talk about what you're comfortable talking about in open session relative to this matter. So we provided your board with a confidential written opinion as well as answered questions regarding our legal views on this matter. I do believe because there is nothing specific in the governing statues that says, oh yes, you can release Cas vote records and the amount on request. They're public records that are available for anybody who wants them at any time. We don't have that kind of authorization to release the records. So certainly if the Secretary of State has not been willing to go on record formally regarding the interpretation of the governing provisions either pursuing legal written opinion from the Secretary of State or from the Attorney General if that's possible, those are when laws are not as clear as they can be and don't provide the type of direction that allows people to comfortably rely on them. On the laws, those are vehicles that are available to get guidance that is persuasive to a court and provide some insulation for some for individuals who attempt to rely on those laws. And then the election code 18564A2B is that the code that provides for criminal penalties? Yes, supervisor, 18564 sets out the criminal penalties related to the interference with the secrecy of voting. So, and at the moment, if we direct the registrar voters to release the cast vote record, and would we be subject to this, Melanie? So we're not prepared to answer that here. Okay. And ultimately, you know, we don't make criminal determinations of criminal viability. What about 18564.582? That's for civil. So we also would not prosecute. We don't make prosecutorial decisions under that statute as well, but obviously in applying these types of penalties to these code sections, if a body, well, if a prosecuting body determined that release of the records violated those provisions, the likely individual who would be liable for it would be the person who has the authority and custody and control of the records. And because your board does not have the authority to release the records, because you're not the custodian of those records. For example, your board cannot walk down to make sure that the board is not to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a to be a access because the elections code VES authority for safeguarding election records to the elections official. So you all could not walk in there and open up and release those records. So it would be my viewpoint that if there were to be some consequence, it would be to the elections official. And whether it would reach your board, if you gave that direction under some other complement of laws, that's not research that we've done to see who all might be liable. But again, we don't make those prosecutorial decisions. And I'm going to continue to ask you a few questions once again. You can decline the answer, nuance the answer, or answer. So can we direct county staff to break the law? So there's what you can do and what is effective when you do it. Obviously, you cannot require county staff to break the law. With 13, 28, were there any counties that opposed 13, 28? Yes, during while the bill was pending. Shasta County opposed 1328. So they have, and is there any reference to their opposition or can we infer from their opposition the intent of 1328? Well, Chastity County opposed 1328 explicitly because they were concerned that it would seal the Casphot record, absent a court order. They repeated that objection for months leading up to the passage of SB 1328, and including up until the day before or the day of its passage. There were two documents in the legislative history dated I think August 23rd and August 30th and I believe that both houses voted to pass 1328 on August 30th and in both of those documents these would be floor analyses given to the assembly and the senate. Shasta County reiterated its objection that SB 1328 would bar the release of CASFO records absent a court order. So the good bit more clarity on this. I don't know if he answered the question. Can we get an attorney general's opinion and how long would that take? So we just have to confirm whether it would be the attorney general's office or the secretary of state that would have jurisdiction to write this opinion. But historically, when we've made efforts to obtain and we know because we get a monthly report from the AG on their progress with their pending, AG opinions, it is highly unlikely that we'd ever be able to get an AG's opinion prior to the November 5 election. We're now less than 30 days, and historically, AG opinions can take anywhere between six months to a year. And AG Bond actually has been pretty efficient in moving the opinions along. So even under his predecessors, it took even longer sometimes. But yeah, I don't know what their current processing time is, but it is rare that you get an AG's opinion in a month. So I doubt that that would be possible. Okay, just a couple more questions. Prior to enactment of 1328, was San Francisco the only county and other city in county. That was releasing cast vote records prior to the certification of the election. This is prior to the enactment of 1328. So I know that I was, well, I can't say I know. I was told that Nevada releases Casphold records. I am not certain on whether it was during or after certification. During the Canvas, Canvas, or Tallying, or if they only did it after certification, I'm unclear on that point, but I was told that they had been releasing Caswell Record. Does the registrar know? Prior to the batch of 1328, was there any other county among the 58 that was releasing castle records prior to certification other than San Francisco? It's my understanding that San Francisco is the only one who's been releasing Casphot records prior to certification. There are other counties including us that have released Casphot Record after certification. But it was only San Francisco that was releasing prior to certification and San Francisco additionally has been posting scanned images of the ballots as well on their website. And they are the only ones that do that as well. And now with the passage of 1328, do we know what counties are going to be doing? Or is that still to be determined? I don't know what other counties are doing other than I've spoken with San Francisco and there are elections official plans to continue to do what he has been doing. the committee. I think that's everything I have for the moment. Sir, it's Carson. I have some questions to our attorneys. And again, I'm just reading off of Chris Morales, legislative director for the office of Senator Steven Bedford, district 35, the author of the legislation. I know it's not Stephen Bradford so it could be left up till interpretation still, but it just reading and I wanted some specific answers here. The Legislative intent of Senator Bradford's office in authoring and passing SB 1322. There is no language or changes made in SB 1328 that seek to prohibit the release of the CAS vote records report early in the Camus in period. What's concerning in that statement that keeps us from advancing cascode. So I'm going to let my colleague speak more specific to the actual statute, but one of the things about the statement that you've read that I do want to speak to is to the extent the speaker is discussing what their intent is and the speaker's intent doesn't dictate what the language says and what it means and how it's been interpreted. So there are oftentimes with legislation that people intend one thing, but in fact the legislation does something different because of how it was drafted and how a court ultimately interprets it. So there are times when legislation is simply poorly written. And so even though you had an attempt to achieve one goal, you achieve something different because of the ambiguity of language, the lack of precision in the language, because the language was written in the negative as opposed to in the affirmative. And then I'll let my colleague answer. The other. Are we in, are we kind of coming to conclusions on this? Well, it was just past last week. So no, or,, a week ago. So it wasn't it hasn't been litigated So we're coming to our own interpretation of this While they're stating there was no language or changes made in SB 32 You feel as though there were and if, what were they that make you feel that there were substantive changes made when they say there was no language or changes made? What? Especially since this hasn't been litigated. I mean, obviously the bill made some changes. The question is, what was the scope of those changes that I'll let Jason Allen come. So when we look into the legal risks one way or another related to an issue, we have to look at the statute the way of court would look at it. So first when a court interprets a statute, so when a court is looking to determine what the statute means. Yeah, anything, right? You're means. Anything, right? You're correct. Yes or no? Yes. Yes they have. Yes they have interpreters. No. Yes they have. Are interpreters? No. No, they have an interpreter. Because you're interpreting something. Supervisor Carson? So. Yes. It is. Don't daddy me. I'm sorry, it is our daddy me. I'm sorry, I was only trying to answer. No, don't daddy me. I don't ever daddy me. I don't quite follow what you're saying. I was only trying to answer your question supervisor. So go ahead, I'm listening. So the answer to your question is, no, this has not been litigated. But what we do, day in and day out, is interpret the meaning of statutes. That's what we do. Day in and day out, we advise county departments. So with all due respect, you've interpreted the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of records. That you know I'm not I'm not interpreting that statement because that statement is someone else's interpretation. That that is an interpretation. You can you know we this this is why there's so much litigation in the world today because five different people will look at the same piece of legislation and interpreted differently. I had a bunch of more but I'm gonna stop with this one. To be clear again I'm just quoting this legislative director Chris Morales, Stephen Bradford, the state senator district 35, was the author of SB 1328 it says to be clear SB 1328 does not prohibit or limit the existing practice of releasing these reports How do you interpret that? Well my response to that would be can Miss Morales show us where anywhere in the law it authorizes the release of those records and You can show the opposite. No, I can't show that it authorizes it. Thank you. Well, I can't show it definitively. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to have a discussion more on practical ways of moving this directive forward. That's the reason I made the suggestions. I am in complete agreement with supervisor Carson when it comes to trying to make sure that we err on the side of transparency when we're interpreting laws that maybe ambiguous has not been completely tested. But going forward, I need to understand a couple of things, because our registrar voters for the longest time have been releasing pass vote records, but after the election. And based on survivor Carson's recent reading of a lot of the correspondence that we have been receiving on this issue, including the one from the President of the Election Commission in San Francisco, it sounds like under Dominion, this is the CVRs are automatically generated. And is that what the registrar voters publishes when he has released it back in 2022, when they found the error on the rank choice voting? So the CAS vote record is not automatically created as being trying to be presented. We have to do work with the system to create the CAS vote record. It that takes time. And I've outlined the complications that we are dealing with with the suggestion that you've had to isolate just the four cities. Again, that's more that's a query that's calling down the data down to just that information for those cities. Again, it's not that it's not possible, but it's not something that is happening automatically in the background that we just pick up a file that's already there and post it. That's just not how it works. We have talked to Dominion. We know that we would have to put some coding together in order to create the file that you're talking about. So there is time to create the file that you're talking about. So there is time to create that coding. There's time that we have to test that coding to make sure that the extract that we're trying to provide to the public is an accurate reflection of what's in the data. What's changed since SB 1328 has come into play is the emphasis on secrecy of our voters. We did not have that guidance from the Secretary of State when we were releasing the cast vote records before. And we haven't been releasing the cast vote records for a very long time. We released the CASFOT records in 2022 and elections proceeding that election. But we now have this verbal guidance from the Secretary of State stating that you need to be very concerned about the secrecy that could be revealed in the posting of your CASFOT records. So that has changed. SB 1328, as as council has outlined can be interpreted to have some legal sanctions. So from my standpoint I'd like to take the guidance that I'm being given to figure out well how do we protect the secrecy of our voters? I don't want to see that anonymity violated. And that takes time and testing to make sure that we have a cast vote record that one is going to allow for the goal of transparency, but two also doesn't violate anybody's right to secrecy. So those are the things that have changed since our past practice and I need to take that into consideration. I appreciate your concerns. I'm just trying to understand practically. For example, San Francisco has released the cast vote records more frequently. What do they do differently that you, besides the fact that they have 500,000 voters and we have 950,000 but If you were talking about the four cities that were We were talking about as a practical matter just for this election That doesn't I don't think it rises to the level of San Francisco's population so what has San Francisco been able to do that we can't do? Well, what San Francisco's been able to do is they had the time to put their procedures together before they started doing this. They weren't 28 days away from an election when they put those procedures together. When they made the decision to do this, they were able to take the time to build a proper website. They were able to put the time to test whatever they needed to test. They were able to put the queries together. They were able to work with Dominion to make sure that everything worked properly. So they had all the time to put that together to make sure that they had a rock solid environment that they could go on and put this together. make sure that they had a rock solid environment that they could go on put this together. Right now we're making a decision when we've got four weeks to the election. I appreciate your concern about the fact that we are working on a compressed timeline, but you did send out the CASVOT records in 2022. Did you go through all those steps that you mentioned? Was there a procedure in place? Was there double checking of results back and forth? So for the release after certification, I had time. So it has been stated many times that the time we waited for the release after certification. Once I was through certification, yes, my staff had the time. They weren't thinking about how do I tally, how do I get results out, how do I do my final audits. They didn't have to worry about all of that. We certified the election and then they took the time to do the work properly and we didn't release it to our website. What we did was we released it to those individuals who had requested it and we emailed it to them. In terms of the concern you have about resources since as you mentioned San Francisco House these protocols in place they have They have done this consistently without the concerns that you have expressed Is it possible from a resource standpoint to Use their protocols for those four cities for the November 5th, 2024 election, perhaps tapping into Chris's expertise or retaining his expertise in some way. Chris Jardonic? Yes. So I'm not sure that Chris Jardonic is aware of how to use the system. So I'm not sure there's an advantage to tapping into Chris's knowledge because as you said he had a leadership role in the San Francisco system not a developer role. You know the registrar over in San Francisco has his own technical staff, similar to how we have our own technical staff. And in San Francisco, they worked with Dominion to create the proper extracts that we're talking about for what they've put together. Their database is going to be different than our database. So certainly we would want to work with Dominion who has built this system and knows everything about it. We would work with our technical leads that Dominion provides to us and we would work very closely with them to try to put these procedures together. But on the county side of vetting it and I keep emphasizing this, I have one person now. We used to have two. The second person has left for another department in Alameda County, because you no longer wants to be in elections. So all the time we had spent training him on the technical side, we lost this year. So I'm down to one staff member, who's focused on everything that you know needs to be done for an election. And we would then be dependent upon dominion. But I would highly recommend that we're not only letting dominion do this, but that we would have somebody from the Alameda County side vetting whatever is put together. So again, it takes time and I'm very worried about resources because our priority has to be on telling this vote properly and getting things posted as quickly as possible. I am appreciative of the fact that there are staffing issues. We, it's endemic throughout the county as you know. What I'm trying to do is to get a sense of what is in the art of possibility, what is possible. Can you borrow some staff from San Francisco? Can you work with Dominion to get some specialized help in the next week or so? So the only possibility for remotely getting something like this done would be whether Dominion had the horse power to free up to help us do this. We would have to go to Dominion and see if they had technical staff that weren't already assigned to supporting other elections throughout the nation to focus on this for us. Okay, thank you. the committee. We will go to the first speaker. Please state your name. You have two minutes to speak. Do you need a bill? If you have any questions or comments from board members at this time, let's have this public. We will go to the first speaker. Please state your name. You have two minutes to speak. Judy Bilcher. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Judy Bilcher. I'm a commissioner for the Alameda County Elections Commission. I want to urge you to pass supervisor Carson's legislation to hold the Alameda County Registrar voters, Tim Dupuis, accountable to make sure that he runs better elections. Releasing the cast vote records early in the canvas will restore public confidence that there will be a mistake-proof November election. Elections are a major cornerstone of our democracy, and our job is to ensure the public, our elections are transparent, free and fair. Releasing the CASFOT records early allows election experts to guard against mistakes, such as we had in the 2022 election. Thank you. Did you hear on the line? Thank you. Cindy Roachis and Leandro, as one of many members of the voting community across all political parties, we've long been hoping for a collaborative relationship with the registrar voters. As you know by now, after listening to the public comments from progressives, liberals, conservatives, all of us, this election transparency matter is something we should all agree upon. And Cancevote Records is a large part of the transparency we need. Releasing them after certification doesn't undergo the robust need to develop code and need to scrub them and need to put queries together. Time constraints that Mr. Dupuis just described as applying to releasing them before certification, right? Mr. Allen, you are the new lawyer for the registrar of voters, but apparently it didn't take long for Mr. Dupoe to bring you to his same way of thinking. To consider public observers to be public enemy number one, please help us understand what your fears are. You've raised the specter of a criminal action of some sort to be waged against Mr. DePoe against the county itself, even though San Francisco County doesn't have this same apprehension. And the sponsor of AB 1328 himself has explicitly stated there is no such threat. So I'd like to know from you, Mr. Allen, as a legal professional, exactly what that legal action would look like. Because I'm really curious, whom do you think would bring such an action? Do you envision that someone who thinks or feels that his or her name may somehow be assigned to the ballot that is depicted online number 3,271 of the cast's vote record, text file, and some bad actor is going to find out the voter's name. In your world, is that even a possibility, much less of a probability? If you think so, to me, that sounds like a bit of paranoia. That may even be considered a conspiracy theory. Are you given to conspiracy theories, Mr. Allen? Is your client, Mr. DePoi, a conspiracy theorist? Maybe you can elaborate on this when you go back into closed session. Thank you. Helen Hutchinson? Good afternoon supervisors. I'm Helen Hutchinson and I'm representing the League of Women Voters of Alameda County today Public trust in Alameda County election administration is low We and the league would like to work with you and the registrar to build back this trust. We believe it's important work and one piece of our work in building an informed and active electorate. The lane the release of the cast vote records past this November makes it look like there is something to hide. Further degrading public trust in elections administration in the county. We ask that you require the regular release of the cast vote record as the votes are counted this November. Please ensure that we can start to we can take this step of building back the public trust in Alameda County elections. Thank you. Crawler, you're on the line. Thank you, Jackie Coda, Pleasanton. I want to thank the board for taking up this item. We are, we are very concerned because the ROV has a duty to meet the highest standards of transparency, particularly in the light of the county's adoption of the voters' choice act. The VCA centralized the voting processes and expanded the use of VBS. While this transformation has brought certain advantages, it's also made the electoral process less transparent and prone in efficiencies and potential errors and issues. The public is tired of these problems taking place. The public and the Elections Commission, E-Talk Up, and several others have been assured by the state, the Secretary of State, as well as the senator, that there is no problems and no prohibits, nothing prohibiting the release of the cask boat records. Understand, California is a strong home rule state. That means activities that are not explicitly prohibited in either state or law and the state constitution are permitted for use by local government. We are a home rule county. It's time that the registrar voters stop hiding behind his interpretation of this SB 1328, which has been explicitly debunked by several people. The reason Mr. DePleef refuses is because he says there's no process. Why don't we follow the process that he already uses? He uses a similar process after certification, so we can just use that same process. He already puts the information online and sends us a link, use the same process. He explicitly said the reason he is concerned is because he's afraid he's gonna give us dirty data. That's his concern. He doesn't want to release data that hasn't been reviewed and scrubbed. That's a concern for the public and why we need the CDRs now. Thank you. Irene? Hello, supervisors. Irene. Hello supervisors Irene Deeter from the city of Alameda. It is amazing that we are here today in a total in a polarized environment where the entire political spectrum is in favor of implementing the same policy. You have the right, the left, the partisans, the nonpartisans, and you have election commissioners who you appointed to advise you of which I am one, that we support this policy. That's because the early release of Casphote records adds another layer of transparency, accountability and accuracy in our elections. Today, I urge you to make some progress in directing the registrar of voters to release the records during the counting period and before the elections are certified. And you should know that the conversation that you've had today has happened at the elections commission for months. The registrar of voters has been on notice that this is coming down the pike. This is not a surprise that there's only 30 days left and nothing has been done to get ready for this implementation. You have received an advisory letter from the sponsor of the amendments to the state law that clarifies that nothing prevents the public release of these reports during the county process. The voting vendor says that these records can be easily generated by the voting machines. And I'm sure that the vendor has a vested interest in making sure that there's not a repeat as there was in November. And so I'm sure that they will make staff available to help. And you have been informed by the election experts that the process is simple and straightforward and you've been offered for some workable solutions from the elections commission. Let's reach our goal for implementing this policy. Thank you. Mark, you're on the line. Good afternoon, Mark Zulum, Casper Valley. I agree with Supervisor Carson and the Alameda County Elections Commission. I have recently even spoken before you last month the Board of Supervisors and Election Commission on election data. Releasing the CVRs as the election is unfolded is overall the right thing to do, I believe. There is no outright personal information being released. It is not illegal for Alameda County, Bordeaux Fijers, or ROV to release this data. I have several years' experience with election analysis in Alameda County since 2019 working in analyzing CVRs. I was the individual who presented to you last month for United Sovereign Americans. I'm also with Itaqa, and I love working with our elections commission. I suggest to reduce the labor in releasing the CBR data, do not spend labor time excluding certain cities and elections, particularly for Caspo records of rain choice voting. I appreciate Supervisor's Tams suggestion, but perhaps it would relieve Tim DePris' duties in the ROV to release the CVRs quicker. Work toward a transparent future. I believe this topic is so crucial, our elections confidence level that the ROV should immediately work to make this a regular automated process. If the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will not release the Casco records during elections quickly, then what are they hiding? A quick release will increase voter confidence in our elections, and as supervisor Carson alluded to, having the CVR smoothly released during the election without the appearance of manipulation will shut up the conspiracy theorists. Please vote to release the Casabot Rectors as supervisor Carson has motion for all Alameda County cities and elections. Thank you. Karen. President Miley and Board of Supervisors, my name is Karen Butter and I'm a member of the Allemite County Elections Commission. Over the past six months, the Commission has been analyzing the issue of CASFOT records and after due consideration forwarded the unanimous recommendation for early release of CVRs to the Board of Supervisors. A responsibility of the Board of Supervisors is to ensure election integrity with accurate and transparent election results. In the view of the Elections Commission implementing the early release of CASVOT records is a best practice to ensure election integrity. We respect the actions of supervisor Tam to raise questions about the legality and data integrity around the issues of CASFOT records, and supporters have worked hard to address those issues, hopefully to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors. We also acknowledge that ROV Dupuis has routinely released CASFOT records after the certification of elections, and we hope that this will continue. Our recommendation is for their release before certification. It would seem that systems are in place to release the CASFOT records with the data analyzed so that they can be released before the election. With the election in 28 days, we recognize that releasing CASFOT records with frequent election updates may not be feasible. For this first election, CVR updates prior to certification may be less frequent. And in fact, the first may not appear for a week or so in order to allow a time to compile the results. The election commission's duty is to oversee general policies related to elections. We are committed to working with the ROV and Board of Supervisors to recommend steps to ensure the integrity of our elections. Thank you. Hunter, you're on the line. Yes, hello. This is Hunter Cobb of Alameda City of Alameda. I'm speaking to item 48 on recommending to the registrar voters that released of the cast vote records. We have just witnessed a prime example, I think, of why a large portion of our population is angry and frustrated with our elected officials. Rather than elected officials, behold into their constituents, making our policy, we have lawyers, verbal technicians, and constipated mathematicians making our policy. Rather than moving the county forward into the future, we are letting them, or perhaps not, letting legalisms and sophistries keep us stuck in the mud. We are four weeks away from what many consider to be the most important election of our lives. Last week and today also we saw a broad range of constituents weigh in in favor of the release of the cast vote records to help ensure transparency in the election. We heard from today from Supervisor Carson the arguments in favor of release of the records. Now a monkey ranch has been thrown into this by a swirl of legal lease and argument. I would urge you on this board to take charge. The registrar has known of this matter that it was coming up for several months, as Commissioner Dieter has just stated. I urge the board to give a stern instruction to the registrar to be ready to release the cast vote records to the public this election. Thank you. Mindy, you're on the line. Yes, hello, my name is Mindy Petchenuk. I'm a candidate for Oakland City Council at large and a member of Utacca. And I fully 100% support the Election Commission's recommendation and that we absolutely now have the caspots records available for the entire county. As others have before me have said, the legal arguments are legalese and do not hold water in this situation at all as so supervisor Carson clearly documented in his presentation. And also I mean, I have to say this argument that we don't have enough, we don't have enough. I have to say thank God Tim DePouy was not in charge of Apollo 13 when it had a problem getting back to Earth safely. They probably would not have made it. It's necessary if you're a leader, you make it happen what needs to happen. You hire the people, you get the training. If it has to take 24 hours, seven days a week, that's what you do. That's the American system spirit. And since you have released cash vault records in the past, clearly you have some kind of system. And I don't think it's as difficult as you're making it out to be to try to convince people that we should not take this action, which is supported by the League of Women Voters, supported by the election commission, supported by the Democratic Party, supported by Etaca, supported by those of us who support President Trump, supported by the Democratic Party. It's across the board a unique coalition of citizens fighting for an honest and transparent election. And therefore, I think it's imminent that this cast vote record has to be up for every every city of this county and there isn't a problem we can solve and we need it for the November election. Thank you. John, you're on the line. John, we're all free, Ma'am. It looks like there's two issues that the ROV brings up. One is, it just doesn't have to staff the time or the talent to do it. And Supervisor Tim and Commissioner Butter, I think, has going down the right path. One is, what will it take to do it? And, Commissioner Butter said, well, maybe we don't have to do it as many times. I will extend that even further, I'm saying, that there is one place you can do it. Just do it once. And that's right before the 1% manual tally, because you have to do that. You are 90%, 95% the way there just to do it for the 1% manual tally. Since you have to have that data down to the batch level, in order to conduct that, that is, you know, like two weeks after the election, two or three weeks after election, it's just a it's a small burden to get it to the point where you can release it to the public. And also if you have to get more people, then you know, get them from the other county, or from the other parts of the county, you can get that person back over just for a while, or just take another day, you know, just delay it one day and go ahead and release it that one time. Now as far as the legalese of Shasta Saneda might have taken quarter they're absolutely correct, they've just realized it. And Tim, if we just told us what the problem is if you design precincts down that that have one voter in it, then yes, the cast vote record can identify that voter if that voter voted. The problem is why do you have a precinct that has only one voter in it? And that can be used and chest is correct. They can use that to block the cast vote records from ever being released unless you have a cord over. Steven, you're on the line. Hello, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. thank you. My name is Steven Hill. I'm an elections consultant for Fairvote. And we'd just like to address some of the points that have been raised about why this couldn't be done before November. First is legal. I spoke to the Secretary of State to office of the same individuals that Mr. DuPuy spoke with several times during this process, as well as to Senator Bradford's office and to his legislative director. And not a single one of them, and keep in mind that they also have lawyers available to them to vet the legislation that they're working on. Not a single one of them agrees with the legal interpretation that a county election official could be charged with a felony or could be fined or somehow go to jail or that board of supervisors. If you authorize fined or somehow go to jail or that board of supervisors, if you authorize this, that you could go to jail. No one agrees with this radical interpretation of this law. As Senator Bradford's law letter said, but very clearly, nothing about the current law in terms of cast vote records was actually changed except for one line was deleted to clarify terminology. That was it. There's nothing else about this state law, that new state law that was changed in terms of cast vote records. So this is a red herring that just keeps brought up again and again for reasons I cannot understand. Secondly, the privacy issue that's been raised, keep in mind what he's talking about here. A handful of precincts with a handful of voters and that's supposed to stop this good public policy for everyone. Keep in mind that San Francisco in fact does not exclude these precincts. It's not a legal requirement. In fact, the Secretary of State even declined to put this request that Mr. DiPris says that she has made in writing because it's not that much of an emphasis. So the simple solution here is don't do it for this first election because San Francisco doesn't do it anyway. It's not required by law. The final one is how much work is it's going to do. Again, Dominion has told me directly the CVR file is automatically generated unless you do a lot of work on it like excluding some precincts because of these previous concerns raised. So the simple answers don't exclude those precincts and just use the CVR file as you have it and upload that file to your website. It will take as little amount of time as Mr. Judonic has said. Thank you. June, your own line. Thank you. I came here to support Supervisor Carson's measure because I think it is absolutely important to increase our confidence in elections through improved transparency. Having listened to the arguments about why this needs to be delayed at least, I am un-persuaded. I think the legal threat is just imagination. And as far as timing goes, many people have commented that there has been adequate time to address this way before 30 days from the election. This measure is not only important in RCD elections, or in all Alameda County elections, it's important in all elections. And I think it's important that Alameda County take a strong position in showing that this measure needs to be part of all election procedures and that the only way we're going to see that happen if the supervisors take a strong stand and make the ROV's office do this now. Thank you. Tom, you're on the line. Tom, please unmute your mic. Preston, you're on the line. Thank you very much. Thank you, board for taking up this issue. This is Preston Jordan Council member from the city of Albany. You have the city's letters from last July 15th asking you to direct the registrar to release CVRs before election is certified There's been two years almost to solve this problem if it had been Jumped on early on there would have been plenty of time rather than getting to this point where we are now Instead the issue's been allowed to be taxed to size in a number of ways, at least two of which I can think of. One is that CBRs have been released in the past, and the Registrar and Council's position seems to be now that they should not be released again due to the secrecy concern, which is incredible because that would allow a recurrence of the most egregious mistake that is possible in electoral administration, which is certifying the wrong candidate as the winner. So how are we to have confidence if the CBR will not be released again? So could you please ask if the intention is not to release the CBR again because of the secrecy concerns that have been raised, or if it is going to be released again, then why can't it be released before certification to prevent the recurrence of that egregious mistake and to instill confidence in all of us that our elections have been administered properly. Second, with regard to maintaining secrecy of voters and precincts with few voters to one voter, the statement of vote that has been issued for all elections as far back as I know Allows that to occur already if there's only one voter you can see how that voter voted and if you know who that voter is Then you know how they voted so is the registrar and his council holding now that statement of votes should not be issued And if so then we would have no data as a democracy as voters by which to understand if the elections have been administered properly. I please ask you to ask these questions. Thank you for your attention and your time on this issue. Colle, you're on the line. Hi. This is Trishal. I want to make some comments on observations on how Tim is presenting his department's processes on things they can and cannot do. To put simply, it appears like he's just lying to you. Hold up on my computer right now is a 2022 Casphot record. It's the same file I received from Fairbo and used to tapulate the 2022 results. I have a data background and there is nothing about this file that is difficult. Tim is taking advantage of the fact that you all may not know exactly how things would work with in his department to handle this tax CVR file and making it purposely sound more complicated than it actually is. He talked about code, he talked about clean extracts, he talked about bugs. As a gentleman from Fairvote who said, none of this exists. This is a .csv file that is converted to an Excel and then you can remove precincts by doing a simple control sign and selecting and deleting those rows if it really came down to it. To continue to trust a word that this man says is an absolute mistake and it makes the entire Board of Supervisors look silly. Tim has known about the possibility of releasing the CVR for months now. He's been playing a game of chicken with the Elections Commission for months. To continually sit there and say, I can't do my job or I don't have the resources, he has hundreds of resources within his department that handles elections. He has failed at his job by not being able to train the staff he does have. And the county council is clearly enabling Tim and his behavior. Multiple statements and clarifications from the Secretary of State's office and Senator Bradford's office is more than enough to know that the register is obligated to election transparency and to release the tech CVR which already protects the identity of voters. The alternative is the county actually facing a lot of litigation from groups over the Casper record. Not only do I urge the Board of Supervisors to vote yes, more importantly I urge him I urge the board to remove him from his job, immediately following the circumstances and finding someone more suitable to do the job of the registrar. Gerald, you're on the line? Yeah, this is Gerald Petchenuk in Oakland. And I'll just quote Jack Benny. Well, the objection, Mr. DePrie put forward about not having to staff in the time was anticipated. And I just have one statement on that. Two years ago the registrar said he made a mistake in the November 20, 22 election. He's never come clean about why that occurred nor has he and he's had two years has he released any plan about what he intends to do to ensure that mistake doesn't happen again. Supervisors, I totally agree with Carson. This reminds me of my old friend Adam Clayton Powell. It's in our hands. It's in our hands to do something about this. We don't have to accept these lies. And you appointed a election commission that was appointed by the Board of Supervisors. This is their first recommendation. It's unanimous. You heard the members of the commission who they come with the recommendation unanimously, DePree does his typical two-step. What is that going to say about your authority as being the board, the county board of supervisors? Last point, I just don't know about this, Guy Jason Allen, Mr. DePree. They came in front of the election commission. I was there, this past meeting, and they said they're not going to release the registered underage voters, 16 and 17, because they're underage. It talked to the candidates for school board, and they got them from PDI. Political data in corporate has a data dabbing that we and Alan said ain't going to be relived. How can you trust them? Caller, you're on the line. Thank you. My name is Paul Hoy, long time Bay Area resident. I just want to say I'm in favor of releasing the voting record for all the reasons that have been said before. I'm just going to be looking at the first of the process. I'm really looking at the process of releasing the voting record for all the reasons that have been said before. I won't duplicate those. I'm hopeful that at least they can be released once before the certification in the upcoming go by the register. Thank you for your time. Call a year on the line. Yes, thank you. We all remember the scandal that happened in the 2022 elections when the ROV announced the wrong winner in a school board race in Oakland. And that led to lawsuits, judges order to recount the ballots in weeks of really awful headlines for Oakland, for the school district, for the county, and for the ROB. And so please weigh what I really understand to be minimal effort of having ROB staff extract the data, which they already do, as has been discussed against the reputation, trust they already do, as has been discussed, against the reputation, trust, and all the cost risks of another election error found after certification. Please vote yes on Supervisor Carson's proposal. Thank you. President Miley, there are no additional speakers. Anyone thank the speakers? Bring it back to the board. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I'm actually very sad and we're at this point having this conversation. It's almost depressing to be honest. On multiple levels that we've been discussing for more than a year that seemed to add value to the process, it really bothers me. I'll try to brief, it's going to be difficult, but I'll try to be brief. And some of this I referenced last week when we spoke about it. Even though this is something that's been kind of requested has been stated by the last few speakers for since the challenge and the problem that we had more than two years ago which formed the commission. On a personal basis in the late 70s, 1970s, early 80s, I ran, I managed, I got paid to do it, campaigns in the East Bay. I managed several congressional campaigns. I paid for running federal Senate campaigns, Senator Cranston's campaign. I managed I ran Jesse Jackson's first and second campaign, not just in the Bay Area, but in the state of California. And I'm raising that from the standpoint, and not only have I done it, more recently my staff has taken off from work in the before the pandemic a number of years, and they managed campaigns, Amy's managed campaigns for the Alameda County Democratic Party in the whole area. So I'm saying that because we've had a lot of interaction, I personally have had a lot of interaction with the Register of Voters office. And some of this has been around this issue of the ability to vote and cash, cash your vote. Zach Wasserman was our attorney that sat there and watched the counts take place in the 80s and 90s year. My first iteration with the register of voters was not when I signed my papers to come over to the board of supervisors. It was a work with Cynthia Cannell way back then when I was managing campaigns. And the part of that was on election day, being able to have the hundreds of volunteers that we had and paid staff at all the polling places, monitoring the votes that was going on. And we had published reports doing the course of the day of how many people had not only voted, not necessarily who they were although although we knew, because we were able to also do it down to that precinct. But it was able to say where we need to go and make sure that people take advantage of the privilege that we have to vote in this country. And we're still having that conversation right now about being able to do that at a time, at a time in our history, where we, every single day, were reminded that our rights are being taken back and could even further be taken back. So it sends me that we're still having that discussion. I don't minimize the register's challenges that he has to implement the cash vote report. I don't minimize that because I'm not him and he has a lot to manage. But I do want to go back to a couple of points because this is so serious of an issue at this point in time. And I just want to highlight. Again, Stephen Bradford, low-level legislative director to Chris Morales, Stephen Bradford, who was the author of SB 1328. In our office, working with the Secretary of State, it is unclear what, if any, guidance from the Secretary of State has been given to counties regarding the release of these reports. The Secretary's office may revisit the issue in the upcoming legislative session. To be clear, SB 1328 does not prohibit a limit the existing practice of releasing these reports. I want to say that again because we've heard today, well this is just a low level person, this is not the center to themselves. No, they're the legislative director, the person who probably gets the work done who probably crafted it. And so I don't dismiss the letter that they sent us in writing around this issue. We've heard a lot about secrecy. So I want to deal with that for a hot second. But before I say that, all precincts and precincts sub-totals are included in the statement of vote and the cast voter record file exported from the dominion voting system is not modified. It's not modified. It's not modified in any way to our knowledge. And so we, you know, it's kind of can dominion be able to upload these things maybe because of the shortness of time because we really started talking about this two years ago but maybe because of the shortness of time right now it might be a challenge but that's not saying it's impossible. I will know I'm going back and I'm quoting Chris Urneck from the San Francisco Elections Commission. Gantt San Francisco is not Alameda County, but I feel that I have to kind of end the secrecy issue with at least their statement. Don't have to accept it or not. I will note that when I looked at the statement of the vote for the March 5th, 2024 elections on Alameda County's website, I found that the privacy issue described above is present even for that election. The privacy issue pre-existed before we started having this discussion. Even for that election, even though the register took special measures to try to address it, for some Alameda County precincts in the March elections, it is possible for a member of the public to determine how certain voters voted based on the posted statement of vote alone, even though a cast vote record file wasn't posted. This further illustrates that the privacy issue is more theoretical, more theoretical, rather than practical, and that the issue is a broader one and not unique to the cast vote record file. So the board may do whatever they want to do. I'm not a technician. I don't understand all the aspects of it. I just know that when we were dealing with paper and pen, we were able to do it and expose the vote doing the course of the day. Now we move and advance to technology, which obviously has a lot of questions about it. But in my mind, it means that it could be done faster and more secure if we put in the right methods to be able to go back and look at the algorithms or whatever it takes to do so. So again, when the appropriate time comes, I'm again saying that we approve the following recommendations to direct the Alameda County Register of Voters to adopt a policy release in the CASFO Directorate Report in the November 2024 election and for all subsequent elections in Alameda County as follows, ABCD to follow that. And at the appropriate time, if I have to make sure I read it all into the record, I'm more than willing to do that. I think this issue is that important so that we doubt every eye across every T. That is my motion. I'll second your motion, Professor Carson. And looking at what we're having to deal with, I think it would probably take more time to try to dissec and extract certain parts and we should just make our best efforts to provide the CAS vote record as recommended. I just asked a few questions. So recommendation is the first cast of a record report will be released election night or immediately after the first election results have been released. So you're keeping that in the motion, and keeping that in the motion. Because as of now, we get the results 30 days after, or whenever they finish going through, verifying the vote. So yes. In subsequent casts, vote records report will be released each day at the same time as a new release of election results. To my knowledge and somebody correct me because I'm okay with that. We were not really certain in the primary this year when the votes were going to be cast. You had to kind of like all day long go online to say, oh, are they going to release them at this time? Da-da-da-da. The general public didn't know they had to be up all night waiting for the notice or the smoke to come up from the Nevada can to say that the pope, you know. So we need to have a standardized time period in which they come out and everybody knows it in advance. So once again, I wanna just maybe go back to the registrar voters. So if we adopt this recommendation, are you gonna be able to adhere to this? If you adopt this recommendation as I explained to Supervisor Tam, we will have to go to Dominion and see what kind of resources we can get. I will have to press our one resource to go beyond the work that load that he already has. And I will have to make every effort to meet this. But I will also have to scrub the data for secrecy as we've been advised by the Secretary of State. So we'll have to work with Dominion to remove the precinct data. We'll have to, and all of the things we've already outlined. So these are the tasks that I'll have to achieve prior to getting to where we're posting the results. It's a heavy lift that you're putting on our plate at a very busy time. So practically you're saying it's going to be heavy lift. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you saying you're going to attempt to do this or you're not? If the board directs me to do this, I'm going to attempt to do it, preserving the secrecy that we've been told we need to be concerned about. Thank you. I just have a clarifying question for Mr. DiPrie. Thank you, Supervisor Carson, for sharing a lot of historical context with this policy decision. I don't have nearly as much experience as you have, but I do recall jumping in my car, driving around to do different precincts, and looking at that long receipt, and seeing how many people have voted. I don't remember, I don't think it was produced throughout the evening, but at the end of the night, I don't remember the specifics around that, but I do remember that being a common practice. Can you tell me when that practice stopped? So that practice was in place when we were scanning ballots in at the precincts with our previous election system. We had precinct scanners, and then that tally was brought from the precincts into our central count. We now are 100% central count. And so that requirement doesn't, isn't there. I do want to emphasize though, even with that practice, you didn't know how people voted. You knew that people had voted. Telly, yeah. You didn't know how they had voted. So this cast vote record has a much larger degree of information on it than you had in the example that you're giving. And so if I'm understanding correctly, the cast vote electronic record now would say yes as knows it would give us a number and how many people what their position was. It gives the individual voters vote. It doesn't have their name attached to it, but it does have what precinct they belong to and it says how each individual within that precinct has voted on every race that they voted. Okay. Thank you. Then back to the motion. So if we adopt this today, today is October the 8th. I am C, a civilized cars and calls for a report back to the Elections Commission 30 days after the adoption. So that would be November the 8th. Is that right? I just wanna make sure we're clear on. Is that what that means? I don't see. Let me read it this way. My motion is to direct the Alameda County Register of Voters to adopt a policy releasing the text. The CAS vote record reports in November 2024 election and for all subsequent elections in Alameda County as follows. The first CAS vote record will be released on election night or immediately after the first election results have been released. Subsequent CAS vote record reports will be released each day at the same time as the new release of election results. Cash vote records for all elections and all races in Alameda County. See, report back to the elections commissions regarding progress towards implementation of the cash vote record within 30 days following the adoption of the boards of supervised. Obviously that can't happen because the election is taking place less than 30 days from now. But if the board takes an action a day, then we will assume that they have to start right away working on making sure that we can implement what the board votes on. If in fact the board goes ahead and there's a majority that supports us moving forward with one. The first gas vote record release will be on election night immediately after the first election results, which are normally around 930 now used to be. Another time but around that time don't hold hold me to it but it's kind of around that time. Report back to the Elections Commission regarding progress towards implementation of the caswell and excuse me and then after this policy is adopted by the Board of Civil Advisors and inform all city clerks in Alameda County of the policy change. So, so with the report back to the Elections Commission, be on November the 8th. Just trying to understand. Big as a fair question since this was originally written at a time which we didn't know we were going to have less than 30 days. But I would hope that since this is inserted as kind of a new priority with a lot of attention to it and I know that Dominion voting machines may play a significant role. Hopefully within a week we can get an update of where that is that goes to the commission. Given a reasonable time period may not appear to be reasonable to everybody but a reasonable time period given the time period we're in that they're within a week report back the status of all of this to the the elections commission. If I may just ask briefly for a clarification as I understood the motion that supervisorvisor Carson is making, he is making the motion as written in the recommendation, say item C since 30 days would be after the election, you're basically saying you like him to come back to the commission before the election. Okay. but otherwise you are asking as it's written on this recommendation, correct? Correct. Yeah. Could I ask a clarifying question as well? On election night, as I read the recommendation, it is at the end of the night, the last posting of the tally. You're not, I think that's how I read it. I have to admit, I'm a little confused right now because of this. When did we stop giving interim updates from the election across the street when we used to have a bunch of people? I don't know, and this is not a trick question right now. Because at one time, doing the course of the night, we kind of gave preliminary updates. I don't know when that ceased. That hasn't ceased. We continue on election night. Our first posting of results is around 8 o'clock, you know, shortly after the polls closed. And then we strive to place an update every night, every hour, as long as we have data. I'm this to say that you were suggesting that once we've gotten through election night That when we get our final posting on election night which could be one o'clock in the morning in the next day two o'clock in the morning the next day that we were You were asking for us to post the cast vote record at the end or the next day Not after every unofficial posting on election night. I'm just going to say that that increases the burden on our office to create a cast vote record every hour on top of the posting, which is the election day activity, election night activity is very different than what we do the following days. Yeah, I think I'm pretty familiar with that. So, um, the report will be released on election night, your final tally for that night. Oh, that's, I just wanted to clarify that sweatshirt. Yeah. And that's, that's good. I think everybody knowing that that's on, yeah, because I, especially with the amount of time that you don't have in order to implement at this point in time, reasonable from my perspective, others may disagree. A reasonable time period would be at the end of the night to give that tally. Because like you said, the first one always kind of historically it came in at eight o'clock is that presume not knowing for fact that absentee balance was coming through the quickest but nobody ever knows where they're coming from. So yeah. Okay. Thank you. So that that portion that says immediately after the first election results have been released that it's been eliminated. It's election night, of that night. For us, John Keyes, who used to be John Keyes, we stayed up until two or three when he gave his final report for that night, and then waited to find out when the next night was, or next time was, that it was gonna be released. And what we're saying here is that at least we get that one that night, if it's one o'clock, two o'clock or three o'clock, and there's been a number of times it's been two o'clock or whatever in the morning, because I know the county administrator has been there with other people, all of us over there across the street looking at everything that goes on. So can I just try to clarify what I understand that you just said. So with respect to AI, the first cast vote record report will be released on election night. That election night at the completion of election night count. Whatever time that is one or two in the morning. Yeah, I was just going to say immediately after the final tally for the night. Yes. That's the last thing to use. And so then we don't have the, I got rid of the rest of that since. And then I double I or two subsequent casts, vote record reports will be released. The ROV doesn't update every day. We do not update every day. Typically the first week will do our final posting in the wee hours of the night Tuesday or early morning Wednesday. As you said, one o'clock in the morning perhaps. We don't post Wednesday night. We strive for a Thursday night posting. We strive for a Thursday night posting. We strive for a Friday night posting and then we typically go through the weekend and our next posting is going to be on Monday night. So again I'm just speaking as one person. I'm familiar with that schedule personally. I'm familiar with that schedule. I'm not sure that the general public knows that schedule because there have been times people have reached out and said hey what is the next posting. So if if you can come up with a schedule that can be kept then announcing that schedule during the course of the week following election night would be something I personally would would like to see. Understood. Can I ask just to firm that up? I was thinking of saying for a subsection two, um, to post twice. By Sunday evening or can we be more prescriptive and say post Thursday and Friday by 11 PM. I'm sorry, I missed just just to be a little bit more clear on a subsection to subsequent Cas vote record reports. I was thinking a couple options. One would be to post twice by Sunday evening, following election night, or be more prescriptive and say post on Thursday the date, which I believe is the seventh, and Friday the eighth by 11 PM or something, just to give some more certainty around when. Can I, I'm just making a suggestion here. Can you, for the purposes of this motion, can you say following subsequent CAS vote record reports will be released at the same time as the new release of a election results pursuant to the ROVs usual and customary schedule and then have him provide that schedule of his anticipated releases on election day, give a schedule that's posted and made available to the public of when he anticipates those releases took her. And so by using the usual and customary language, I think it makes the expectation that he's this pattern that he's just described that he's going to adhere to that pattern, but it gives him a little bit of flexibility, but it doesn't allow him to suddenly say, okay, now I'm not gonna update for a week because that wouldn't be the usual on customary schedule. I know, Supervisor, Supervisor can speak for herself. I'm not trying to get into the business. And correct me if I'm wrong on this term. That's been a little bit fluid based on staffing in the past when that comes out. It hasn't been as consistent as people who are not engaged in the process. They kind of go like why isn't it at five o'clock on this day every, you know, and so there's been a little bit of fluidity there. Because we're trying to put in a transparent product here, some consistency of that that can be announced out in advance so people anticipate whatever day, whatever time, sometimes, because kind of more recently has been five o'clock or six o'clock The thought the days afterward as opposed to eight or nine or eleven at night is just the first night that is real questionable I can you can correct me on that but Whatever it is is like we can anticipate to go online and find out what the update is on this particular date for the next week. The day is to certify it. Right, and just to get a little bit into the weed supervisors, we have been fairly consistent on the following days and getting posting by around five o'clock and a business, normal business. My concern with baking too much of a process in is not necessarily for the first week, but once we get into the second week and the third week, we're now getting down to the end of our votes. And at some point we stop posting updates yet we haven't put our unofficial, I mean our official final certification because we're waiting for votes to be cured. Meaning signatures haven't been on some of our vote by mail envelopes. The signatures haven't been signed properly, so we have to give our voters time to cure those. So I'm saying there's everybody wants to see a consistent schedule, but it's possible only until we really get down to the last few votes where we have to really stop and wait. And so I want to make sure that whatever you put into this language anticipates that our workflow will change as we get through towards the end of the votes that need to be counted. I totally agree with him on that because the longer he goes, the more difficult it is, and more forensics kind of operation goes into effect to really look at all the stuff, as opposed to the ones that are done routinely. So I think all this has been helpful. I want to make sure we're clear on the motion because I mean we've got to try to explain the motion. So is it possible? And if the supervisor Carson is okay with this, we can take maybe a five minute recess so the motion can be clearly prepared so we know we're voting on is that are you okay with this? Okay with it. I think we worked it out but I'm okay with your instructions. Okay, so let's take a five minute recess and I want to make sure we have because supervised cars have put a motion on the floor but there's been some back and forth and I want to make sure we're clear on what we're going to be voting on. So we'll take a five minute recess. I'm going to go to the next slide. Recording in progress. Okay. With the clerk take the role please. Supervisor Howard excuse. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Chan. Present. Supervisor Carson. Present. Present. Okay, so I think the staff and Suvres Carson's office has worked out the motion. So if we could officially, what's the word, resend the motion that's on the floor, are you comfortable with that Suvres Carson? Yeah, I'm comfortable. Okay. Secondors, okay. I'm fine. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. there, here that motion. Yeah, thank you. Just before I do that, I do want to say a special thank you to staff, but also to the registrar and county council for helping us to get to this final recommendation. I direct the Alameda County Register of Voters to adopt a policy releasing the text vote, the text cast vote record reports in the November 2024 election and for all subsequent elections in Alameda County as follows. The first cast vote record report will be released at the conclusion of election night counting. Two subsequent cast vote records will be released at the same time as the new release of election results. Three, the register voter will publish a schedule of election results posting dates. The release cash vote records for all elections and all races in Alameda County. Report back to the elections Commission regarding progress towards implementation of CAS vote records within 30 days following the adoption of the board. Supervisors, we actually did say that we would, in a week do an update since this is not a 30 day. We don't have the luxury of 30 days. So I would just like to say instead in that place, I'd like to say report back to the Election Commission regarding progress towards the implementation of the CASPOT records within seven days, seven business days of the following of the board's actions. After the policy is adopted, the board supervises and formal city clerks in Alameda County of the policy change. Give that that's the most I think before we air second. Regerizes. Could I ask the supervisor to revise the portion about reporting to the election commission? We have an election commission meeting on October 17th. Is it is is it all right for your motion to say to report to the election commission at our October? That's good. Yes, opposed to having a special thing. Yeah, so October 17th? October so it's next week on Thursday. Yeah, October 17th. Why don't we insert that date and you can report back then. That's good. Okay, so I'll still second. So if I was to Carson's made the motion, Supervisor Tam, as seconded, I just want to speak to the motion. I appreciate all the conversation and discussion and both from supervisors and the public on this matter, as well as our staff. I was not inclined to support releasing cast vote records prior to coming in here today. But I'm gonna support this motion based on everything I've heard today, mainly because of Supervisor Carson's strong and powerful argument to that effect. And I know County Council is conservative, they've been this way historically, as long as I've been here for 20 plus years. So if there's any legalities associated with this, I just want to say I will definitely have the back of the registrar when he comes to implementing this recommendation in any legal and consequences that might occur. As I said, that might occur. Hopefully there won't be anything that occurs. Also, I regret that we're just taking this up today as opposed to having had this conversation and all of this public input and everything associated with this months ago. But it is what it is. So we've got to go forth with what it is. But I think based on the public testimony, surprise the Carson's powerful and persuasive comments, the information we've powerful and persuasive comments, information we've received in writing from others. I'm willing to go along with this motion today and see where it takes us mainly to support. You know, once again, the confidence in the election process and people's votes, maintaining secrecy of people's votes, and also maintaining a sense of transparency. So that's where I am today. I wasn't there before today, but I'm here today, and I will support the motion. Do you have something to say? I'm sorry to give you this set of this in the middle of this. Cynthia Cornieho is texting me as she's watching this live and she's made the call to Dominion to see if they could assist us and I'm reading off the texts to you. She's saying she needs to speak to me. They cannot create the file for us. They help San Francisco create the query. It's not cut and dry. I spoke to the person that helped guide San Francisco and they may be having Dominion, maybe having conflicts with their resources. So the motion that's on the floor right now, I'm just telling you, at least right now, in real time, Dominion is saying they cannot assist us with this. That is going to be challenging with your motion. Do you want to modify it to give me some flexibility that I make every effort to get this done, this election? Again, sorry, but this is just coming into me right now in real time. So let me look at the maker of the motion. I appreciate the updated information to stay with my motion. All right. I'm okay with the existing motion and I appreciate and understand easy about it, but I'm going to support the motion. So there's nothing else from members of the board. Let's call the roll. Supervisor Halbert, excuse. Supervisor Marquez. I. Supervisor Tam. I. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Miley. Yes. OK. Motion passed as amended all right Okay, so that's our That is our last item for today. I'm gonna go to a public Comment on non-agentized items See if we before we go back into closed session If you have any public comment on non-agentized items There are no speakers. Okay. All right, so the board's gonna recess back in the closed session. Recording stopped. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. Oh the recording in progress. Clerk, take the roll. Supervisor Howard, excuse, supervisor Marquez. President. Supervisor Tam. President. Supervisor Carson, excuse, President Meiley. Here, board's a corn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. G H I J and K on a vote of 5 O the board authorized county council to retain and execute retention agreements with the firms of Haram Crab tree and Sun tag and The second firm is Demaria law firm for the purposes of them taking on the representation of the county defendants in the matters listed on your agenda under conference with legal council existing litigation EFGJ. I'm sorry EFGHIJK. All right. So with that, the Board of Supervisors meeting for October 8th is now adjourned.