Good evening. This is the Council's December Legislative Session in which we elect officers and give final consideration to legislation. Previously introduced and heard. This legislative session is being conducted as a hybrid meeting which is available in person in virtual via WebEx. It is also available to the pub through livestream on the Howard County Council website and broadcast on channels 44 and 99. The council's next legislative session will be Monday, January 6, 2025 at 7 p.m. Here in the Bannerker room at this time I'm going to do a roll call of the council members. Dr. Jones. Good evening, everyone. Ms. Walsh. President. Mr. Youngman. Here. Ms. Rigby. Here. And myself. I am here too. We will now recite the All right. Final consideration. Are you going to read the? I have to move to the next. Are you going to read the. No, we go through moving. We vote the journal. In the minutes. I have next. I move to approve council resolutions 152 153. We don't have page two. We don't have page two. We don't have that crazy. Look at Isaiah. Look at that. We do. We have a lot of pages. It was bound to happen at one point. Yeah we only have the odd pages. Look at that. Look at that. Never thought of that. We'll be momentary. Got it. Okay, this one's good. Mr. Wimbley went to make copies. So it's up to you whether we go based on the copy you have. Yes, this is just approving the journal minutes. Okay, yeah, let's move ahead. All right. I'm like, what's wrong? All right. Okay, moving on to our agenda. We will begin today's session with approval of journals and minutes of meetings. I move to approve the Journal of Legislative Session November 4, 2024. Second. Ms. Heratt, will you please call the vote to approve the Governor of Legislative Session, November 4th, 2024. Chair Yeung. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Treehungman. Yes. The motion to approve the journal passes. meeting with the Board of Education from October 16th, 2024, the monthly meeting of November 12th, 2024, the legislative public hearing of November 18th, 2024. Second. Ms. Herod, can you please call the vote to approve the minutes previously noted. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Riyangman. Yes. All right the motion to approve the minutes passes. Ms. Herod can you please read the legislation for final consideration? Council members unless there is an objection. Ms. Herod will read all the appointment resolutions together and we will vote them together. Any objections? No. Here I know objection. Ms. Herod please proceed. The following legislation is introduced by the chairperson at the request of the County Executive unless otherwise noted. Council Resolution 152, 2024, appointment of Arthur Gold to the Adult Public Gardening Ship Review Board. Council Resolution 153, 2024, appointment of Colin Frazier to the Adult Use Cannabis Advisory Panel. Council Resolution 154, 2024, reappointment ofrient to the LGBTQIA plus commission. Council Resolution 155, 2024, reappointment of David C. Jordan to the Pension Oversight Commission. Council Resolution 156, 2024, reappointment of Ellen Flynn-Guyles to the Historic Preservation Commission. Council Resolution 157, 2024, reappointment of Julianne Dana to the Historic Preservation Commission. Council Resolution 158, 2024, reappointment of Gabrielle Moreiner to the La Lanza Latina Commission. I move to approve council resolutions 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, and 158 dash 2024. Second. And the previous red council resolutions have been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing discussion, Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote for these council resolutions? Chair Young? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Yes. All right. The previous red council resolutions passes. Council resolution 159-2024 conveyance of a portion of a 20-foot public right of way, easement, approximately 930 square feet. I move to approve CR 159-2024. Second. I move to approve amendment 1 to CR 159-2024. Second. I move to approve amendment one to see our 159-2024. Ms. Sager, I see you are there in your green tonight. So we have that as a second. Amendment one to council resolution 159 corrects the symbol for feats and removes redundant language. All right. the symbol for feats and removes redundant language. All right. Ms. Hare, can you please call the, oh, is there any discussion? Your discussion. Okay, Ms. Hare, can you please call the vote on amendment one to CR 159. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Reganman. Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Mr. Youngman? Yes. All right. CR 159 as amended has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the amended bill? Yes. I brought this up in the public hearing. This was one of two conveyances proposed in this year or this month's docket. I thought we heard compelling testimony that we should be scrutinizing these more than we do. And in this particular location we asked both the administration and then Miss Alliaki who came to testify what the basis for was on this project. This project is in my district one. It's just off of Hanover Road which I think as I said at the public hearing is the epitome of the complete and utter absence of planning or zoning. And anything that's done there, I think, should be done with the most eyes on it as possible. And I think per usual the exact opposite happened. I don't know why this is necessary. I assume it's so that as many houses can be crammed into whatever the acreage is, who lives there their quality of life, how safe it is for them to access handover road. What trees are implicated, we have to stop doing that and we have to stop doing it on handover road particularly. Thank you Ms. Walsh. Any other comments? All right Miss Harry, can you please call the vote on CR 159 2024? Chair John. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Rigby. Yes. Miss Walsh. No Mr. Youngman. Yes All right. CR 159 passes Council Resolution 160 2024 conveyance of Howard County Howard Community College approximately 4.848 acres at 10650 Hickory Ridge Road. I Move to approve CR 160, 2024 second CR 160, 2024 has been moved and seconded is there any discussion? I Have something I'd like to say as is there any discussion? I have something I'd like to say. As Ms. Walsh pointed out, this county's really good at giving away land buildings, all kinds of things. And yet, we have $90 million in leases. And it just is amazing to me that when we are giving away our own land and buildings that we are not at the same time trying to come to some sort of agreement as to what we could get out of this conveyance. And in this particular case, this is the Hickory Ridge building at the community college. And I ask Miss Ayakki during the conversation that we had on this conveyance, whether we couldn't get some of this space at that Hickory Ridge building for our new Inspector General. And I still think that would be a good idea. I think that when we're turning over a building that we have paid for, that the county has paid for, that it would be really nice for the county executive to ensure that the county's overall needs are also taken care of at the same time. So that's my thought about this. I won't be voting against it, but I do want to express my views on this. So Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote on CR 160? Chair Young? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Rigby? I support the MOU that was originally signed and the process it requires. And vote is yes. Ms. Walsh? No. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. CR. Oops. I lost track. CR 160 passes. Council Bill 61, 2024, introduced by Deb Young, Chris Jenner, Brighbe, Liz Walsh, and David Youngman, Inspector General Establishment. All right, I move to approve C.B. 61. Sorry. Second. Okay. Do you want to? It's your amendments. The first one. Yeah, I think we have to introduce the second. Right. Okay. Do you want to? It's your, your amendments. This one. Yeah. I think you have to introduce the second one. Right. Okay. I move to approve amendment one. Second. Oh, I see. Right. You're winning us in that. Right. Okay. That's all right. It's going to be, we've got a little bit of time with this one. So all right, so you second that one. Yes. Okay. So Ms. Rigby, do you want to? So one of the primary things that this amendment does is it changes the Inspector General's citizen board to Inspector General Advisory Board. It also provides some more clarity and specificity around some of the time frames and also a bit more around the advisory letters that Mr. McClendon had touched on. Yeah. So that is a lot of a memet one, but... All right. I move to approve a memet one to a memet one. Amendment 1. She just started at the end. I'm just thinking here. Yeah. Yes. Is there another amendment to this? No. Yes. I have one to one and one to three. One to six. One to 12. one to 13. You are explaining the course. Okay, so I need a second. Second. Thank you. So this amendment one to amendment one is to take out to strike the language which was to take out that the IG would be able to do all things necessary to carry out the functions of the office. Overall, I think that Ms. Riggs B's amendment is a really good one. I think it has a number of improvements. And I am appreciative of the fact that she filed it. We spoke, sorry, I'm spoken. We spoke earlier in the day and I told her that I was grateful that she had filed. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. I'm not a good speaker. Hatchell is when you say at the end of a sentence and all things necessary or do all things necessary. And in this instance, there's a list of things that the IG can or will do. And in order to ensure that that list is as full sum as possible, we put that catch all at the end. And when Ms. Rigby and I were discussing it today, she asked me for an example, which I thought was a fair question. And my example of something that's not in that list, but that could actually occur, is occur is that the IG would need to enter into an MOU with the state board of education with their IG in order to do some sort of investigation of the school district. That is not listed in the things that the IG can or should do. And that's just one example of why I think that catch all is a good idea to have at the end of that particular paragraph. Is there any further discussion? Yes, Dr. Jones, no, okay. Is Walsh, okay, okay. This wash, okay, this will be. Sure, so my concern about the catch all is that someone may take it upon themselves to do things that we can't really imagine what they would be and that they would assume authority that they may not have an authorization that they may not have to do things that they are unauthorized to do. And it is an extensive list. It does allow for investigations. It allows for establishing written policies and procedures to guide these functions and processes that could involve partnering with other entities such as the MSE team or other procedures that they may need to find agreement with with other entities that they're conducting a joint investigation, even if they're doing that under number five, they may want to have additional written procedures to guide that function. My hesitancy with the catch-all phrases that our imaginations may fail us and what someone may choose to undertake. And it may not be an ethical or authorized action. And this position is very important. We've done a lot of work and effort in making sure that it is independent and we have followed so many best practices. And I would, I just remain concerned that this catch-all phrase leaves a door open to say, well, says do anything necessary. And there's a lot of justifications that can be made when it comes to, well it was necessary. Sorry. All right, any other discussion? Okay, no. Ms. Herod, can you please call the vote on amendment one to amendment one? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Ms. Ruebby. No. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Rigby. No. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. I generally like these catch all provisions. And I didn't like when it went away, because I think that we're trying to envision, like we're trying to create something that we don't know how it's going to turn out. I'm confident that we're going to appoint a good board that if we have an IG that's constantly overstepping that they will manage that in some way. But I'm going to vote yes on the amendment. Okay. Amendment one to amendment one passes. Amendment one as a Miss Herrick, can you please call the vote on amendment one as amended? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. I would have appreciated some time to discuss before calling for the vote for the amendment because the amendment got amended. But if you'd like to go back, we can certainly. because the amendment got amended. But, it says- If you'd like to go back, we can certainly- Well, I just want to truly understand, I mean, so this is the beginning of what would be, what would be an interesting and long night of discussing these amendments, making sure we get this thing right, which I can appreciate, and I just think with this first amendment and the amendment to the amendment, not only should the public know exactly what's happening with each of these, some of which we've seen for the first time this weekend or today, but we should make sure we know what we're voting on. And so I just want to truly understand what the amended amendment says. But I think I got it from what I'm looking at here, but I would have liked to have had some time to discuss it. Yes. But I think I got it from what I'm looking at here, but I would have liked to have had some time to discuss it. So I'm going to pass. Ms. Rikvy? Yes. Ms. Walsh? We're voting on Amendment 1 as amended. Correct. Yes. OK. I would not have voted for this amendment one, but for the amendment to it. I like the other ideas. I thought we asked a work session that they'd be separated out so that we could pick and choose as we like, but this has virtually the same effect. So my vote is yes. Mr. Youngman. I think it's a great amendment. So I vote yes. Dr. Jones. I like the amendment as is, not overly, it doesn't matter, but I'll say it anyway. My problem with the catch-all being added, deleted, or things that we think are going to happen, which is why I originally, and I said to several of you, that I wish that we would have tabled this bill, to make sure we truly understand because we can't go backwards on this. Whatever's going to come at the end of tonight, whatever's going to come with a new position, with the appointing of the position, with the months and whatever claims of so called fraud and waste and abuse that we'll see, that the county will see, it all starts with what we do tonight and I think it should be done right. To that end, I'm gonna vote yes. Okay, amendment one as amended passes. All right, I move to approve amendment two to CB61. Miss Sagar, I see that you're there. If you'd like to explain it. I need a second. Oh, I'm sorry. Second. Second. Amendment two provides that the Inspector General, citizen board, is the appointing authority for the Inspector General and then makes all the corresponding changes throughout the bill relating to the authority of basically being an appointing authority having to do with removing providing how the Inspector General will be appointed by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the board providing that the kind executive shall also receive a written statement for the reasons of recommended removal. Providing that the hearing unreccommended removal shall be before the Inspector General's citizen board renamed by amendment one as the advisory board. And then clarifying the appointment and removal process within the duties of the board and clarifying that non-interference with with the inspector general does not preclude the board from the board's authority to remove as the appointing authority. Okay. Is amendment two to CB61 has been moved and seconded? Is there any discussion? Ms. Walsh? Amendment 2 to CB61 has been moved and seconded, is there any discussion? Ms. Walsh? I have two questions. I don't know if they're for law or administrator or meseger. The first is I do not understand. The first two changes, in line five strike and strike. Am I being super dancer, why? Yeah, I can explain that. That's, I believe in section one, 306, where all of the appointing authorities in the county coders set out. So what that's doing is it's basically removing the proposed change. So as prefiled, the bill would propose the inspector general be appointed by the county council. So the bill as filed inserts inspector general right there in line, I'm using the draft enrolled so I don't know what line it is. Subsection 12, I'm sorry. Right, line seven, page five of the originally prefiled bill. So because amendment two proposes to make the appointing authority of the inspector general the board, it needs to remove it from the list of positions appointed by the county council. That's what those first couple changes on the amendment are doing lines one and three. They're preserving the current code language and removing the proposed addition as prefiled. Right. Thanks. What she said. In a much shorter. Okay. Lawyers were shorter. Well, always distinct. Oh, okay. The second question. Both lawyers were shorter. Oh, always distinct. Um, okay. The second question is both lawyers just pointing. That's right. I don't know what's saying. Um, the second question I had is so, uh, the fourth proposed change in amendment two and I assume this is going to come up over and over again, makes reference to an inspector general citizen board. My understanding is in Amendment one, we changed the name of that. So does the name change that we approved in one carry throughout? Okay. Yes, we would, it would carry throughout any amendment. Okay. Did you have anything else? No. Anyone else? So this particular amendment changes the very nature of what this county council spent months talking about, discussing, agreeing on, going back, changing, rewarding, and then finally coming to a consensus that the method of appointing the IG, the Inspector General, would be by having the Citizen Advisory Board, which consists of seven individuals going through resumes and interviewing individuals to determine who the best qualified candidates could be coming down to a list of three, and then passing those three names onto the county council, who would then choose from amongst those three names to determine who would be the inspector general. It provides, it's not a perfect system, but it is really good. We have a board that hopefully will not in any way be influenced by the people whose names are going to be submitted to that board, other than their qualifications. Then, so there is no interference, either from the county council or from the county executive in the determination of those initial three people that move on to the county council. Then the county council gets those three names and they choose from among just those three names, one of those three people, and we, the county council, are accountable to the people. So if for some reason, we end up choosing someone who may not be the best person, we have to face the voters of Howard County. The citizen board does not. They are an appointed commission, and we purposely set it up that way, but they are not accountable to the public, the way that each one of us are. So from my perspective, we did a bang up job of creating the best system possible for creating both independence and accountability. I'm very proud of this council for having done that. We've already been told that our legislation is a model for the United States. And I think that's really cool. I just got goose bumps saying it. So I can't imagine that we would want to do anything else, then continue to follow what we've already agreed to. Did you want to say something this way? I saw you over there scratching away. Okay. No? Okay. Anybody else? No. Okay. This hair, can you please call the vote? 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. I'm sorry. is no. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rudeby? Ms. Young was right, I was scratching away. But not to debate, but just to relay and relate my perspective on this, which is that having the advisory board as the appointing authority creates far more independence and removes it from the potential influence of political actors. And so that's why I support it. And additionally, this sort of model was in Ms. Walsh's original bill. And so I recognize the wisdom in her words. And again, I really think that this enhances the independence of the inspector general. And I think that's one of the most important things we could be doing in the creation of this entity. My vote is yes. Ms. Walsh. The preeminent characteristic of an inspector general has to be independence, independence from any political body, whether that's the executive branch or the legislative branch. In a joining Baltimore County we've seen the county council intervene with the inspector generals investigations. And whether our inspector general decides to have double-sided business cards or not, that office should be independent of political influence from whatever place it may come. And so I do think this amendment two is a significant improvement to putting in place that independence and ensuring it. And so therefore my vote is yes. Mr. Youngman. I agree with Mr. Rape and Ms. Wals that, and it's funny because all the emails we've been getting have characterized this as taking away independence, but it actually far increases independence. Hong Kong is ultimately, is giving ultimate authority to unelected folks. I want to give this citizen's board as much power as possible, but at the end of the day, feel like we as elected officials accountable directly to the voters should have sort of that final check. So I'm a no on this amendment. All right, Amendment 2 passes. There was a lot of other things in Amendment two besides that. We need threatening language. All right. We're on amendment three. I'm not appropriate. Amendment one to amendment three. We have not moved amendment three. Oh, I moved to approve and go ahead. I move to a move to approve amendment 3 to council bill 61. Second. This amendment in large part puts in place recommendations by HCCA. There's some that we didn't take on, but without many of them were quite valuable and improved the overall bill and so this amendment three embodies that. I move to approve amendment one to amendment three. Second. So this amendment removes proposed revisions to add the Office of Law to the non-interference clause, and to retain the option to subpoena provision. The Office of Law is actually, they are being asked in this bill to provide advice to the citizens election board and the IG. And I'm not sure how we can also say that they will not engage in non-interference, because I'm not sure how non-interference would relate to the Office of Law also giving advice. And then the other piece was the subpoena provision which changed the May to a shall because a subpoena does not always have to be judicially enforced. So I thought that the language may, should probably stay as may. Is there any further discussion? I have a question. So I actually liked adding office of law, but they're being taken out, and I think I picked up today on the end of some meeting that was because that somehow contraintured the charter or something. Like amendment one to amendment three. Like why are we taking office of law off of the amendment. I just found it confusing that you know that there's this issue of the office of law providing advice to the IG at the same time that there's this issue of non-interference and how that is being, how we're, there's nothing in this amendment that clearly states which one is which or there's not like not with standing the Office of Law's ability to give advice or some language that makes it more clear what non-interference versus advice giving is. So it's incumbent upon the IG to, if they're offered advice by the Office of Law to choose whether to follow it or not and not take it as interference. But you don't want the officer law to be prohibited from offering that advice. Right. OK. Makes sense. Gotcha. Ms. Walsh, did you want to explain it? Do you want to out for anything? with all due respect to our office of law and it's very capable attorneys. There are plenty of times particularly sitting as Chair of Zoning Board but in other matters where I have received advice that I did not agree with. And, you know, whether or not I consider that to be interfering, I don't know. But I think I thought it was a really good, I thought it was a really good proposed revision because I think there's some confusion as to the role of Office of Law among different branches as to what who the client of that agency is. And the executive branch particularly seems to think that that Office of Law is subservient to the executive, whereas Office of Law represents the county and its interests and tell me if I'm wrong, Mr. Cook, but about the who you represent. But I thought it was a really good revision because of six years being in this role. I do have another question now. Okay. I see your concern about the May versus Shell because you don't want someone to say, I only have to agree to this subpoena if you get it judicially enforced. And I also don't want somebody, I don't want an IG to say, I'm going to issue a subpoena, and I have to get it through the courts. I have to get it through the courts. I have to get it through the courts. Shall? You shall, let's see, the original language is that you shall. It may be judicially enforced. No, it says shall. Or I'm sorry, you changed it to shall. So it did say may. And then it said shall be judicially enforced. So that to me says if the IG wanted to issue a subpoena that it shall be judicially enforced that the IG would have to go through the courts to get the subpoena. And I don't want an IG to have to go through the courts to get a subpoena. As an attorney in private practice, you can always issue subpoenas. And you hope that the other side will respond to them and 90% of the time they do without having to go through the court. So that's why I was a little concerned about that particular change. And Mr. Cooquit interpreted would interpret that shell versus May the first time it comes up? If somebody asks our office because we don't offer unsolicited advice, we certainly advise people. When I read this before the amendment, I read that to say that this is discretion given to the IG that if he or she wants to go to court and enforce a subpoena that is not being complied with by the recipient of the subpoena, he or she may do so but is not obligated to do so. I understood the amendment a little bit along the lines of what the chair was saying in terms of almost forcing the IG's hand that any time they serve a subpoena on someone with information and the person doesn't comply, the IG doesn't really have any discretion. The IG is forced by a shall to go to court and get the subpoena judicially enforced. So it's a policy choice. Do you want to leave discretion in the IG, in which case, may make sense. If you want to force the IG to have to go to court, then shall make sense. OK. Just depends on what you want to do. OK, then I agree with that part of your amendment one, two, amendment three. And without knowing where the votes are going to fall on the removal of office of law, I would be happy to propose an amendment two to amendment three, which would just strike line three. But I guess we can go forward with the first vote, and then I'll make that motion if that does not succeed. So what I, really fast, if I may, the verbiage, let me go to it. About interfering with page 7, line 19. I read it. Line 18, the office of the Inspector General is an independent office and shall conduct their work without interference from the county executive, the county council, or the Inspector General's citizen board. What you're proposing is that we add the office of law to that. My question is, and my question has been about this section, is what defines interference? For example, if the inspector general wishes to have a conversation about something, if the inspector general wishes to have a conversation about something with any of these bodies, for whatever reason, whether it's a formal conversation or passing each other in the hallway or whatever, what would be considered interference or would be considered a casual conversation? Especially if the Office of Law is here to serve the county, the Inspector General may wish to have a conversation, but may feel that they are precluded from doing such if that part of their amendment passes. So I've been concerned about this whole paragraph, just because we don't really know what that looks like, we don't know what someone would interpret as interference. I mean, obviously, you know, besides the obvious interference, because we don't really know what that looks like. We don't know what someone would interpret as interference. I mean, obviously, besides the obvious interference, but regular conversations, you make a call or you shoot an email, hey, can we talk about this? Is that interference? We have no definition of what that is. Nor do we know how someone would interpret it. I get that we don't want to box in the Inspector General, if they choose to have a conversation, but I want this thing to be so far away that they're not having conversations with any of us or anyone on that board. Like even, honestly, even if it helps them do their job and helps them do their job right, I just think it's a slippery slope to let those almost ex-partate type conversations happen. But yet, it seems weird to tie the Inspector General's hands if they're voluntarily wanting to do it. But if they come to me like twice, and I offer them like, hey, whatever this is what I think. And then like, now we're chums. In the third time, I'm like, hey, by the way, this is what I think. Does it just kind of slope down like that? I don't know. Mr. Ridley. So I appreciate the discussion regarding the judicial enforcement because I think it's out at a lot of clarity. To Mr. Yornman's point, I think the only entity that I want them talking to is the Office of Law. I want them to seek legal advice. I want them to, if they aren't sure about an action, if it complies with our laws of this county of the state or not, I want them to seek advice. So I would be concerned about amendment three as written and I think that amendment one does a lot to help that amendment. Is there any further discussion? Are we ready to vote then on amendment one to amendment three? All right. Is Harry? three. All right. Ms. Herring. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Redby. Yes. Miss Walsh. No. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment one to amendment three passes. Did you want to, so was there another action you wanted to take now? All right, Dr. Jones? Yes, I would like to move amendment two to amendment three, which would create the number of days, 30 days for the minutes. So amendment three says to strike as soon as practicable and substitute it within two weeks. I think 30 days is fine. We generally deal with 30 days when we deal with our minutes and our journals. So I think as soon as practicable is a good clause because we don't know what's going on at that time, but I think 30 days would suffice and it would give a deadline so that it doesn't be open ended. So I move a amendment two to amendment three to strike within two weeks on line 10 and to add within 30 days. Second. Is there any further discussion? What? Me please? Yes. I do like that we're defining what practical is, because I don't think that that should be open to discussion. But I have thought even two weeks was a little bit long, just because we should have most of this stuff at our fingertips. And I don't want investigations to sort of lag, but I'm open to like, like who in an agency or someone has looked at this and said, uh, two weeks is kind of tight. Like, like, where is it coming from? Because it might be reasonable. I just never been on the receiving end of this. My thought was minutes, we don't know they could be a page long or they could be several pages long. Not to capture it like, you know, word for word for batom, but it could be the situation where it could tie up the office focusing on these minutes. And I just think 30 days is a better timeline. And if they're ready within two days, great. But forcing it to two weeks, especially with weekends and possible holidays could create a challenge. Just a thought. OK, any further discussion? All right, so this is a vote on a amendment 2 to amendment 3. All right. Ms. Herod. Chair John. No. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. I appreciate that 30 days is somewhere between as soon as practicable and within two weeks. So I'm a yes. This was no Mr. Youngman. God you guys. Um. It's supposed to be done by the time it gets to me. Um. You know, I I I'm going to stick with the two weeks. I think that most of available in two weeks. So I I appreciate where we're going with it. I'm just happy stuff's available in two weeks so I I appreciate where we're going with it I'm just happy it's being defined but I'm gonna be in no on 30 days. Okay so amendment three to CB 61 20 oh I'm sorry. I'm in two to amendment three fails. Yes. Okay. Any other? No. Okay. Amendment three to CB 61 as amended has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the final amended? So amendment one did pass. Amendment one passed as amended. No, amendment one, go amendment three. Amendment one, two, amendment three. Amendment one, two, amendment three. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, passed. OK, no discussion. All right, Ms. Herod. Will you call the vote on amendment three as amended? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Riepie. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Okay. Amendment 3 passes. All right. Amendment 4 to CB 61. Second. Ms. Sager. Sure. Amendment 4 broadens the prohibition against a former county executive from serving as the 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, 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 61 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion, remarks about amendment four? All right. Ms. Herrod, can you please call the vote on amendment four? Chair Young. Yes, this was one of the two amendments that I actually appreciated from the county executive. So yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Raype? Yes. Miss Walsh? Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right, amendment four passes. Amendment. Let's see, we are. I moved to approve amendment 5 to CB 61. Second. Okay. Amendment 5 to CB 61 has been moved and seconded is there any discussion? Does anybody have? Did you want me to say what the amendment does? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. So amendment five adds to the list of reasons that the Inspector General could be removed. From office, the adds the reason failure to maintain certification. So, go ahead, Mr. Young. I actually like this amendment because having this certification is a requirement of the job. But you know, if you let your amendment or you let your certification lapse for a week, is that like grounds? So I would be much happier if there was interest in approving this amendment, but saying, you know, for 90 days or something like that, you know, like, let's be reasonable. If somebody's just obstinate, I'm not gonna get my certification redone that's grounds if they just screwed up and didn't take the class or whatever. I know. So. I mean, my feeling about this is that adding this certification requirement is as low a bar as the county executive could find to actually terminate the IG and that this is that the idea of maintaining certification is already discussed in this bill. And the IG is required to maintain certification. So there's no reason to put this in as an extra. I think that there is enough of a reference to this elsewhere in the bill. And the four cause section of this bill that lists the number of reasons why the IG can be terminated or for things like mouth feasings, neglect of duty, commission of a felony. These are things that really are meaningful. That's what four causes. Failure to retain a certification. That's like a gotcha. I'm going to get you now because you aren't certified. So yeah, I don't support this at all. Miss Walsh. My reading of it was that the circumstance you described Mr. Youngman would be encompassed within a neglect of duty that already exists in the listing of why an inspector general could be removed. And I think that neglect of duty addresses the issue of the obstinate inspector general who's like, I don't care, you know, I do what I want versus someone who may have let it lapse for five or seven days or whatever. I don't, you know, whether it's five or seven or 90. I also don't want to put out there that there would be some acceptance of not being certified. You know, I'd be worried that if we said there's a time period in which you cannot be certified that that's not really the right message. So to me, you know, first read of this, I was like anything that we would be concerned about would be included within the existing cause which is neglected to be Yes, did you Yeah, yeah, I just wanted to just point out that this section that is under is Basically for the inspector general board Advisory board is called, that their recommendation to the county council, not that the actual removal would happen immediately. So it would just be the recommendation to the county council after which two thirds would it would take. So another one I'm saying is if this was added in here, that would require the board to make the recommendation but the county council would still have to take action. And I'm looking at the board has to take action. Well, they don't. It just gives them the right to take action, right? Is that right? Okay. I think you're, you might be a little confused here because thanks to the passage of amendment to the citizen board now will be terminating the inspector general, not the county council. So the citizen board will not only hire the inspector general, which is how we originally had it, and terminate the Inspector General, which is how the Council originally agreed. But now, because of the vote taken on amendment two, this will mean that the County Council will have no role in that. Sure, young. Could we ask the office of law? Like, if that board, if cause, is sort of that list of things that we're proposing to add this to, what's the relationship between that and just sort of the general requirements of the job? Like, is failure to meet the requirements of the job. Like, is failure to meet the requirements of the job, really malfeasance, or is it just... I do wanna make sure that if somebody just doesn't wanna get their certification, and it's a requirement of the job, that the citizens board has the right to consider that cause to at least consider termination. Off the hip, I tend to agree that if one of the job requirements is that you maintain a certification with some organization and you don't do that, then if the board wants to act on that and say, we're going to remove you, there's plenty of room in the concept of duty in terms of what this person is going to be obligated to do that the board could act if it wanted to, but it will be up to the board. So it seems like we support this being a reason of cause, but it's duplicative to have to say it again. Is that where we're going? Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? All right, Ms. Herod, can you please? Yeah, I just wanted to just clarify. So a amendment to passing. Took all power away from the county council. Yeah, but it still says the word may. And I believe Mr. Youngman mentioned that. In other words, what I'm trying to get at is, what would the action be from the Inspector General Advisory Board for clauses one through six or seven, if it's added? They may fire or remove, but it doesn't say that they have to. So adding any clause in here, what would that change? You know what I'm saying? Do not understand what you're saying. Okay, so the way the conversation amongst us happened was that it seemed as if the Inspector General citizen board, if any of these things fails or if any of these things are in violation of that an immediate removal would happen. And that's not how I read it because the word may is there. Am I wrong? I don't know what you're looking at. I'm sorry. Looking at the bill. But what page number? OK, so I'm looking at CB61. Yes, I know that. What page are you looking at? I'm looking at amendment two to CB61, which was passed early this evening, on page two, in this section that we are just discussing, which refers to page eight of the bill and going into page nine. We are currently discussing amendment five, which talks about inserting failure to maintain certification at the top of page nine, but that paragraph comes from the bottom of page 9. But that paragraph comes from the bottom of page 8. So that's where I was. And you're just with your question to the Office of Law? No, I just wanted to clarify that. We knew what we were talking about in terms of what a amendment two did to the bill. That's all It was stated that All power was taken away from the county council and in the hiring Information of the inspector general. Yes, but what I added to it was since the word May is still there and the different things that are outlined for the board, outlined for the board to do, that if this amendment passes amendment five, if they wish to take action, they may, or they may not, because as Mr. Youngman stated, certification laps for a a day a week a month and they got it together for whatever reason That's all just wanted to clarify what we were discussing Okay, is there anything further? Any other comments? Yes, I've already bought to me and shall so Stay not it all right, so amendment five This here can you please call the vote on amendment five to CB61 chair young No, Dr. Jones yes Miss Riggby I Hear the duplicative argument and I'm inclined to agree with it. Though I will say I found this to be quite innocuous as an amendment. I did not find it to be untoward or excessive or an overreach. To me it was a helpful suggestion in the list. My vote is no. Thank you. Ms. Walsh? No. Mr. Youngman. Same as Kristiana said. If we're already covered, it's, I support it, but you know, it's already covered so many. All right. Amendment 5 fails. Moving on to Amendment 6. I move to approve Amendment 6 to CB 61. Second. What lovely things do we have here in Amendment 6? You have one to this step. Oh, there's an amendment 1. I think that's been super lovely. I have a amendment to it. All right. I move to approve Amendment 1 to Amendment 6. Second. Thank you. What? I was going to check. They moved. They did move amendment 6. Okay. It was made in second. Yeah. So now we're on to the amendment. Do you want to go ahead and explain it? The amendment 6. Amendment 6. Okay. Amendment 6 makes changes to the duties of the Office of Inspector General, providing that the powers of the Inspector General are subject to state and federal law, providing that the Inspector General may issue citations for any violation of the subtitle. That's really just repeating that concept which is elsewhere in the bill. May technical changes to discipline provision in order to refer to the specific code provisions that govern discipline. Providing that an individual who is subject to a report shall receive a copy of the report. And providing that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, and employees of the office or county employees. Okay, I move, we'll pretend like we're doing this again. I move amendment one to amendment six. Second. Thank you. Okay. So, my amendment one to amendment six, which I wish I could find here, but there are at this point too many pieces of paper. But I removed the proposed language that provides the powers of the Inspector General. Thank you. Somebody found it that strikes the technical, there's a technical correction to the provision that the IG may issue citations for any violation of the subtitle. And we substituted for this subtitle section 22.1203D. And we did the same again when the word subtitle was again mentioned and that was upon legal advice. So I thought, do you agree with that Miss Seger? I see you nodding. I mean, I see where that's happening in the amendment to amendment six in lines five and nine In lines five and nine that's right. Yeah, yep lines five and nine So the first time. Or after the word subtitle, I'm sorry, including without limitation, issuing citations for any violation of this subtitle. And we are putting in that section 22.1203D. Mr. Cook, I just want to make sure that we are correct on that substitution. As I read the amendment to the amendment, the amendment to six would provide for civil enforcement through a citation for the three things that a personnel action could be brought. If someone's lying, someone's refusing to cooperate or is retaliating. The bill has introduced talks about bringing personnel action. The Administration's amendment talks about adding to that concept that the enforcement mechanisms for civil citation, which is basically Title 24, but it covers anything that is enforceable in this new subtitle. So the amendment to six brings it back to just those three things that an employee could be, have a personnel action brought against them as originally set out by the council in the bill, basically lying, not cooperating or retaliating. Thank you. Yes. So amendment 6, as proposed, expands the Inspector General's authority? As proposed, well we had actually a lengthy discussion about this as well. And it appears as if there is nobody really named in the statute itself as to who can enforce civil violations. And this portion of this amendment appears to make it clear that it's the inspector general who can enforce civil violations. By referencing the specific section that you have in the amendment. That was initially what they initially were trying to do and then yes and then we changed it to make sure that it was referencing the appropriate place. Okay, thank you. That was the original, Miss Sager, the original amendment was what I just described. Is that correct? That you were attempting in this original amendment to ensure that the Inspector General was capable of issuing citations for violations of the subtitle, which means civil violations of the subtitle. Correct. And there was nobody specifically listed in this piece of legislation who could issue those violations. Right, I mean, what amendments? So the county executive said this is who could do it, that the inspector general could do it. Right. So amendment 6 is using kind of standard citation language that we see elsewhere in the code and putting it in this subtitle. Right. That's- that was also my understanding. And so then we got a clarification just as to one section of this adding this particular code section. It's a little complicated. Isn't it circular? I mean aren't we in 12.03 on page 11 line 4? I'm looking to you, Mr. Cook. Yes and no. The original bill talked about the original bill, page seven, I'm sorry, original bill, page 11 talks about disciplining an employee for three bad acts, basically not cooperating with an IG investigation. Characterizes those as class-a violations. Okay, that's a title 24 of the code, you issue a civil citation, you impose a monetary penalty against the person for the violation. The IG would do that and if the person didn't pay, we'd take them to court on behalf of the IG, if the IG asks us to. The amendment, as it came in, broadened the scope to the entire subtitle. And there was no other provision in this subtitle as proposed, except for this subsection on page 11, so that I think is the intent of the amendment to this amendment to tie it back to enforcing the code through Title 24 for a violation of one of these three rules. And the language that Ms. Sager is talking about is the standard language that you'll find in any subtitle, public works, planning a zone, whatever it is, basically read something like, you know, in addition to or alternatively to the code enforcement official, a bring issue a civil citation for a violation of different provisions in a subtitle being a class A or B or whatever. There is no such thing in this new subtitle for the IG except for this one section dealing with employees. So does the amendment 6 as proposed still authorizes the IG 2. I guess this was my first question is, Amendment 6 is more expansive in terms of the Inspector General's authority than it would be if amended, pursuant to Amendment 1. Yes and no. Oh, man. No, well, I say yes because at least on its face it appears to be so, but there's no other provision in the subtitle currently other than page 11 that refers to any action being a class-a violation. So it's not clear what in the subtitle would be enforceable other than this provision. Okay. Okay. Um, that was a amendment one to a amendment six. And the this amendment also strikes the language on page 10. So page 10, this is a amendment 6. 2, where it starts to the extent permitted by federal and state law. And the reason for striking that language is everything is to the extent permitted by federal and state law. And that particular paragraph is about the IG having the right to obtain full and unrestricted access to all records and files maintained by all officials, agents and employees of the county and all offices, departments, institutions, etc., etc., and that appeared to me to be surpurfuless and somewhat threatening language. As a way to start off a paragraph that literally lists the things that the IG can do and have access to. So this particular amendment also strikes that language. Yes, Dr. Jones. Yeah. Not to negate or what you just said, but I'm curious if Miss Sager would not answering for amendment 6, was that the intent? The intent of that to the extent language is really to refer to things like the Maryland Public Information Act. Which is already referred to a couple of times in this statute, in this legislation, previously. So really was superfluous. If I may, I believe this is the third time where we are as a body discussing whether something is being superfluous or repetitive. I see no problem with being as defined as we possibly can. To an extent, we can always, or we or future council can always change something. Right a bill, whether it's one line or a whole section. I don't see anything wrong with making sure we get this right. As I stated earlier, even if it means there's language later in the bill that may refer to something that was mentioned earlier. I don't say anything wrong with that. And I don't even see that happening here, but this is like the third time we've discussed that. I just wanted to just point that out. Any other comments? Okay. Then we will vote on amendment. Sorry. Wait, did you go through all of the, what on page two, strike lines four and five is the last line of amendment one. Wait, I lost my amendment six against it. I think it's just line four and up in five, which strike in the business. So I was... In certain. Yeah, so I was yeah, so I was curious. Trion, what was your concern with that insertion? Because I think that's what you're trying to strike the word individual before County. That came from up to law today. Okay. This is the who would receive a copy of the report, right? Page 14 line. No, no, yeah. That was one of them in this comments today. Page 12, line 12. Over page 12. Line 12. So before issuing such reports, the Inspector General will give the County Department, and this Amendment 6 adds individual County Department. But will... Individual County Department Office. and this Amendment 6 adds individual county department. But- Individual county department office. Oh, it's individual comma. Individual comma. Striking individual. I thought that the comment from Officer Law was that at no time is an individual, a target of an investigation. That is correct. That is with the officer. Even if it's an individual, it's always the agency that they work for right and Don't get that right. Yes, you did. Okay. Thank you. Thank you And David McClendon also was very clear about not oh That's giving the individual a copy or involving them from that perspective, but rather to make sure that it's the department. And then the department director obviously can involve the individual as he or she sees that. Ms. Rigby. So in the past we've had situations where reports are supposed to be directed to an entity, but they've instead been directed to individuals. And I think ultimately that's, I mean that would be where my concern is, but I don't think that this section is going to address that because ultimately we have to rely on this judgment of the person who has extraordinary and unparalleled power. And we need them to be judicious and wise and thoughtful in their actions. So it's tough because on one hand, we have a situation in where an individual, whether or not you would say that maybe the pursuit was in the entity, but the action was in the individual. But I don't know that this is going to prevent that kind of misbehavior. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Now, okay, Ms. Herit. Can you please call the vote on Amendment 1-2-1-6? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Miss Riffy. No. Miss Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 1-2-1-6 passes. Can we please call? Is there any further discussion? Yes, please. Okay. I did wonder why it was necessary in the final proposed revision of Amendment 6 on page two line six and seven to state that the office and its collective staff are county employees. What is the purpose of that? Hold on. Yeah, we're seeing different things here. I'm going to go back to the next slide. Yeah. We're seeing different. If I could recall correctly, that's to just ensure that provisions of the county code, provisions of, you know, the employee manual would apply to these employees as well as county employees. I mean, what else could there be? I don't know. I don't know how to say it. But yeah, it is what it is. Let's just move on. Well, sorry. I was just, so where it's going specifically is the Inspector General may appoint such other employees to insist in the conduct of the office as may be provided in the adopted budget. So I do think that they need to be marked as something because they're not under the legislative branch and they're not under the executive branch but they're an establishment within our charter. Right? within our charter Right Like they're not in our charter under the executive as employees and they're not under the legislative branch as employees, but we Need to say that they are county employees even if they're not under the executive branch or the legislative branch. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm back to office of law. Sorry. I thought we had already covered this early on, and it was already covered that everybody's county employee. They're not contractors. I'm not going to get into the policy issues of why this is there. I would agree with you. They're getting paid by the county. They're doing work that the county legally requires to be done. They're at the direction and control of somebody who's appointed by a county board. I forget how the advisory board gets constituted in light of amendment two, but some of those members are on that board through the council and some of those members are on the board through the executive. Is that how the board set up? Yes. We haven't gotten there yet. However it ends up being constituted, there is some elected official who has power over that board in terms of appointment of the board members themselves. So I wouldn't necessarily say that all these folks are like not under one of the other branches. We're all sort of under the county government, which is controlled by the council and the executive branch. So that's the only thing I can say about it. Because we already went through the drill of who was going to be exempt and who was going to be classified somewhere else in the bill. I'm happy to make a motion for an amendment two, two amendments six. What would that be? I'm trying to explain something. Line two, pages six and seven to get rid of that statement about the inspector general, the deputy inspector general, and staff of the inspector general or county police. And the reason would be because it's superfluous? Superfluous, yeah. I mean, I don't know what the other option would be. I don't mean. Yes. I mean, I don't care if it's in there or not. It sounds like it's already in there. But whatever you guys say. It was added through that amendment. But no, get Gary saying is that it's already part of the bill Right, we've already addressed like you can't be classified or exempt unless you're a county employee that kind of goes unced Sorry, so just to clarify we have a amendment six as amended by amendment one and Then as well. She's just proposed an amendment to To a amendment six. I thought it did. Yes, you did move it all seconded. Okay. And this amendment two to amendment six, whoop, there goes my earring. On page two, striking line six and seven. Correct. Thank you. All right. Does anybody want to discuss that any further? Or can we go? I just want to take a moment to look at the new amendment with the bill, if you may. If I may. I appreciate it. Are you okay? Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 has been moved and seconded. Ms. Herkin, you please call the vote. Chair John. Yes. Dr. Jones. Epstein. Ms. Frigbee. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Epstein. Ms. Frigbee. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 2 to amendment 6 passes. Okay. Amendment 6 as amended by amendment 1 and amendment 2 is now moved forward. I move amendment 6 as amendment by as amended by one in two for a vote Chair John yes, Dr. Jones yes Mr. Red yes misslaw. Yes, Mr. Youngman. Yes All right a amendment six as amended by amendment one and amendment two Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 6, as amended by Amendment 1 and Amendment 2, passes. On to Amendment 7. I move to approve Amendment 7 to CB 61. Second. All right. This amendment just clarifies the section on advisory letters. And this was literally good advice from Dave McClendon in response to a question that Ms. Rigby asked at our last work session on amendments. And it specifically incorporates the suggestions that we got from Mr. McClendon at that work session. The first part of the amendment is similar to part of Mr. McClendon's amendment one and it gives the IG the flexibility to publish or not publish advisory letters. And the second part allows for a response process. Okay, is there any discussion on amendment seven? All right, none. Okay, Ms. Harris, can you please call the vote on amendment seven. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Recki? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Ms. Reckiungman? Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Recki? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Ms. Regan-Menned. Yes. All right. Amendment 7 passes. Amendment 8 to CB 61. I move to approve amendment 8 to CB 61. Second. Ms. Sager. Amendment 8 provides that the advisory board will also make recommendations on the budget in addition to reviewing the budget and it provides that any change requested to appropriations from the prior fiscal year will require justification not just decreases. Okay, is there any discussion? None. Okay Miss Herod, will you please call the vote on a amendment eight chair young no Dr. Jones yes Miss Riepie yes miss Walsh no Mr. Youngman yes Yes. All right. Amendment 8 passes. All right. Amendment 9. I move to approve Amendment 9 to CB 61. Second. Okay. Ms. Sagar. So amendment nine specifies that for the advisory board each council member will appoint one member and the county executive will appoint two members. All right, amendment nine to CB61 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Well I will start it off and say I see absolutely no reason possible why the county executive should get to people to select to put on the citizen board. He's no more special as a elected official than the five of us we each get one and I think that that's fine. I have an amendment 10 that would allow for each of the council members to have one specific appointment. The county executive to have one specific appointment and the seventh person would be selected at large from the submissions that we would get from the public. I think that that is probably the best compromise situation that we have right now. And I can see no reason to proceed forward with a amendment nine. Mayor? Yes. I, in reading the bill, and I'm going to read the two lines, we'll all just read the whole section. So on page 15, section 22.1300 lines 18 through 21 says the Inspector General, citizen board, Inspector General Advisory Board, shall be comprised of seven members appointed by the county council, by council, resolution from a selection of names put forth by each council member and the county executive. Right now there are five council members. The county executive is one person and the language already says seven members. I read this not to be combative, but to clarify that someone would be recommended by a council member, that's five, and the county executive would have two. It just deferred as I've been saying all night, it defines clearly and concisely what the county council is proposing and what some future county council or future solicitor or future person could clearly understand from reading this document some day in the future. I see nothing wrong with this amendment because all it does is clarify what it already says. Again, what it says is seven members appointed by the county council from a selection of names put forth by each council member and the county executive. Sounds like five plus two to me already. Does that mean a county council member puts forth seven names and everyone else says, oh yeah, that's cool. No, I mean clearly defining it, we could add an amendment to define it another way or vote it down and talk about it, but having clear definitions tonight would help not only us, but somebody in the future, some entity, truly understand what we're trying to do here tonight. I don't think any of these amendments are combative. I don't think any of these amendments are negating trying to negate the bill. I don't think any of these amendments, including amendments from the bill sponsors, are meant to be malicious. I just think we should have a smooth, easy discussion and get through this bill to handle other matters tonight. Yes, well I would like to mention that during our work sessions we discussed extensively how those seven names would get published or get to the citizen advisory board which now would have the only role actually in hiring the inspector general because of our previous, because of this council's previous vote. And what we discussed was that we would submit names, the county executive could submit names as many as he wanted, that the county council could submit names as many as they wanted, and that we would also be getting names from the public. That we would take that group of names, and we would have the human resources department make a first cut to see who actually fulfilled the criteria that we also set out that the individuals would have to meet in order to sit on the citizen advisory board. And from that we would create some sort of chart that from which the five council members would pick the seven citizen advisory board members. We didn't legislate every step of the process. Instead, what we talked about was coming up with something more specific administratively after this legislation was passed. Yes, but that discussion could ultimately end in each council member choosing their person from the list, one or two. Right. So the point I'm making is, to me, it's more clarifying and not necessarily negating or combative. The sense I'm feeling is, and I may not be alone, that if an amendment comes from someone that's not on this day is that it's somehow negating or something malicious, nefarious, or something. And I just don't see it like that. But that's just me. I could be wrong. I'm only one person. But I just think that in understanding these amendments and trying to talk through them this evening, I would just like to have a kind of even keel on how we talk about these amendments. I've heard language of threatening, I've heard language that to me is just inappropriate understanding these amendments, especially for the public who's paying attention. That's all. Yes, Mr. Youngman. I said, I think the very first time we had a public discussion about this, that I didn't want this to be executive branch controlled or legislative branch controlled. And I wanted both sides to have their hands in this. I actually read the bill erroneously, which I apologize to everybody. And I viewed it as we're all getting appointments because that's what I had in my head. Once I realized the way it was going to work, I didn't think the county executive's amendment was necessarily overstepping, but I agree with what the compromise is, which is amendment 10. And so we're talking about amendment 9 now. I'm just going to put out there that I'm going to vote no one amendment 9. And yes, on amendment 10, I would like the executive branch to have a role in putting that board together. But I'm more comfortable with them having the one vote and the seventh coming from you know the list or the body or whatever and I do think that some of us may choose our person from the resumes that come in as well so that's not an exclusive thing it's just that those six appointments will be like we do everything else it's like you know get, we kind of get our person and as long as they're reasonable, they get confirmed. So that's all. And I appreciate the work that the chair did and the sponsor did on getting to amendment 10 and the compromise. Any other, yes? I'm with Mr. Youngman and Dr. Jones on this. I, we're very purposeful in the charter amendment language to make sure that it would be or could be a process that was jointly administered. That was something that was important. At least, well, to me and I know to others in this discussion. Two members is less than one-third of the total board. And I think perhaps most importantly, we are not five individuals when we sit up here or one body. So we're not entitled to five individual appointments because we're, we don't function as individuals. We only function, we only can take action, we only exist as a body. And so, so that's another reason that I feel so strongly about this because I think to have five, I think five individual appointments is still more than shared power. And if you're looking at sort of the umbrella of county government that Mr. Cook referred to earlier, you almost have the pillar of support of the executive and departments, and then you have the umbrella as the county council oversight. But we're not individual spokes of the umbrella, we're the whole net. And so to me, and it's tough, because we are ultimately individuals, but we're required, our duty is to work as a body. The process that's outlined in Amendment 9 is very clear. It is, it does not leave room for sort of back room conversations and deals and I just want to be clear. We are not talking about anybody that's currently in office. We're setting up these procedures to exist long after we're gone. And so it's important that we set up the best procedures possible and the best systems and structures possible. I have a lot of concerns about how we're going to pick that one person that is detailed in Amendment 10. We are nearing our second hour of this meeting. You know, I'm not sure how we're going to get there on that individual. And so to me having a very clear process that where the executive branch has two appointments and the legislative branch has five appointments, I think that that's, I don't even think it's balanced, I think it's just a step towards balance. So that's where I'm at on this. All right, yes, Dr. Jones. And I also, I read it earlier, but I'll say it again, that this would be by Council resolution, which we all have to vote on as a body to piggyback on what Ms. Rigby just stated. None of us get to a point of person that automatically becomes this person. We bring forth names whether we pick a person or it's from a selection of names and we still have to vote for it by resolution as a body. None of us can do anything alone in terms of these bills. It's voted on as a body. Okay, any further comments? All right, Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote on amendment nine? Chair young no Dr. Jones yes, Miss Rigby yes Miss Walsh no Mr. Youngman no all right amendment nine fails I move to approve amendment 10 Second all right I move to approve amendment 10. Second. All right. Amendment 10 is what I just described as we were talking about amendment 9, which is the compromise between our original bill in which the county council would appoint all seven members of the citizen board and what the county executive put forth where the county council would appoint all seven members of the citizen board and what the county executive put forth where the county executive would have two members of the citizen board and the county council would have five. This allows for six members of the citizen board to be appointed by the six elected individuals, the five county council members, and our elected county executive. And it also then allows that the final member of the citizen advisory board would be selected from the group as a whole. And by the county council, I will add. All right, is there any discussion? Yes, Dr. Jones. Yeah, I just like to state that I see no difference between amendment 10 and amendment nine in terms of it being voted on by Council Resolution. I just wonder if the same discussion will happen with this amendment because it's literally the same because we have to vote as a council. So whether we pick a name individually and then we come together to pick a sixth name versus picking a name individually in that seventh person is picked by some other entity. We still vote by Council Resolution. Yes, we do. Okay. Any other discussion? Yes, Mr. Young? I own paper and technically I actually agree, but the way I envision it is hopefully the way we've done it in the past where even though it's by council resolution there somewhat courtesy appointments I think our body we just talked about it a few weeks ago has failed to vote through someone's chosen person like very nominal times over the last six. So I wouldn't have viewed the two members, the county executive, had chosen as like up for a ton of debate. As long as they met minimum requirements, I would have been compelled to put them through. So I do think it's a little bit different. From what it's worth, I envision a process for this seventh person, which we haven't really talked about similar to what we just sort of went through with the other open position we have, where if we've got 10 resumes resumes we all score them and rank them and Michelle List them out and you know whoever the winner is the winner is you know, it's just I don't I don't know I think that The five of us sitting in a room trying to sort through ten or twelve resumes could Take till you know next year. So anyway, I know that's not a policy yet, but that's just my two cents. I agree. All right. Any further discussion? No, okay. Ms. Herod, can you please call the vote on amendment 10? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rathie. It is really important that we are setting these structures up for future bodies. And the irony that this decision was made, you know, in the way that it was, it's not lost on me. My vote is no. Ms. Walls? No. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 10 passes. Amendment 11. I move amendment 11 to CB61. All right, second. So this amendment would follow the model we have for some of the other boards that we have where the county council is where our body in its different forms is delegating a ton of authority to like the board of appeals or they are called by the hearing board and it creates a party balance, not a balance. But this amendment would require of those seven members of the citizens board that at least one be from the Democrat party, one be from the Republican Party, and one be unaffiliated with the Union Party. All right, is there any discussion? Yes. The term at least one is only before the clause of the Democratic Party. Do you mean to say Mr. Youngman at least one of Democrat, at least one member Republican, at least one member who's unaffiliated? Or is it at least referring to just the Democratic Party? Because the way one could read this is that at least one Democrat, and then only one Republican and only one affiliated. You're correct, Dr. Jones, and this is why you don't proofread your own work. Because we might decide that we want five people or unaffiliated voters, and I wouldn't want this to be misconstrued as only allowing one unaffiliated voter. So I would prefer an amendment one to amendment 11 to correct that, I think, just for grammar to say at least one member of each of those three classes. Second. Was that emotion? Yes. And that was seconded by Dr. Jones. Okay. Is there any discussion regarding the correction of grammar? All right. But it is substantive. I think it was just a drafting thing. But yeah, I think that it would be great if you ended up with half dozen unaffiliated voters that just wanted to serve. It seems to be the direction the electorate is going anyway. So. All right. Can we have? There's no further discussion on amendment 1 to amendment 11. Can you please call a vote on amendment 1 to amendment 11? Chair John? Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Mr. Gungman? Yes. All right. Amendment 11 as amended by amendment one. OK. I move to approve amendment 11 as amended by amendment one. It's already been moved in seconded so we just need a right discussion or vote right second Second all right any votes or I'm sorry any discussion about the bill as amended The amendment as amended the amendment as amended. The amendment as amended. The amendment as amended, sorry. That's right, we're still there. I do. Yes. OK. I really dislike this amendment. I think just like the certification for some number of days suggested it's appropriate for there not to be a certification. This suggests to me that there's some agenda or policy that one party versus another will or will not represent or pursue. And I think one of the really significant improvements of this consensus bill from what I filed back in whenever 47 and 48 is the qualifications of this advisory board. That those people themselves are going to have the same integrity and independence and professionalism and all of those good words that the ultimate inspector general will have. And those types of persons typically by design distance themselves from politics. So maybe they have to register one way or the other so they can even participate in a primary or because they don't like, you know, what a party is doing at that given amount of time. But I think putting a qualifier like that in something like this is a mistake. I've actually thought about that. And I, but I, this has been brought up a lot by folks to me specifically. And I do think that there's some parts of this bill and the amendments we're passing that are optics are important too. And I think that there's folks out there that just want to know that they're going to have some, like they think in those terms, not necessarily in the terms of everybody's just sort of this agnostic qualified person. So that's why I decided to run with it and sponsor the amendment. Yes, Ms. Rosh. So I heard those same concerns in 47 and 48 as I have answered them. And I thought it made more sense when we were talking about, you know, regular old citizens. Again, I think in this case where we are requiring a pretty high caliber of qualifications even to be on the advisory board and one that in significant parts overlaps what we're looking for in the ultimate higher that it is a mistake. Still. I see the difference. And I heard those concerns in the first round, but again, I think we've distanced ourselves from that by virtue of a really good improvement from first drafts to what we have before us tonight. Any further discussion? No, okay. This here, can you please call the vote on amendment 11 as a minute. Chair John? Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Reid B. To me, this is much more about the enhancing the trust that the public has in this process. I think that it's one of the most important things that we could be doing as a government, especially as a local government, is restoring that trust. I think that this gives a measure of surety to people who are concerned about that. To me, I agree. It's much less for the operations of this Ford and much more for the people's perception of it. And so my vote is yes. Ms. Walsh? No. Mr. Gengman. Yes. All right. Amendment 11 passes. I move to approve amendment 12 to CB61. Second. Ms. Sager. Sure. So amendment 12 makes changes to the Inspector General Advisory Board. To be consistent with eligibility criteria for the Inspector General, or the length of time of prior county service makes the member ineligible, emitting it from four years to five years, and that's to be consistent with the inspector general position. It provides criteria to determine when a board member has resigned and it explains what for cause means in the context of removing a board member. Okay, thank you, Miss Sager. I move to approve amendment one to amendment 12. Second. All right. This amendment removes the proposed language on criteria for board resignation and removes the proposed explanation of for cause. And the reason for this is the council discussed removal criteria at an open session decided that not attending meetings and operational interference were the most important criteria to set now in this bill, which is what we have already done in this bill. The board also has the ability to set their terms for internal management, which was another consensus decision point by the council, one that we all determined together in our former work sessions. Board members are citizen volunteers and do not need to adhere to the high bar for removal that was set for the IG because the items that were put in for removal are exactly what is in the items for removal for the inspector general. And that's what was also now established in this particular amendment for board members. You might want not, you might not want to bar that high to remove board members. There is no other board that is subjected to such requirements. And it's not clear why the county executive felt it was necessary to create such a hurdle for the board governing themselves. We talked about the board coming up with their own bylaws or policies and procedures. We discussed that at length. Just want to remind my council colleagues and came to consensus that that was how we would let it go forward. And this particular portion of this amendment changes the consensus that we had reached. Now the other portion of this amendment actually I thought was thank you, I appreciate you guys finding this. That was the piece that amends the length of time for prior county service that makes a member ineligible from four to five years because that's what we had also in our bill earlier and that was good catch. So thank you for that. Can I just add one thing? Sure. So the language about removing the board members, I just want to share that that language tracks the charter removal of members of boards and commissions. So it would be consistent with other boards and commissions. That's not what we discussed today. With. Yes. So one of the important provisions of the charter is that we sort of exempted them from all the provisions that affect boards. So we may need, well, many of them. So we may need to add that specificity in. I think that, again, this is a really high bar here, misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform the duties of office, conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, malfeasance, conviction of a felony or neglect of duty. That's what we had in for the IG. And this is a citizen board. These are volunteers. And I guess there was also something that is this where the board was also said that they would be removed. Oh, if they were absent from three consecutive meetings. Well, if they only have two meetings a year, that means that they would be able to be absent for a year and a half. Okay, so we talked about that as a council and said that we needed to let this board determine their own procedures. They may decide to meet four times a year in which case missing three meetings would be significant. They may decide to meet six times a year, I would be surprised, but they may decide that they are only going to meet two times a year, which is what we have right now in the legislation and if that's the case inserting three is simply not doable because it would literally mean that they could miss a year and a half of meetings so I think that's also a problem. Chair. Yeah. So this is consistent with section 903 of the Howard County Charter. It reads a member of any board of commission may be removed from office for cause by the appointing authority with the approval of majority of the entire council. But this is one of, but such members shall first be presented with a written statement, have privilege of a public hearing. A member of any board of commission who shall be absent from three and consecutive regular meetings of such board of commission, unless excused by resolution thereof, she'll be deemed to have vacated his or her office. Vacancies occurring in such office, otherwise, otherwise, then by expiration of the term, shall be filled for the unexpired balance of the term. I mean, that's great, but that's not what this, this is a unique board. They are mainly meet two times a year. So they're only going to meet two times a year, but we give them three absences before they have to resign. That's crazy. I think that, so I've talked about, that I hate these lists because I think once you start being a really prescriptive, then it all becomes almost exclusive. And I was OK with doing it for the IG because we wanted to make it hard to remove that person. We didn't want there to be like catchalls, so to speak. But I mean, climb to give the board or the county council a little bit more leeway to be able to remove someone rather than locking them, even though these are pretty broad. Prescriptive lives are pretty broad. Prescriptive list. These are pretty broad but like sort of like this is the same before that like if I say six months on certification then if at five months why can't I right if that's so I I don't like these lists I think it puts us in a box. I agree and that's not what you just read was for cause, Mr. Rigby, not the list that is here. This was added. It's the three consecutive meetings and the missing of those and not it. I understand the three consecutive meetings, but they only have two in a year. There's just been a lot of inflammatory and accusing language. That is. And so I just want to make sure that people who are watching are aware that this is not from the ether that, you know, where this language comes from. I don't, I don't, it's not a hill I want to die on just to be clear. But I think, but I think it's important to have a clear record. All right, Mr. Walsh, did you want to say something? No. Okay. All right. So this is a amendment one to a amendment 12. Is there any further discussion on amendment one to a amendment 12? No. Okay. any further discussion on amendment one, two amendment 12? No, okay. Yeah, I just want to say with the respect to the three consecutive regular meetings, that's very similar to the discussion we had earlier about the certification. If this is here and a citizen advisory board member knows that they can't miss three consecutive meetings, it keeps them honest about getting to meetings. I don't see anything wrong with that. I do understand the concern with lists because you can expand it, you can contract it. But I at least want to make sure that the three consecutive meetings is there. Whether they meet six times a year or twice a year, we need to make sure that one or two board members just don't totally miss several meetings in a row because there would be nothing clearly defined that would state what would happen to them. They could just be on the board and never come to a meeting. And we just can't presume that the citizen board would create bylaws, which would address that. That's all. Well, I certainly agree with you there, Dr. Jones, but I think that rather than letting the Miss three meetings, if they're only having two meetings a year, they shouldn't be allowed to miss more than one meeting. I mean, that's the bottom bottom line which is why I just I'm not sure that this legislation that our legislation that we filed was as fully understood as it needed to be before putting in this particular amendment. Okay, Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote on amendment 1 to amendment 12. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Ms. Rigby. No. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 1 to amendment 12 passes. So, amendment 12, yes. Amendment one to amendment 12. So, amendment one to amendment 12 has been moved in second and already passed that. So we are on to I move to approve amendment 12 as amended. Are we doing the vote? It's already been moved. It's already been moved. It's already been moved. Okay, so is there a discussion? Is there any discussion about amendment 12 is amended? So basically all it states is that the we're just going from four years to five years now. So amendment 12 just looks like four years to five years. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, so amendment 12 to CB61 as amended has been moved and seconded. And any other discussion? Questions? No. Okay. Ms. Herring, can you please call the vote? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 12, as amended, has passed. All right. Amendment 12, as amended, has passed. All right. Amendment 13 to CB61. That's where we are. Last one. It hasn't got back. Second. Thank you. It has not been moved yet. I'm looking at the script. Getting myself together here. Give me a minute. Okay. I move to approve amendment 13. Second. All right. I move to approve amendment 1 to amendment 13. Second. That's easy. amendment one to amendment 13. Second. All right. Go ahead, Miss Saker. I'm jumping ahead of you. I see this. I've got a lot up here just like you have a lot of room there. So a amendment 13 makes changes to the duties, meetings, and reporting requirements of the Inspector General Advisory Board. Where the board advises the council on its review of investigations, this amendment would add that they would also advise the county executive on review of investigations and other work completed by the office. Amends the quarterly meeting requirement. I'm sorry. Amends the twice a year meeting requirement to be quarterly. And then similar to meeting with the council, this amendment would require the board to meet annually with the county executive to provide an overview of activities. It adds the county executive as a recipient of the board's report. Clarifies that the posted board report shall comply with the Maryland Public Information Act and then corrects a section reference. Chair. Yes. The amendment one to amendment 13 is referencing a page 17, which the amendment 13 is only one page. I don't even have a copy. I'm afraid it might be referencing the bill. My amendment to be honest. Can I have a copy of amendment 13? Thank you. Like line eight of your amendment, it says on page 17, strut, those are in quotes. Yeah, those are inserting more. It's not quite, I missed about the cases. It's proposing a different change online, 17 amendment 13. Yeah, I can't see from here to there. I missed the quotation marks, I'm sorry. All right. I need Lisa's glasses, yeah. So we have moved and seconded amendment one to amendment 13, which is my amendment. So I'll go ahead and explain that. Amendment one, well first, I do support the county executives that the board shall revise the county executive on its review of investigations and other work completed by the office. My amendment does amend how often the board shall meet because I again go back to I think the board should determine how often it's going to mean. The council decided after much discussion that we would ask the citizen advisory board to meet at least twice a year. And if we're going to change that, I think the citizen advisory board should be the entity that makes that change, not the county executive. The board shall meet annually with the county executive to provide an overview of activities. Similar to its meeting with the council, I think that that's appropriate, but I do have amendments to that particular portion. And adds the last major substantive change that the county executive put in was adding the county executive as a recipient of the Board's report. And I also support that. So this amendment would remove the quarterly meetings and it would go to these pages, page 17, it would strike meeting annually with the county council and the county executive jointly and then it would add on line 17 that the county executive would meet with that the county council and the county executive would meet jointly with the board, by the citizen advisory board. Yes. I supported this amendment, especially, I, the bill as originally written didn't really have any mechanism for the county executive to meet Which I I thought was a miss. I'm an I didn't realize it, but I don't I don't want The IG and to meet pro like just mono Imano with the county executive I mean our our meaning with the IG is gonna have to be an open meeting. So I appreciate that. They're not like the executive branch is now included, but included in the same meeting will all meet with the IG together and have the benefit of that open discussion among all of us. So I think that's a good amendment. Thank you. Both combined are a good amendment. Thank you. Both combined or a good amendment. Yes, Dr. Jones. Yeah, I just wanted to mention, you mentioned earlier that the meeting. So the original amendment 13 is attempting to strike twice a year in substitute quarterly. You mentioned that the meetings should be determined by the board and not the county executive. What did you mean by that? You mean dis amendment? Well, what we said was that the citizen advisory board shall meet at least twice a year. At least twice a year. And that it should be up to the citizen advisory board. If they want to meet more. The determine how many times they want to twice a year. At least twice a year. Right. And that it should be up to the citizen advisory board. If they want to meet more. To determine how many times they want to meet a year. Okay. So this amendment by the county executive is attempting to say you will meet quarterly. And they might want to meet quarterly, but they might not have a need to meet quarterly. I don't think most citizen boards do meet that frequently. That's the impression I got from Mr. McClendon. So I think it should be up to the citizen board to make those decisions. Okay, thank you. Excuse me, Chair Young. We believe there may be a version control on what was printed and distributed for a amendment one to amendment 13. Okay. So if we could, if we could request a brief recess. That would be fine because I'm looking at it too wondering if everything is here that was there. Yeah. That I'm remembering we discussed was there. Yeah, that I'm remembering. We discussed. Yeah. Yeah. It's the amendment one to amendment 13. Okay. We're not certain if the paper will take a we'll take a brief five minute. Yeah. Yeah, really fast. Miss. So I you know, I for years I haven't looked at paper. The one that's on. Is that correct? Or- We are confirming. We need a few minutes to confirm. Okay, thank you. It is what time? 926? Oh, it's a good thing we went first on this bill. Okay. All right. We will be back at, let's give ourselves a 10 minute break. Okay, 936. Here. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Hello people. Yeah, I'm trying to get to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. All right, we're back. Finishing up our three. on council bill 61. Yeah we have started. Okay we have started ladies in gentlemen. We are back. All right so there was a mistake on the last amendment and so I am going to withdraw that amendment and then I'm going to move a second amendment. So I moved to withdraw amendment one to amendment 13. And I withdraw my second. All right. And I move amendment two to amendment 13. Second. All right. And it basically says the same thing that we've already discussed, which is that the board, inserting the words, the board shall meet annually with the county council and the county executive jointly, to provide an overview of activities. And then again, substituting annually with the county council, meeting annually with the county council, and the county executive jointly. So that those are the primary changes to amendment 13. And I know we started discussion, Yes, Mr. Youngman. How are we going to handle the if requested? I struck that. I believe I struck that. So we're going to strike that entirely and just say the meeting is happening. Yes, yep. The meeting is happening. Good. Got it. So we can make sure of that. All right, any further discussion? Okay? Yes. I have a quick question. With respect to this meeting, this meeting that with the amendment 2 to the amendment 13 with the County Council to the amendment 13, with the county council and the county executive. Mr. Youngman mentioned not having the IG and the county executive meet one-on-one. Is that the meeting for, is that the reason for the joint meeting with the county council and the county executive? Yes. Or is it some other reason I'm saying is because as a legislative body, we may have different discussions than the county executive would have or another branch of government or another entity of the county. And it just may be a different kind of feel to the meeting. Well, this is the citizen advisory board. And this is where they are reporting to the county council and the county executive and it seems to me that it's duplicative efforts on behalf of the citizen advisory board if they're meeting separately and also the county executive isn't subject to the same need open meetings act. So I felt that this was kind of a amendment, that good government transparency kind of a amendment. And since that's what the IG bill is supposed to be about, that it made sense to put it in here. So let me ask to play a little bit of devil's advocate. Can the board meet with one county council member? So let me ask to play a little bit of devil's advocate can the Board meet with one county council member? No The citizen advisory board would not be able they shouldn't be able to I mean I suppose there's gonna have to be policies and Procedures, but I would say no that they would not Okay Why not there's no there's actually no I would say no that they would not. Okay. Why not? There's no, there's actually no, nothing in here that says that the council, individual council member could do that. Rather the council can meet as a body with the citizen advisory board. So could the council member meet with one or two board members just to check? Could or would that be found upon or would that be like non-transparent? I think the only interaction that is anticipated by this bill. Oh I was going to say hiring and firing but we're now longer doing that I keep forgetting because that amendment passed. Would have been the interaction that the board would have had or yes that the board would have had with the council in the hiring and the termination and now the only interaction that's in this legislation where the board would have any kind of meeting with the county council is this annual meeting where they would share their report with the county council. There would be no other reason for the board to meet with the council or meet individually with the council either Could a county council member attend the meeting of the citizens of the meeting absolutely and they are supposed to conduct open meetings So it's two meetings that are required required right now or open meetings anybody can attend Okay, the reason not of my questioning was going back to something we mentioned earlier about the term interference and how I was unclear on what that meant. What it wasn't defined in two, in terms of having discussions, I just didn't understand how that would be different than a meeting per se. Granite, a meeting in open with the entire county council and the account executive or whoever else wants to come is fine. But I just wanted to get at that because to me that's still not clear. I can't put my finger right on it, but I know that it does say in the bill something about interference with the operations of the Inspector General. And the operations include investigations, report writing, meaning with witnesses. I mean all the things that the Inspector General does in carrying out her job. So it would be interference with any of those items. So in that case, a county council member or two could me with the board? If they weren't interfering, if it wasn't, I mean, if they were just meeting with them to say, how's your day? I mean, I can't, I'm trying to picture an instance where a county council member would want to meet with a citizen advisory board member. And it wasn't about a case. It wasn't about an investigation. Or it wasn't about the Inspector General, him or herself. And since the county council does not have a role in the hiring and termination of the inspector general, other than saying I don't like what they're doing, which would be considered interference, I don't know what other role a county council member would have in meeting with a board member. So should the county council member, in this case, county executive avoid, not only the IG, but the board members as well? I would think that it would be who him to do so. But I say that, and I think that if there's something that the inspector general sees and wants to give a heads up to the county executive that that seems appropriate. That wouldn't be operational interference. And the example that I used in one of our work sessions was an inspector general here in Maryland who meets not infrequently and not frequently, but not infrequently with the county executive to talk about trends that she might see. And I say she because three of our inspector generals out of three or females, but trends or some other matter that not an investigation in and of itself, but let's say she was hearing that cars were being crashed at a really high level by DPW workers. And she might tell the county executive, hey, I think this looks like it's a problem. And I don't have a claim or nobody has asked me to investigate it, but you might want to look into it. And it may not even be true. It may not even be that cars being crashed at a really high level. But once the county executive says, yeah, well, okay, I'll take a look at it and then does. I mean, there are times when an inspector general can have a conversation with a county executive and it's not something I think that would be considered a horrible thing or like well really operational interference which is really the bottom line. Is it operational interference? If it is, then it's inappropriate. If it's not, then the conversation could go forward. Yes. Isn't the point that in your example, the IG suggested the meeting to talk about trends, and the IG did not feel like in that situation that was interference. And they might ask with us or asked me with one council member because they have a particular interest or something in their district. But it's sort of at the discretion of the IG. The context of what you're we're talking about in the amendment is the required meeting that we don't want to subject that IG to, you know, monthly meetings, update me on this, update me on that, type that. Right. Because then we're looking once again at potential operational. It's either interference or at best just micromanaging. And it's just like, I don't know what the IG's sitting in meetings once a month. Well, and the IG isn't supposed to be meeting every month to update the county executive on whatever is going on. That's not the purpose. The IG is supposed to remain independent. Okay. Let's call the vote on amendment 2 to amendment 13. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Ms. Frickby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Okay. Amendment 2 to amendment 13 has passed. Let's call the vote on amendment 13, or does anybody else have anything they would like to say about this? No. Okay, let's call the vote on amendment 13 as amended by amendment 2. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Dr. Youngby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment 13 has passed. Now there's one more matter, I think. Ms. Walsh. I move to reconsider amendment two to Council Bill 61. Second. Ms. Harry, can you please call the vote on the motion No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No The question is for Mr. Cook and I should probably have asked it. Is it debate on reconsider? The underlying motion was a motion to approve amendment 2, so because that was debatable, the motion to reconsider is debatable. Okay. If the body wants to discuss it, it can't. I know we started voting already, but I wanted to have a moment to discuss it. OK. Any discussion on the motion to reconsider? Yeah, I was just wondering why was that. Come on. That's all. I was just a purpose. Yeah, why? Sorry. I was operating under the assumption that it was not debatable. So the reason why is I still intend to support amendment 2 in general. For all of the reasons I said in the initial vote, but I did realize that unlike the situation that was established in the original consensus bill here, appointment in amendment two requires a two-thirds majority of the advisory board, whereas I would like to propose an amendment where a simple majority of the advisory board can put that inspector general in place. And that is- And keep it two-thirds for termination. Correct, just like it was for council before. So, I'm not going it oversight on my part. And so that is the amendment. I will probably very clumsily be a key. So what you're saying is if the motion to reconsider amendment to passes and it's up for debate again, the approval of it, you would submit an amendment to that amendment to change that. Yes. OK. And is the concern that just it might be, it's just will be hard for five people to decide of the same person. That I would like installation to happen and be easier to accomplish than removal. So sometime before like 2020. Ideally yes. Sorry. So that would be five out of seven versus four out of seven. The simple majority is four out of seven. So you're saying you would want it to be four out of seven. That would vote in favor of a person. Yes, with the qualifier that I think the amendment that was in two has some language about current membership. So there is the possibility that there'd be a vacancy or something like that. So I'm going to, again, revert to majority that was in the consensus bill versus two thirds. If I get there. Okay, yes. Mr. Riekeby? So Ms. Volch, one of the things that Mr. McClendon mentioned was that you should have the same process for removal and appointment. And so to me, I liked the alignment of the removal and appointment. But I'm open to other reasons why it's just sort of a lot of my decision making on this has been guided by Mr. McClendon and his advice. Me too. I thought that that concern was that for example the council couldn't appoint and the advisory board could remove her. Okay. That there was some mutuality in terms of who is doing it not necessarily you know by what percentage of the body Okay, so my vote is yes, then I voted yes, Dr. Jones voted yes, okay mr. Riepie Yes miss Walsh? Yes. Ms. Pregnman? Yes. Okay, would you like to make your motion? I move amendment one to amendment two. We already have. Which would change line 13 of page two and specifically strike two thirds and replace with majority. Second. Is there any further discussion? I see none. Okay. Can you please call the vote, Ms. Herrick. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Riyangman. Yes. All right. A amendment one, two, amendment two passes. And that is. We need to vote amendment two as a matter. That's the end of the amendments. Well, we have to vote amendment two as amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Now we have amendment two as amendment as amended. Can you call the vote? Amendment 2 as amended. Can you call the vote? All right now amendment two as amended has passed and that is the end of our amendments to Council bill 61-2024 And now we are going to vote on the whole thing I move that we approve. We've already moved and approved. Oh, we are. Okay. So Ms. Herod, can you please call the vote on Council Bill 61, 2024 as amended by everything. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. I, 85% of the county voted in favor at referendum. We're here to vote in favor or against tonight. My hope is that the future IG and the future citizen advisory board, excuse me, that was amended, have a place where they can bring forth and increase the good governance that is already existing in Howard County. If there is any widespread waste fraud and abuse that they can get to the bottom of it and that it is and what we're doing is a good thing. That is my hope. I was skeptical at first because of the initial conversations around this topic some time ago. But being optimistic and being positive, I hope that the county can go forward, pick good citizen board members, advisory board members, and that the Inspector General will do a good job. I will vote in favor of this bill as amended. Ms. Rigby. Thank you. I really just appreciate that I think this process has been probably the most collaborative that we've undertaken. We've demonstrated the importance of open mindedness and partnership in developing impactful policy. And this collaboration I think underscores a pretty important lesson, which is that impactful policy doesn't happen in isolation. It requires open dialogue, active listening, and a shared commitment to addressing the challenges that our community faces. I think as a body we've demonstrated that when we collaborate we can achieve more than just progress, we can achieve lasting change. So I'm proud of what we've accomplished together. And my vote is yes. Ms. Walsh. I am also proud of what we accomplished. I am ecstatic at what we have accomplished. I am indebted to the Inspector Generals from Baltimore City and Baltimore County who advised us from the association of inspector generals who provided just constant guidance on how to achieve this. I want to thank my colleagues for that charter amendment and the 86% if you round up of our constituency that supported that charter referendum, I want to think the administration because they were also involved in a lot of the negotiations at least with 47 and 48 which preceded this 61. And I share the view that this demonstrates what collaboration among us can achieve and it is remarkable. I have one more thanks and it is remarkable. I have one more thanks and that is to Mr. Stucone who has been with us from day one. And sheppard did this as much as any one of us to get us to this point. I am an ecstatic yes. Mr. Youngman. Not to be redundant, but well done, everybody. Thank you, Cindy Scounty, my chief of staff for helping to keep all this done, and to the chair's chief of staff, China Williams, for keeping a very solid spreadsheet without which I wouldn't even know what we were voting on tonight. So good job, everybody. And your vote is? I'm not, what are we voting on the, I'm just kidding, yes. Thank you. All right, I didn't make a statement when I gave my, yes vote, I am very disappointed that amendment two passed. I felt like we had reached consensus on how that process was going to work. And it really ended this process for me. However, I am pleased at the rest of the bill and I think that I would have to agree that we did a good job of coming to consensus, but it was surprising to me that after coming to consensus on so many things that there were still so many amendments, although the vast majority of them were from the county executive. So I think it might have been helpful to get this bill to the point where it got tonight if the county executive. It also worked with the county council because we were working for a long time on this bill. So I think it would have been nice to have heard from him previously. I do hope that the 145,061 people who voted in favor of our charter amendment will realize that we've done everything we can to create the best Inspector General Office possible. I think this bill will survive as a model for the rest of the country. And for that, I'm very proud. We actually, I don't think we could have done this the way that we did without Mr. McClendon, David McClendon, who is the legislative chair for the Inspector General Association of this country. And he really did a great job holding our hand, but really nobody did more work on this than China Williams. And I cannot thank her enough for, she said, at the very least, keeping David Youngman straight with all of her charts. And I know that she did, she spent so much time on this one piece of legislation. We started on it last February. So from the very first bill that we drafted up until now, December, that's 10 months. That's a long time to spend on one bill. We had a lot of conversations and there is absolutely no way that without China Williams working on this bill and doing what she did that we would have been here tonight with as much consensus as we had. So thank you, my friend. Yes. Yes. All right. We're going to move on to. Ah, let's see. Where are we? We're going to table something or we don't page 16. We're on page 16. Page 16. Council Bill. Oh, I know. You don't have page 16. Oh, wait. That's the old one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll set it. Oh, this is the board to promote self-sufficiency. Okay. Council Bill 60, 2024. Amendment. Board to promote self-sufficiency. All right. I move to approve CB 60, 2024. Second. CB 60, 2024 has been moved in second. It is there any discussion? I see none. Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote in CB 60. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. CB 60 passes. Council resolution 161-2024, approving the Urban Renewal Project Longreach Village Center. I move to table CR 161 2021 24. Second. Ms. Herit. Can you please? What? We're we we we. Okay. We didn't. I'll write right right. Okay. Okay. That was just a reminder of what happened. Okay. Ms. Herit. Can you please call the vote to table CR 161 2021 24 chair young. Yes, Dr. Jones. Yes, mr. Rigby. Yes miss Walsh. Yes, mr Youngman Apparently yes the motion to table CR 161 passes Council resolution 162 2024 conveyance of 7.71 acres located at 8775 Cloudleap Court to Columbia Concepts LLC. I move to tables CR 162 2024. Second. Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote to tables CR 162 2024. Chair Young? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walls? Yes. Ms. Freeman? Yes. The motion to table CR 162-2024 passes. Council Bill 62-2024, the R8208, to allow school commercial as a permitted use in the OT zoning district. I move to approve CB 62-2024. Second. CB 62-2024 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Okay. Ms. Harry, can you please call the vote on CB 62 2024. Chair Young. Well, I'm good to vote yes. So I just say that upfront, but I have to say I'm really concerned about this parking situation and these constant ZRAs and the fact that we're looking at what I call it, what I think of as a dereliction of duty of our Department of Planning and Zoning. Had they done comprehensive rezoning, they could have, I would hope taken care of some of these issues, but because Office Transition, which is the zone that we are looking at here, is a floating zone, which means in order to get this zone, you have to go before the zoning board. I'm not as concerned about saying yes on this bill, but I do think that we are getting to a point where without comprehensive rezoning we're really not doing anybody any favors. So yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Rikby? Yes. Miss Walsh? This is the only OT zone district in the county, even though that overlay district has been available to use since 2013. I don't know because I've lost count and also don't care how many ZRAs particularly have been applied for and granted to this particular site by this particular petitioner, it's spot zoning, it's spot zoning, it's spot zoning. My vote is no. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right, CB 62 passes. Council Bill 63, 2024, ZRA 209, to allow self-storage indoor as a permitted use, allow for the reduction of retail square footage, and allow for residential use in the CAC zoning district. All right. I vote to table CB 63 2020 for second. Okay. Can we talk about the tabling or do we have? It's an on debate about Miss Herrick, can you call the vote to table CB 63? Chair Young Yes, I am voting to table CB 63. I think that this needs a lot more discussion Dr. Jones Yes Miss Rikby? No. Miss Walsh? Yes. Mr. Youngman. No. All right. The motion to table C.B. 63 passes. Madam Chair. Yes. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I'm here a second. I moved to reconsider my vote on the tabling of 63. I had the wrong page open. So sorry. Okay. Oh, you can use that. Second. I don't know if that needs a second. That's what it means. So we can. Yeah. I guess. Okay. The groundhog day, Gary. Yes or no. Because the underlying motion was not debatable. The motion to reconsider is not debatable. That's per your rules and reverts on motions to reconsider. So but the council may explain its vote. Members may explain its vote. Its members may explain its vote. They're votes. Should we vote? Yeah. Okay, so we can vote. There's no discussion. Okay, Ms. Hare, will you please call the vote on the motion to reconsider. Chair Young. No. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rakeby. Yes. Ms. Walsh? The reason I supported tabling this bill is this is the third, as far as I know, relatively recent ZRA requesting the addition of indoor storage facilities on a particular zoning district. As I put together the numerous amendments amendments which will cause us to go even later than 1012 this evening about this. It appeared very clear to me that there was actually no uniform definition of indoor storage facilities that I think only M2 allows just storage facilities without regard to indoor or outdoor. I think a perfectionist would want to actually define that term as applicable to all zoning districts, the same way. I think that ship has in some parts sailed because we already approved one. And I thought it was PECEC but I guess I'm wrong. We have poised to approve a second one this evening in the form of the Normandy ZRA and then we have this third one. But of most concern to me in this particular ZRA is its location in its CAC district, which we talked about at length in work session is basically a doomed endeavor. Again, I think a result of what Sher Young referred to earlier as a dereliction in duty by our Department of Planning and Soning and to do something like this is the amendments that I have proposed I think do and probably could do better if little bit of time to talk about them. I think we should have a little bit of time to talk about them rather than have Thanksgiving. Is add back some of the amenities that are available to us by virtue of purely residential zoning. And I will share one anecdote before voting on this motion to reconsider to make that point. I went to the swing in ceremony for our new Board of Education members today and while we were milling about waiting for that to happen, one board member came up to me and said, hey, I'm going to ask you a question and I know you'll tell it to me straight. What is the deal with the neighborhood around, now I'm totally forgetting because it's 10, 14. What is, is not What is it's not? Is it Hannah Raehouse? It's one of the elementary schools that's right in one of the CAC zones. And she said there's no green space. There's no place for kids to play. And I said, I know that's apparently by design because the open space requirements as they apply to CAC are basically non-existent. And if you compare them to what is required in RA 15 or just RA, or APT, there aren't things like requiring a front yard if you have a townhouse. And there are things like counting a stormed attention pond as open space. And so the net result of that is that we have really, really dense neighborhoods where kids can't even play in the green that doesn't exist, but not even in the streets because there's cars parked on both sides of them parallel. I would like us to take a hard look at CAC and make more than just the corrections that the petitioner in this case wants to make and make that a better zoning district in general so that we can maybe solve a problem that's going to keep coming back at us until we actually follow through with comprehensive rezoning and updating our zoning regulations. But for all of those reasons and probably many more, I'm voting no to the motion to reconsider. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. So now we are going to reconsider. So do I need to move to reconsider? No, we just vote again. I'm just going to vote again. All right. So this is on the motion to table. Ms. Young. All right. I still move to table. That's still a yes. Dr. Jones? No. Ms. Rikby? Don't support tabling, but I do agree with Ms. Walsh that this zone was messy from the jump. Ms. Walsh? Yes. We're moving to table right. Yes. Okay. And Mr. Youngman. I don't know what your vote was. That's why I asked. Did you? I'm voting no to table. Yes. Okay. That's what I. That's great. Mr. You ready for me? I'm ready for you. For table no. All right. The motion to table fails. So I move. Right. I move a amendment one to council bill 63. Second. The purpose of amendment one. I don't know what's the bill needs to be moved first. Who does the bill. That's right. The bill needs to be moved first. And then you can start working on my message. Sorry about that. That's okay. All right. Okay. I move to approve CB 63-2024. Second. All right. Is there... Do I mean move again? Yes. I move amendment one to council bill 63. Second. And so amendment one to council bill 63 is the easiest fix to what I earlier identified and that just strikes the concept of so-called self-storage indoor from a permitted use in the CAC district. Okay. Is there any discussion regarding amendment one? No discussion. Okay. Miss Herrett. Well, let me ask you a question, Miss Walsh. Do we, you mentioned that there was a self-storage unit right across the street and actually after we had that work session, I wrote up and down group one a couple times to see how many self-storage units there were, you know, just to remind myself what the commercial activity was like. Unroot one, how close the apartment buildings were to the road to the sidewalks, to see if I could actually see any green space reflected anywhere. Of course, there was none. And I just wanted to get a feel. I mean, I write up and down route one all the time, but not necessarily with my eyes open to those specific things. So it helps when you're writing down route one looking for that. And I couldn't agree with you more that there's a huge need to deal with all of these issues somewhere along the line and this looks like it's good a place as any. So I'm wondering if you know just by chance how many self-storage indoor units there are in the corridor activity center. If you all did that homework, I don't know if you did or not. There's none because they aren't allowed unless we pass this CRA. The existing self-endor-stuff storage facilities are in different sounds. So the ones that I'm seeing are outdoors? No, well depends if they're in outdoors sheds that you go out to, then they're outdoor. And if they're in one large building, then they're indoor. But their underlying zoning is a different zone that allows for self storage. Oh, so they're not in, they're on route one, but they're not in the CAC. Exactly. OK, so all those storage units that I saw just weren't in the CAC, but there were a bunch of them. Okay, so this would be the first one in the actual CAC. All right, so are we on to the vote then? We were on to the discussion. Okay. Okay, but can I answer your question? Okay, yeah. Right, because, right, the answer to your question is none, because it's not allowed in CAC yet. But if you looked at the zoning map, you would see these anomalies, which is surrounded by CACs, are these islands of M1s that make no sense. And the one that I find particularly bothersome and the community bell crutch fought against was an M1 property at the corner of Route 1 M Montgomery Road. And now there's a big box there that isn't really friendly to pedestrians. And is one fourth of a major intersection in that community. It is, I think, a rural, I mean, it's not a blight, but it's whatever the next level above blight is. And if you look at that zoning map, it looks like there were properties that exclusively, you know, somehow got the M1 instead of a CAC or something else that would not allow this. Because right now, only M1 allows so-called self-storage facilities permitted is right. So again, I think this is something that deserves a lot more attention. I am incensed that no one brought up until I asked as I was trying to prepare amendments for this and the follow on ZRA that no one at DPC in one of three successive technical staff reports that went to a planning board identified or tried to solve this question that a planning board advised by council did not bring this issue up. The fact that this has gotten this far of this many times without being addressed, if not solved, is really again a statement about where we are with our Department of Planning and Zoning, first and foremost. But I just think we need to do better. And if they're not going to do it, then I think we have to do it. And I think we have a responsibility to do it. Three of us represent Route 1 and the CAC districts there. And no one I don't think on this council thinks that we're doing CAC right. So I would really like us to stop doing CAC wrong. Okay. Ms. Harry, can you call the vote on a amendment one to CB 63? Chair Young? Yes. Dr. Jones? No. Ms. Rigvy? No. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Mr. Youngman. No. Ms. Rigg V. No. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. No. Amendment 1 to CB 63 fails. I move amendment 2 to council bill 63. Second. This amendment addresses some of the concerns I had about requiring more of an open space for the families and the people who live in the CAC zoning districts. Originally, it was intended to be pedestrian friendly. And to the contrary, these tend to be highly dense, highly paved, not really hospitable to enjoying particularly a young life. So this requires a 15 foot yard for town homes, which we borrowed from another similarly dense zoning district, and we bumped up the open space requirements depending on acreage whether above or below 20 acres. Ms. Rigby. Are those usable acres or growth acres? I don't know again, open spaces all over the place. Love for us to take time to get into that but we stuck with the words that are in this amendment I will. Well, sorry. It's not in the title of the parenthetical. But again, borrowing from another provision, I thought that we allowed. Yes, yes, yes. In the last paragraph of our proposed amendment two, As the other zoning district allows in lieu of a 15 foot deep yard, whether front or back, in front of town homes, you could bump up the amenity area open space by 300 square feet per meter. So I don't know if that indirectly, or directly answers your question, Ms. Rikby. But yeah. And if there was some receptivity to requiring that yard in the exchange, but not the open space bumpouts, I would be happy to amend amendment two. Okay. Yes, Mr. Yomine. I'm going to put my realtor hat on for a second. I think that we, people were buying these homes. Like, we might not want to live there without a yard or without a lot of these amenities, but people are buying these homes. And there's a lot of other homes in Howard County that have yards or all the other types of things. So I'm not sure why we're trying so hard to prescribe what home builders should build based on our perception of what we would like if what their building is highly marketable. And I'm not saying it's fine that we can do it, but it seems like why are we getting into that? I can answer that. In the case of Elkridge Crossing, which is CAC, on Route 1 in my district 1, that was a phase development. And in phase 1, the developer told all of the people coming in that don't worry, here comes open space in phase 2 and 3. And now phase 2 and 3 are built, and they are just as jammed in as phase 1 was. And marketable or not, to in three are built and they are just as jammed in as phase one was. And marketable or not, those people have been clamoring for those families who live there now are clamoring for age, just what they were promised when they did by their homes and be for some usable space for pet owners who take them out for, but for kids, I mean, that's for kids. That's, you drive through any of those CACs and no one wants their kids playing in a narrow road with cars parallel parked on both sides because there's nowhere else for those kids to go. Well, I mean, I get the bait and switch on you're gonna get this in phase two or three, and that might be a separate issue as far as enforcement or whatever. But like, if you don't want to live on a street where there's a house where there's nowhere to walk your dog, nowhere for your kids to play, I've clients that this stuff you grapple with before you decide to move there. You don't move there and then go to the government and say, well, I now need this. Go figure out a way to create it for me. It's just, there's a lot, there's so many neighborhoods and different types of homes and yards and lots all over, price points, all over Howard County. And it's like, I've sold places in Oak Ridge Crossing. I don't wanna live there. I mean, there's not blade of grass in that place. There's not even enough parking. That's what, yes. That's what I'm saying. But compounded. You know, it's like, if you listed a house, it'd be sold by Sunday. You know, it just, some people, I remember the first time I went and shipped these grand, I was like, I feel like I'm in the federal hill. Like the houses just back to each other. There's nothing but an alley behind me. But some people, that's kind of their deal. And other people are like, no, I don't want houses behind me. I want a yard, I want it. It's all that for everybody. and I'm really getting off track but I think that we all tend to want every neighborhood to have some minimum standard that would make us willing to live there instead of just if that's what a builder wants to build and at some point they build something nobody will buy, then kind of that's their problem. So, that's a tough one. Thanks. Well, I will say this Mr. Chairman. To a certain degree, I do agree with you. But where I think where we depart is that I think that these are issues that we should be thinking about more and that just letting this particular project move forward without spending more time on what it is that this project wants to do given the situation that this development could be in in another three years, that we are also not really doing our duty to make sure that not only is this an appropriate project, but that all other projects that are like this that follow. And maybe it's not a 15 foot yard, okay, because I have to admit I saw that and I went, oh, that might be a lot for some people. But maybe it's something else. Maybe it's that open space for the kids to play X number of square feet of residences. You have to have X number of square feet of a playground or of a park or something that gives, I mean, we are a pretty high in county and to require some really small basics like that in our zoning, I just don't think that that's asking too much. Well, I just, I think we spend a lot of time in here talking about affordability. And I always say that you're not going to, you're not going to supply your way into affordability. What you're not going to. But, you know, you're just going to, whether it's commercial or residential, you go under these properties and you continue crunching down that building envelope. You got the forest con, you got the sidewalks, you got the storm water management, you got your setbacks and where you can build gets more and smaller and then now I have to give up all this space inside that building envelope for all these other things. And let's not forget, I talked a lot about the home builders, but remember like Bob Smith owns some of these properties, you know, just like some person owns these properties. And they want to sell it. And the more of these things you load on, you know, the more you're taking value away from that property owner, I mean everybody loves to say stick it to the developers, developers control the input and the output. They're not at risk. It's the underlying property owner that's trying to sell the property that ends up getting jammed up by all of these additional things. I don't want to live in a neighborhood with no green space and no yard and no, that's why I moved to Woodline and you know, burn gas to and from wherever. But I'm just saying that there's a lot of people that this is the kind of housing that they want or the kind of neighborhood they want. And I think we just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to force our sort of values on these neighborhoods instead of just letting the people that know the market build what they want to build and what the market wants to buy. So we could, with the very philosophical, philosophical expression. It is a philosophical very very not related to which is we which is a discussion I think we should have which is why I think the bill should be tabled but we'll I think that's not going to happen so any other discussion no all right I can't even address that. No, you can't. Okay, amendment two has been moved in second, where we'll pass that. Ms. Herod, can you call the vote on amendment two? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Ms. Rigby. No. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Reganman. No. Amendment two to CB 63 fails. Go ahead. I move amendment 3 to Council Bill 63. A second. This amendment strikes what's proposed to be a further reduction in retail and commercial space. You may recall the five of us, a majority of the five of us, I did not, approved an already reduction in what is supposed to be mixed use development. So the, I guess the reverse of what was just rejected in the form of amendment two, which is make what has become predominantly residential benefit from the same baseline minimums that we've applied in every other residential, comparably dense districts that if we're not going to do that, then we should hold to this premise of mixed use development and not allow further erosion of all of the other things that would make it mixed use. I couldn't agree more. I can't believe that there's yet another bill to decrease the amount of retail and CAC. I remember the reading the technical staff report the first time this came up and how actually DPC at that time was, this is before I guess we had the bill that said DPC wasn't supposed to give their opinion. But they were very opinionated about the fact that they did not want to see the reduction in retail to the extent that the petitioner was asking for it and the reduction in the square footage cost, to the extent that the petitioner was asking for it. And I was the second member of this council that did not vote for that ZRA during the midst of, I think it was COVID. And now here we are with you at another one. And I, again, I think we really need to take some time reading through all of this and come up with some rules that seem reasonable and not just go willy-nilly with these ZRAs. I do have one more comment. And that is not in my part of Route 1, but lower down closer to Guilford Park High School because I too have taken to just randomly driving up Route 1 when I have free time. We are just randomly driving down the road. Yeah. I think it's, is there something about a range? Fire range? Fire range? Protuxant range road. Right around there is a standalone, like single story, strip mall, brand new. And it has all the things... Where are the Popeyes is? Maybe, I don't... It has all the things that my kids would want to go to, yes, so probably a Popeyes. But so everything I've ever heard about retail not being possible was instantly dispeled by me looking at a brand new shiny, all of the cool things today, built instead of at the base floor of a multi-story building, but just a stand alone, just that single story on a pretty sprawling, fairly narrow, or what I'm saying. I don't buy it, I think it's just more profitable to eliminate anything other than residential. And I think we should have drawn the line before and we're instead allowing it to move even further away from the intended purpose of this specific zoning district. Oh yes, Ms. Reckley. Ms. Reckley. I'm just gonna say that there are open retail spots at Port Capital. There are also some open spots on Mission Road. And both of those are the mixed use buildings. So you're saying there are not any open spaces? I'm saying I don't buy the argument when there's brand new retail a quarter mile away. Right, but those retail, they, the, both the entities that fill it, the businesses that fill those spaces, and the people that build it, they have chosen that instead of the mixed use. So I don't know that, if our other, I mean, our other options to say, I don't, I don't think it's a great path to go down to say we can't build any retail except for retail within the mixed use. Because that would be how you would encourage that to go there. But in these market choices, people are choosing to do other processes. And they're not choosing to fill these spots. And I don't own enterprise rent a fleet or sushi queue or the Mercado or any of the other places that are in that specific strip center. So I can't speak to the reasons why they chose that. But it is clear that those retailers are choosing different spaces. And I think we have this continued ideal that we can zone our way or engineer our way into these perfect parcels. But I really, I think ultimately there has to be a much more comprehensive look. I think that they're also... You're actually killing me right now. comprehensive look. I think that they're also I'm not trying to kill you. Holistic but okay I'm just gonna stop talking because I don't want to incur more of that. Well I'm just saying you say we can't we it's out of our hands to zone a perfect parcel. I totally disagree. It is our responsibility if not to part with the planning and zoning. I'm saying can't just say, this is the ideal, this is what we're striving for. And for you then to say, we need to do a comprehensive, what zoning, rezoning? Yeah, we do, but we're not doing that. So my request in this tabling and in these series of amendments is to at least look at what to me is probably the most pivotal zoning district in the most languishing stretch of our county. And I can't get three votes even though there are three members of this council who represent someone on that 11th stretch. And so yeah, you're going to keep getting it. I am completely perplexed. I'm perplexed that you seem to think you're the only person who cares about Route 1. I, if you actually thought that, then I would have assumed that you would work with those other two people who represent Route 1. But what I am trying to say is that it is not just zoning alone. It is not just that alone. The Maryland Department of Planning offers many courses and webinars that advocates in the public can take so that way we can have informed and enthusiastic advocacy around Route 1 that involves the community. But I think these proposals are made in a vacuum. These proposals are made to affect one parcel. They are not made to affect the zone. They will affect the zone. And in fact, and this will just be the last thing that I say until we get to the very end of this bill to vote. But to be very clear, the planning board made recommendations for amendments. Those amendments were included. I support the planning board's recommendations and their amendments that are included in this version before us. So it is so much more complicated and complex than making five singular changes to say there for a zone when we ask a lot of questions about site plans and proposals. So in that work session, and I just, it all feels disingenuous and I am reserving the rest of it but that's where I'm at on 63. Okay. Any more discussion? We are on Amendment 3, right? Yes. Okay. No more discussion? All right, Miss Herod, we please call the vote on amendment three. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Ms. Rigby. No. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Ruyangman. I should have said this in discussion. I don't disagree with some of the stuff we said about CAC and I think that there's a sense that we do need to do stuff with CAC. The problem is we I'm not willing to target this project that is farther along to fix this greater problem of CAC. So if after this process we want to look at CAC and projects in process can be not impacted but how their hands are going forward. I think we'd all be interested in that. But we just can't keep being reactive to when the ZRAs come in and something is already down the road to say, oh gosh, this is the opportunity to fix the AC. So, I'm a no. I want to remember three. All right. I'm in three fails. But thank you for those words, Mr. Yemen. I'm sure that... That district one will take you up on that. That's exactly what I was gonna say. And you know maybe... The district one will take you up on that. And if we're good. China Williams and I are a little tired right now. Yes. Yeah, China, can you get started on that? I move. I move to approve. I'm amendment four to council bill 63. Okay, second. I'm up to approve amendment 4 to council bill 63. Okay second This one Is not at all in a vacuum nor targeted to a specific site But rather ties into what we will later vote on as CB 59 and that is putting some garbills around what we're allowing to be installed in the zoning district So you'll see a similar amendment to 59 Which I think we have in amendment two. But this again just puts some parameters on it so that in HCAC zoning districts, specifically that is supposed to be pedestrian oriented and inviting streetscape, all of the things that we never do in CAC. This is pushing the self storage comma indoor into an ancillary rather than a primary position on the site. All right, is there any discussion? Yeah, all right. Ms. Harry, can you call the vote on amendment four chair young? Yes, Dr. Jones no Miss Frickby no Miss Walch yes, Mr Youngman no, I rate amendment four fails Nonetheless, I move amendment five to Council Bill 60 second. You may recall the terms of amendment five to Council Bill number 63 from a similar bill or amendment that was proposed to our work on TOD zoning. And that is if we are, if we're going to be building or promising, modern income housing on these types of developments that we will actually be providing them on these kinds of developments. So this one is requiring that the MIHU's built in CIC remain on that site and not be traded or peddled to some other location. All right, sounds like a good amendment. Is there any other discussion on the MIHU requirements? Are there, I guess I have a couple of questions. It amends the MIHU requirement to say that the MIHUs are built on site. So right now, this developer could put in, what was it, 250 some odd units, was it? I don't know. Um, and not do any MIHU at that site, is that? No, I don't think that's the case. They have a 15%, you know, in the draft of a of amendment 5 that's before you. It shows what the existing language is, which is 15 or 25%. But we identified, I'm not going to be able to name the property, I bring it up every chance I can, where a CAC development sent its moderate income housing unit requirement to dorsi overlook. And so none was provided on site. Even in a home buying situation traded for a rental situation. And again this this language proposed in Amendment 5 is the same one that this council adopted with respect to TOD. It is verbatim that language. Oh, so this is the TOD language? Yeah. Okay. And how close is this particular area to TOD, Dina? This side of the floor. I don't know. I don't know. It's not that far, is it? I mean, it's... Well, the parcel that the petitioner is between two TODs, but where CAC is is variable because it's many play. It's not just this one parcel. Right, you don't understand that. So the other CAC parcels could be closer or farther but this one's in the middle between the two okay well we share yes is to you guys do you have a sufficiency for this? We do not. And we did not when we evoked it in the TOD. Because I forgot that we voted it the TOD and I thought that that was- Did you not have sufficiency? No and what we did was the subsequent legislative session. We filed the corresponding code change that was corresponded. So for a month or something, we did not have matchups between the zoning regulations and the code. But again, this was the process that was undertaken and agreed to by a majority of this council with respect to TOD zoning. Can't wait to see the result here. I'm going to ask you to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to ask me to ask you to ask me to Any further discussion? No. Okay. Ms. Herrick, can you call the vote on Amendment 5? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. No. Ms. Rigby. I abstain. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Reignman. No. All right, Amendment 5 fails. All right, so where are we? Amendment 63 has been moved in seconded. I bet there's no more discussion, but just in case, I will ask. All right, okay. Ms. Herrick, can you not as amended, I guess, is how we'll say that. And can you call the vote on CB 63? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Rigg B. Yes. Miss Walsh. No. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. CB 63 passes. Council Bill 64, 2024, ZRA to 10 introduced by the chairperson at the request of Trey Point Atlantic LLC, co-sponsors by Chris John-Ebrick B. Oble Jones, Liz Walsh and David Youngman to allow warehousing within a flex base as permitted use in the corridor employment CE zone. I move to approve CB 64 2024. Second I move to approve amendment one to CB 64 2024. Second. Ms. Herard. It's a typographical error. It is yes. There was a typographical area and we are proposing to correct that to corridor employment. Okay. So I'm amendment one to cv64 2020. I assume nobody wants to discuss the type of graphical error but well, okay. All right. So I'm at one to cv64 2020. Four has been moved and seconded. Can you call the vote on amendment one chair young? Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Mr. Rigby. Oh, I don't know. Yes. Miss Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. All right. Amendment one passes. CB 64, 2024 is amended. Has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I didn't think so.B. 64, 2024 is amended, has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I didn't think so. Okay. Ms. Herrick, can you call the vote on C.B. 64 as amended? Chair Young? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Ms. St. Youngman? Yes. All right, C.B. Youngman. Yes. All right CB 64 passes. Yay. I know you're out there in the audience and you're thinking the same thing. Okay and there was only one amendment. Okay next. CR 117. Chair to move to remove CR1172024 from the table. Second. And Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote to remove CR11717? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Sorry. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Sorry. Miss Riggby. Yes. Miss Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Okay. The motion to remove CR1172024 from the table passes. Council resolution 1172024 appointment of Andreia Rezekla to the La Alonza Latina Commission. I move to approve CR-117. Second. CR-117 has been moved and seconded is Ernie Discussion. No discussion. Ms. Herod, can you call the vote on CR-117? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Ms. Reganman? Yes. All right. The motion to remove. CR-138 from the table passes. CR-138, 2024. Appointment of Bruce Fulton to the board to promote self-sufficiency. I move to approve CR-138. Second. CR-138 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Okay. Good bye. It's going bad. It's tired. It's had enough of us. Okay, go home and get it out. All right, Ms. Eric, can you please call the vote on CR-138. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Strygungman. Yes. Mr. Gungman. Yes. All right, Sierra 138 passes. I move to remove CB 59 from the table. Second. Ms. Herod, can you please call the vote to remove CB 59 from the table? Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Raby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Gungman. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. I wait the motion to remove CB59 from the table passes. Oh I have to read. I'm sorry. You do have council council. It's even highlighted in yellow. Yes, I have. So, council bill 59, 2024, the R.A. 207 introduced by the chair at the request of Norman D. Venture Limited Partnership to allow self storage facility indoor as a conditional use in the B2 zoning district. All right, I move to approve CB59, 2024. Second. I'm going to approve amendment number one to council. Am I in the right place? Council Bill 59. Second. This amendment adds some conditions for approval of itself's storage facilities comma in door. And I think we had these in place at the time of the work session. But it includes language that was provided by DPC, particularly that contribute to cohesive walkable place and this combat with the Invision community. Again nodding to this notion that we have adopted a general plan that talks about activity centers but don't really have the apparatus in place to effect that yet. I then move my other two amendments. Okay. I move amendment one to amendment one. Second. And this amendment fixes typographical errors. Topographical. Top what? Is it top or type? It's not top. It's typographical. We're not the type of elements. It's a type of. So it needs to be type. I said type. It's not top. It's tight. Type of graphical. We're not the type of typo. So it's supposed to be type. I said type. It's a top or graphical typo. I can better live that up there with her. It's a typographical top. Yeah. Okay. I think that's, we had an extra strike or something, and we're substituting infrastructure strike. And then I'm also moving amendment number two to amendment one to council bill 59. And that regards lines eight through 11, which was similar to an amendment that I proposed in the proceedings the RA, which talks again about this notion of the indoor, what do we call it here, self-storage facilities indoor are not the predominant use of the property, but rather serve the community that it's in. And so, you know, we don't want it fronting major roadways like in this case 40 but wherever else there is a similarly zone property and that it's integrated into the project's design again and nod to this future activity center that may arise. But in the near term, making it a cohesive part of the site, the architecture and whatever is planned there. I did not hear a second for a moment. Oh, I didn't hear a second. For a moment, yeah, a moment one. A moment two to a moment one, yeah, second. Yeah, did you actually move it though? I think she moved. Yeah, I thought I was about a second. Yeah. Do you want me to, I don't actually move it though? I think yeah, I thought I second. Yeah Do I need to know you're good? Okay. All right What did we want to take these in order? Well, that's what I was thinking do a amendment one to amendment one first Okay, a amendment one to amendment one first And then whatever you know the amendment ends up looking like you go down that file. Okay. So amendment one to amendment one has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? My only question is, did you work with the petitioner on these amendments? On amendment two. On amendment two. I'm amendment one must have come from someone who actually proved the bill and it could have been also the petitioner. Okay. I don't even I'm not clear why that's even required to me that's an obvious type of but amendment two and a. Amendment two to amendment one yes thank you. I do understand the petitioner to be in a agreement with that we received what is a amendment one directly from them and then tried to incorporate some of our concerns about, you know, a generally applicable zoning district versus this particular site. And in this particular case and the proposals that were made before us, we think it's exemplary. And I think the plan was to do exactly what's described in both Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. Again, the concern is not just this zoned property, but any potential in the future. So yes, I believe the current plans of this petitioner conform to what would be amendments to Council Bill 59 and and amendment one. I'm them. Yes. Yeah. I'm not I don't know I can't. Okay. Yeah. And they are still here and have not. I'm sorry. I'm missing in in in horror. You know, I don't see any wins. No. No. Yes. in horror. I don't see any wins in back then. No, yes. I very much appreciate that collaboration. So thank you. I think it is looking at this. All right. OK. So we're going to start here. Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 has been moved and seconded. That was, is it anybody else have any questions or want to discuss this further? Whoops, I'll get that. All right, now, okay, Ms. Herrick, can you please call the vote on Amendment 1 to Amendment 1? Chair Young? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Walsh? Yes. Ms. Dregoman? Yes. Okay, Amendment 1 Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Strygonman. Yes. Okay. Amendment one, two amendment one passes. You've already you've already moved to approve amendment two and already seconded it. So you also already explained it. So is anybody have any questions or discussions about amendment two? No, okay So Ms. Herkin you please call the vote on amendment two to amendment one chair young. Yes, Dr. Jones. Yes Miss Rigby. Yes Miss Walsh. Yes, Mr. Youngman. Yes, all right, amendment 2 to amendment 1 to CB 59 passes. Amendment 1 to CB 59 as amended has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion about this bill or this amendment? No. Okay. Ms. Heratt, please call the vote on amendment 1 to CB 59 as amended. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms amended. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rageby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Rageby. Yes. All right. Amendment one to CB 59 as amended passes. CB 59, 2024 as amended, has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion about the bill in general? No. okay. Ms. Hare, please call the vote on CB59 as amended. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Stregnman. Yes. All right, CB59, 2020, four passes. And ladies and gentlemen who have been here all night, oh, four and a half hours, we appreciate your companionship and the fact that you've joined us. So you're free to leave now. All right. And let's see, what do we have? Remains on the table. That's it. Well, that's not it. That's right, we're doing officers. Yep. I thought that was it, but it. That's it. Well, that's not it, so that's right. We're doing officers. Yep. I thought that was it, but it's not quite it. All right, the council's final order business this evening is the election of officers. Officers are elected each December. The officers elected tonight will serve in their positions through December 1st, 2025. I get to make closing remarks as chair. So I will say that as I think as every chair knows without the assistance of Michelle Herod and her entire staff, we would never be able to sit up here and do anything useful. So we are very grateful that you are there as well as all the members of your staff. Thank you, Isaiah, you in particular. What we do without you and all this great candy. Gary Cook, Kudos to you in Amanda. We really do need you here and I think you know that. So we're very appreciative Lisa Garmin. Thank you for hanging in there and being our auditor. We know that it's not the easiest job in the world, but is often overlooked, but we are very appreciative. That's to the staff and of course to my personal staff, again, China Williams and Matt Blum, who bomb were just unbelievable this past year. staff and of course to my personal staff, again, China Williams and that Blum who, bomb were just unbelievable this past year. What they had to do as, when your council member is the chair, Virginia, it does add a lot of extra work to that particular district office. And I cannot tell you how much Matt and China really did rise to the occasion over and over and over again. So I'm super appreciative of my staff and what they did to make sure that I looked at least halfway decent. I appreciate it. I think it was an interesting year as Chair, as mentioned, we worked on a singular bill a lot in a lot of work sessions and through a lot of charts and a lot of machinations. I know how hard it was for us all to come together. We spent more time in open work sessions on a piece of legislation than I think we ever have. And I think that was a really good consensus building exercise, no matter what, even though apparently we didn't build consensus, we just thought we did. But yes, it wasn't there quite as much as we hoped. But at least we talked about the legislation publicly and did so in a way that I think was helpful to more fully understanding when an inspector general could do. We've had some other successes also and getting a charter amendment passed by 145,061 people. It was a pretty big deal and we did it with not a lot of time to spare. And I think overall that we had a good year as a county council. And I hope Ms. Walsh that you have an equally good year coming up in this next year. So on that, the floor is now open for the position, open for nominations for the position of Chair of the County Council. And I nominate Liz Walsh to the chair of the county council. So you're supposed to thank you. Somebody needs a second and Liz can't. Okay. I want those. So now I never have to second anything. Sorry, what's been prepared? We need to vote. Yes. Ms. Harry, please call the vote. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jens. Yes. I'm sorry. We need to call the vote. Chair Young. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Reyoungman. Enthusiastically yes. I'm looking for the gavel. I get to pass the gavel. And I'm like, where is it? That's like, no, I want to pass it to you officially. So I don't have to do anything. Do you have it, I'm saying? We can't find it. Oh, man, we don't have it. OK. Mine, probably. All right. Thank you, Chair. Oh, you're right. Thank you, outgoing Chair. We will now take nominations for Vice Chair of the Council and I nominate Dr. Opal Jones to be Vice Chair of the County Council. Teched. Ms. Hared, will you please take our vote? You're going to have, you didn't write out the exact votes I have to say and I'm out of practice. Chair Walsh. Yes. Ms. Young. I'm not next, am I? Well, I probably not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Yes. Miss Young. Yes. Mr. Riggby. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. We will now take nominations for Chair of the Zoning Board. And I nominate Dr. Opel Jones to be Chair of the Zoning Board. Second. Miss Herd, will you please take the vote? Chair Walsh. The purple Jones to be chair of the zoning board. Second. Ms. Herd, will you please take the vote. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Congratulations, Dr. Jones. We will now take nominations for Vice Chair of the zoning board. I nominate Deb Young to be Vice Chair of the zoning board. Second. Mr. Herd, would you please take them for? I know it's late too. Ms. Walsh. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Stray Youngman. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Strayunman. Yes. All right, I nominate David Youngman to be chair of the Board of Licensed Commissioners. Second, Mr. Herwood, you please take the vote. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms Riggby. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. We will now take nominations for vice chair of the Board of Licensed Commissioners. I nominate Christiana Riggby to be vice chair of the Board of Licensed Commissioners. Second Miss Herd would you please take the vote? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Schung. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Triongman. Yes. I know. Um, this concludes our election of officers. Uh, but we have to, I know. Do I have to discuss? I know. Do you want to discuss our Maryland district of counties legislative committee or were okay with this script. I'm not sure if we have the I'm, I'm not certain if the script is accurate. We had a number of different changes. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to concern before I start announcing things that aren't agreed to. Yeah, I didn't expect it to be filled in yet. Okay. So shall we take, do you want to, nominations? Do you want to discuss? Do you want, discuss? Do you want to discuss? Do you want let's discuss? Well, the only reason why there's the sort of hesitation is just because of the nature of the meetings has shifted. So now they're primarily virtual, which may change desire in participation. But I think that the desire remains the same. Right. And my name is Dan, is the MECO rep. And I don't know how much different it's going to be when I did it two years ago, because we had no meetings in person two years ago, which is not as much. You don't get quite as much out of going to be the representative for MECO if you're not meeting in person. It's one of those critical meeting in person things. But we'll see maybe they'll meet more than twice in person, which is what the schedule is for this year. But you can still get a lot out of it. I don't know if you knew that, David. I did. You were interested in doing this for you. I don't know if you knew that, David. I didn't. You were interested in doing this for you. Yeah, I was, but I also, when and I would like to do it as well. But if others really, really want it, I will defer. Are you sure? Are you sure? Mm-hmm. Okay. All right, so my dear colleagues, does that mean that you were okay with me reading the appointments as described in the script? Okay. Then I will now announce appointments to our external committees for the Maryland Association of Counties Legislative Committee. Deb Young will serve as the Council's representative with David Youngman serving as alternate for the National Association of Counties, Kristiana Rigby will serve as the Council's representative with Deb Young serving as alternate. Congratulations to all of our new officers and committee representatives. I do want to give a specific thank you to our outgoing chair. I do think that or hope that in the future people will look back at our work this legislative year and And commendous for what what we have achieved. I personally believe it's remarkable and Yes, and you were largely responsible for that so thank you. Thank you Please note that the council's next legislative session will be on Monday, January 6, 2025 in the New Year at 7 p.m. In the banner, Peru, here at the George Howard Building. This concludes our December legislative session. We are adjourned. Thank you and have a good night. Which. We should all try and make a good make up. This meeting is no longer being recorded.