Good evening. Today is September 12, 2024, and this is a scheduled work session of the Howard County Board of Appeals. I'm the chairperson, Gene Ryan. Tonight we are convening to discuss the rules of procedure, but before we do that we have a few administrative matters. Board members, have you received and reviewed the meeting minutes for August 29th, both closed session and open session. And are there any questions about that? Seeing none, can I get a motion? Oh, how many? Sir, echo, no, it's all, okay. Can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes, both open and closed session for August 29th. Hold on, there's an echo. Somebody's echoing. So moved. Okay, I have a first and first. Ms. Forequette was second from Ms. Belps. Keep these call it roll. Chair Ryan. Approved. Ms. Phillips. Keep these call it roll. Chair Ryan. Approved. Ms. Volca. Approved. Ms. Harris. Approved. Ms. Phillips. Approved. Ms. Shoe. Approved. Motion carries the public meeting minutes and the closed session minutes are approved. Moving on to our next. So it's not in the agenda because it just became apparent. So we didn't have a time to agenda. It's a quick administrative matter. So we were notified that we have a pending case which is B-A-A-O-A-D, Cordeau and Cathill LLC. That's to be heard on October. So I just want to bring it to the Board's attention that this case generally speaking involves an app petition in which respondent is dealt with the division of its questions rights to permits. It's been this Board's experience, I think we've heard testimony that as a general rule, the government in chief don't send a representative to these hearings, that makes it more difficult. So with the board's consensus, I'd like to request that the administrator communicate with the DILP director and ensure or request that somebody attend the hearing in person, and not just I'm sorry, represented. So did they have an objection to asking the administrator to do that? No objection for me. No. So, okay. So if you could do that, just let us know if there's any problems. And that was Director of Department of? I don't. It's an inspection license impermanence. Yeah, I believe that's what is the 808D is the case. And I think that's scheduled for October 17th. Okay. And if they can't, we'll just assume they will be here but they can't be to let us know and we'll figure out what we're going to do. Okay. So then moving on, I'm sorry before, do we have anything else for anybody before we move on to tonight's primary? Okay. So, but we're finally here. It's the work session. Take you through the first set of rules. So we're calling them section, as we said, our agenda. We're calling them section 200 through 206. In reviewing them, it would be my belief that the best way to go about this would first be that we review not necessarily the section headings. I think it's probably more beneficial if we just agree of rules if the board wants that rule or doesn't want that rule. And then after this whole process, we can kind of group them into what should be in training, what should be in organization. Because look at the feedback from the spreadsheets, it seems that a lot of us has concerns that this rule maybe would be better placed somewhere else. So I think it'd be, and I agree with those, but I think we should wait till the end till we have all the rules. I say this so hopefully that will minimize sub- confusion so we could just decide the rules individually. Secondarily, I've been trying to think about it because there's a lot, right? There's a lot for us to go through time, four hours. So I've been thinking about the best way to do this, and I'm open to thoughts, but what I wanted to share with you is my thought was that where there are areas of consensus initially, because before I had the time to review these, we should just kind of move forward. So I'll call a rule or a call of proposal, rather than I'll ask if anybody has any objection to it or any questions, and if not, then we'll assume that it passes that we're agreement as written. If there's a question or something, then I imagine we'll delve into it. Does that work for everybody? Okay. And to review the process, so, and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm out of administrator, I guess. So, two out of three, two of six is this week. We, hopefully by the end of this meeting, we'll have an agreement about what the board is tentatively an agreement about. It will then go back to staff, right, to be kind of drafted in a more comprehensive way, and then it'll come back to us at our next work session for review. That work session will be considering the second set of rules, right? Okay. Okay, so we're all on the same page. I just want to make sure I understand the process. All right, with that- Can I ask a question? Of course. Would we be reviewing the first set of rules and then doing the work session on the second set of rules on the same day So reviewing to the extent that it will be reviewing to make sure it's consistent with what we said tonight Okay, right because tonight there's a lot of markups and lines through it everything So and we're gonna give direction to the staff on how we believe would be you know our proposal And then they will give it in a way so that way we believe would be our proposal and then they will give it in a way so that way we can see without markups and lines through it and we can agree. I imagine if there are questions that yeah then we could bring it up. Is that work? Yeah, the reason I'm asking is because it would seem to me that it would take a long quite a bit of time to redo the review and then do the, so we might need more time. Yeah, yeah. So, hopefully we get through it tonight and the plan is that it will just kind of be a very cursory overview of tonight's, what we said. OK. OK, so I am, so let me just pull up my, because as a board member, I made notes on my sheet. In case anybody has questions, just give me once I can pull that up so I can speak to it. So Chair Ryan we did test displaying two documents side by side on the screen. So just let Mr. Kahn know which documents you'd like to display, whether you just want to display the spreadsheet or whether you would want to see two things. So I'll ask the board to put. My personal preference was to have the existing rules side by side with the proposal rule, so we could see the potential change. Does the board think that would be helpful or no, do you just want to put the spreadsheet up? So I'm looking at the code right here on the set. Okay, so I guess we'll just do the spreadsheet then. I'll start with the spreadsheet in any time we need more detail. I can swap back and forth between documents. Great, and what I'll do is because our printout doesn't have the line numbers along the left margin, but yours does. So, you know, the online version does, so I'll reference it by line, never if that makes it simpler. Let me just pull that up. Do you understand? OK. Let me just pull that up real quick. Once I got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So then I'll, why I'm pulling that up will go. So, so the first, so I'll start and we'll change this as we go. We'll figure out, we'll get over them as we go along here. So, rule number one I think it speaks for itself Is anybody have any thoughts on it? If not then we'll just agree that that is a rule we will pros Okay, so that would be line So what's the purpose of change in the name? To be consistent with the charter. The charter says we shall then we pull up my listed. It's the actual words within the charter. Let me pull up my notes I made because that was my suggestion. And I think you mentioned it lessen the confusion with the law. That's the same thing. Yes and to distinguish between the law. So so this rule thing. Yes, and to distinguish between the law. So, so this rule is kind of a companion to the next rule, which I think is changing numbering. The numbering of our rules now reflects the code, right? We're not doing anything with the code. We don't have the authority to. We're not recommending anything with the code. So, these two things I recommended changing the numbering to either a rule or some other where you know I recommend a rule. Like rule one that's how the hearing examiner is written so that's why I recommended that way they have rule one, rule one point two. I just want to clarify. Are you talking about charter 501? 501 C. I am, let me just pull it up for you. Top 16 of the... Yeah, I don't have my binder on the list. Okay. Let me just pull it up. Is that what it is? It's the charter, whatever it is. Yes. No, title two is the administrative act. No, three, four, five. So the name is rules of a process and the procedure. Oh, what do I have process? Oh, no, I have rules of practice and procedure. Oh, yeah, yeah. OK. That's why I have. OK. Now I confuse with two columns. OK, OK. You're changing to be consistent with the charter. And then you're saying we are not going to make recommendations to change the code. Is that we're going to have a stand-alone law? We're going to talk about that but what I want to say is that we don't have a 30-chance of law. And right now we say to that's confusing because we're not recommending, we're not doing the same, we're changing law. If we keep the same number of structure that reflects the law. And this is not the right. So what I'm saying is that I recommend we change it to rule, which is the same exact way the hearing examiner's rules are written. So I believe our initial intention is to make a recommendation to change the law in the code. Subtitled to subtitle two, subtitle two, subtitle two, subtitle two, Ruse of Procedure of the Board of Appeals. So now you're a suggestion to have a stand alone Ruse of Procedure. Is that what my suggestion? She's a change in number. That's all it says, change in number. That's all it says change in number. Why do you change in number? I just said that to distinguish between these rules and the actual law which we have no authority over. If I may, just I think maybe there's some confusion about the codification of the rules. So when the rules were passed by the council, the bill provided that it go into subtitle two of subtitle one. I'm sorry, subtitle two of subtitle two. And so that's why you have this 2.200. The reason why it's 2 and not 1 is that subtitle 1 and subtitle 2 is the 1 point whatever. So that's why the rules in the code, which are your rules of procedure are numbered that way. And if you had a printout copy or an old paper copy, yeah, it's got the same numbering system in it, right? Two points, something. Right, so this is coming right out of the county code. I still have the question. So are we trying to make recommendations to the county council to get approval so it will become part of the county code or are we making our stand alone rules that doesn't need approval from the council. I thought we were making our rules and we would make suggestions later if the county would adopt these but right now we're just trying to get our house organized. I think that's, that's- That was by your say, but I want everybody to speak up because I'm one person. That's my understanding. That's my understanding. So right now we're just working on the board of appeals. We're not working on how our county law Howard County Rules, Howard County Bids. We're working on just our rules, how we do, how we're gonna work here as a body. I just want to make that clear. So we are making our own standalone rules. Right? Then this standalone rules cannot contradict into the existing Power County code correct it cannot contradict how are county code correct? Well, I'll check that in the applicability which you get down to later Howard County law always prevails So we're conflict the law prevails So I think the nuance that you're saying is existing I think but I think we're I know we've had this conversation at least three times already in these meetings. Where what steps come after the rules, I think, I'll have to board way in on the recollection of that. But it was my understanding that we don't even have anything to present to the council. Even if we want them to change it, we don't even have anything to present to the council, even if we wanted to change it, or didn't want them to change it, it's premature to cross that bridge right now, but I believe the intent was to was to draft some updated rules, since these rules have been touched since the 80s. That was my belief. We didn't have a rules before. We didn't have, we didn't have a stand along rules. We're by the code, the county code. It's always in the code, which is part of the law. It's law. It's law. It's law. It's law. And now there are two ways of doing that to make it update. One is we make recommendations to the county council. And if gets there approval, then it becomes law. Two, we make our stand-alone procedure, which doesn't require approval from the county council. But it has to be consistent with the existing code, which is... Well, I don't think we're trying to... We're not going above and beyond the law. One, we're just trying to clarify what the rules are, maybe update them. And then hopefully we can get the county to update them as well. But right now I think we need something to bring to them. We can't, I mean, we don't have anything to bring to them. So we need to just get our own rules, do our own thing. And then once we have something that we can take to them, we're going to say, hey, could you try and put this on the bill? Could you put this on the dock, could you clarify this up? I mean, that was what I thought the intention was. Now, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The reason I am repeating this is because I do see in the proposed changes, there are many areas are different from the existing rule. Okay, so we are not allowed to do that if we are in tension is to do a stand-alone procedure Does that make sense to everybody as long as I think we are allowed to do our own procedures? Yes, as long as not counter-dating to What happens if it does? Because I want I maybe I'm seeing it incorrectly So hypothetically if we I'm not saying, so first off, I'm just asking, change the word to the rule. But I think it's a word that we get to say on. So theoretically, the board says, okay, and I'm not sure that that's what the board is saying, but the board says, okay, we just want to own internal policies, right? I'm not saying it's what we're saying, but just argue that point for a second. What would happen if those, or what would your belief would happen if those internal policies, if you will, conflicted with the code? Who's that of the question, too? Is that the answer? I've been like this. Chair Ryan, if I could intervene, and I'm certain Mr. Cook could add to this. So once the board, just like Ms. Phillips and you said that the first step is for the board to agree on how they want to operate. What are their roles of practice and procedure? And then the staff's job, our job and Mr. Cook's team's job is to review that final approved document and find any place where there are conflicts between the role and law. And then we will bring that back to the board. That sounds good. Yeah. I want to make a comment. Okay. So laws come and laws go. They change. 30 years ago, they had, this is what the law was made. Maybe it was existing before that. I don't know. In venues that I work in, or I have worked in, we have bylaws, and we have rules of procedure practice, actually like a cookbook to how you run a surgery center, or a hospital. These rules of procedure that are currently on the books, I understand that there's law. They are vague, incomplete, neat updating, and need to be in essence a cookbook for how our board operates. Right now the way they are, they're vague, and I will say it again. The way I was oriented to this board was a sham. And there's no nothing written at all anywhere that has any detail prescribing for someone new who comes on the board, which is a really honored position, I think, to be able to discern what they are supposed to be doing and how they are supposed to proceed. That is the purpose of what we're doing. When it is completed, we'll take that to the council and they can have their opinion on it. But at this point in time, this is a very thin, incomplete way of doing things and things have changed in 30 years. They just have. So that's the point of doing this. We're trying to make things better so that our board operates in a better way. I mean there's no doubt about what we're doing and when new people come on they're not blindsided as to what it is that they are doing. So that's the point of doing this in my opinion. Can I add something for you? So, and I think I'm gonna get to the answer that you're looking for. When you look at article five for Board of Appeals, there's a section C that says rules of practice and procedure and that first two seconds is kind of tell what we're doing and what authority we might have to do it. And this is the Board of Appeals shall have authority to adopt and the men rules of practice governance proceedings which shall have the force and effect of law when approved by legislative act of the council. So we're doing that first part and then when we presented to the legislative council that's the second part and then we'll be law if they prove it or we'll make changes. If that helps you understand where we're at in the process. I'm not disagree with any of what use that and that's why I from there beginning I they're passionate about making changes and to to add things that is silent in the existing law. For example, the definition, the training session, you know, what required training we should have and all those clarifications, I totally forgot. So whatever the existing law is silent, I think we should fill in. That's our task. Okay. But there are things that I do see. And I think this is a good time to bring it up. For example, the law requires two newspaper advertisement. I agree. I'm not saying we should do that. So I'm just saying that is the issue. I think we should get that. Well, it's not a very right idea. We were saying it's wrong. So it's why I'm like, let's weekly get to that rule so we can talk about it. Because it's the underlying law that supports that doesn't exist anymore. So that's why I'm like, let's go rule by rules. We have a conversation. I understand your point. I just want to keep it moving. So that's why, because where we got hung up was, do we simply want to change the name from section to rule? We didn't even get to the advertising yet. So that's why I respect what you're saying, but I'm like, we're jumping ahead. I'd rather we just take one step. I just want to, sure that we all on the same page that we are not changing the existing law. We can make our standalone procedure and that procedure should be an addition to the existing law or some clarification if it's not clear. And we need better guidance for ourselves. I think I'm totally agree with that. It's just I'm seeing there are and we can when we once we get there I will probably discuss more and you probably would see what I'm talking about. Like you know the advertisement and the video viewing, whether we are allowed to review the video afterwards. And that is written in the existing code. Correct. Yeah. I think, Miss Sho, I just want to clarify, I think, are you, you, I think the answer is that you can't have your stand alone rules unless those standard alone rules are approved by legislative act of the Howard County Council. So you can't have your own internal rules. This board is unlike other different boards and commissions in the county, where they are allowed to make their own internal rules to run their board. This board, you can propose rules, and that's what I think the process is here. And you're trying to get to a consensus of some sort as to the revisions. Once a majority of the board votes on a different rule change, then that would be submitted to the council. I feel that's what I guess I just I think you that way is that clear it up at all? I feel what you said is different from what the other four members said. We have to make our own rules and then put it to the council for them to approve it, but we need something for them to approve. Right now we just we don't have anything for them to approve. So we're going through the rules. We're trying to clarify them. We're trying to make them more relevant and more understandable and so that when because some places are vague, we're just trying to clear, we're just doing a little cleanup of the rules, things that, like you mentioned, the newspaper, you know, how many people have read a newspaper? You know, that's some of the things, that, you know, we're gonna go through them and clean them up so that they're more relevant, that, you know, they apply for the citizens, We're going to go through them and clean them up so that they're more relevant that they apply for the citizens to be able to. I can't not disagree with that. It seems I could be understanding you guys wrong. It seems that you guys want to have a set of rules that we can use internally without getting approved by county council. So maybe I could just ask Mr. Cook, right? Cook, cook, cook, cook. Thank you. Am I correct in saying that it would be illegal for the or unlawful for the border appeals that rules or that contradict Council in other words if there is if we were to Hypothetic they have such a rule and council rule contradictory Council's law or the law of the county would prevail right is that fair? I mean am I saying that clearly? I'm trying to maybe you have a better sense of what's happening here I'm gonna I think mr. Sanders try to take a better sense of what's happening here. I'm going to, I think Mr. Sanders tried to take a run at it. Let me, let me try. I think part of the, at least maybe one misuse, confusion is that when you look at the existing rules of the board, right, 2.201, etc., all the way till the end, they're all laid out. These are the rules, okay? Then you've got the first set of proposals, which is 200, 206. It's hard to correlate the existing rules with this draft that the board has received. Because in essence, I mean I'll be honest, we just got these in the last week, so we're kind of behind the curve on this. What it appears to me is that essentially this draft of 200 to 206, it's almost like an entire repeal of at least whatever the rules currently are and adopting completely new rules of process. There is similar language borrowed from the existing rules in this draft, but instead of amending the existing rules, it's kind of like starting from scratch. And I'm not making a judgment about that. I'm kind of trying to state a fact. So I don't think that's factual. I don't think that's factual. I've really been that factual. There were a couple of them. For example, we haven't decided. No, no, I know. What I'm saying is, I'm sorry. I would also like to say that much of this is in bellishment or explanation or logical ordering of what goes on in the board, but is not stated in rules and what should be very clear. You know, if I go to do a procedure in a surgery center, I have to follow a procedure, a policy's written for that procedure, and then you have the steps in the procedure. There's no such thing here. And if it is so vague, that it can be misconstrued in all kinds of ways, and I don't think that's fair to the citizens of our county. I was just trying to- I hear you. I'm going to explain what I thought might be where- I just want to make sure that it's not that it's the way you're presenting the The embellishments that you are calling them if they're not they're not that I didn't use the word It was like you just changing them complete. I think it was a manverse complete repeal That's the part that rub me wrong to them like we're just amending it updating, but okay well so Legally speaking that if if there's really not a change to rule 200, but it like it can't coexist with whatever this final draft looks like, you're taking 2.100 out altogether and just substituting something new in. I mean, that's certainly something the board can do. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying it's hard, it's hard to connect so I was thinking maybe that that might have been Where miss you was coming from I don't know I'm speculating but I was trying to help Yeah, I do see a lot of the changes of the existing code All the existing the law so I'm wondering whether we are proposing these changes to the county council to get approval or we want to have a totally different set of rules of procedure. And I know the law office is going to say no, it's counter-deping to the existing law. It cannot do that. And then we are, we're putting too much time in, as the Donald row, find that most of it are contradicting to the existing rules. I don't know if they're contradictory, but they're clarifying some really just make it more a little bit easier. So we're not asking them, and we're asking them maybe, to check, once we, if we can get to it to go through it we until we come up with what we're gonna do I mean we don't know what it is we haven't done anything we don't know we haven't done anything we have to start somewhere we can't just say oh what if we do this and what if we do that and what if we we just have to do something start do something then go to the council and say, look at this is what we did. You know, and they're going to say, we like it, we don't like it, they're going to say, oh, that's contrary to law or that's not right, or they're going to tell us. But right now, let's just get to what we need to get to do our thing. I think when we come to them, they're going to be like, oh, wow, you clarified this. That makes more sense. That's what I'm thinking. That's what I'm hoping because this, to me, it's really more of a clarification and an understanding and to make things go, you know, a lot smoother. It's not, you know, it's not to say, oh, we want to break this law, we want to change this law. We want to try and make things go smoother. So if we bring it to the council, it's like, council, hey, this is what we think will make things go smoother. As my time up, is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's a lot of stuff. I'm really excited. That's not a great thing. I appreciate that. So let's move on then. And next next session, we're at a timer. That's fair. Let's move on and see where I would see if this is a contract. I will say. It's a very job. We're going to find out if it's a contract. It's not even a job. I think it's valid. We'll talk're going to find out if it's contradictory. It's not even a job. I think it's, and I think it's valid. Like, we'll talk it out in the ultimately affordable figure out. OK, so the first one we're OK with. The second item was the technical correction or recommended correction to changing the headings when we finally do make headings or indexing ill-site cataloging to use the word rule instead of a specific law, because probably should use any objection to that. I have no objection. OK. Let's see. New part. I have a question now. Yeah. That's not the big thing. So I have to put it here. That's complicated. So, kind of, let's do it. Using the words rule one, for example. Yes, yes. I mean, what I understand, at least the discussion to be about, is the board would ultimately probably approve a draft set of new rules that say rule one, as opposed to, you know, I don't know what the original form was. It might have been like 200. At some point when it got stuck into the codified law, the publisher had to have it make sense in terms of how the codes were organized. So I got a two put in front of it because it's in subtitle two. I mean we can talk with the publisher about it. It'd be subtitle two. Yeah. Whatever the new rules are called officially, but instead of it, but then when you drop down and look at the first rule, it'll just say rule one. We can talk with it. Yeah, and that's why I didn't think this was a big thing. I'm just talking about a way to catalog it, so it makes sense because we'll be citing, you know, hypothetically rule 202 and then, oh, is that 202 now or 202 that existed? I just thought it was simpler for all of us. And to be clear, there will be conflict, right? asking this forward to the council say no, we're not okay with that or we are. So we're going to present things that I'm sure they're not going to want to do some of our things. But we have to at least propose it, right? So I think the conflict conversation comes later and ultimately we don't really, they decided that, not us. It might be. Okay. Miss you is the next item. Add date of, oh I think it's a great idea. The rule or the proposal that we add the most recent date of revision. Revision is that right or adoption? What do you want to do? Revision. Probably revision. Yeah. OK. I think that's good. Revision is adoption would be if it gets adopted by the council. Yeah. Add table contents. Another going. Any thoughts on, any thoughts on that? Anybody opposed that? No? Okay. That one. Can you do? Can you add a table of content in the law or whatever? I think it's great. Yeah. I think it's great to. Yeah. Okay. I think we should recommend it. This is from a suggestion from one of the community members. Um, in the testimony and he proposes to have a table of confidence and I think that's help. I appreciate you saying that. Because that's important we know that they know we're listening to them, right? Because they came here to testify it's important so thank you for I meant to. Because I think we need to make the easier for citizens to read. Absolutely. I'm sorry my screen just got really big. Next is. This isn't right. Next is Miss Harris. Oh, it's the actual changing the word of it. OK, I'm sorry, Miss Harris. I'm just pulling my thing real quick. I have like, OK, let I got it, I apologize. Well, if there's not a current one, maybe the table of contents will suffice. No, no, no, no, let me, so, well, I shouldn't say I'm one guy, but, so, do you want to just briefly say what you're, will let me first off, is there any objection or questions about this rule? Because I think it's self-sustaining. If there's no questions or objections, then just stand there and let me just make sure. I got a look at it. Because I've worked on all my questions. I just got to make sure I have a look. I saw staff concern. We do not currently have a user's guide. OK. So do you see that in the orange area? That's why. So shall we? So who is going to make the user sky? So it's not easy standing. And let me clarify. I wanted to, that user guide is for the public. So they can help follow along with what we're doing. Or they have questions to cut down on staff time possibly. But if it's not feasible, I understand. It's just a suggestion. So the thought was that once we get these rules, like I think in the initial version of these materials that went out, I included other counties. Because a lot of these, actually all the rules I proposed came from other jurisdictions or law or case that like none of it's a cheap right, I thought this would be a good idea. So I've included other citizen guides in Montgomery County, others. I think they're really good, so that's why I put it in there. The thought was that as we go through these rules, I know I think I went and I've been completing a list of collateral materials. For example, like updating the petition, if we prove that rule, the user guide, so that would be at the end. We compile all these, we say, oh, this is a good rule. And we develop, well, if we adopt these rules, if the council accepts it, what does that mean we have to do? One thing would be develop users guide. So I've been doing that as we go along, just to, but I think once we get all these rules, if we like them, then we go back and we say, okay, well, what does that mean we have to do? And that really is, and that's really like to clarify the signage issues or whatever we decide what their requirements are so they won't miss Just know what's next and I agree. I think yeah From the sake of time I won't agree So everybody okay with the user's guide, okay Next one is For me what's it say? I mean, draft. I don't have the right note, but I think the new things beaks for itself. Any questions or comments? What other changes? So I think I don't, that's the new word. I don't have the changes. Do you have the old rule? I mean, that's why. I have the. So Mr. Khan added that to column F. And column F it has what the new language would read would be these rules of practice and procedure have been adopted by the board under the authority granted in Howard County Charter Section 501, etc. Oh right. And then I think you're right. I think the thing was, I don't want to believe by the conversation anymore. So I'll have any questions or comments. Mr. Chair, if I may. The one just towards Smith one thing. It's the charter and the code and the zoning regulations are more than guidance. The rules refer to those as additional requirements. So you might want to use a word other thanizing are more than guidance. The rules refer to those as additional requirements, so you might want to use a word other than little stronger than guidance. Yeah, so I wish I had made, let me see if I had my agenda. Just a little more. But I think guidance sends a message that somehow that board's not obligated to follow those. Oh, no, yeah, that wasn't being attended at all. I think it would, so I got to look at how it was originally written. And this is the original right that you include in our poll. Polter. But God, you just gotten them to the law. It says here the rules are the rules. You're saying that's basically, go ahead. The rules are in addition to the requirements Section 501 of the Howard County Charter, Subtitle 3, Board of Appeals of Title 16 of the Howard County Code. So the Howard County Code and the Howard County zoning regulations for further information and assistance. So the reason I made this recommendation, now thank you for reminding me. The reason I made this recommendation was because I'm trying to, in writing these rules, I was trying to make some examples with standard test of time and when we get too specific about this particular code of that, that changes and then nobody's going back and changing the reference and therefore as we know in the Hickman case where the court's commented on the inconsistency and incompatibility of law in Howard County. So I did this in a way to use general terms like, hey, it's not just these rules. You have to look elsewhere to get guidance. And I use guides because some of it is, right, I imagine, binding and some of it's not. So I mean, maybe there's a better word when you just said it guidance. But I don't want to say everything's a requirement because is everything a requirement in those passages? Is everything there a requirement? I don't know. But if they look in the code, I would think it pretty self-explanatory, whether it's guidance or a requirement. Actually, after that point that you're making, I didn't find that guidance is a problem. I find guidance a problem. Because guidance can relate to, guidance is found. Well, there's the laws that are there. And whatever is there is what you're pointing to. So maybe a law, maybe whatever else it is. But you're referring them to go look in the book and it's like that will be your guide if you look up the code that's going to guide you. I mean you're not telling them go ask Mary and she's going to guide you. You're saying go to look at the law and that will guide you. So what about your information? If we just change additional information, maybe you found. May I propose to add a one sentence? Okay. Such rules shall not inconsistent with. Is this the set with our county charter, our county code, and the our county zoning regulations? I don't think that needs to be here. This is not, this is, they don't, I don't think that needs to be here. This is not, this is, they don't, I don't think that needs to be here. Because it sounds like this is the rules we adopted by this board and that's it. And that's rules. Yeah, that's what, yeah, you go back to the rules. No matter what happens, time goes by if you want to find out what you're supposed to do, go back to the rules. I think that, in't that what this says? Yeah, it's more information-insistents, go look at the rules. Essentially, what this says is, these rules are these rules, and this is why they were adopted in the courts of charter. But there's other rules that you have to look at. And it's the anti-cancer charter, the anti-coded, anti-cancer labor relations. relations because yeah go ahead. This is a very much borrow from language from the child and I think it doesn't do any harm to just emphasize if you look at 501c it says such rules of practice La Blanche shall now be inconsistent with with blah blah blah. Okay, so I think it's a good practice to look at 16 charter 501c. I'm just using that as an example. I'm not saying we should use that language because they're they're pointing to other rules, other laws. I'm just saying as a example that how we can and we should make it clear that this rules This rules adopted by the support Shall not be inconsistent with The charter the cold How about how about how about how about yes, I've been doing this all day for weeks actually as defined In the Howard County charter Howard County code and Howard Zoning Regulations. That's a nice word. Wait, so just read it again. Just get rid of additional guide, just connect the sentences by saying, okay, saying, these rules of practice and procedure have been adopted by the board under the authority granted in the Howard County Charter Section 501, as defined in the Howard County Charter, Howard County Code, and the Howard County zoning regulations. What do you mean by that? It's pretty clear as defined there. Howard reads in those three documents. Howard reads in those documents, as defined in. And Mr. O'Connor, if I can ask a question to mayor, I came by, so I wrote this, I came, where is it discomfort discomfort what part of the Existing I'm trying to get the context of which is being said so if you look at The Howard County. No, no, no, if you look at what's on the screen now on the left is the existing rules of procedure So it's under just general. It's just a general. We're not getting it just a jet like we are way overtaken this guy. Maybe this is just a general preamble. There's nothing more to it. It's not saying you, right? Like, and yeah. And then on the right, you can see your proposal. Well, thank you. Yeah. OK, that's very helpful. So that's the actual change, you'd say. Provost. Right. I mean, the only thing that you've proposed is that it says, for further information assistance, parties may contact the Board of Appeals offices or review the Board of Appeals user's guide available online. Jim, we're not even here yet. So he even just broke it up. Isn't that the only paragraph? There's two. Oh, I see. I can't do this. Other proposals over here. Sorry. Go over. Yeah. So what do you guys want to do? I like that it's defined. I think I like the original, the additional guidance. Because I mean, it's additional guidance you can look to the law. It's just general variable. And I remember where this came from too guidance you can look to the law. It's just general preamble. Like, I remember where it came from too is when I was on the board. I'm like, where do I find the rules? Go ahead. If I could. So my original comment was based on one reading of guidance. After listening to you, I realized that this is in a preamble, which I couldn't tell. And it's really more like how sort of 2.200 operates, which I get. So understood in that context, I'll take back my comment. Take back my comment about guidance. But it's up to you. So I like guidance. And that's why I wanted to ask where to come from, because I was trying to understand, too, I was trying to you. So I like guidance. And that's why I wanted to ask where to come from, because I was trying to understand too. I was trying to remember the point I made. As defined, I think it loses, gets lost in translation. It's like, as defined, doesn't say, go look for something. These are our laws as defined. It's sort of like saying, what does something mean? It means this. And you use the same word in the sentence you lose you don't gain any information but when you you know I mean if you want to save additional information maybe found in the how if you rather information as opposed to guidance that's the only thing I think I would change, but I like guidance, because you go back to the rules and you look at them, that will guide you. Here's the rulebook. Good luck. And I do remember where I came because it was like I approached it from a citizen, right? When we first got this board, we didn't know, and I'm just repeating myself, is that like, okay, where do we go if you want to get more information? So I just added the other spots. But so the proposal stands. So as I understand it with the proposal, and then this program, are you sticking by what you want to have at the end? OK. OK. OK. All right. So then what we're evaluating is the proposal as it stands anybody I'm okay with that Okay with the way it reads right now Okay For further assistance party mayying may kind of take the board of appeals offices or review the board of appeals user guide available online. So, okay. So this, well, are there any before I go? Because maybe everybody's okay with it. Any questions, comments? Is there a user guide on my question? Yeah. Go ahead. My user guide is what we just talked about previously. So that's how the rule dovetails. But for the clarification, this kind of, like nothing lives in a vacuum or a silo, this dovetails into other potential proposals later, where currently applicants are told to go to DPC and we're going to have a conversation about this in a later role. The reason I suggest they're moving that is because if the board considers some additional proposals, essentially the pilot process will be a pilot process as opposed to having to go to DPC and then bring your file over here. So this rule kind of ties back to that, if that makes sense. Sort of put it into our house. Yeah, it is. Yeah, and if you need DPC, the board appeals will direct you there. But this is where you go for a pill. You don't go to DPC, you go to the board of pills. And if it's, you know, when you need assistance at DPC, if it's like, for example, conditionally use, and they're like, okay, well, you need to contact them for that. But if you're thinking about my appeal, this is where you go. later. So if the board isn't on board with that then that's when they give us the next week will be like oh wait this doesn't make sense now because we approve one thing it says one and the other thing it says another. So that's where the second review will come in. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. That's going to be continued on to other things. Yeah. I saw staff concerns here. Board office cannot answer technical DPC questions. Right. I believe that was answered by what Chair Ryan just said that the questions would come in if it's an appeal to the board of appeal, the question would come to us and we would refer if there are technical questions that we couldn't answer. We would refer them to the DZ. I just want to address this concern. Make sure in the office. I appreciate that. It feels comfortable with the language. We do. Thank you. And just to not have to have the point, I'm going to. So I think we sometimes was focused because we don't hear a lot of these particular types of cases, but we don't just hear you. We hear animal matters. We hear mystery, and cheese. So that's why DPC really would be the right place, because you could be peeling any number of issues. So, okay. So that is good. Okay, next one is full crop. Same as above and add, oh I like that, yeah. So I think that's a good idea. Where, I'm sorry, go ahead. Do you have any points on it? No, I just mean in this day and age you should have web links to documents. I agree. I agree. Yeah. Wherever it references like an online form or something like you can get a petition here or something I think you're right. Yes. You should have. And if we come up with a rule about annual review we can make sure those links are live so every year when we review the rules we're like are these links still valid? Yeah. Yeah. So I thought that was a great idea. Okay. So that rule is good. Next. Next, I think I even wanted to change my own role with my notes. Yeah, I, I, so let me first read the rule and then I, after I read it for like the hundredth time, like, mmm, and ease a little fine tuning. So the proposal goes, the board appeals an independent quasi-digital board composed of Howard County voters appointed by County Council. Board members must comply with certain requirements and standards, including those in noem-married within the Howard County employee manual, which are included in the appendix of these rules. So this is after reviewing it again, this is what I thought. First, let me just say the annual review is what I just talked about in the previous one. It will allow us to confirm the currency of referenced items, such as the employee handbook, user guide, web links. So by, and we talked about in the previous one, it will allow us to confirm the currency of referenced items such as the employee handbook, user guide, web links. So by, and we talked about that during our first meeting where we need to create a process, I think that was your recommendation by where this is regularly reviewed. Now to correct the grammar and reading it again, I wanted to rewrite it to say the Board of Appeals is an independent board composed of Howard County residents who are registered voters and are appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by Council, County Council. And then same for the board members must comply with the law. And the last sentence, the user manual, which is available online and in the appendix. Because I think the staff had a concern about, maybe we shouldn't have it in the appendix. Right, because there are times where the employee manual changes. Yeah. And then if we have it as an appendix, then we'd have to update the rules and get approval, as opposed to if we just reference it to online and not include it in the appendix. This was a question. So the reference to manual strike that would be in the appendix and just link to where it is online because that's a dynamic document I agree. I think that. Could you read that first sentence again? So the proposal, the new update proposal, the Board of Appeals, is an independent board composed of Howard County residents, comma, who are registered voters and are appointed by the county executive. That's, Mr. President. Is that right? Is that right? Is that right, right? The county. The county council. The county council appoints the members of the board of appeals. So I thought that too. That's what I wrote my first vision. But I thought when I went back to look at the Admin Procedure Act, it says only the executive can provide board members. No, the county charter says that the board of appeals is appointed by the county council. That's what I put my original rules. But then the admin is a complaint. I will talk about that later. But that's why I got confused because my understanding is No, correct. The general rule for boards and commissions of the county is that the executive appoints and the council confirms. Yeah, right. But think about the county charter as the Constitution of the county. The Constitution is higher than the code in terms of authority. If there were a conflict between the code and the charter, the charter would prevail. So in this instance, you have a specific rule for a specific board. It overrides the general rule, which is the executive generally appoints members of the county boards and commissions and the council confirms. The provisions that I think you're seeing in the code, they actually relate to section 404 the charter Which provide for citizen boards generally that section has an express exception for the board of appeals and some other County created. I mean, I mean, I may be at I didn't see that express exception and that would be a class example of the Confusion that occurs, but yeah, no less. I think that's also to your point I think you helped clarify a conversation you've swam earlier where there's conflict. The charter, Trump's code, code, Trump's any independent rules or policy, right? I mean, I think that's, yeah. Often times there aren't conflicts. It's just there's a specific rule for something so there really is no conflict. Okay, so we can go live out that. But when I updated this, I was OK. So I had to write the first time in terms of the border. Now, you left off when you said that a quasi judicial, but when you said the feedback that we shouldn't put that in there, it's not relevant. Yeah, I was thinking that same thing. I mean, even though we are, I'm like whatever. I was at battles. So that's why I dropped it. Because that's the nice drop. I think that's the nice drop. OK, so Mr. Connor, you clear on that? OK. You know, that's a test question, right? Like, always go with your first answer. And you said, first answer was a council. You said registered voters. That was your other thing. Yeah, because it is registered voters who are also residents. I think it is. Because the voter isn't registered? I'm not going to get that debate. That's a whole nother debate, but I'm not going to get it there. I mean, is it redundant or? Well, I don't think it's a redundant. I just want you to register voter. Right. And I believe there's a requirement for the number of members in political parties, is that correct? Which is why we have political parties. Right, and so the only way for us to verify is if they are a registered voter. OK, so it is not. And to redone it. OK. Thank you for playing. OK. So the next item was, let me scroll over, it was for a call, I like to go around the window. So you bring up the definitions. This is my thought, but I'll let you chime in. I thought, and that's why I didn't include any definitions that we would do that in work session three, because that's all new. Do you agree with that? Yeah. Okay. Okay. I shouldn't, work section three. I should say, I have a third. It's actually annoying me. Next is? What is that? I put it in there. And I don't have my own name too. I was too close for Guosal. You come to the line too. Oh, I need to start charging. I have that here. I have that here I have it I meet pages I have it Here we go. Yeah, here you go. So I got administrative structure stucco and comments that we're talking about Two administrative structure proposed new section. What does draft person mean? This was his comment. That's the same one as the same request that would you say? Yeah. I know. OK. One. Thank you. OK. Next one is. So it was misused. So it was a question. How the board of appeal currently organized. So I have a question that I'll let you talk about. So were you saying like you want table nation that we were saying? Now, I just want to maybe ask this Harold about how the current made office is organized and to understand what the board clerk and the administrator, what are the differences? And if you can tell us who actually is in that position because I'm very confused with that and just want to have some clarification there. To make changes. So can you clarify again, which, so I can explain like how the board, can you repeat that question again please I'm sorry. So I'm looking at 201 D E F Okay, So the DE&F, so currently the clerk of the board as defined in the rules is the design of the, well, it's listed here as the director of DPC, which is Linda Eisenberg. The responsibility whenever there's the clerk of the board functions mentioned her team handles those. It used to be Ms. Tony Sigline who is retired. So now there is a team of people who accept the petitions and then for those petitions onto the person who's listed here as the secretary, which is the board administrator. Ms. Berg. So Ms. Berg is the board administrator. The administrative assistants are, now why I'm going to say her name wrong, she's in our control room. Ms. Ammankayaya, that's her first name. Miss Ammancaya is one of the administrative assistants and Miss Miller, Keen Miller is, Keirsten Miller is the other administrative assistant. And then the legal advisor is Mr. Sanders and or Mr. Cook. So, sector, sector actually is a administrator? Correct. That's an old term. Like they used to call us all secretaries. Okay. We are no longer secretaries. But that is Miss Berg. Okay. What is your title exactly? I am the Council Administrator. So the Council Administrator handle is like the board administrator reports into me and I'm just responsible for the overall management of the Council and the board office. And just to see you know as you, because I was I read your comment and this week I met Ms. Herred, I tried to create a pictographic. I made my best right? I spent like an hour's on it. She's like, that's not right either. That's not right either. So I'm sorry. I was hoping to put a picture on the board, but it didn't work. Well, maybe just the very first. Maybe just an order chart. Well, in order chart without the names. Because it's a different order chart. And that's what Mr. Ryan attempted to do. But the org chart, he had like, it's hard for the perspective of like, what perspective from a citizen's perspective, who I interact with and what order, who we as board members interact with, how DBC interacts. So I banded all that because it was very confusing, moreover if we're gonna be changing it all, does it really matter? But so, because the Department of Planning and Zoning is an executive branch function. And we interact with them. We work with them, but we have no reporting lines to or from them. And that's what you had in your... In policy, right. And that's where we came confusing, because I'm like, when you look at, that's exactly how it works. Now, but anyway, let's not go there. But yeah, when you look at, who does what? But so that's why further down, I propose which the board is going to consider shortly a different kind of structure, right? Because I think the previous structure, correct me if I'm wrong, that's the historical. That's fine. That's the way it was. But we've grown as a county. The board's offices are growing into something now and everything's growing. So now processes need to be updated potentially. And we spent a lot of time vetting this just so you know, we get to a sense of March we've been meeting, talking about how does it actually work? How would you like it to work? So I got a lot of input in these proposals from Miss Haarid and Miss Berg and council members. I'm like, how, if we could create a perfect system, how would it look? So that's kind of where this has come from. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Is it common or is it normal or not normal? Is it common in the rest of the counties in Maryland for the board of appeals to be under the purview of the Department of Planning and Zoning? So I have an answer, but I'm sure. I'll say my, but I'll let you out. I don't, however, I would not agree with the characterization that the board is under the purview of planning and zoning. Planning and zoning essentially operates as a clerk, much like the clerk of a court operates for a court. They're supposed to receive documents that are for the Board of Appeals and essentially keep a case file. That doesn't make the board under the purview of DPC by any stretch. But it has to have some kind of relationship to it. Is that normal? Is that a curve? Typical? Yeah. Is that a typical? Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know why it was set up this way. And it doesn't have to be obviously this is this was set up The way it currently is in these rules that the board wants to change who its clerk is Yeah, that would be that would be it and I'm no lawyer I'll tell you right up front, but it seems like a conflict of interest to be tied to the DPC that way. So, thanks. I don't because they're serving a ministerial function. I mean, I don't know the ins and outs of what happens day to day, but on paper anyway, all they're doing is literally collecting paper and then sending it over to the ounces losses. And what we found was in our review, since March we found that, right, and you're absolutely right, Mr. Cook, in a paper. And that's why we're doing this, because what happens on paper and what happens in reality is much different when we start looking at it. And that's, it became a shocker to me when I started seeing memos going back for them, like, wait, they're telling people to take certain actions in a case? So, but anyway, we don't need to recap all that. Okay. Thank you. Are there any particular reasons that we have clerk from the VPC? Because to me, this can be combined with administrator, I'll take petitions and accept, yeah. And maintain the do the dog hit. I think I could answer that. I try to answer that historically. And if I misspeak, then I'm certain that Mr. Sanders or Mr. Cook can help out. So the board's office, when we receive documents, we're just a step along the process. Like there's, there are plans, there's like zoning plans and zoning cases, whatever you want to refer them to, that go through the county offices and then there's sometimes a handoff to us. Like there's a handoff to the hearing examiner for some cases, there's a handoff to the hearing examiner. For some cases, there's a handoff to the Board of Appeals. But then the case goes back to planning and zoning. And planning and zoning is the keeper or the custodians of all things zoning for the county. So that's, I think that's historically why it's that the clerk has been identified as the DPC because they handle the bulk of the stuff, except for when there's appeal or when there's some other action that's taken by one of the five boards that we support. But I'm with Eugene. I don't know why that couldn't be conserved. Well, so yeah, so we'll end up to believe what. So I think we're going to get into that and rules and I have some explanations for it because everything you're asking is exactly what we've been saying and talking about so that's why I think it's all good stuff. But, probably budgetary issues too. I mean, the administrator has pretty heavy load as it is. I mean, this Department of Planning is there and they've got a pretty substantial budget, so I'm sure that's, I mean, it's almost like creating another Board of Appeals office and staff and handle what DPC has been doing. Yeah. I think what Mr. Harris said was the clerk in within the DPC, not only handles our cases, but also other cases. So they have broader duties. And there are probably some similarities of other cases not handing to us. That's why they handle all those in their department. And I think, Ray, if I'm not mistaken, the boards of Pills have grown from DPC, right? I think there wasn't a standalone board's office per se, historically. Am I wrong? I believe so. And when the former administrator, Ms. Robin Reigner, was here, we had conversations, but that's been many years ago. I believe that's where, like, it all generated from do you know, Mr. Sanders, where the board... Like, DPC was a one-stop shop back in the day. They did everything. Appeals, DPC, everything. No, there was a board of appeals. Oh, there were separate administrators and everything? Oh, right. There wasn't a board of appeals administrator. Years ago, there was actually an administrative assistant to the zoning board or to the board of appeals. There was actually the board of appeals had their own counsel and they would do the decision orders. Then that would be sent to the off-soul law for legal sufficiency. Years ago under the I think it was under the ECHR administration there was every agency and council everybody had to reduce their budgets by 10%. You also law ended up taking over that position. The board had their own attorney. They also law then took over the drafting decisions and became council to the board. That's funny yeah because I thought I read it not to go sidebar here too much, but in doing all my research, I thought I read it out. There was actually a law that says no board can have their own attorney in Howard County, right? I think that is the Ministry of Procedure Act, I think. So that's funny, that must have come along. But the budget cuts are like one law. a new position created, like boards administrator for the zoning board and the board of appeals and hearing examiner. So it's sort of evolved over the years. So Ms. Yu, if you're okay, well, I think we'll get the next two. Okay, so we'll move on to Ms. Harris. So Ms. Harris proposes, sorry, I have my sprawl going on over here. Ms. Harris proposes, sorry, my sprawl going on over here. Ms. Harris proposes. And if anybody wants to take a break, please chime in. We're in Ms. Harris. Okay, new letter. Oh, training is hard work. So if you're okay, we're gonna do that till the third base. Next week, get two current roles to not summarize compensation and choose, oh, that's the rule. The board of, okay, so this is, so there's a couple points here. Let me first read it. Board of Peals shall consist of five revenues to register voters of the county. Oh, this is. So there's a couple points here. Let me first read the board of appeals. Shell consists of five revenues, so registered voters of the county. And Mr. Recon, can I ask you to put up the existing? Would that be? Yeah. So that way we can compare, because I think there's, you could see where the changes recommended. And, oh, so okay, it's a lot of change. Ha, ha, it's a lot of change. Yeah, yeah, I think that's it. Yeah. So, the first part, part A, it doesn't change too much. I don't think. Could this have five residents or registered voters pointed by the council? Oh, each councilmatic district shall be represented by single pointed permanent board member. The board of appeals may exercise authority functions. Only one can be in this board., appointed members have no authority to act individually without delegation from the authority to board, is the right responsibility board members to meet and plead for to speak hearings and meetings. Okay, so there's a bunch of things in here I'll just quickly go over it because we got staff comments. First part, Councilmatic District. So I put that in there because the feedback we got was we should update the rules to reflect current practice and that's what they do. Now when we go to give these to the council, they're like we don't want that. Well then, then it will be void that rule won't exist. But this is how it's done now so that's why the way the rules were and we each represent a different council district. And the current rules don't reflect that. The board of field, Mayor of the Society of the Authority of Function, when convened is a board. That's just that's sub-explanatory regulation, right? Like you can't weigh in on this talk. But this speaks to the comments we receive from council for the public about X part take communication and not specifically, but indirectly that you don't have any authority as an individual board member. It also speaks to the concept leader, which I know we're gonna have a spiritful conversation about the alternate board member, so that we only have authority when we are convened as a board. And it's the right of every board member to meet and participate in hearings and other meetings. Meeting fleet participate is actually in the employee handbook or I think that's what yeah I got to look at my source but yeah meeting fleet participate and so when I look that up that is actually defined by the Attorney General's Office the Open Public Meetings Compliance Board defines what what meaningful participation by board members versus the duty, or they call it the duty of the board, versus the right of the public. But that comes in later on. So that was a preamble, any thoughts? That means crit though. Okay. I have no, no. Oh. May I speak up about the permanent? Yes. I'm not certain whether this might be a question for Mr. Cook or Mr. Sanders. I had, I took pause with the word permanent because board members are appointed for a specific turn. No, I can answer that. Sorry. I left that off. You're right. You did. That's it. Because you brought that point up so I did answer that. I'm sorry. I left that off. You did. That's it. Because you brought that point up, so I did some research. What's some better words? Primary or regular. I found those are good synonyms. So I agree with you. Permanent gives the wrong distinction. Nobody's permanent, right? So board you understand the point was that permanent isn't really the most accurate way if we go with this alternate strategy. We need a way to distinguish alternate from an alternate. So why don't we just highlight it now and come back to it after we've figured out whether we're going to do an alternate because if we're not going to have an alternate we don't need the word at all. If we do have an alternate then we need one of the words that you recommend other than permanent. So if we just highlight it, we'll come back to it once you clarify that. Good boy. Let's do that. Good boy. OK. We'll table that one. So then we go to the second program, alternate member. So I know there's going to be a lot of conversation about it. So essentially what this says is, and you can read it word for it, but essentially what this says is, and you can read it word for it, but essentially what this says is, we want to create a substitute teacher, right? The Rosaliers are creating a substitute. And it talks about when that substitute could be used to, it's substitute would be being at large, so county-wide member, right? They would only be called up in the absence of a, I don't know, whatever we want to call a regular member. They wouldn't have any authority, they would not be allowed to participate in anything. They wouldn't be a part of the board unless called up to be a part of the board. I think that's a part distinction. And so just very briefly, why did we come up with this? Well, I found that of the, I think, 11 Jurer counties, the vast majority of them all have alternate members already. I'm like, oh, that's good. And I looked at their power and language, which is identical to ours. So I'm like, OK. Then we thought about, well, you can participate in hearing if it's a conflict or if you're otherwise have to review yourself. And we've had cases, if you may recall, and the case has resolved already. I just, I can't remember the case back, I can't remember the attorney. It created a very large problem for this board. I remember Mr. Cole, Representative Klein, who we'd heard all this testimony. He said, that's it. I don't want to hear anymore because I'm, because remember, 2-2 means the case is dismissed, the 2-2 vote. So we need an odd number to really serve our purpose. Otherwise, a split vote creates issues for a pep, or for both sides, if that matter. So that ended up, and that had the effect of delaying a case several months. So that was why I proposed it. There's more to it, but I'll let everybody be here. So who has thoughts? I think it should have no. I think that would be good to have an alternate member. I have a question. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, your mind thought was the note that we got and I'm afraid we hadn't had a chance to read it, but based on the note from Mr. Cook. I haven't seen it. Previous to the meeting, starting, you mentioned something about an alternate, not being able to have one. If you could clarify that for you. Oh, because the county council, each one gets the charter. First off, they've received no, let's crack up. They've received no. No. I didn't have no. I mean, I saw a note, I didn't read it. So I think probably since everybody's not on the same page, the board probably should just proceed with this and then after everybody's had a chance to look at it, you said that there were other counties that do they do this in Maryland? Yeah, yeah, we'll take a look. So we could think of, because so to back up a little bit further, before I propose this, I did go to the Office of Law and All Disclosure. This is weeks and weeks ago, because I wanted this this initiative to pass. I wanted to get by it. And Mr. Kog and Mr. Sanders and I, a lot of conversations, like, I don't think so. I don't think you can do this. And I'm like, okay, well, let me do more research then, because my initial information came from outside this state, came from other things. So then, based on that feedback, I started doing research on other counties have it. But like you said, well, I think it's probably better that maybe we vet this out. And then when we come back to again, because then maybe I can share the information that I've developed, would that be a better way to do it? Or do you just want to, let me back that a little bit. So it was my understanding that we were kind of going to do this in the off-salt law. I was going to look at everything all at once. Or is that, is that he want to do it? How do you want to do it? We can do it that way. However the board wants. Yeah. That way I can, we can have time to have like meaningful conversations because ultimately if nothing takes foot here then what's the point of you even? Yeah, the alternative is to do it as you're going along so that if there is an issue that isn't going to get sufficiency then you don't waste time on it, but how you guys want to proceed is totally up to you. Before we proceed, I do have a couple questions about this alternate member. First of all, because each one of us is appointed by one of our county council members, right? So who this alternate member will be appointed by? The Council's on. So the proposal. Now mind you, when this goes to the Council, if they like this concept, I'm sure they're going to shape it however they want to shape it. But my vision for was that it should be it councils the whole, because it'd be from a like county wide list and I also put in me as asterisk because they're like a substitute and look how much of a learning curve is she's be something that historically was on the board that was just my recommendation but but that's way down the road but because there's so much of a learning curve to this board it should be so there be some other rules that the council would have to consider like terms of service and all that stuff but and I know I kind of veered off what your question was, but the vision was that it'd be from a county-wide list, any district, but the council as a whole would have to say. That would be my suggestion, but I'm sure they will have a process that'll build one of it. Yeah, I'm asking your vision of how. So each one of them can nominate one and then they vote. I guess right. I don't know. So I'm just asking. That would my proposal would be that it would be blind just to where you live. You're just a resident of our kind of register voter. And then the council would amongst themselves have to come to consensus on who they want. Now we, but I don't want to, listen, if they agreed to the ultimate member, that would be a win. Like, how they want to come up with it is all of them. But, um, because the purpose is actually to avoid a tie vote. And delay, yeah. And that delays things. Yeah. And I, I wasn't in on that case, but I do recall the case. And it was like I was surprised, and I didn't realize that. Yeah. And I can see the point of having an alternate person. Would that alternate person, and I get a nut, this might be jumping the gun, they would have to have reviewed the entire case before they came in. Good point. So that ties into our next case before they can. Good point. So that ties into our next point. That's a great point. I do see down the road, it's going to create some problems at the council level, because one, again, they have each one of them, well, nominate the one, or how, if you think of the procedure, it's going to create some problems. And I know it's not up to us to figure, but we better to think about it. If we know down the road, they're not going to prove it, then wipe out. And secondly, which part of that person should be from? Because in the charter, we have no more than three members that should come in from one party. Right? So potentially we could have, and some hearings that four members are from one party. That's a great point. Does that create some problems? I mean, that's illegal. What's the top there? If I could just time in on that. one party. That's a great point. Does that create some problem? I mean, that's illegal. One thought there, if I could just time in on that, one thought would be that we would have a pool of substitutes. And so potentially a few alternate members. And as we talk later about the rules, how that person would be called up to play essentially. So say, just hypothetically, I don't know anybody's political affiliation is here. But say, you know, one of the Democrats is the one that, or isn't, you know, is absent for whatever reason, or had to refuse himself. Well, then we'd have to pull the Democrat from the substitute pool. It'd have to be party for party. So we can keep the balance. That's a really good point. And I didn't know. Yeah. That's something to think about. I see some challenges. Sorry. The only challenges that I see with the process is when there's a different person missing each time when we have an extended case. So that's what we're gonna talk about. That's another role. Do you read those roles? So this all, like I say, played into it. So the case, which is what Ms. Foreclops had, and I'm a polydrous guy. So I'm going to take a jumpy down from talking too much or too quickly. No, no. It's OK. Because I spend so much time thinking about this. And despite that, I're getting more than one. So the case is part of the reason we moved to the schedule and I know we all know this but just to recap was so that we can move things a long quicker and we had right when a year ago if you look at our schedule we were one year, one year backlog to hear a case. We now have no cases in backlog So the schedule has worked and despite having eight hour sessions We really haven't yet to have a hearing that's gotten one four hours Part of the other reality of that was that we realized I'm gonna say this all now because it plays into some rules down the line Was that what we found if you recall and we talked about this? Attorneys because there's no discovery in this process, meaning, you decide don't get to trade notes when they show up to the board of appeals, that's, they got to be prepared to defend their position regardless of what the other side says. What we found is that they were delaying hearings intentionally, which we have them saying, and then reworking their case, so they're purposely dragging it out, so that they could hear what one side said, drag it out another day another day It was taking us forever to hear these cases now that we don't allow post-pomance the lessons for I forgot what the code is What is it compelling circumstances and we've done and we as the chair because I just got linked I've adopted the circuit courts Definition of what compelling circumstances are. So now we don't allow delays. We require that they do an eight hour hearing. So we have yet to have a hearing that hasn't started and ended in one day. It's been a year. So my point to your question is, if you start a case, if the alternate starts a case, they have to finish a case. And so far, we haven't had a case, if the alternate starts a case, they have to finish a case. And so far, we haven't had a case going more than a day. So I think that's possible. Now hypothetically, what happens if it does extend? I thought this through. And we go day one, and now we're day two for whatever reason. OK, we went day two. Well, in that case, instead of switching, I believe we would have to regret the postponement until that same board member was available, right? Because if you're accusing yourself or if you have conflict, you're not gonna be able to participate in day one. So it won't be a problem down the road, does that make sense? Those are my thoughts, but. Yeah, I have a question. So if the regular member started the case and didn't finish in day one, but he or she's not available in day two of the hearing, we have to reschedule, instead of having alternate member. So the current rule is if one of us is not available, they are allowed to review the video and get us same information, and they are still allowed to deliberate. So what are the issues with that? So you're going on a quest, you're on the next rule, but no, but it's a good point. Because I write all of them. No, no, no. And you and I talked offline about this. So it's a good point. So your question was, okay. You said the alternate if they have to deliberate offline. And so we talk about that. But the thought would be that we don't do that now, right? So the regular members there, and they'll be there for the duration of the case. So if they were there, they went, oh, that's what I was going to say. So scheduling. So that's a point that isn't in the rules that I didn't make a rule for, but we really should So the rules say the chairperson you and I talked about this the rules cited chairperson schedules the case, right? So the way it works now since I'm sure I can relate this to you I didn't know it until I got in the spot the board Administrator and office tells room of availability so at the beginning of the year we set out here's all the potential dates Right and we come up with that and we talked about that later in the rules room of availability. So at the beginning of the year, we set out, here's all the potential dates, right? And we come up with that, and we talk about that later in the rules. So now the chair, it's not a simple scheduling. So I looked at how does the circuit court do it? So I actually called the chief judge for our county. And I said, how do you schedule or the scheduling judge? I said, how do you do these things. So you have to take, tell you, actually, question is not a problem. No, but I'm about to get to it. Because you can't schedule a case unless you know the board members are there. So in other words, if the board members tell the person in charge scheduling, I'm not going to be here this day, this day, this day. Well, we don't schedule hearings on those days. So you don't have to worry about watching videos because you weren't there because we wouldn't have scheduled it because you weren't there. Unless you get sick at the last minute, which is really what we're talking about, right? Like we're talking about because cases should be scheduled with consideration for board members of eligibility. It should only happen very narrowly that you need to, oh, I'll turn it member. I didn't know until I just got the email. Let's not talk about any future cases or any case. No, I know. I think my question is the reason to have an alternate member is to fill in the absent member, right? So my question was if the members are allowed to review the video for the sessions, they are not there. That is not going to be a problem. Why do we need somebody to fill in? Oh, okay, I'm sorry. That's my question. Well, if it goes just one day and you're not there and it's over in one day, you can't review anything that's over. I mean, it's done. It's better to have had that person there and do the decision order right then and there. And then back to, you know, you're saying, oh, now we need like five different board members from five city council. I think each one should nominate one and then in the lottery system, you pick just one. You only need one. I mean, if there's two people from, so be it. I mean, they're two different people. They're just voters. They're not, they're not, I don't think that's. That contradicts to the law. That's right. Okay, that was your point. Okay, so, okay, let's focus on the first one, okay? Because the deliberation is on a different day. The hearing is very important. It might not be. Yeah, it could be. For the most part. So let me give it. So for the most part, so let me finish for the most part right now our plan, our design is to have hearing all the cases and one day in deliberation on another night. Correct? That is our general. Is that like a right name? Yes, yes. So for the hearing day, if one of us are absent on that day, he or she can review the video of that hearing and still be able to deliberate on the other day, unless he actually are absent in both days. Okay, so then we have two two situation. Otherwise, we do not have that. Correct? So let me, so that makes sense. Right, I understand your question. So I was trying to hold back that little answer. I was trying to hold back my full answer because there's a rule further down that we specifically talk about what you're talking about while I see videos. So, but I want to answer your question. So, in our most, I got to get an opinion from the centers. Can I talk generally without about the merits of our last case, but can I talk about the way, essentially, how we, what I want to talk about is how there may be some motions to potentially take a certain action that are decided that day. Let's not talk about any of these things. Okay, so let's say, okay, okay, okay. It's something that's technically just to say generally. Okay, so generally speaking. Hypotheticals. Because we said, oh, we're generally speaking, we have this setup. But there are motions made by parties, which the board needs to rule on in real time, which may end in case we rate of that in there. So if somebody's out there, they don't get to vote. Now, so more to your point. And I have some detailed notes. That's a good point, yeah. Yeah. So the preliminary. And so for example, there's a rule that says like if I change, if an amendment I think it's made to petition, if it's deemed substantial, then it has to be like, so there's these things that a member has to vote on in real time that directly impacts the course of a case in that day. So not necessarily, you know, like, let's deliberate on it, but there's motions and things like that. Okay. Now to the bigger or the other matter and it's farther down, so I want to speak back to it. Because there's another rule referenced. Let me just get to it. And it talks about, let me just find it. OK, I can't find it. But I'll do it off top of my head. When we get to it later, I can update my answer, I need to. So the attorney general is ruled, and this is in your digital binder, with the Open Public Meetings compliance board is ruled, what constitutes meaningful participation and what constitutes the public's right. The public has a right during an open public meeting to attend. They do not have a right to review the the exhibits and unless invited, they don't generally have a role to speak, right? A board member has an obligation to review evidence to make findings of fact conclusions of law and so, and participate. So reviewing afterwards, I would say is the same responsibility or right that the public has. They can watch a video. They can't weigh in on facts. They can't say anything. So a board member is actually in viewing things after the fact is actually fulfilling responsibility or the rights of a member of the general public and not their duty as a board member. But this all becomes a move point if the alternate member concept, if everything is taken to consideration for me scheduling, alternate board member. But in the event of board members absent, my proposal is that we take away the whole thing about reviewing a video and all that because you're not in real time. You can't weigh in, you can't ask questions. Once they rest their case, they rest their case. So if that happens when you're out, you're out. So those are my points. And I have, and I included the public meetings compliance board memorandum on public participation and all that stuff which supports my points. And I have, and I included the public meetings compliance board, memorandum on public participation and all that stuff which supports my points. I don't know, I know that wasn't the most articulate thing, but I try to do from memory after everything I've read. I don't know if that helps because I think viewing it does not fulfill your responsibilities board members actually is what I'm saying. And I can see that being the case, and I can also see it being at a point where you can come back on this second day and ask those questions depending on where you left off in the case from the first day. So it could apply, but then again, you may have the opportunity to participate fully. And I don't know if that's to be a chair call. Maybe that's whether or not they have an alternate or have the person participate. So it depends on where you are in the case. Yeah, there's rules for it down. We talked about if we go into alter plan, there's very, I wrote some very proposed, some very specific rules. I'm sure you guys will want to add some caveat set. But it happens in a very narrow limited context. Like all these are, like we've had the chair will have to consider the board members availability with scheduling. You know a conflict and everything should be known the minute you get the case. So it's not like just the last minute I gotta call it. It's essentially you got the flu day before. Basically. And I just also switching years just slight bit about the affiliations for the board members and having more than one. We currently can have three of the same party make a decision now. So I don't think that should be a focus on how we choose a board member because in the charter it says no more than three can be of the same party and we also have a minimum of three that can vote at any one time. So the point was if we have five and Mr. Zoukirg Choum, so hypothetically we have three of party A, one of party B and one of party C, hypothetically right. Party B, that fourth member is now out. So if we were to bring in a fourth alternate that was the same as the first three, that's not permitted. Do you understand what I was saying? You can only have three. So the alternate would have to be, would have to be from another affiliation. So that's why misuse makes a great point that we can't have more than three of any political affiliation in part of a hearing. So that means we have to have a pool of alternates and based on the person that was absent, that person that replaced them would have to be from the same political party. Or, I'm sorry, that person couldn't create a majority party. Does that make sense? It does, and I guess my point is the charter allows for one party to make a vote now. Oh, I see what you're saying. Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. Yeah. So it shouldn't be an issue point. Oh, that's a good point, yeah. Yeah. So it shouldn't be an issue, as my point, based on what the charter, what we have required to follow in the charter. So we only need to remember to vote. And you're not going to say those three members can't be the same people. They could at any point in time at this point now, if we don't get an ultimate B of the same party. So I just didn't want that to be the focus of what we're doing because of we have to look at the fall of the charter. We need four to go, right? We need four. No. Three. Two thirds. Three. It's three. The board may not consist of more than three people from the same party. But I think your colleagues' point was that you could have a case where you have five people, three of them vote for granting or denying whatever, and they're all in the same party. Yeah. Or we just have three show up at the meeting. It's the same. We can have three people show up. It's all of those two or a three before the day goes to the weekend. Yeah. We have three of you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a good point. I think we're all made up at the point. Although we have funny members, but only three, sometimes, and sometimes, the patients are probably afraid of both. They'll both feel straight, the front and the same party. So the question is, the sick member, all the alternate member, is technically the sick member of the four. And we have four, say, So the fifth member make one party, the majority, not just the majority majority but four of the five members are From the same party and that contradicts to The charter says that we cannot have more than three members from the party That's that's only saying because the, it's not who are voting. It's how the poor thing consists of. And what I'm trying to get across though is that we would have to decide whether or not we're going to always have five people or not. Well, I think that's the point. And so there's two people out there and you need two alternatives to fill each position. And can we do that? Because that means we're changing the guidelines of the charter? Well, no. So I think that's a good way to back up. I think the simplest way to take care of the first question, in my opinion, is you've just got it as to like one for one. If the person out is hypothetically party A, then they should be placed by party A. So now hypothetically, we get two members out. So we don't have a rule right now. That was my intent in my head, but we never articulate that anywhere that we should always be a board of five. Like when we hear a case, we should be five. And that was the point. So you're right, if you get two out, do we say that automatically creates a postponement? Do we create a rule that says the board reschedules, or do we call from the pool? So what do you think? And my point is, can we change that because of what's in the charter? Well, we're gonna do this, and then we're gonna get legal opinion, and that's gonna, so I think we should give it our cash shot and see what feedback is. And then, right? Because I heard him say, now like this, they're all here. Yeah. Well, we don't even have the bulls who give them yet. So Charter is overarching rules as how he put it. It's our constitution. Right, but we're getting back to it. Are we changing our constitution? Is what I'm, it was the part I're getting back to it. Exactly. So if we can't, can we do what we're trying to do? Is the question. So I think there's a lot of issues going on. I'm sorry. I'm going to be quiet. No, no, no, no, please. I wrote an email. Everybody speak up. And that's what I mean. So I think we're talking about, it's can we do the all-treat? the very beginning of this conversation, which is, the officer law says, hey listen, you guys give us something to evaluate. Right now there's a lot of moving parts. Give us something concrete that we can look at. And so it's what we're trying to develop, and that's what we're doing now. So I think that was what you were saying. I think that's what I was hearing. Like can we even do it? Well let's give them something to evaluate first. The second point is I heard it, correct me if I'm wrong, was well, what if two people are out? I'm like, oh, that's a good point. So what does the board think in that situation? Or do we just say, over arching rule, make it even simpler that the board will conduct hearings only when five members are present? Is that? And that is what's conflicting with the Section 502 border of appeals hearing examiner and my read and this right. Border appeals decision, maybe I'm looking at the examiner part and it doesn't apply to us because it's saying we need two thirds of the members of the council in order to vote. That's far up. That's to hold a meeting. Right, so we can do it. I think that's above the A.C. But we could create a rule that says we go, we want above that, which I think is a great idea and I didn't think about it. Okay. Well, I don't think, I think, well, if we have three, we're fine. It's a four show up, then we need the fifth member. But we don't, if there's three, I don't think we need the alternate because we have three. We have a quorum. But the four is so that it will be actually five votes rather than two, two. Yeah, but what Jean is saying that if that's the case and we have to make a vote, we delay the case. We reschedule that night until all five are there. Is that right? That doesn't rule. So she's saying, as it exists now, we can do it with three because that's split vote. But I guess as a board, do we think that's what we want to do? Is that, I don't think we should do that. I don't need to say five or nothing because that's my personal opinion but I'm only 20% as vote. I agree with that. If we have only four board members, we have a problem. Three board members, I don't like that. Yeah, I agree. It's not representative. Right. And we need to think about if we only can go ahead with five four members, what are the chances that we are going to delay the hearing for quite a long time? I think that's the only concern I have. I like that we have, either we have full house or we don't do it. I like that idea. So the thought would be if this is so what would cause that to happen. So and this is how I say that we minimize that potential. We look historically when we miss members and so on and so forth. So if the chair if the chair when scheduling takes into considerations the member schedule vacations conflicts all so the chair should know scheduling, takes into consideration the member's schedule of vacations, conflicts, all that. So the chair should know all that at a head time. So that rules out that. So really the only time we're talking about somebody not being able to participate is a last minute sickness or illness or we're there to recuse themselves because there's conflict or some other reason. That's how I see it, let's not missing it. Those would be the two times. So how many times two members can be conflicted out? Or sometimes because we kind of plan this a month in a minute, some things can come up that you're not aware of. You know? So that gets me to my next point. We propose the rule later down that says board members, you know, we talked about absence or anything It says for compelling reasons. So like you said we scheduled to far out if the chair is taking consideration All factors which the chair whoever it is should be doing and we should put that in the rules These are the factors that must be considered when scheduling Compiling reasons are vacation scheduled before the hearing was scheduled so that no you can't schedule that you know I mean so the the compelling reason that circuit court uses is vacation scheduled before the hearing was scheduled so that no you can't schedule with them you know what I mean so the compelling reason that circuit court uses is vacation scheduled before the hearing was scheduled well you would have told the chair that so we would have had a conflict I think it says a case that's calendared somewhere else so in other words a lawyer has a case somewhere else that's not applicable to us. What if you get Beyonce tickets at the last minute? I think so. Miss Phil, you're talking about board members, right? No, that's not an example. Yeah, yeah, she's talking about board members, yeah. So I was trying to make the same rules, so it's a fair play. Oh, I know. The lawyer has compelling reasons. Well, it's so should the board. Why should we be the different? right? It should be fair. If the lawyer has to show up and a party has to show up, then we should have the same burden. And that's why, if I showed you my Excel spreadsheet for a schedule of cases, all the factors, it's not nearly as easy as you're thinking it is. It's not easy at all. But we don't poll people. We say this is what it is. You get enough notice. Because you have to figure in advertising poll people. We say this is what it is. You get enough notice. You know, because you have to figure in advertising everything too. So there's a whole timeline that has to go into it. But like I said, when you look down to the reasons of why somebody be out, it's essentially a last minute thing. Like Beyonce tickets, you call it sick to work that day and that's not going to be there, would notify the administrator and the chair, the chair would then identify the proper alternate, call the alternate out, make sure they're available. The alternate side available in the case is off. Like, you know, and then we wait for the regular, whatever term we're using, board member to present. This, like I said, this should only happen very narrowly. The problem is when it does happen, it has such a dramatic impact on our calendar and our ability to complete our job. So that's why I put it in there. And potentially, with potential conflicts arriving, and I just thought it was a good idea. And then I saw other boards do the tune. I'm like, oh, that's a really good idea. Does that answer your question? Yeah. OK. So we tableed alternate. I think that's really good. Well, I think we should have prepared a great language. And give it. They don't have anything to evaluate right now. But the general idea of having an automated member is it lawfully allowed? Well that's what the bad value is. That's what the bad value is. I do not understand why you cannot evaluate the general idea of having an automated. Because what if we put a caveat in there that says, oh it has to be a certain political party? Oh well that idea was good, but now you added that rule. That's not okay. No I think that's a second. You're the whole thing. I think the details are the second step. I think the first step is we need to know the first place, whether we are allowed to legally to have an alternative member at all. If not, then the none of the discussion matters. If they're doing this in other counties, why would it necessarily be illegal? Because I don't know how other counties charter us as. That's why we need to do research. Because other counties might doesn't have the charter saying that five members on the board. So if I could, we're just revisiting something respectfully that we kind of talked about very beginning this like 15 minutes ago, which was it probably, I think for the sake of efficiency, and I would recommend respectfully in the consensus we'll prevail, let's give them specifics to evaluate, and then we can have conversations. It doesn't hurt us to do this Right, we're here. We're now we just been 15 minutes. I'm about let's get the language down give to him and you're right And if it's not legal, that's not legal, right? But I think we at least deserve The office of law counsel all these people deserve to view what we're saying and if it's not permissible, that is not permissible. But we're here, we're doing it. So I say you throw it in there, you mean me? It's not going to be like, OK. We've discussed it. We say, but we're trying to iron out every single wrinkle, but we don't have to. Yeah. And if they say it's not, then I hear what you're saying. Let's not be futile in our efforts. And you could be right, and ultimately, even if if the law says, hey, it is permissible, nothing says the council is going to buy in. So it could get shot down there too, even if the office does, the law says it does say it's legal. So, or if there's a despair, if the office is lost as one thing and the board says not, the council has to decide what they want to do. Thank you, but there are discussions. There's a budgetary issue too. I just approached this issue differently that if the law office tells us that we cannot have alternate member from the from their beginning and I think all the discussions are there's no meaning of it. You know, we don't have to discuss all those languages. Why? Well, because the council has to decide whether they want to do it right because I respect with the law, also law says and says, but the council may feel differently. And the officer law to the side becomes law, the council does. So that's why the officer law will give council their opinions and say, hey listen, this isn't legal, and this is why it's not. And the board will say, this is why we think it is, or maybe we agree, or like, oh, it's striking. But ultimately, the council officer value that question, what they believe is legal or not legal. And so that's why I just said we should give our best shot. And what we ideally, in best case scenario, right? Like best case scenario, this is what we'd like to see. And if ultimately doesn't pan out, well, that's just the way it is. So maybe I missed understand this. I, I color sense that this board filled that we adopt a rule without approval from a council and that's our rule. We go ahead and do it without a council approval. That's how I feel it. No, I'm not wrong. You're not adopting. You're proposing a rule. And then it takes three of you to agree to or propose rule change. The adoption is through the council. You know, adopt your own rules. The council adopts the board of appeals rules. If I can make it that way. Is that everybody you propose? I would say page. No, I totally agree with that. I feel other members said differently at the very beginning. No, I think we're just proposing our rules, but the council has to say yay or nay. Mr. Cook, to your point, I'm sorry, I don't mean to. I'll see him. What I would say is that ultimately the body will come up with a set of amended rules that it wants, that it will adopt that you'll vote and say this is our final set of proposed rule changes. It'll go to the council and depending on what it is that they do with it, whatever comes out of the other end of the legislative process as an enacted ordinance will then be, will make those rules that you adopted legally effective as an enacted ordinance will then be, will make those rules that you adopted legally effective and enforceable. That was perfect. So you can just come and just scan that. So I just want to clarify, between the time we adopt our own, I can use another word, we recommend, we came up with our own rules. Between the time we have our rules and the time that the county council passed as a law, which rules we follow? The ones that are currently on the books. The law always traps you. Okay, I just want to make sure. Yeah, and the... After an actment, there's a period of about, I just want to make sure. Yeah, and the... Yeah, and the... And the... After an act meant there's a period of about, I'm just going to say roughly 75 days where there's administrative matters that occur and then there's finally an effective date. And that's best case scenario, right? Because potentially something could say, oh, we like it, but it's a charter event. So now we got to wait a year, right? I mean, so it could be like, right? I mean, yeah. Am I wrong on that or? And just this, if some change that the board would like to see would require an amendment to the charter, then it would be contingent on. Yeah, so like the council, four members of the council proposing a charter amendment, and then the voters approving it at the next. Yes, it's a big problem. Next, it'd be two years, what's it being? Oh, really? It'd be in 2026. I think that's one of the next election I'll be. Really? Yeah. And I think if we put this in here, the same discussion that we're having now, the council's going to have. Yeah. the counts is gonna have. Yeah, as well. So that's why I almost say like, I totally understand what you're saying, and I love the way he just said it. I'm gonna go back to the video and watch it later and write it down, because the way you explained it was perfect. But I think you're right. I think we give it our best shot. We see with sticks and then it's gotta be filtered through multiple layers before it ever becomes actionable. Right? So that's why we're just doing like our best hopes and dreams kind of. Almost like conjunction junctions. Yeah, I just want to make a crystal clear. Unless I just want to make a crystal clear. Unless the county council approves the rules. We are not going to we can act on. We can we can we can we can't we can't we can't. It's not just want to just want to make the yeah, we can't. We can't. We can't. We can't. We can't. We can't. Okay. Okay. Can we just accept what you have already said? Well, that's what I was going to say. So, I think we want to fine-tune it a bit and combine the bunch of rules, Mr. Kahn. I correct. Because, and true to the ones doing this, like, so we've just discussed a whole lot of things. Right? I was taking notes. What I can do is take what you wrote, tweak it based on what you talked about about needing to have five to take votes and creating some mechanisms that it doesn't violate the try to requirements for party affiliation and then that can be shared with the office of law. And you can make further tweaks from there. Yeah. But I think that encompasses like five or six different rules for things perfect. Yeah. Okay. That's great. Yes. We just max six rules that that was totally worth it okay all right so we're on moving on so move on so let me see where we are skipping procedure where we at the Robin nice mouse move by the presence we did that part. With line number around next. Line number. That's right. Let me show sir. It's 24, okay. And now we have another word given the scope and the complexity of the board subject for the council. She'll consider county voters with a prior our county board of appeals here and here in the selection process. Yeah. That's so that bit that says you should have board of appeals experience. the selection process. That's so that bit that says you should have Board of Appeals experience or the council should consider somebody with Board of Appeals experience. Line number are you looking for this here? Line 12 what lines that that's line that which time? Let me see. I believe it's in 21 line 21. I think that was included in everything we just agreed on. So maybe we can, I think we can skip ahead to line 24 if you want to talk about. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. What do you mean line 24? What do you mean line 24? Line 24 or what? I don't know. I have a number on the side. It's on your computer. Oh, OK. So that's why I got confused. The C. So we talked about, OK, so lying. This is a chairperson. And yeah, yeah. So it's 24. So it's the left comp says chairperson, vice chairperson. So one updated to reflect a couple of regulations. So the first is, I think this Harris wrote, shall be the chairperson, vice chairperson, shall be responsible for compliance with the Maryland Open Public Meeting Act. And so we are responsible for compliance, not staff. It says that right in the memo. So, I'm sorry, I got completed last. So are we on the next page? I'm still talking about the... All three members, huh? Yeah. No, he's going to come back. He's going to come back to us with say... Revised. Revised. But we haven't discussed that. What are your synthesized for? We haven't discussed whether we need experienced, a company council, I mean, experienced board members. Do you disagree with that? No, I just want to discuss. Yeah, no, we do agree with that. That's what I'm saying. We do. OK. But no, I don't want to. I don't want you to think of stepping out. No, I think, and I'm still looking at a next paragraph. I guess I'm just slow. I feel that we haven't discussed all of those and just skip to the next paragraph. Which is? The power and function. So the alternate member is he required to take all the trainings as well. He hears you, yeah. So the same rules apply? Where does it say that? I don't say same rules apply. I try to use it that verbally. If it doesn't say it then we can reflect that it would apply. Yeah we can. You can tell the idea but it's done that we can absolutely. Yeah does it. We need to. That's the same responsibilities as a regular format. So that's what's said. Let me go back. Yeah, the alternate board members shall have and exercise all the powers and duties of a permanent board member. to be trained your duties to be compliant with the lawyer. Yeah. Okay, I'm fine with that. Thank you. I'll try to slow it out. I know. We are a board of, not a board of less than five. So everybody, opinion matters. So chairperson and vice-chairperson. And so we need to designate by law somebody to be responsible for open public meetings. I thought the best way to do that was to just say, listen, it's always the chair and vice-chair, because one of those two are going to be presiding. And then there's a rule further down that says, you know, within certain days those people have to receive their open public meeting deck training. Because that's a requirement. Any questions? Thoughts? It seems very straightforward to me. Oh, well, the next rule. Miss you, you wrote it. Each January, the member member shall select the majority vote, remember the chairpers and remember the vote. Okay. Any thoughts? This is what we are doing now. I'm just trying to make clarification here in the language. Any thoughts, anybody? Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay, so we'll keep that language in the GS Select by majority vote. Next one is presiding officials. Yeah. So, let's talk about the election. I'll straight it. By report members, shall elect one permanent member to serve as a chairperson, another permanent member to serve as a vice chairperson. The chairperson, shall assume the chair, the vice chair, she'll assume the chair has responsibilities and is asked to turn the inability to serve. She'll be responsible for the boards compliance with the Maryland Open Public Meeting Act. They shall both complete their required training within 14 days of their election. So it's a pretty straightforward training. I've taken, I think most of us have, later, go ahead, yes, sir. Just for, from experience, maybe rather than referring to a specific section and state law, just maybe just, say, as provided by state law, because the state changes codifications, changes section numbers So how do you want that change out? How do you want that which of every I want to oh and oh no, you know I like to do yeah, okay Yeah, I agree that way that the rules will move as the state code And that's what I was trying to do right either try to stay away from specifics so they grow time What's that? Yeah, yeah. So then, so the next section, I think, and I hope you'll all have a chance to look at it. So I tried to break down the chair of personal responsibilities from A, what the rules require. B, I gotta be honest, from copying from other Maryland counties, who are like, oh yeah. And then C, from my personal experience as a chair, like, OK, what do we have to do? As well, I incorporated some of the rules that are, for example, rule four. Take action to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of proceedings to maintain order. Well, here it says the chair shall rule on, you know, shall all questioning, shall be directed not not I forget how to word it but not it shall be direct questioning not including statements or accusations It says that you shouldn't allow on duly repetitious and material things like that. So essentially that encompasses that I just want to give an example. And this is kind of how the chair works now. So I'm not going to read them all because everybody's had a chance to. Are there any thoughts on that? I want that. There's no new authorities or powers or any of that. Just kind of. I'm good with this. You're good I am. So everybody's good with that. So board members, oh yeah, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair. So there's a rule about. On page four, line two, here I was unclear. I'm not sure what is hearing authority tracks. What is it? Hearing authority tracks. What does that refer to? I don't have, I'm not my screen. Oh, I'm sorry. So let's see. Number three. Oh, that's poor. Yeah. On your chair, physically responsibilities. Oh, take action to avoid unnecessary. No. No. Let's go to the positions and make the term patients about the hearing authority tracks. Oh, yes. Thank you, that's a good boy. So I tried to even go away to work that. So in the rules, it says, and I'm just going to tell my head's home, not going to get exactly right. It says that the hearing examiner shall hear cases first unless they have to recuse themselves or something like that or conflict something. Yeah, right, yeah. So it says, but unless they something. Yeah, right, yeah. became otherwise disqualified. I think it was otherwise disqualified. I think it was how it's word or something like that. So I'm like, OK, as I read that, who makes that decision? So I thought, well, this happens at the zoning board. So because the zoning board has a hearing examiner. So who determines if a hearing examiner or working with a zoning board is disqualified? Well, the zoning board does. So who determines if the hearing examiner is disqualified for the board of appeals? Nobody. The hearing examiner decides it on their own. So we don't even know when petitions are received. The hearing examiner is told direct. It's presumed. So I'm like, well why at zoning is it not presumed? But here at the board of field it is. Now we looked at zoning, zoning regulations were just updated. So those are most relevant regulations, most updated regulations. And the standard is that the board reviews all applications before it's given to the hearing examiner. So why is that not the standard here? I said, well, it should be. So when I incorporate that hearing track, that's what I meant, like, which way does it go? Does it go directly? Do a hearing examiner? Or does it come to us? And especially if there's some contemplation down the road that I think the board's going to talk about, where it says that a case shall be heard by a hearing examiner, I think, and I could be wrong, but I think the board's going to make the recommendation counsel that we say may be heard. So we may change the petition to say who do you want to hear your case first? Just hypothetically playing it out. So if they check where it appeals, well then the chairperson will say, okay, this one comes to us. This one goes to that. That was a lot in that one sentence, but that was what I was trying to encompass. So if I can add a couple things, because the zoning board recently changed the role as you noted. And prior to the change, the zoning board heard all those cases. And they made the decision to allow the hearing examiner to be a fact-finding hearing authority for cases. As those cases come into the zoning board, the zoning board doesn't have to kind of meet and vote on whether or not the cases. Does this not? They vote. They actually have to convene and vote. The zoning board would convene, if a matter comes before, if a case comes before the zoning board, the zoning board determines whether or not to remain that or send it to the hearing examiner. Hello? Okay. Isn't that how I believe that's how they do that, right? I mean, they haven't had a zoning case in like a year and a half or so, but I believe that's how the role was changed. I'll be honest, I'd have to refresh. I don't off-top my head. So essentially, what I thought went all the rules to your point, sorry. So what all the rules, like you want to create a checks and balance system for everybody, for everybody. So I'm like, where is the accountability part there in terms of, and not that anybody's doing anything wrong, but where is, if something goes off the tracks, who's looking for it? Because there's a lot of power solely vested, because the hearing examiner from Amistake and doesn't even report to the officer lawyer, doesn't have that officer lawlessly, like the officer law doesn't do with it, legal advisor unless there has to be. So there is no check there, right? And I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that there's a provision that says if the hearings that we're going to hear the case, that they are, I forget what I just said, unquivocused or I forget the word. But essentially, who makes that determination? And I guess, I don't know, as I read it, it's unclear. I've talked to some people and they believe the hearing examiner is their own oversight. Nobody oversees them. And so I'm like, wow, really? So that's why I'm like, well, what's the harm and having us review it? But to the extent that we have to convene a meeting, every time an application is in, that would be a problem. put it in the chairperson thing, because I thought of this more of a scheduling thing. But I don't know, maybe that does need to be revisited that concept. I don't know. The only way to go ahead. What came to my mind when you were talking is that when someone recuses themselves or is not qualified, they're usually the ones that are determining that themselves. So it says, and let me just pull to the exact language. Does anybody have a chance for the hearing examiner the exact language for when they get you know it's a side? I do. OK. Because maybe I'm saying it wrong. Says the board will hear and decide a case if the hearing examiner position is vacant or the board determines that the hearing examiner is unable to hear the case because of a conflict of interest or other disqualification. Thank you. That was it. So it says the board will determine for a conflict of interest or other. So I'm like, who from the board is determining that? Have anybody ever been asked to determine that? So the presumption is that there never has been. And maybe that's the correct presumption. But the board, if we're supposed to be considering that, we should at least know what a petition comes in. I don't know what mechanism will allow us to evaluate if there's a conflict. But if that's a responsibility, if it's a board, unless we just want to strike that language altogether, it's not the board responsibility. That's another way to go, that we don't determine if the hearing examiner it should be complicate it out or otherwise, you know. So how do you find that here? You know Well either either I think with mr. Sanders said either we just strike that as one of our responsibilities Entirely and it is not up to us The board doesn't make that determination or we create a mechanism by which the board does make that determination So I don't think the board makes that determination from I thought you just said this this is not a board I mean It's a determination if like let's say we've had a case where there wasn't a hearing examiner. The bigot, yeah. And then, so we would get those cases. And then, we have a situation where if there's someone, the hearing examiner, recuse themselves from that appeal, then the board would say okay we're gonna hear that case but why say the board is here? I'm totally agreeing with you I understand maybe so is the language right and is that what rules that in I can't seem through to the so that's under us or the hearing authority right Howard Kenny code yeah so it's for the hearing exam to retuse themselves but it says the board shall determine right by right? No, what he just said it seems like it's a hearing exam. No, but the language is a rule. I agree with Mr. Sanders' saying. I agree with him. That's why we need to recommend that change. It just seemed like he just said it was written that the board needs to determine, some board needs to determine, look at the case and say, you know, this is a conflict, you know, I mean, I don't know how even the board will know that there's a conflict. But it's not even a conflict. But whether you know his, that it sets the chairperson's response to it. I know. So it's not the board, the language it has now is only the chairperson, but the co-assess the board gets the term. So there are some discrepancies first. And the two, if the board got to review the petition, first, what is the rules to determine the tracks? And especially if it's only the chairperson's discretion. So let me just make it simple. Let's just withdraw that because I agree. There's a lot of nuances to that. But I also say we need to make a recommendation to counsel to change the language in that 16, whatever it is, just not say it's the board's responsibility. Because I forget how Mr. Sanders said it, but he said the board determines, I think, like, take that language out. Because if we're determined, we need to create mechanisms to determine it. Right? Because that, I read it by the plain language, the board determines, plain language, board determines. Right? If the board is not determining, well, then take it out. That would be my recommendation guys or people. If we are determining that we need to create rules to do that. Barry, what is that? What is that rule again? That's under jurisdiction of the hearing examiner under Howard Kenny Codes 16 fear two subsection C 16 302. Oh, people up there. There are three, oh two, 16 dot, three, oh two. The board of the hearing, in my case, is the hearing, is the hearing, or the board determines that the hearing examiner is unable to hear a case because of a conflict of interest or other disqualification. So we don't even define what other call with disqualification is and the board determines it. I'm like, we should recommend that gets changed, in my opinion. And that was just what updated in 2001. Well, one thing I would say is that if the examiner had a conflict of interest within the scope of the ethics law, the ethics commission would be the one that would determine whether or not there was such a conflict and the examiner would act based on that. In that instance, you know, if the board doesn't really have jurisdiction to decide whether, well, that's what's so big, right? But, well, other disqualification, what is that? But there are other grounds for disqualification of decision-maker that don't fall under the ethics code, for example. You just have, you've already made up your mind. You have bias, right? A personal animosity towards one of the parties or something. Right. I mean, if somebody wanted to make a claim that the examiner, in a particular case, should be disqualified for a reason outside of the ethics code. Ordinarily, in the first instance, it's made to the person who allegedly is disqualified. This seems to flip that rule, and I would agree that it's not at least clear from this code section what the process would be for the matter being brought to anybody's attention at the board level. That's my take, right? It looks real nice in code, but how do you implement any of that? Yeah. So I think it's just, and at board, do you agree that's easier that we, so this isn't actually part of the rules, but this would be one of those things we're going to potentially recommend that we strike that language regarding the board as a responsibility to determine that. Take the board's responsibility away to determine the suitability of the hearings out there. Yeah. I have a question though. Can I ask a question? You can do whatever you want. You can do whatever you want your partner. Well, I want to ask it of Gary if I have. So if somebody, in the case that you just described where somebody, it has to come before the ethics commission, if a board member, one of our board members, serves on that commission, would they have to recuse themselves from that particular hearing? And I happen to serve on that commission. And yes, I recuse if that is the case. OK. I guess that would happen. But I recuse once, but it's not because of the conflict with this board. Okay. Okay. You're good with that, Mr. Erick. So we're strictly. So yeah, well, we're taking my, yeah, my, and thank you for taking number three. We're taking number three, yeah. We're taking number three, yeah. We're taking number three, yeah, well, we're taking my, yeah, my, and thank you for your question. Thank you, Mr. Cook, because I didn't really think that deeply into it when I wrote it, and now I could see there's much more to it. Well, the important part though about C is that the board sits when the examiner position can't or is, you know, for whatever reason, that the board does sit on the matter. Yeah, it's not a single person, right? The examiner doesn't exist. That's really the point of that. Yeah, which is what we did when I came on this port. There was no hearing examiner. Yeah. So which was great. No contested cases. They went like that. OK, so moving along. Should we take a break? Oh yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah. So it's like, this 15 minutes work. 915, we're back. Okay, we're in recess 915. What? 910, okay 910, we're back. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go overseas and like Coast Guard for you. It actually is pretty good. Okay. Chair Ryan, just let us know when. Let us know when you're ready. So we just were talking about that. We have an unpause. We ready to start. We are resume. And we're back in session. So we just were talking to everybody. The consensus is we are going to do our best to get through it, which is really the goal we set. But it is 915. So 93030, right? Is it 9.15? Is that clock wrong? That's not right on the team. No, it's 9.15, yeah. So I don't know, 9.30 or 10, guys. What do you want to do? I'm going to 10. We'll go to 10. OK, 10 of this. There's a way to go. OK. Okay, ten of this okay All right, tell the caucus so we'll stop there, but hopefully we can crash it okay moving on At mr. Connwear with evil Thank you, right Okay, I Have a song line 28 if you're thinking of the spreadsheet paragraph B on quorum's okay. Oh, right. So first it was the quorum, right? So board members, so this is the thing. So we don't want to, my proposal was, right? So it's something matters. People just can't be present. There's just, for whatever reason, right? And we can't get an alternate member. So there will be times when we have to use virtual, right? So later on, the rules will see that we propose the same criteria for, you know, what is it called for, for going virtual, compelling circumstances, right? Like, something happened, whatever. So in those cases, when we are virtual, I adopted this model. This comes from the open public meetings compliance board at the Attorney General's office that says members under their model rules shall have their cameras on and be visible at all, I had practical, at practical, but all times while the meetings in session. In other words, showing your there, you're not just logged on. Okay, any questions for that? Okay. And I think I just knocked off two rules at once. That's good. Next, sorry, scroll too fast, I apologize. Mizzou proposes, I don't know if you can see the decision case, providing more rows. Now, in writing, because steps model of the end panel. OK, OK. Why did I want to respect your recommendation? So I think the next rule then is, let me just make sure I'm skipping. So based on our previous decisions, the next rule comes to line 31, right? The same number of members. So the proposed changes, you can see the cross out, a decision shall have the concurrence of the majority of all participating board members, and that distinguishes alternate board members from non alternate board members, so participating board members, failure achieve necessary firm of votes shall result in a denial of the matter So the officer law really quickly keys away and I'm that I was confused about the difference between a dismissal and a denial I don't know if I'm using the right word As it's written now it says dismissal is that the same thing as denial? Because I don't know if that changes your appeal rights or. Mr. Chair, is this in reference to an existing rule just so? Yeah, so the rules it's written now is this failure to achieve the necessary perimeter vote shall result in a dismissal of the case. 2-2-1-c. Yeah, so I changed it to denial because it was my understanding but I might be wrong that if you dismiss you don't necessarily have a right to appeal but I could be wrong. So I don't know if they have different appellate because I thought attorney said that to us once in a mind, a dismissal of a case means the case has been dismissed from the body that is getting rid of it. It's not going to be there anymore. There may or may not be an appeal right. That would be a different rule. I'm going to defer that one to Mr. Sanders. I mean, in my mind, a dismissal of a case means the case has been dismissed from the body that is getting rid of it. It's not going to be there anymore. There may or may not be an appeal right. That would be a different rule. I mean could he go to the court with that? Denying, denying, denying the matter, I guess it depends on what the matter is. If it's denying your petition for X and you say no, you're not going to get X and you're all done, you know, assuming you're, you can appeal that. So I'm not. If you dismiss it, you can't. No, Mr. Sanders, you can't. Right? You can appeal a dismissal. It could be, it can always be appeal to the court's decision. So in that case, then I would revert. Well, whatever you want to do, then if both mean the same thing, I said, my rationale behind that was one of the attorneys in one of our cases many moons ago made that comment afterwards and I was like, wow, is that true? So are we, by using that word, are we removing somebody's appeal to go to certain court or ability to go to certain court? But Mr. Sanders says that's not the case. Right. I think I have actually written a decision where the board didn't, the party didn't get the enough votes and I wrote that the thing was dismissed and the appeal position was denied. So it's sort of... Oh, it's okay. All right. Has the same effect almost? Okay. The dismissal, it's sort of, you know. Okay. Let's miss all it's sort of, you know. Okay. So yeah, I don't want to work with it too much, but so that's the proposal to the same thing. Any thought on that? Any, everybody okay with that? Or no? Yes, no. Okay. So we don't see you. We're going to move, but if nobody says anything, we're going to assume it's OK. Next is Miss Forko. Move to a four-suited location. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Put it on. No, no, but I'm sorry to say. And that's what we agreed to in the beginning. We're going to read and lie things. OK. Okay. Next one, need clarify if there was this role director playing. Okay. We answered that one. Next one, Mizzou delete the entire paragraph. Okay. I think we're ready to do that. Oh, maybe not. Am I mistreating that? I'm trying to understand. So because I had that question what the clerk of of award does because it seems to me they're the clerk of award and the administrator, they are conducting very similar duties and now Ms. Herrick clarified the difference. So I think I want to keep that. But the second line is for the change secretary to demonstrate there to reflect how we operate now. So. OK. Is there a big clear on that? No. OK. Yeah, I'm going to either. That's why I asked. So what reason? I'm sorry. So I'm talking to D and E, right? So D is for the clerk of the board. Right, okay. And we clarify that, right? And we need to keep that. Well, we're okay, so we keep it later down, we wanna change who it is, but yes. Right, we want, I intended to delete the whole thing. You can strike this out, you don't wanna do this anymore, right? I do want to change the language. Keep the position between language. So E, secretary. Right. So now we are not calling it secretary. It's called an administrator. I want to reflect the reality. E, the next line. Okay. I'm talking to you. She seems confused. I want to be sure. Okay. I thought you were talking about the D1 and the D and E. Yeah. Okay. What were you going to keep in? I mean, you haven't struck out what you want it back in, but you don't want it all back in. And I don't, that's where I'm lost. Because when I delete the whole paragraph, that was before I clarify from Sarah. So today I asked her question and she clarified. And I feel that we do need a clerical reward. But we need to think about the language. And I haven't had, come up with ideas about changing the language. But yeah, I want to keep that back. But we can discuss a later. We can discuss a later how we want to change it. Yeah, and there's some proposed rules about how the, which I think we're all going to agree about. It's what we've been talking about. The only thing in the second part that I want to bring up is where it says the Board of Appeals may appoint an administrator. So I have a problem with that because I don't think we actually appoint anybody. So I think I changed that language later on down. But that would be my, so what I would say is perhaps if we could just table this part in compared to one a little further down that states it differently, does that make sense? But just for now, not saying one way or another just lets compare them, right, to see where they're in the original. So right now what's the procedure of hiring an administrator? Well, we don't have to do that. The administrator is, I hire the board administrator. Okay. And is that the same position that they referred to as secretary? Yes. That's what I heard earlier. Okay, just make sure. So the delete my comment afterwards. That make any sense. I hire with concurrence by the council. But didn't get, we have nothing to do with it. It's the board. Correct.'t we have nothing to do with it? Is the board? Correct. Correct. The board of appeals doesn't have a does not in higher council. Yeah, it's the council. And there's no decision made in the board of this point for what people. Is that correct? Correct. The council administrator is not listed in the rules. But the proposed rules coming up, yeah, we have a whole clear chain, which once again I tried to develop a picture of slightly unsuccessful. I did. I had it, but trust me, we went around around. This hard is an angel soul deal with me. So I'm going to recommend that we just, so you'll see right down here when we go down, right, the next line 38, it starts with removal current language on board staff and purpose, or I'm sorry, throws a new structure. So what I'd like to do is just really quickly go over that with you and then we can get the best of all the worlds. So what I've proposed is we define the hearing authority administrative offices because they are offices and it's both the hearing's ever and us and that becomes important later to distinguish our office from DPC. And I just put the rules I cut and pasted from the county's website 838-430, Monday to Friday, except days pursuant to county regulation for the observance of legal holidays by county police, and on days when the office is closed, do the emergency intimate weather, or other good cause by order of the clerk. So that's kind of how it works right now, right? So I'm like, Ms. Harrow makes that call, right? So it's essentially broken on regular business unless we're closed for these reasons. So now that's the office, the physical office. Now we talk about who's in that physical office. So the Board of Appeals clerk. The Council Administrators shall be the clerk of the Board of Appeals. Official Costo Union records for the duration of the docketed matter at the board. For land issues, all records, and I'm just going to summarize it. You can read it. Essentially what we're saying is that the council administrator will be the board of appeals clerk. When a matter is received for appeal, DPC will be notified because the proposed rule was that the appeal are filed here and the records will temporarily come over just like they do now and they'll be held with us for the duration of it, held by the clerk. And at the conclusion of the matter, they'll be sent back to DPC because DPC is in fact the custodian records. So this is just the temporary moving wilds within our jurisdiction for review. That's what these rules say. It also says that we will docket the petition and we can go under that a second. Yeah. Yeah. Is it like a physical file or are we talking about a trial file? Currently they are physical. Are they really? They are. We have boxes in the paper. They're really good. Yeah. That's crazy. Now I know. That explains something. I didn't know. I'm like, why can't I get ready? I was wondering why I couldn't get ready to take so long. I'm working with DPC to automate and that's probably a year and a half project with us and DTCS. Interesting. Okay. That explains a lot actually. So then we move on to, so in the hierarchy of the office we have the clerk, right, who oversees the administrator and it goes on to designate the clerk as, and I had a few important things I think, but I'll highlight them for you. So the clerk shall, may be the custodian of all of our training and compliance records, right? So, open-pulled meetings act, any training, like I'm not saying the clerk's response, or I'm sorry the administrator responsible for the making sure you have the training just for the records thereof. Still the board members responsibility complete that. Because we need one place that we can say, okay, who did it? Because later down, we request that the administrator prepare a report for the council and for the board on compliance for all the requirements of the regulations. So this is a check and balance like does everybody have what they need to have so that we make sure we're doing things the right way. Can we pause a little bit to be? So basically, you are removing the DPC clerk, the clerk of a board from DPC. And you're right. Right? Yeah, here I am. We're making the pilot stand-alone office. So you don't have to go to DPC now. You come right to here to file your appeal. And then we interact with DPC, or not we, but the board's office interacts with DPC to get the records. So now the clerk is the county council administrator, not the DPC person. Correct? Correct. Yeah, correct. Because when you think about it, an animal matters case is being DPC's handle on that. Why would it, an animal matters case is being DPCs handled that. Why would they be handled on animal matters? Or any, it doesn't make any sense. It's an appeal matter. It places like Baltimore County and others. So that's where I got this all from. I saw who works and how it works well. So in multiple counties, it is a standalone entity. You file youral there. They get the records that they need from whatever agency, so that the board members have what they need to make their case. Then when done, it goes back to whatever any field. So that's why I was asking this how are other any particular reasons right now the clerk of the board is from VPC. So do you see any problems that we remove the clerk from the PZ and put in the county council? So I think the only challenge that I see and I've talked to Miss Burg as well is the zoning knowledge that we are not zoning experts. So we would then, as Mr. Ryan said earlier, that if questions came to us that were zoning related that we didn't feel we had the expertise to answer, we would then refer them back to DBC. But as far as administratively and handling paperwork, which would be receiving petitions and receiving motions and other documents, exhibits, whatever, I don't see an issue because we're adding to the file, sending the file back to DPC. Okay. And this will kind of dovetail to some other rules, I think. And some of these rules, like I said, it means it's March. So I've been listening to everything of its day and trying to incorporate how it's really done. And you'll see that there's some confusion the way we currently do it with signage and all that stuff. So this makes it much cleaner, right? Like one point of contact for the citizen and that way when we talk like as a chair I've had many times to talk in this bird, she's like, I don't know, you know, so that was the overall principle here. So basically the petition is not going through DPC at all. It's going to, who is the county county administrator? Miss Her. Oh. That's why I believe about how the case proceeds. It should come. I can get like this at all. That's why I was asking. You're my close off. It should come here and if there's a question that needs to be addressed, then Michelle will send it over to TPC for that. Exactly. And then it comes back here. And what that does is it doesn't delay us getting the information on the case. I mean, I don't know how many times it is for you that I, but know for me I ask for the case oh we'll get it I ask for the because I don't like to come in a week ahead I am too busy to review a case a week ahead I want it as soon as possible yeah so that's that's me but this makes absolute sense it defines positions it defines direction of the way documents go makes complete sense to me And you'll see there's some other rules that that are that this helps with so for example And I don't want to go too far out track here, but currently right it says that a petition must be complete and DPC is signed off on all these other things. And so what was happening was these petitions were redocketed 14, 21 days before we were ever seeing them. So it may look like we sat on this for three weeks. So I'm like, no, now it shifts the burden for the petition to be complete on the petitioner. Like it's not on the DZD double check, right? If you have a question, you have to go to them. And if it's not complete, when you come to your hearing, it's going to be dismissed, right? So it's the way it works in court, right? You don't get to the court, look, I'm just going to tell you how to fill in paperwork. So it kind of aligned responsibilities with more with everyday practices. It also prevents, as we've had in the not-to-recent past, accusations that cases were being buried and not presented because there was a bias towards a particular attorney. It takes all that away, right? Because the minute it comes in, you'll see the rules dictate. It must be documented within X amount of time, and it must be given to the shared schedule within X amount of time. It creates clear accountability right so there should be no variables it's just a process. Yes go ahead. I do have a question. So say they don't get their act together and they bring this petition towards us and it gets dismissed do they get their money back? That's another rule that comes up later. Thank you for skipping ahead. Okay before we get a a money, getting the money back, I have a question that maybe Mr. Sanders or Mr. Cook can answer. The words in here which say the Board of Appeals Administrator shall report to the Board of Appeals. To me that's when you say shall report that's like a- Yeah, no, I agree. So how do we reward that? appeals to me that's when you say, shall report that's like a. Yeah, no, I agree. So how do we do that? Yeah, how do we do that? To convey, you know the idea of trying to convey. So I mean, there's I think Mr. Conkin adds some. I'm trying to say is that we provided minister. The minister will we talk to you. We don't go to you. Right. We don't go to the DBC. This is our point of contact, our point of contact, like it's that line of communication. Trying to create that, you know what I mean? Does that make sense? He understands. Okay. And he's leaving, what are we gonna do? I don't know what we're gonna do. We're gonna close the door and lock it, and not let him out. get the concept. The concept there was just to like say this is how communication works. The other thing at Michelle, I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around like if someone files a conditional use petition, usually DPC gets goes and does their technical staff review and all that. And then it would that petition then would... So can I answer your question because that's the... I know what you're going to say. Right now, DPC, and to correct me from wrong recenders, right now DPC uses a petition to file conditional use. They don't use an application. What it throws rules is, petitions are only for appeals. Not for applications. DPC needs to get its own document. And then when it's complete, then they tell the person here, go take it. Because right now what happens is it says a petitioner can't submit their petition until DPC gives them permission. No. Once you do an application, maybe you can't submit an application. So that's the distinction I'd like to recommend that like they don't use petitions. Like what are you appealing in a conditionally? You're not appealing, but that's a bigger discussion Petitions should only be used for boards of peel like if you're gonna apply for that would be my so the later on mr Sanders that's what yeah, I just I'm just trying to think through I just like if you I know everything affects everything else Yeah, I don't. Do you want the paperwork and DPCs? So I just think about that. So I asked just you know, I asked early on DPC give me every single form you use. And I don't know if you were copied on it. But every single form that's used by DPC in any manner, having to do with the board of appeals. And it was in the lightning to see some of the paperwork they produce, directing people to do things that are a little, anyway, we won't go there. But it helped me to understand the process, seeing the paperwork that they use. And that's what it became apparent that you're using an appeal petition to make an application for a conditional use. Which, yes, ultimately has to be heard by the board, but is not at the stage in which it's ready to be a petition. So we'll talk about that later, but to answer your question, that was my point that we were going to make the recommendation to distinguish application for petition use from a appeal petition. Can you make a note of that? I went to... Yeah, yeah. Because that also triggers and we'll get down to that. I don't want to go too far off topic, but the whole conditionally used process. I had some questions and they've come to Lily, but we can talk about that later. Okay, so responsibilities. Okay, we did that. Board of Pills Administrator, let me run through, we'll make sure I'm not missing anything. Recording, yes. Lead Administrator for Foughts administrator responsibility for public notice. So that figures in later when we talk about advertising versus posting. Traffic agenda. Oh, yeah, they made a note. I was very confused about this. The staff said office of law prepares minutes. I'm like, what? Is that right? I think, Kelle has, she has me review him. Just, you know, is this sufficient? So do you, and I'm sorry, I don't know. Like, do you know what she's saying? Like, I don't know what that comment means. Where's it's said she wrote in the, right there. It says, staff concerns. Costoting of records only when cases occurring, currently, off sublaw to the review's minutes. I'm like, I don't like this. She wants to incorporate that into the rule. Is that what that means? No, I don't. I think that could be just part of our process. Like there are certain, even from the council side, there are times where I'll reach out to our legal council just to make sure that we have documented meetings effectively whether that's Yeah, no, but I mean just about that to be rules that way to here. I don't know what it means. I think we're okay not adding something in there. Yeah, it'll okay So the next Section I actually after proposing, when we talk about, let me just make sure I'm on the right section here. We're talking about the responsibilities, I think, of the administrator. I realized in reviewing my material, I left some stuff off. So I put my, I'd like to update it to say, change the gender requirement to reflect code 6.305. Meetings to be public. Meetings to be public agendas shall be made available. That's not paste away from the code so that's not. Oh no no. So I'm in this section but this is something that doesn't appear there but it should appear there. So in the code what's that? In the administrator responsibilities, I think. What do the people that are administrator roles? I mean, trying to scroll over so I can follow you. So it has to do with agendas. So this is, let me just read the code. It says meetings to be public agendas shall be made available at least three days prior to the meeting in electronic medium readily available to the public. Minutes of open meeting shall be made available as soon as practical and at least one electronic medium readily available. So I think right now I think the change has to be what three days I think I put one day I think that's the change right let me go back I'm just looking at my notes I just put him in yesterday when I was double checking my facts. You have a number of five or four five. Oh, let me see. I see number six has prepared a grant for the chairperson. Who wants to do that? OK, change the gender requirement. I said, I wrote change the gender requirement. Where is the requirement? It looks to be maybe number six, perhaps. OK, so maybe I don't have any time limit in it. So that's what I was saying to be, I don't know, why I wrote that, I'm sorry. I have to gender for the chairpost approval. Yeah, I don't know, okay. So forget that, I don't know, whatever. Maybe I misprote that in the wrong box. And then I want to add language, docket, so responsibility, docket, each petition received in accordance with these rules. Because further than the rules, we talk about timelines and how it should be docket. I just put it, make any role in the role. Just make it anyone. Well, for what are the responsibilities? Can you repeat that for me? Sure, so it would read docket, each petition received. Let me scroll over so I can read that row. I think that that one is, you have sort of a way to make that thing. Yeah, docket, each petition received in accordance with these rules. So in terms of when it has to be docketed, how it should be format and things like that. Yeah, because right now, DBC docket's crazy. Sometimes there's not even a year on the case and then they put this, so we need to develop an algorithm. So our cases make sense. For example, here, examiner should be HE, or field should be BA, just my opinion. But so we can track effectively who heard what. Okay. So there'll be okay with that. Oh, and then the last sentence, board administrative assistance. So I put the clerk may assign administrative assistance which shall report to the board administrator and perform a ministry Do as assigned by the board through the administrator. Does that make sense? So essentially we'll ask Caledon's own she can like delegate So is everybody clear in the reporting structure now that's proposed? So clerk, Miss Ra is Cal, Cal's administrator, so Cal reports to Michelle. Sorry, sorry. And then the assistance report to Miss Burke. And then we deal directly Miss Burke. Does that make sense? Right? Okay. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. I have a question regarding the roll call. The roll call? Yeah. Okay. Is it very responsibility to do the roll call? Not the mistrators? I'm sorry, what? The roll call, Yeah. It's not under the mistrators' role. It should under our legal, the Lyser, which is Mr. You said it should be under him? So that was, that's how we conduct now. I know. So if you noticed, like two means ago, I changed it, because Miss Harrod said, why are you the only boy that does it that way? So where the other boy that does that way, Irmaelta has the administrative role. I didn't know that. So that's why I'm here. Or the chair sometimes even does the role call. But as far as like voting, calling the role for a vote, in most other meetings, the administrator, like I do that for all council meetings. I call a role for votes or whatever it might be. OK. So let's make it. So that's why I was trying to be consistent. That was the feedback we got from staff was to make it. It's a reason very that you would, I mean, Mr. Sanders, so you would still need to call the help. OK. But there you do ask during a roll call if you have read or if you have, you know, if you're absolutely in the most types of things. Yeah. No, the roll call said you would be, if you have, you know, if you're absolutely the most types of things, you know, on a case. No, the roll call essentially would be, if I'm not correct, we have them wrong, you will word, like Robert Rool says, the motion or whatever will be worded by the person calling it, and then we'll call it. So the motion before the board is XYZ, and then call the roll. So, right. So then when would that other piece take place when necessary? Oh, well that's in the beginning when he calls the case. Oh, that's a separate question. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's a story of the case. When he says what's included my reference, I'll just have to do a side visit. That's a story. Yeah. Okay. Procedural removed chair. Who is this? Oh, Miss Harris. Remove chair. Oh, so the county solicitor, so this is metamount of country, I'll open up to the group. This part talks about the county solicitor as the legal advisor and direct person of the board. They shall attend all meetings. So essentially says Mr. Cook is the one. And then it says, but with position of chair, she'll have an assistant. So, you know, I have no problem with Mr. Sanders here, but we, you know, I think we need to make the rules consistent with practice. So nobody has ever asked me, like, should Mr. Sanders be your chair? So that's why I have to say every year because every year we change a chair. But if the board doesn't, you know, go ahead. Yeah. He's like, I'm not coming to your meetings. You probably wouldn't want me to your meetings. My memory of the draft is that's assigned to the board which the charter gives me the authority to do is for a term but the lawyer serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. But it's just a permission of the chair in the rules now. I'm just talking about a term, a term. Yeah, no, but it's his person's chair. So that's why we made it term because it says with permission of the chair that the county solicitors shall, uh, doesn't eat. So are you saying we should just take out with the person's chair? But that make it what you want. I really don't care. I just want us to do current practice. Yeah, I'm I'm going by, um, where was it? I got to find it. There was one sentence in this provision that was problematic for me. Because Ms. Harrison and I both made slightly different proposals. I changed a few words to help provide legal dollars. But I think the terms you were talking about. Oh, the county's solicitor? Oh, the county solicitor, so make this such a question bringing to the board each January the term of this. Oh, here it is. Is that your vote? No, I have a much better time looking at the actual proposed language than the summary chart, so just bear it in for a second. Yeah, so it's the last sentence about the term of any request related to like a designate serving as council shall not exceed 12 months. So it's the idea that whoever's serving the board from our office would have a term that's for the request because it says the chairperson we change every year I have to make a request every year. I get that I guess what I'm we can talk offline about this. If you ask break the room together I'm okay. Yeah I would only because it conflicts with the status of which lawyers serve the county. I'm absolutely with you. So then let's just take out if the board wants the whole language about with the approval of the chair. They're just saying the chair isn't really way in on this. It's what you're saying. We can talk offline. Oh, yeah. We can talk offline. So we'll take a little bit. It's just having a specific period of time that someone from our office would be serving the board. No, no, it's term of request. Whoever could serve forever, but it would have to correspond to every chair because the rule says the chair. That's why I linked it to the chair's term. Is the chair serves the term? I'll talk about that. I think we'll talk about that. I think those two are different. I see what you're saying. I get that the term of the chair of the board is only a year. That's why I'm saying take out the whole board chair thing. From a personnel standpoint, completely unrelated to the board, it'd be better to take the language out about the third time. Yeah, no, I agree with you. So to resolve this now, which I think we can. Okay. I would suggest that we take out the existing language. So leave the existing thing as it is and take out the reference to, where is it? Where is it reference the chair's something? No, no, no, it's yeah, it says the county solicitor solicitor may delegate the these duties to an assistant county solicitor Is that what you? I It exists now. I know it's in a few places. I can just make sure that we get it Oh, it says right here. Yeah, the county solicitor may delegate these duties to an assistant county solicitor Oh wait, no, it says stuff about unless being excused by the chairperson. Yeah, yeah, so just take can we just take an order to take out a new reference to that. Yeah, is that work Mr. Rook? Well, that's what's saying keep existing language and take out reference to do with the brochure chair or whatever Call meetings of the board unless it's used by the chairperson and just take out unless excused by the chairperson. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Would you need to add like, does it need, and how it's got it? Oh, and has to cut it. Yeah, I'll look at the final language, but if it tracks sort of what the rule says now, it should be fun. It actually does say that up there. Is it tracking where you can approach someone? Yeah, it doesn't require any permission. It just does it. It just does it. Yeah. And we'll get a draft of it next week and we'll move forward. make one sentence out of those two sentences. Yeah. The next part talks about Miss Forecloth recommends that we change it to petition process. So what I'd say is that I like that concept, but why don't we wait until we do headings? Fine and dandy. Yeah, fine dandy. OK. Miss Forecloth, did you mind red light red light red? I think so. It's separate section,, we'll move that to your next comment. OK. Forms and OK, petitions. So this part, new rules for form and contents of petitions derived from Maryland Judiciary Rules of Petition. Board of Peels shall prescribe forms and contents of petitions to be used. That's existing. Only a single petitions shall be used by the hearing examiner in the board of appeals. I may need to clarify that. I mean a single version, not a single physical. Each correctly filed petition shall be unique, docketing number four meted as required by these rules. So let me just get that concept to clarify what I mean is so say case ABC123 goes to the hearing X-Epper and it think comes us for appeal. It's still case ABC123. My intent here is to divide that. So each hearing X-Epper gets a petition, documented one way, and if it gets appealed to us, then it gets a new docket number. And it becomes that way it's clear on right? Does that make sense? That's my proposal board that we don't conflate. Okay, it just keeps the same document number over and over and over. Whereas like in New Jersey it gets a new document number when you peel something. It doesn't keep the same number throughout. So and it will help us better see how many cases and what type of cases each individual is here. The board appeals to 12 cases here in San Bernardino, whatever. So the board of appeals cases will be docked, you know, hypothetically BA. Here in San Bernardino cases will be H.E. Each one will be open, a peel petition. Are docket numbers consecutive? No, they're all over the place. No, no, but I mean, is there any reason why they could not be consecutive under that kind? So that I mean, I don't understand what the docket docket numbers really mean, but So yeah, so what we're trying to do is create like separate because right now what they're doing is this up hearing Zander decision was appealed Here you go. Here's finishing it again. It's the same form same number, but now it's directed to us Whereas it's an appeal to hearing those so It should be separate form. It should be documented. That's my personally. I don't think it's a big thing. I think it's just a little nuance, but I think it makes it clear hearing is ever-tearing is ever-tearing. Board of Peels, board of Peels. And but they use one form documented separately. Yeah. Could it have the same number? Yeah, that's what we've talked about later. Like how we're going to actually do that part but to have it separate yet No, but I'm saying with that so with that make it rather than it okay the hearing examiner did 1 2 3 4 we're doing 4 5 6 which is saying 1 2 3 4 well that's different matter We're doing over but we're considering all over yet. Yeah, I know same thing. I'm not willing to follow my sword. If you guys want to leave it as it is, I'm fine with that. Whatever, you know. No, I'm just asking for clarification of what, you know. I was trying to distinguish the two because, yeah. It makes sense, but I do have a concern that if we want to refer back to the hearings at Menor's case. It's just hard to know which case number. It's hard to find the case number. So that's why I think my guess would be this. When we format the new petitioner, we recommend, because as the board of appeals, we would say, what case would you feel? So we'd say, that'd be a required field. And I'll give a hypothetical. Hypothetically, if we heard a case that a condition used or a particular type of thing that was signed in 1995, and we're hearing it in 2024. Should still be documented in 1995? No, it's 2024, but yet the case looks like it's been hanging out with us for a few decades. Oh, a long time. So yeah, so that's why I'm like, it really, you know, so it's just trying to make things more concise about if you look at our orders to align, you'll see like our cases. It's very confusing to me, like, so it says case. This year we've only had two cases, but because they're documented two years ago, but we just decided to, now it's very, so that was, I was trying to make it cleaner. And that was my intent behind that. I don't know if I worded that right, but that was my intent. Okay. And then I put appeals for use maybe found online. So I recommend that we put it on the website. It seems like a very simple thing to do. Or they could be picked up either online or at the board's office. And I think what you said was for probably will include that website in there. Yes, yes. Yes. I know what the forms shall be used or accepted. Yeah. So this is where it shifts the burden on the completeness and accuracy. There's some rules right now, part B, where it says like, you know, some other entities responsible to make sure it's complete and you can't submit until then. So it's on the petitioner to make sure it's completely accurate before submitting. And then they could file with the board. And I added four online when available. Many months ago when we started this, we talked about moving to an online filing system that is not developing as quickly as Jean Rai would hope. But so when I want these rules to survive, right? So like it says, listen, if online's available, that's where you should go, but if there's another available, you got to file old school. And then it says, all forms and other documents really do document a matter shall be submitted for the Board's consideration in same manner, and meaning online, pretty version. Everybody OK with that? Yeah. OK. Amendments to petition. So there was a lot of comments on this. I mean, everybody okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Amendments to petition. So there was a lot of comments on this and I think I can knock out a few questions at once. Some people say we should define a substantive and that's good. I think this user that I think Ms. Harris and Subdae Health, my recommendation we take that out completely. And it should read amendments to a doctorate petition shall be made only during a public hearing. The board may continue to spend or postpone the hearing that expands our options. And remain an amended petition to the Department of Planning zoning if the board determines further technical staff review or other guidance is needed. So right now as it reads, it says, if it's a substantial amendment and you decide the planning board determines, now, just if we think it needs more review, we set it back. We don't have to question substantial and not substantial. Just if the board finds that needs to be reviewed further, we remain it back. I think simpler, because I know in May of our hearing we struggled with what is substantial. Yeah. I can't measure that toward the measure. Yeah, it's very, yeah. I think you need to take out that planning board language, Mr. Ryan. Take it out. Yeah, because that was in there before we had to hear an examiner. Okay, so yeah, I understand. Okay, so to you're saying it should say, just to depart the plan. No, not with the hearing exam or legislation. I mean, you could remain if you had a planning board appeal to the board appeals. Yeah, but not like if there's an inventory. Right. Okay. Okay, so we'll strike that. And I think the language now is for DPC when they do technical staff Review it's called like an evaluation analysis or something like that So we're asking if she's the most relevant or the most updated language, right? describe it as that word And we a majority vote she'll decide any Action, but I mean that's held flat Sorry about putting that in there. So this I put in the planning board and zoning board shall not recommend approval denial. So currently they do not, right, which I think is good. Historically they did. They recommended rules as we heard during public testimony from the DPC witness. She's like it's our policy that we don't recommend one way or another. So I wrote this part of the rule to agree with DPC current practice. Everybody okay with that? Okay. Okay. Okay. Policy okay, we did some offensive. Okay, we took out the Sarah. So you can't miss her, so we, okay. Just read that out the service. So you can have the service if we... Okay. Just read that out. Okay. The next one is me. We take that out. Align 51. Requires petition or request to hearing. Do you want to speak to that, Ms. Harris? Where are you? It says the board, instead of made this mis-appetition, if the petitioner fails request, so I wrote a different version of it, but you wrote shall instead of may. Well, do you think it needs to be determined whether that is required for that? Okay. So, I think how many proposals on this section do we have one or two? You might have a few. OK, that's just two. So Miss Harris recommends changing the word May to Shell, which I know Miss Phillips really appreciates. And then, alternatively, another suggestion was that Bored's child is mis, oh, why? I took your word. The board's child is mis, uh, position where it lacks jurisdiction to proceed. So I just changed here a case to proceed. So in other words, to move forward, versus here a case. Like, if we can't hear, I don't know, if hearing a motion is the same thing to hear a case, I don't know if hearing a motion is the same thing to hear the case, I don't know, getting the split in hairs. The board shall dismiss if the additional fails to request a hearing, that's the existing rules that may say shall, so there's no, it's an automatic. And we took out the, I recommend taking out the reference to a specific part of the code 2.204 or a separate 2.204 because that may be very also. There's no reason to be locked into that so it can change as the code changes. So right now, if the hearing is postponed, I happen to notice that the signage doesn't get changed. There's one by my house that's how I noticed it. The hearing was postponed and it still has the original data on it. So if it gets postponed, you have to change the posting outside the house with the new hearing date date time. And then I use the compelling circumstance such as an existing rule for grounds for granting a postponement. Upon a third postponement, the board may dismiss the petition with a majority vote. I think I just, if I'm not mistaken, I think that just clarifies the majority vote part. I think it's just a board may dismiss the petition. So any questions, comments? So with the may there, shouldn't it be either or they shall with the majority of vote? If that's the right question, you're right. Yeah, it should be. Yeah. So the last sentence, Mr. Khan, where it says, comma, the board made dismiss, it should be the board shall dismiss. Here, absolutely right now. Payment of fees. At the time of filing the petitioner shall pay the required fees. It courts recurrent schedule for adopted fees adopted by resolution of the County Council. So all that to take out language about who gets payable to and what form of payment like that and not do with us. Well, it does actually. The checks, every check made payable to the county is made payable to the director of finance. But we're not telling them. That's like, when they go to pay, they're gonna be told to make a payable to. Like we're not well. Just everywhere everywhere there's a check reference the the department of the director finance is the person who is the collector of Revenue so I think it would be beneficial to keep it in there Because that's just that's the responsibility So we'll leave that line Check statement I can't hurt it again. Right. Okay, so we'll leave that line in. Check, say, you can use checks anymore. Oh, Ms. Harris, what do you say? Oh, shall the day get? $1, they're not gonna come in with cash. Yeah, right. Let me see. Oh, yeah, now, right now. And we don't take credit card. You're not gonna sell it. Deboard and make, or the American Prince. So this is shall to may. So you want to explain this one? This has. Where do you find the fees? On its own motion with sufficient cost. Yeah, refund the fees. So you're not saying we can order them? But you're saying May. You're not saying it's an order. But I think it's our decision we can make. Let me read it. Oh, I see. You're giving the board the option of ordering not automatically directing. So, I'm like, yeah, so I actually pose the opposite. So the board decided, no, I think we should automatically, they prevail. I change it to say, ponder request, and before issuance of the board's final order that we shall direct it. Let me read my read. They prevail that they get the board, child, order the director of finance to refund all administrative hearing and filing fees upon request by the appellant. So if the appellant requires it, then we must order them before the final dinner. They can't get the final dinner. Oh, by the way, we forgot to say it. No, it's gotta be like, do you gotta request that, right there? So that just needs to be spelled out to people so they know if they want the money bank they have to request it at this date. And then I think we need to clarify. Yeah, I think we need to clarify it too because as I look at this for just now for like a million five. It says administrative hearing fees. Is that figuring over fees? Is that just the board of bills fees? Yeah, I don't know. I just about to ask you that same question. Well, I just take a break from the code as I'm thinking. I'm thinking the board of appeal fees is what I would take it as. That's where the board of appeal is. What I'd like to know if they can request their money back. Yeah. Prove it as sometimes we are especially used. They get that money if it's for especially. Let me read it again. What's the board shall order the director finance to refund all mistrave areas and filing fees by the upon but what type of case that goes back. We know no for if we reverse decision of an administrative agency so no violation right yeah so we reverse it like so hypothetically, somebody says, hey, DBC find me for, I think, whatever, for something. They come to say, I'm appealing that. And we say, DBC was wrong, they should have find you for that. So we rule to dismiss that. Well, now you'll get the hearing fees back. And I think what Felita might mean is, what if it's going back to your term, what if it's an application? For what? But it says no. It says only in cases where the word reverses the decision of administrative agency. So it has to be in the river. It's not just the regular, it can initially use the application. It's administrative agency reversal. So they're feeling a decision made. But now I have to think more about it because administrative agency is about that because an administrative agency based on one it doesn't really become clear because well based on one definition so we might need to Mr. definitely a new or barrett Mr. Sanders definitely need to clarify that the intent is to keep with the curbels, which say that. But if you read part of the Administrator procedure that says an ANG is a board, a bill of law, this is an individual board, I can read the definition for you. But I'm like, that could be the Gary's ever. Because the Gary is already. Yep. Is it work? Actually, yeah, we will have to review it. But generally speaking, the APA has a carve out for the board of appeals. So I don't know whether what you're referring to in the APA. So we'll table this then? Yeah. Because I'll see what I was talking about. I was just looking at the fee schedules online to getting it. Vice chairs point about like what is the scope of administrative hearing and filing case. Yeah. Yeah. So how about we table this one for further? Yes. Right, listen. Yeah. So the action is, is that a... We will bring this up in our next set of rules. Yeah, I'm going to, is that okay Mr. Cook? Well, I'll say you what I found and will, because I've said you smell the stuff too simple, think up on that. And then how does that affect budgetary? Well, I mean, it's currently the rules that they get their fees returned. So we're not changing, we're not adding that rule. That's in there. Right, but as we apply, which, yeah, we exactly need to further define. Because those rules were written before the hearing examiner was written before it. Right. Okay. Here in example, the fee is to get our fees. Yeah. Yeah, so refund under, so yeah, refund of security, right? I recommend we strike that whole section. After all appeals are exhausted, security post under 16.16, 1.0 of the code may be refunded. And in court it's with this section. I just recommend we strike that. Why, why is that? And I wish I could tell you guys that. I read it, and I can't remember what 16.16 was. How about we can say May and then we have the discretionary to figure out which ones. Yeah, okay. Let's do that. Can we vote on it? What is the security? Do you need to talk about that? Did you need to talk about that? What's the name of Mr. Sanders? Wasn't 60? Yeah, that's with code enforcement. We don't get many of those cases anymore. When the, there are a carve out under the hearings zameter with zoning enforcement to a citation process. And when the hearings zameter makes that decision, that comes to the board on the record. But the hearings zameter can put, you know, in her order, looking it up here, sort of like almost like a lien on the property and we see 16. So for the SIGMEX PDT, I'll tell you what. Well, here it is. If a final order of the hearing examiner includes a civil fine and the order is appealed to the Board of Appeals, the alleged violators shall post security in the amount of the civil fine to the director and a form acceptable to the director. Section B goes to the refund of security after all appeals are exhausted. If a civil find is reduced or vacated, and then the second is some categories under that, then two is not reduced or vacated. The security shall satisfy the fine assessed and accrue to the benefit of the county. So, what's your recommendation on this rule. Leave it in. I believe it in. I believe it in. Okay, so let's leave it as far as I can. I don't really understand it, but the F. Yeah. D.P.C. has been going that route lately. They've going more to court. So we'll leave it in board, because right. Yeah. because right yeah okay so it is 10 10 and we did keep our word so but as usually we didn't get where we thought we would so to be clear we're leaving off at the record we Thank you. What's on the expel set? No, the expel set is lying. 557, 2.203. So we'll pick up at 53. So we will push you down the back, right? So it'd be clear. So next meeting, we were set to discuss the second section. We're not going to do that, because we need more time. So I will get with Mr. O'Reilly off the law, get them where they need it, and hopefully by next meeting we'll be able to discuss that, we'll resume here, so we'll put you everything in one session. One session. And next meeting we'll set future weeks, right? Does that work? Sounds good. Okay. And our next meeting you are doing a great job. I have been watching you all night and your discussions are great. I really, really appreciate what you all are doing. So just wanted to say that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Okay. So to be clear, our next meeting is in a warmer room. Oh my gosh. I want to heat her. I want to heat her. Before we digress, our next meeting. I can't believe you're saying in a warmer room you look like you're. Cher young, I think, is speaking again. Sorry, Michelle. Cher young, I think, is speaking again. I'm sorry, Michelle. Or Cher young. I'm gonna never happen in our building, but I want you to know, on the back of all the women's, all the council women's doors, there are multiple sweaters. I'll remember that. I'll remember that. Something just you are, you know, in fact, in my office, there are two blankets. Oh, you are. I'm doing it up like that. That's great to know. I'm going to ask. I'm going to ask. Well, I'm sorry, Jean. I know you were finishing up something. No, no, no, no. I'm trying to look at it right now and make sure I'm right here. I'm just freezing in here. I believe it's September 19th and next Thursday, That's our hearing. Is that during the day? Is that the hearing? I thought that was. I thought that was. No, no. Is it 9 a.m.? And 9 a.m.? I thought it was another worst one. Make sure I got right. So it is. I thought it was a work session. Yeah. Yeah, just make sure. Hold on, standby. Yeah, according to my. That's good. I just get a point. I had some of the schedule but I can't. So the 19th right. So right now it's scheduled. The agenda was 2.207 to 2.2 and 3. That will not be the case for rules. We'll continue with 2.206. We are scheduled for 9am. But with all due respect to everybody, I don't know if we're going to do any other days we'll do our best because that's long and we'll be tired if the board wants to do that so we'll do but I'm willing to what people want to call the day. I think we should not get as much as we can do. Yeah yeah yeah yeah but I just supposed to be 9 to 12. Did we change it? Okay. If we do four hours, that would be 9 to 1. Well, we said three hours just and then if it goes, we close it up when we can. Like if we are in something, we keep on going. I want to work as much as we can. I want to get as much done as we can. We only have a couple more sessions and So we yeah, so we will that's me the room is reserved and the time frame is reserved until four. Should you need that time? Yeah, we won't yeah, okay, so we'll we'll be reasonable as long as we have the right start time so we can have public notice for that I'm thankful for this. Thank you very much for this. Yeah, I think we can aim for finishing before 12 and before one. And I'm gonna keep my tongue back when we go offline. Yeah. Okay, we're gonna adjourn. Thank you. I don't want to take you off.