September 28, 2022 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Now? And now record has shifted from my screen. Okay, great. I've got it. Okay. And we are recording. Great.

[00:00:12] Member Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so this is the council policy and procedure committee meeting of September 28th. And during this declared state of emergency. This meeting is being conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution. Please contact city clerk at mountain view.gov to attain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the council policy and procedures committee will participate in the meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public, wishing to observe the live meeting, may do so. I'm just going to say via links on the city's website. Because if you're here, you already know them. Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in several ways, uh, you could have emailed city.manager at mountain view.gov prior to the meeting. Uh, you can provide oral comments during this meeting. And if you are doing that via Zoom. Well, you're here already, so I don't think I need to read that. Um, but when the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, click the raised hand feature in Zoom. Speakers will be notified of their turn shortly before they are called on to speak. And if you are participating via phone. When the chair announces the item on, on which you wish to speak, dial star 9, phone participants will be called on by the last few digits of their phone number. And when the chair calls your name to provide public comment, if you are participating via phone, please press star 6 to unmute yourself. Okay, so with that, we will call the meeting to order at 203. And um, If we could have a roll call for attendance? Committee member Hicks? Here. Committee

[00:02:11] Unknown Speaker: member Ramirez? Here. And share Matachek. Here. Thank you. And

[00:02:18] Member Lisa Matichak: next on the item is number three, the minute's approval. And those are the minutes from the November 30th, 2021 meeting. Are there any corrections or comments from members of the committee? Nope. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on the minutes? I don't see any hands raising. So, um, Mayor Ramirez. Well, move to approve the minutes. Vice mayor Hicks? I 2nd that notion. Thank you. So we have a motion and a 2nd and we will do a roll call vote. Mini member Hicks? Yes. Big

[00:03:08] Unknown Speaker: member Ramirez? Yes. Chair Matachek. Yes. Thank you. We

[00:03:16] Member Lisa Matichak: will move on to item 4 oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for a person wishing to address the committee on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items. And, um, I see one hand, um, Bruce England. Let's see, do I need to do anything, Mr. England. We can't hear you if you're talking. Uh, but do I need to do anything to unmute him or anything? He's not uh, he's not muted. Oh, now he is. There he is. Hopefully you should be able to speak now. Yes,

[00:04:05] Bruce England: just got the message. You hear me now? Oh, great, great, great. Yes. Great, thank you. I'm hearing some echo. Okay, it went away. Good. Um, Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. I have several questions, and I know that none of these are on the agenda, so I think these are things where I'm requesting that they be placed on a future agenda. But, um, Just a sec. Okay, here we go. So wondering who, uh, develops questions for advisory body, uh, interviews. I know that there's static questions that are asked, but I have not seen an opportunity to weigh in on that. That's 1st one. Um, request for advisory body handbook updates around residency requirements. There was a recent change made for, um, The P SAB. And those changes might be reflected in a future update to the handbook. Uh, I would like to see, uh, towels for all the advisory bodies, a tentative agenda list for all some advisory bodies do it, some don't, but it would be nice to have a consistency. There's also inconsistency on improved, rather on responses to public comments during meetings. I know that questions can't be answered, but there can be some responses is also inconsistent, cross-advisory bodies. There's much feedback to, um, members of the public as possible would be great. Um, There's, of some kind of means for advisory bodies to regularly report back to council, that's not in place today at the council meetings. Um, and also, I'm almost done. As much as possible, if meeting packets can be available before, the weekend, that would be great because oftentimes people only have the weekends to work on it. There was discussion at the B-Pack about, um, responding to Zoom comments, you know, in the chat and so on. And I think that, The city attorney has said that that should be turned off, but, Apparently it's happening anyway. And so I don't know if you want to, um, discuss that. And lastly, and I've said this before in other meetings, but, The means for advisory bodies to consider legislation recommendations back to city council, that didn't show up on any other work plans for the fiscal year. And my request is that that be included by council, a direction over to the advisory bodies to include that in their work plans, or at least consider it, because most, if not all, the advisory bodies could benefit from being able to provide that input. That's a lot, but I'm done. Thank

[00:06:39] Member Lisa Matichak: you very much. I think I captured it all. And I don't see any other attendees. So we will close item 4 and we'll move on to item 5.one. Which is consideration of revisions to city council policy D13. And Lindsay Bishop will be giving that report. Great, thank you. Thank

[00:07:05] Lindsay Bishop: you. Good afternoon. I'll go ahead and start by sharing my screen. Okay. Um, so, um, good afternoon, uh, mayor, vice mayor and council members. Today we'll be discussing recommended revisions to council policy D 13, a Mountain View employee, homebuyer, and relocation assistance program. Well, this policy outlines the relocation program, in addition to the home buyer program, today's recommendations are solely related to the home buyer program. In the presentation, we'll briefly review the major elements of the current program and then walk through the loan provisions for which staff is recommending revisions to address recent challenges with these provisions and to provide administrative flexibility and responding to employee and participant needs. Okay, so the current policy that stands today was revised in 2019 to support organizational goals, including those listed here. Those listed here are the goals that today's recommendations are intended to future to further support. Um, so in terms of recruitment and retention. It's been discussed as employees establishing themselves in the community made to work longer for the city, um, with community ties established and also with better work-life balance, including reduced commute time. In terms of housing market challenges, housing continues to be a talent for those in and around Mountain View, including the attainability of home ownership, and that challenge is no different for our employees. And then in terms of, including, um, increasing the participation in the program. This is a consideration as we look at the provisions and ensure that the program is valuable, it's attainable, and it's flexible to include reasonable parameters without creating unattainable barriers. And then lastly, in terms of streamlining administration. Um, we're looking at, um, including reduced, um, excuse me, including reasonable parameters by reducing the frequency of exceptions that must go before council, council may recall that the last 2 loans, um, issued under this policy, recent required council action, due the restrictions in the current policy. So that kind of informs us to where we are. Um, a brief, uh, view here of the current program overview. There are 3 home loan categories as outlined here. Staff is not recommending changes to the categories you see here or to the loan amounts. In addition, staff is not recommending changes to the proximity to Mountain View, but instead we'll be requesting to confirm. Um, the clarification of how proximity is determined and to make recommendations related to the other the other loan provisions. Okay, so this slide out live provisions brought before you today for consideration. Um, I'll summarize each one of these and then after this slide, we'll I'll conclude the presentation a welcome discussion. So, uh, in terms of the provisions recommended for all employee loans, um, attached to the memo distributed last week was a map when counsel approved the revised policy in 2019. This Mac was attached to the report. However, it may have been unclear whether the radius was determined by commute miles or general miles, um, as outlined on the map attached. So staff is recommending confirmation of the general radius map and that GIS would be used to satisfy the requirement of proximity to Mountain View. Uh, in terms of the interest only payment periods. The current policy includes a 3 year provision. Prior policies have included between a 5 and 7 year provision to allow for additional flexibility. Requests for interest only payments, um, in the recommendation from staff, um, in the requests for interest only payments would be reviewed as set forth in administrative guidelines for the program. Uh, the city would ensure that recipients are aware of how this would impact their future payments, um, for principle, and, um, in addition, consideration would be made as to the, um, ability for the city to recover payments from participant employee paychecks, and, Industry standards such as equity in the home, housing market conditions, um, and any impact to being able to provide future loans through this program. The provisions, the last 2 provisions for council appointee and department head loans, have both been prompted by the city's recent experience administering loans in accordance with the current policy provision. The current policy requires the 10% equity is established in the home, which may be reduced for department heads to 5% by the city manager. In recognition that in some cases, including in the most recent council appointee loan, the city's loan will not exceed the loan amount available to other employees. Um, in this case, 1st responders have a loan amount um, limit of $500,000. And 1st responders do not have an equity requirement. So in accordance with this staff, it recommends removing the equity requirement entirely for council appointees and department heads. In the case that the city's loan does not exceed the $500,000 for consistency in the issuance of loans, up to this amount for other employees. And then lastly, the subordinate loan requirements. To date, the provision that any additional loan be subordinate to the city's loan has been difficult to obtain, thereby reducing the chances of a successful home purchase. Staff recognizes this can be a barrier to participation and is in contrast to one of the main program goals regarding participation. As such, staff is recommending removing this provision for council appointees, and providing the city manager discretion to waive this provision in the instances in which it would prevent a department had from successful home purchase under the program. In balancing risk to the city, this approval would be limited to a secondary loan position for the city's loan and would only be extended after a good faith effort to obtain a loan subordinate to the city. I'm going to pause there and take us out of this to open for discussion and questions. If anyone would like to see any of the slides again, please let me know. I'll be happy to bring them up. Great,

[00:13:46] Member Lisa Matichak: thank you. So are there any questions from committee members? So I had a few. Um, What, do you know what the industry standard is for the term of interest only payments? I

[00:14:08] Lindsay Bishop: would, I'm going to pause there and see if that's. Thing that um, Jesse can speak to. Yes,

[00:14:18] Jesse Takahashi: hi, Jesse Takahashi, the finance administrative sources director. Thanks for the question. So, um, there are um, interest only uh, standards in the industry, so that is uh, a common, um, uh, provision in in a lot of loans um, for a limited period of time. Um, a lot of them are in adjustable rate mortgages, um, where, um, people have an initial period of time to, uh, grow into it. So this is a little different in that, um, uh, the interest rate would not be adjustable, but, um, be fixed. Um, but otherwise in the industry there, that that is a fairly common provision.

[00:15:05] Member Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I guess I was asking, what is the most common, um, length of time that it is interest only on a typical interest only loan? Is it by yours? Is it 10 years? Yeah,

[00:15:20] Jesse Takahashi: um, I think uh, it's up. I've seen up to 10 years, but again, those are on adjustable rate mortgages. And so there's, you know, they work a little bit differently. There's more risk both ways. And so, you know, the longer you go out, there is a more potential that your interest rate could go down, but also more likely generally will go up. Can go up. So it varies. Yeah, anywhere up to maybe 10 years. So,

[00:15:50] Member Lisa Matichak: but did I just hear you say that um, you don't usually see interest only on a fixed interest rate loan? No,

[00:15:58] Jesse Takahashi: I think what I said is, the one that is in our program would not adjust. So it would be a fixed loan versus the ones in the industry typically are associated with adjustable mortgages, which where the interest rate does fluctuate. So depending upon when. You know, that, that, that period uh, ends, that, that could then lock in whatever rate is at that time. Right.

[00:16:26] Member Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I get that. So for our arms, it, um, You often have an interest only loan for a period of time. I guess I'm I, I don't know what industry standard practices are for fixed rate moments. How many years you might have the option to, um, pay interest only. So but I'll move on. Um, On page 2 of the draft policy, it says, um, the interest only period could be up to 7 years and assessed on a case by case basis. So who actually does the assessment? And how is the decision made? Thank

[00:17:07] Lindsay Bishop: you for that question. So, um, the policy as outlined in the policy at the end of policy, the administrative guidelines are um, created and approved by the city manager. So this would be established in the administrative guidelines, um, so that it can be reviewed by, um, expertise staff in terms of the the different provisions, not only in terms of the, um, participant's ability to pay. So that would be one thing. So the payments are required to come out of the paycheck, so there would need to be an assessment that would be by city staff. The employees, um, paycheck and other liabilities, but come out of the paycheck and if there is, um, if it's conducive to the request for the interest only in terms of how it would impact the future payments. And then there would also be, we're proposing some review of industry, best standards regarding equity and loan provisions. And so in that case, A staff would be um, requesting uh, assistance from outside expertise. Okay,

[00:18:12] Member Lisa Matichak: so it could be that, um, the terms are different for different employees. Potentially. Okay. Um. I'm curious why, um, it's broken out into, uh, 2 periods, um, 3 years and then you can ask for up to 7. Is like 3 years automatic. Uh,

[00:18:39] Lindsay Bishop: typically, yeah, so the, the current policy allows for the request for up to 3 years and uh, doesn't request a review. Often, um, someone's situation doesn't change as quickly or as drastically, I significantly, I would say, within a 3 year period, whereas things may taint more over a 7 year period. So, um, not only is it a larger impact or a bigger difference to the future. future payments, um, employees, just as any individuals may have changes in their situations, and so, um, it allows the city to assess, uh, um, essentially closer to the time which the principal payments would start, whether or not additional interest only, um, could have, uh, impacts that should be considered.

[00:19:28] Member Lisa Matichak: Is that how the previous policy was when you said it was 7 years, is broken into 2 buckets? Um,

[00:19:35] Lindsay Bishop: no, so there were 2 different previous policies that were separate, one for all employees, and then one for department heads and council appointees. And I believe the one for department heads and council appointees did not have, um, a tiered system, had different provisions. I'd have to look those up, had different provisions to safeguard that review in the review of that, um, based on the loan provisions, but it was not an a tiered, um, approach to review. And the employee, um, the prior employee policy for a loan up to $100,000 um, was 5 years and did not have a review. Okay. Um, and

[00:20:17] Member Lisa Matichak: then the interest rate. I know it's, um, well, I thought it was just the long term AFR rate. Um, but when I read this again, it says it's based on the AFR. And so I'm wondering, Is it a variation of AFR? Or, and who decides or is it just AFR at the time you take out the loan? How does it work?

[00:20:47] Unknown Speaker: Thank

[00:20:47] Lindsay Bishop: you for that question. I'm gonna defer there, Jesse, can you speak to that? Yes,

[00:20:54] Jesse: uh, so the policy indicates that it's the AFR at the time that the loan is uh, originated. So that would be when, basically upon closure, of the purchase, and when that loan is made. Okay. Um,

[00:21:14] Member Lisa Matichak: and it's the long term, right? Um, yes. Okay. Um. Okay. So all the questions I have. So, um, I will open this up for public input. Are there any members of the public who wish to provide comments on this? Don't see a hand going up. So um, we'll bring it back to the committee. There's any comments, uh, Mayor Ramirez?

[00:21:50] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I don't have very many comments. I think this is a valuable uh, employee recruitment and retention tool, uh, and I appreciate the staff recommendations to improve it. Uh so I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. Nice Mayor Hicks.

[00:22:10] Member Alison Hicks: I agree. It's a great idea and I 2nd it. So,

[00:22:16] Member Lisa Matichak: um, I actually have a concern about the um, interest only. I um, The AFR um, has been incredibly low. Uh, like around one%, 2%, 3%, um, for several years now. Uh, granted in the past it's been higher. But gosh, if you get a loan and your interest rate is like one. 5% I think that's an incredible benefit. Um. And so I kind of have concerns about saying it's interest only for um, a longer period of time when you already have a great rate. Uh, I think it's been a long time since the traditional mortgage. Um, has an interest rate that low. Actually, I can't think of time when it's been that low. So I guess I have concerns about, um, making it interest only for a longer period of time. Mayor Ramirez. Uh,

[00:23:19] Member Lucas Ramirez: I don't know if you were already intending to do this, but maybe it would be helpful to hear a little bit more about staff's rationale or or perspective and allowing for that benefit.

[00:23:33] Unknown Speaker: Um, thank you, uh, mayor. Uh, sorry, excuse me, council member Ramirez, um, and chair Manachek. So I, uh, I think this is a valuable retention tool. For those employees that currently have this loan, which include myself and the city clerk. And it's also a valuable recruitment tool in this environment now when, uh, we would be applying this to the potential future department heads or current department heads if we want them to remain in Mountain View. Uh, where we all know it's a very, um, high. Uh, I would say, Could be a barrier to entry in, um, getting any sort of home here when the, when the median home prices $2.9 million. So if we're trying to have employees come to Mountain View and stay in Mountain View, having that, um, Cushion, I think is very helpful to us. And it doesn't mean that it will be approved or used, but being able to talk about that and market that and um, have that as a benefit and you are right, share meta check, it is definitely a benefit. And I think it's one that helps distinguish us in Mountain View from other places um, in order to keep really valuable staff here. Thank you. Yeah,

[00:25:11] Member Lisa Matichak: I guess I feel more comfortable if it was a shorter period of time, maybe initially, like 5 years, um, instead of 3 years, um, rather than the 2 tiers, um, So I'd actually propose that instead. So I guess I feel comfortable with all the other staff recommendations. Um, but, Can I do a substitute motion here? That the um, period for interest only is just a standard 5 years. Um, rather than the 3 years and you can ask for 4 years. Mayor Ramirez?

[00:25:48] Member Lucas Ramirez: Uh, thank you. I wanted to give the finance director a chance. I saw, did you raise your hand, Jesse? Did you want to speak to this as well?

[00:25:55] Member Lisa Matichak: I'm sorry, I didn't see his hand race. Sorry if I missed you. Thanks,

[00:25:59] Jesse: not, no, not, not, not a problem. Yeah, I was just gonna add that, you know, Mountain View, uh, if you look in the Bay Areas, one of the higher, uh, priced homes, and so the interest rate, and as you know, interest rates have been actually on the rise significantly over this past year, uh, which is already making it difficult to get into a home. And so, um, having the AFR does cataract that somewhat, um, and makes it a little bit more feasible to get into it. So, I think without that, I think it will lessen the ability for folks to get into a mountain view or within, you know, a short distance from Mountain View homes, as as we know, um, those prices have been pretty exorbitant.

[00:26:51] Member Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice Mayor Hicks.

[00:26:55] Member Alison Hicks: I just wanted to say I'm comfortable with it as proposed. Um, I understand, I appreciate the discussion of risk and, um, But I feel like weighing 2 things. We have a healthy budget, but I think recruiting and retaining staff is the thing I want to work on. So I think that it's it's worth it's worth the money. in my opinion. Thank you. Thanks.

[00:27:23] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I didn't hear a 2nd for the substitute, so we're back to the original motion. And any other comments before we do a roll call vote? See, I lost Kimberly. There she is. Could you do a wrong look? Okay, here we go.

[00:27:42] Kimberly: Committee member Hicks?

[00:27:44] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:27:45] Kimberly: Uh, committee member Ramirez.

[00:27:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:27:49] Kimberly: And chair Matachek.

[00:27:50] Member Lisa Matichak: No.

[00:27:52] Kimberly: That passes. Passes 20 uh 21 sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:28:05] Member Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I think that closes item 5.one. And we will move on to 5.2. And

[00:28:19] Kimberly: this will be presented by Jennifer. Good afternoon.

[00:28:27] Jennifer Logue: Jennifer Logue, city attorney for the city of Mountain View. I am going to take you through today. Um, a few, um, Suggested amendments to council policy A 13 and the council code of conduct. These, um, amendment recommendations, come from, um, council's vote to, um, have the CPPC or this committee, I'm sorry, consider, um, some, uh, amendments related to parliamentary procedure, um, some amendments related to council attendance at, uh, hybrid meetings. Um, in addition to one recommended amendment that um, I am making with regard to a change in state law. So I will share my screen now. and walk you through them. Okay, let me enlarge this. Okay. Um, hopefully you're able to see council policy A13 on the screen. And I will start at the beginning here. Under policy section one B. Um, I am recommending the 1st amendment. I am recommending this policy, addresses council attendance at hybrid meetings, and just to provide a little bit of background, um, and contacts for this recommended amendment. Currently under the Brown Act, as you all are aware, the council is um, permitted to meet completely remotely through video conference, um, with no physical meeting location. Okay? And prior to this, um, amendment to the Brown Act. If any council member was going to attend a meeting remotely. You needed to post notice in the location where you were meeting remotely and also make that location accessible to members of the public. But right now, in light of this modifications of the Brown Act, you can actually meet completely remotely. I know that the city is considering having hybrid meetings in which council members or staff could, some could be in person, some could be meeting remotely, and members of the public could always still participate through Zoom or some other video conference method made available by the city. It was, um, the, interest of the city council to consider, amending council policy, A13, in order to require in-person attendance of all council meetings, at hybrid meetings. And so a hybrid meaning, For clarification would not be the video conference meeting where it is fully remote. It would require the adoption of, um, the AB 361 resolution which we currently adopt in order to meet by video conference. But the but the hybrid meeting, there would be people attending in person. And so the issue came up of whether or not all council members should be required to attend in person. I have amended this policy to require members of the city council to attend all regular and special meetings of the city council in person. Unless they're absent, With the consent of the mayor, Or the city council has elected by a majority vote to conduct a meeting by video conference. So there would only be 2 circumstances in which a council member would be able to be absent or participate by video. In the circumstance in which everybody is participating by video because there has been some determination that it is not safe for, um, even a hybrid meeting, meaning nobody should be in person, so that would happen in the context of assuming there was a, a surge in COVID-19 and you wanted to go back to full video, um, meetings. Or if you are absent with the consent of the mayor. And let me explain why I use that term absent with the consent of the mayor. You already have a policy. Um, while it's required under the charter. That if a city council member is absent from a meeting, you are deducted, pay for that meeting unless you are absent with the consent of the mayor. So that language is already in the charter. In light of that language in the charter, Council had already adopted what constitutes absent with the consent of the mayor, and I did not modify that. And so if I go down here, Absent with the consent of the mayor has always meant, Um, Either city council has consented to the absence in order for the council member to attend a city official city business or attend to some other conference or regional board meeting. The council member is ill. The council member is on family leave for birth or adoption of a child. The council members on bereavement leave. Or the meeting was not on the council's formally adopted annual schedule of meetings, meaning it was a new special meeting at which you already had a conflict. So that has already been part of the policy. What absent, um, With the consent of the mayor means. It means one of those things. And so all I did was adopt that into the requirement for attending hybrid meetings. So basically what you would be doing by adopting this amendment is saying, All council members have to be in person. Um, attend, um, hybrid meetings in person, unless the 2 things occur, which is you are absent with the consent of the mayor, which is consistent with charter 503. Um, or the council has, by majority vote, elected to hold the entire meeting by video conference and everyone's going to be by video. And I'll stop there because for questions because that's a mouthful and it's probably one of the biggest amendments that I am proposing and and I suspect there would be questions related to that area.

[00:34:46] Member Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I just have a process question. I thought we were doing a different item.

[00:34:52] Kimberly: Oh, yeah, we were actually, apologies from, from staff that we were actually going to move Jennifer's item up. Um, and I should have drawn your attention to that. It was going to be 552, which is actually Heather's item. So we were taking 53 out of order.

[00:35:07] Member Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I said we were going to do 52 and I'm like, well, this doesn't sound like 52. Um okay. So, um, any questions on 53. Sorry sorry.. Actually, I'm sorry, I think the mayor had his hand up first. Mayor Ramirez.

[00:35:27] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I and I had the same question. I wasn't, uh, certain if we were supposed to be, uh, looking at, uh, uh, what was it, K2? Um, uh, to thank you, Jennifer, for the, um, the recommended changes. I did have a couple of questions about, um, hybrid meetings and what is law. Can we actually compel attendance physical participation, um, council in a hybrid meeting, if a, if a member of the council, uh, signed in virtually, and they wanted to participate. Could we actually, could the mayor not, uh recognize that member of the council and allow that member to speak?

[00:36:16] Jennifer Logue: Well, the charter allows you to compel attendance. So you can compel attendance at any meeting and and it is within the body's authority to adopt these procedures. So if, if this, if this committee voted in favor of this amendment, and you, and you moved it forward to counsel and the council adopted this policy with this amendment, the council has that authority. to compel attendance. Um, of all council members. So, so that is within the authority of the entire council body. So it really takes it outside of just the mayor, right? And, and if the body adopts this policy and says everyone needs to be in person, then, then everyone is, is, bound by this policy, because, because you have spoken as a body to adopt that. So it kind of takes it outside of you having to decide whether or not someone who's called in by video conference should be allowed to participate or not. Um, however, a hybrid meeting. It's an anomaly. It is not, it is not the video conference meeting, right? The video conference meeting is a special meeting that is authorized under the Brown Act right now. That section of the Brown is scheduled to sunset. Um, in 2024. Okay? And when that goes away. You go back to having the option to teleconference into a meeting, but again, you have to post where you are and make your location available to the public, right? The hybrid meeting that we're talking about, is only allowed by nature of this of the section of the Brown Act, which is gonna eventually sunset. So, It's really, it's really something that we're coming up with. So, You have the authority to compel attendance in person. You don't have to. You can't allow them to call in by video conference. But the body can adopt a policy that says you all need to be in person, and that authority is provided by the charter.

[00:38:28] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so I, I, I, that's helpful and I, I want to make sure I, I'm, I'm tracking closely. It sounds like the there are there are 2 different scenarios. There's the emergency provisions in state law and for as long as those emergency provisions exist and we adopt the. I can't remember is it AB 361? I always forget the number, resolution, for as long as, those both are true. We really can't compel physical participation of the council, um, because that, that, that's the, the state presumably is overriding the charter requirement to participate, um, in person. Uh, so, so outside of that, though, we can elect, to allow, in a regular meeting, right, so outside of the emergency context. Basically, we go back to a regular meeting scenario, and we're saying we would like to continue to allow the public to participate, virtually, but the council, then, under provisions of the chart. Is that a fair characterization or am I completely missing something here?

[00:39:43] Member Lisa Matichak: You're not going to set out on the, uh, cancel member Ramirez or Mayor Ramirez. sorry.

[00:39:50] Member Lucas Ramirez: Oh no, where did I cut out? So,

[00:39:52] Member Lisa Matichak: I don't know if um, the city attorney heard everything you said, but I didn't. I,

[00:39:57] Jennifer Logue: I got the, you cut out a little, but I heard you. And I think I understand the question. Um, So let me provide a little clarification. The brownout does not overruling the charter. The brown act is providing The ability. For counsel to adopt a resolution and allow the council to meet fully remotely. Okay, but you do not have to. So it is not overruling the charter at all. You can still compel attendance. That is still authorized under the charter. Even if you adopt the AB 361 resolution, right? And oftentimes, and a lot of cities are adopting them now out of an abundance of caution. Right? it's so volatile. You never know when you're going to have to be, you know, remote or in person. things go up and down. So when you adopt A 38361, it allows you to meet remotely, but it doesn't require you to meet remotely, nor does it overrule any charter provision stating that the council has authority to remote, uh, to compel attendance. Um, so you still, the body can still adopt. A policy of in-person attendance. If the meeting is going to be hybrid or called for an in-person meeting, you can still adopt that policy. Um, But you don't have to. I mean, you can let, so it really is a body decision. The brown act just gives you flexibility to meet fully remote, right? Or to meet remotely, have some of your council members remote without posting their location and making their location available to the public. That's all the brown act does is it's given you some flexibility. What? How you decide to run your meetings is really up to the body. Does that make sense? Yeah,

[00:41:59] Member Lucas Ramirez: it does. Hopefully, um, my my microphone is working a little bit better now. Um, so, uh, so that, that is helpful. I, I think the, the, the concern I have or had is uh, in the events, a member of the council elects to participate virtually in a hybrid meeting. I wasn't sure if there was a legal risk in design that member of the council an opportunity to participate. It sounds like, you know, even in a hybrid setting, you know, even with, uh, AB 361. Uh, we could, you know, the mayor, the council could, I, that member of the council, the opportunity to participate virtually, uh, and actually compel physical attendance, and that's good to know. The other uh, question I have is uh, related to the consent of the mayor, and you know, I've, I've been on, you know, I, I've had to do this a couple of times now, and you know, I'm, I'm, I, I'm generally fine with it, but I think different mayors will have sort of different tests that they will apply, and one of the concerns I have with that is, uh, treating similarly situated parties differently. Um, and I'm wondering if there's a better way to do this than, uh, than seeking the consent of, of the mayor where we might have a more objective set of criteria that are enforced consistently. Is there, is there any other way of doing this? So

[00:43:33] Jennifer Logue: unfortunately, the consent of the mayor language comes from your charter. So you, that may, the mayor is provided that discretion. By charter, and there's nothing we can do about that part. What you have adopted, what you, the body, has tried to do, is to make sure that it is applied equally across the board by limiting your discretion. Or the mayor's discretion, whomever that may be at any given time. And and by doing that, they've outlined, scenarios under which consent will of the mayor will be presumed. Okay, so whether you said no or not, it's it's as if consent of the mayor is presumed under these circumstances. So, if a council member calls you up and says, I'm sick, I won't be there today, It doesn't require you to, look into that or require a medical note or anything like that. A member that calls in sick is presumed to be absent with your consent, right? A member. The only one that allow, that requires, actually brings in the entire body is the 1st one, which is the entire council consents to an absence either before or after the absence in relation to attending to sit official city business, right? Or attending some regional meeting or a conference. And I think that's fairly common, right? Your, your, the body is usually aware when a council member is going to go attend some conference, um, you know, out of state or out of town or something like that and can't participate. And again, birth or adoption. You know, it's, it doesn't provide a lot of discretion. There's a new baby or an adopted child and and they're entitled to be absent from the meeting. Same thing with bereavement leave. Um, And then the final one. is, is the one that's probably provides the most flexibility, but again doesn't provide the mayor much discretion, which is, if you schedule a special meeting, One that was not contemplated, right, but was necessary. And that council member is already has a conflict and cannot attend. That absence is considered excused. So there's not a lot of room for people to be treated differently. As you've defined it. You could add to this list. Of reasons that constitute consent with the mayor. I just wasn't asked to do that, and so I didn't do it. But that is something that could come back to this committee to consider whether or not you would want to add other reasons. Um, or other bases that would automatically be, um, considered absent with the consent of the mayor. Do you see what I'm saying? So that's how you can limit the parameters and limit the discretion and ensure that people are being treated equally. Similarly situated, people are being treated equally. Okay,

[00:46:36] Member Lucas Ramirez: that is helpful. And then, uh, the last question is, um, sort of the fringe cases where someone, uh, may need, um, in ability to participate. Virtually, but it's, uh, too late to, uh, to provide the, the, the notice that would be required under the Brown Act, so let's say, um, somebody gets COVID or the flu or something, and they have, you know, the, the mental capability to participate, but it would be prudent for them to participate virtually, so they don't get the rest of us sick. Um, is that, is that a, in that case with, with the mayor's consent allow them to participate virtually in a hybrid setting or, you know, is that not a scenario that's really contemplated and they would have to sit it out or come to the meeting and and participate, uh, physically?

[00:47:35] Jennifer Logue: So as drafted. It probably does not contemplate that scenario. Which is someone who tests positive for COVID, let's say. You're holding a hybrid meeting in which they would be required to attend in person, but it is, but, But they shouldn't attend in person and they don't want to be completely absent. I could write it in such a way to, because it's not an absence, right? If they show up by hybrid, it's actually not an absence, and right now, the consent of the mayor contemplates a full absence. I could add language that covered that, that would allow for, uh, virtual attendance, with the consent of the mayor. You know, and this and they have these same things apply. Right? So, maybe birth or adoption, right? Like same thing. You you could, your bereavement leave, you're out of town for a funeral. But you can attend. For whatever reason, right? You've decided that you you want to participate and you can participate. You are just in another state because the funeral is tomorrow in, you know, New York. Um, we certainly would want to a council member that wanted to participate and not be fully absent. I can understand where you would want to allow that person to participate. Remotely. And I could write that in. But once again, remember, that only applies during the time that this section of the Brown Act exists. And it goes away once if it's actually sunsets on January one, 2024. So I could, if, you know, if that is something that you wanted, could amend that to, to provide for that provision. Okay.

[00:49:28] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, thank you. Those are all my questions. Nice Mayor Hicks. Yes,

[00:49:36] Member Alison Hicks: so I have questions on the same section. Um, one is, I had thought that, tell me if I'm using the wrong legal terms. I had thought that when, given our experience of remote and hybrid meetings, that, um, when, uh, this is the part I may say wrong, when the, um, exception to the Brown act or whatever, the one that's been allowing us to meet without posting signs and all that. Um, when that expires, I thought there were some, we were expecting maybe some changes so that, um, so that the posting would not be required in the future. Have you heard anything about possible changes to the legislation? I,

[00:50:25] Jennifer Logue: I think there, there are, um, there is legislation or other amendments under consideration, but I have not heard of anything final that will, that will result in a permanent change. Not yet. I haven't heard. Um, but I do think that there are, there, it is under consideration, and I don't know if Heather is on. If she is more aware of any legislative action, um, that may be taken to make it permanent. Um, Heather, do you?

[00:50:58] Heather: Yeah, no, not at this time, there have been some bills that have come through and died, um, but nothing. Nothing seems like it's gaining a lot of traction in this particular realm right now. Oh,

[00:51:12] Member Alison Hicks: interesting, because I'd heard some time ago that, um, that people might want to take more advantage of the possibility of hybrid meetings and change that. So, but you all would know more than I would about that. Um, and then I, I'm not, so, I'm not fully clear on the difference between, um, pre-COVID, uh, and what you're proposing now, uh, the idea that the mayor can legally compel a council member to come to a meeting. What would have happened if, in the 1st year, I was elected. If I had said, Lisa was mayor. I had said, um, you know, I'm gonna go do this and I want to come, uh, virtually, and she had said no. She would have been able to compel me. I'm going to take care of my sick mom and I'll come virtually from her house. And she said, no, then would I be, um, I would have to come back and attend in person? Is that, or would it just have been that I would have been docked some pay? So, let's,

[00:52:24] Jennifer Logue: let me provide some clarification and ask for your example. Let me ask some other clarification. Are you saying that, are you talking about prior to enactment of this portion of the Brown Act that allows everyone to meet, meet remotely? Are you talking about pre-COVID? The pre-COVID situation? Because it's different. Pre-COVID. Pre-COVID. You would have had to post a sign at your mother's house and make your house open to members of the public to come and sit with you. And participate. And again, not that the mayor can compel you. What I'm saying is the council can adopt a policy. The council can compel attendance of council members. So you as a body can adopt a policy. That says you need to participate in person. And if you adopt a policy that says that, and you said, I want to participate virtually, I don't want to be here, then, It would be our duty to impose the policy, to say that you don't have an option in light of this policy to participate remotely. But again, we should, you know, that's why we write an exception, we write an exception. So, what Mayor Ramirez just brought up was, you know, an in between right now. It's not written where, you know, if you are able to participate, but you need to do it remotely because you're caring for someone who's sick or you've tested positive, right? And it's not a good idea for you to be near other people. Um, we need to put in some middle line there so that you can participate. But it's not the mayor. That prevents you. It's the policy adopted by the ball the body that would prevent you. It would just we're just imposing a local policy that's been adopted. So, The body has to be on board with this. It is not that the mayor has power to exclude a council member. So

[00:54:30] Member Alison Hicks: the mayor is just written in there because it's the mayor is the person who would look over the list of possible reasons and say this fits or doesn't fit. It's

[00:54:41] Jennifer Logue: just that the charter has used this terminology as absent with the consent of the mayor. And that and it's tied to whether or not you get paid when you're absent from a council meeting, right? And so all I did was adopt the same process. You, you would have an unexcused absence. If you were not absent with the consent of the mayor. You have an excused absence if you are. What you're talking about, and I think what Mayor Ramirez brought up is an in-between. You're not absent. You just want to participate remotely and when does the council want to allow that to happen? And so, What I was saying is that it might make sense to include an amendment in here that provides for the ability to participate remotely with the consent of the mayor under these same circumstances. And you can even add circumstances, right? If, if you, if, like if you're attending a conference out of state, And you want to participate via video conference, You would qualify, you'd be able to do that because we're gonna adopt these same, you know, same criteria for allowing you to meet by video conference, if you're ill, but still able to participate. You can meet by, you can join by video conference. Again, if you, you know, if you're on bereavement leave, but still want to participate, you could participate for, you know, virtually. That's why I'm saying it. I think it probably makes make sense to put something put an in between in there. So, because that's not an absence. That's providing criteria under which you could participate virtually. It's an exception to the in person rule. Yeah,

[00:56:35] Member Alison Hicks: yeah. So I just, that's good to hear. I, um, you know, would actually like to add probably a number of them. I think that, you know, the technology using allows us to, you know, I would like staff to be able to come in virtually from time to time, and I would like more ways for council to be able to do some of the things that we, you know, normally do the ones that I'm thinking of are things like, well, elder care. Also, when Margaret traveled for sports with her teen children, um, uh, just general job requirements doesn't have to be a conference, but for a job, you have to be in another city. Just so I think that I don't want people to be gone all the time, but I want us to be able to be have a little more of the flexibility that the technology gives us. Okay,

[00:57:32] Jennifer Logue: and just remember that this does not apply to staff. So it applies only to council. So we, staff wouldn't, yeah.

[00:57:40] Member Alison Hicks: If we're allowing, and I would like to allow staff to, I was staff once and I had small children and it was really hard for me to get back to evening meetings in San Jose. And I think staff can often be very effective. I mean, I found the presentations effective if they're on screen, but if we're giving staff that leeway. I would like to give. I mean, council people honestly are not paid that much. So I would like to give us some of that flexibility as well that I would like to offer to staff. Okay. I think that's my last question. Okay.

[00:58:20] Member Lisa Matichak: So what I think we'll do is, um, we'll just have the city attorney continue and then, um, if we pause for more questions, but after we're done, then we'll open it up for public comment and then come back to us. Okay. Um,

[00:58:35] Jennifer Logue: I think I can move for the rest of these fairly quickly. The next recommended edit is to Section 8, D, of the council policy A13. And this is just, um, a minor edit that I'm recommending, um, to be consistent with general standards for parliamentary procedure, um, all motions, we've al- the council has already always required all motions to have a 2nd. But what I've clarified is that, um, emotion doesn't require a 2nd if if otherwise stated here in, because there are some motions under both Robert's rules and Rosenberg's rules that do not require a 2nd. So I'm just clarifying that there are exceptions to that rule in making this amendment. Okay? So I didn't, I didn't want our hands tied. Um, you know, if a motion that doesn't require a 2nd is made. Um, okay. Now I'm moving to section 9 general policies regarding meetings and procedures, and I have several recommended amendments here. Um, The 1st recommendation that is different, then the way the council currently proceeds is a recommendation that generally there shall be no more than 3 motions pending on the floor at the same time. This is adopted from Rosenberg's roles. And if I could just back up a little bit, I will say that the, the parliamentary procedure that has been adopted by council through this policy, A13, is a little bit of a combination of both Rosenberg's and Robert's rules. There's nothing wrong with that. Counsel is entitled to do that. And so what I've done is rather than upend the entire policy and make it one way or the other. I've continued with the process of mixing the 2 and pulling out procedures that work best for this council and based on what I've observed and how council currently operates. And so I have, um, I, um, Rosenberg's rules recommends not having more than 3 motions pending on the floor because it can get unwieldy. And so, um, I was, I am recommending an amendment to adopt that process so that you have only 3 motions pending on the floor with one exception, which is not in Rosenberg's rules, and I'm putting this in here, that allows the presiding officer. The discretion to accept a 4th motion, if that motion is considered a privileged motion. And privileged motions, are motions that always take precedent. Motions to adjourn, a motion to recess or a motion to fix a time to adjourn. So imagine a scenario in which there's very heated debate. There's 3 emotions pending on the floor. And someone feels like you need a break, right? This would allow that person to make a motion for a recess, just to have a 10 minute time out for everybody's tempers to cool off and to come back and have a more productive conversation. And so I didn't want to preclude a 4th motion of that nature. So I'm recommending. Um, no more than 3 motions pending on the floor with that exception for the privileged motion as a fourth. Um. And then I've also clarified here that the last motion made, shall be the 1st motion voted on. That is consistent with the procedure, but it is a little bit more confusing, the way it's been handled in the past, but this way, we know, in order, you know, whoever made the 1st motion, the 2nd or the 3rd, the 3rd motion gets handled 1st, then you go to the 2nd, then you go to the 1st with the exception of a privileged motion. If that 4th privileged motion comes in, which is a motion to recess, that can be taken over all of the other pending motions. Okay? Um. The next modifications, these are just simple cleanup edits, um, but the next major modification is adding section subsection 9E, that clearly allows for friendly amendments. It is already the practice of counsel to offer friendly amendments. We did not have a procedure that allowed for them, and I have just written that in. Um, such a 9 F I've added, which allows for substitute motions. There is, we get sometimes a mix of both motions to amend and motions to substitute motions. Let me clarify the difference, and I think it helps to have a clarification here. A motion to amend leaves the same motion generally in place. But maybe adds to it or deletes from it, a motion to substitute, completely would wipe out the motion pending on the floor and changes it, saying. So a motion to substitute would be, for instance, there's a motion pending to adopt staff recommendation, a motion to substitute would be to deny staff's recommendation. They are complete. polar opposites. A motion to amend would be. I move to adopt staff's recommendation with the following modifications. Okay? So all I've did was clarify that you can have both motions to amend and substitute motions. Okay, moving to um, section D, uh, 10 I'm sorry, of council policy A13. I've just done some clarifi- some cleanup here. Um, defining what each motion is. It just, it just helps for anyone who's guiding parliamentary procedure to understand the difference between privileged motions, incidental motions, and subsidiary motions. Probably doesn't require long discussion. It literally just provides clarification on what each motion is. Under, um, subsection C subsidiary motions, I've added in six, which is a substitute motion and clarified that it requires a 2nd that it is subject to debate. A substitute motion can be amended, and the vote required is majority vote. So I've just added it to the chart that already exists for all other motions. Um. The next substantive amendment is in, um, section 11 under motions for reconsideration of council policy A13. I did not change the way motions for reconsideration are handled. I cleaned up the language. It was written in one, one full block format of a paragraph, and I split it into subsections so that it is easier to read and understand how emotion for reconsideration can work, who can make emotion for reconsideration, the timing for making a reconsideration, and under what circumstances a motion for reconsideration cannot be made. Um, I can go into more detail if you need to, but I did not change the process. I just clarified it so that it's easier to read and understand. Um, The next um, significant amendment is to section 12, which is decorum. This is the amendments that I am recommending making in light of a change in state law. There was a recent adoption of legislation, that allows for, um, a presiding officer to remove or cause the removal of an individual, for disrupting a meeting, in accordance with procedure set forth in the California government code. I've just adopted that, um, and put it into your policy, saying that the presiding officer may, you know, may take steps to remove an individual that is, Disruptive, consistent with state law. I've also cleaned up the section that follows that, which allows for the council as a body to clear a room and continue a council meeting with nobody in the room to the extent that a group or gruesive group of persons was creating such a disruption that the council meeting couldn't proceed and you cannot fix it or restore order by simply removing one person. In order for the meeting to move forward, you would need to clear the room. So it provides you the option to take both actions consistent with state law. Um. Okay. The next, uh, major amendment is in, We are in section 18 administrative matters. Um, under B 2 and 3. This was to provide clarification at the request of council about sharing information between council members. Um, B 2 makes it clear that council members should not, um, send written communication on matters of city business to other council members, um, without consulting with the city attorney or the city clerk because those run a high risk of violating the Brown Act. So it just, it just, um, encourages you to consult with us before, you know, sitting written communications to a majority of the, of other council members. Subsection 3 provides the process by which you can share Documents or information from regional boards or other boards that you participate on. And this is to help, um, you know, have a written policy so that you can share this information, and what I've done, and I've written it in such a way that allows for this to be accomplished in a way that would not valuate the Brown Act. And I've made it clear that you, you send the documents to the city clerk for distribution, to the entire council. But you should not modify or summarize or comment on that information. So that information should be forwarded to the city clerk as you got it, without comment. And then it can be distributed to the entire council, and then that way you can, the entire council can have that information, and you can make your comments on it under, under the appropriate, um, council meeting agenda item. I think it's sometimes it's 8 or 9 where you're allowed to provide reports. But you can share the documents beforehand in a way that does not violate the brown act. So I've added that in to provide clarity. Um, And the last amendments are just, it's for section, um, again, we're still under section 18 administrative matters. We are now under section subsection C 3 and C 4. I am recommending, amending C3 to make it clear that the fallback rule for this body will be Rosenberg's rules of order as opposed to Robert's rules of order. So in the event that your council policies do not address a particular matter of parliamentary procedure, we will turn to Rosenberg's rules of order for direction as opposed to Robert's rules because they are just simpler. an easier time to digest, and this will help your your committees and commissions that do not, you know, that have voluntary members that are not as, as, um, familiar with rules of parliamentary procedure because Robert's rules is much easier to read and under. I mean, I'm sorry, Rosenberg's rules is much easier to read and understand. So I'm recommending that be your fallback. Um, and then I've just cleaned up language that if there is a conflict between the provisions of this policy in the Brown Act, the Brown Act, um, shall prevail. Um. Very briefly, I will move to the council code of conduct. I think it's this one. Um, yes, the, I am only making a recommendation that you amend one section, and that is to keep it consistent with council policy A13. And again, this is with regard to decorum, allowing for you to remove an individual. That, um, is disruptive and also clarify how the council may clear the room, um, if necessary to proceed with an orderly meeting. So it is the only, I'm literally only recommending that you make changes that are consistent with those that I'm recommending in council policy A13. That's everything. I'll take

[01:11:46] Member Lisa Matichak: questions. Thank you. So um, are there any questions from the committee? I see, there's Amazon. Um, okay, so I just had, um, mine are pretty minor. Um, I actually agreed with all of the proposed edits and didn't have any changes to them. But, You know, a little knit. Um. In the Council code of conduct, the library board was changed to the Board of Library Trustees or vice versa. Now I can't remember. And I feel like we're inconsistent on the use of that term. Um, and it said their name was changed. So are we supposed to use their changed name? Um, If we could just uh, take a look at that and make sure we're using the right name, that would be great. If we didn't change it. Officially, then we should, if we're going to use that other name. Um. And there were also a lot of cleanup items in item item 5.2 as well as 5.3 on the same documents. And I was just wondering if they were coordinated, because I felt like I saw a few that were different. So

[01:13:02] Jennifer Logue: what happened is, The city clerk handled some cleanup items on council policy, A13, and the code of conduct, and I handled some substantive amendments. And what happened is that our our changes got combined into one document. So I believe Heather will go through her sort of cleanup items under her item. And so I apologize that that's why I was skipping over some of the red line because it wasn't mine. And that's her cleanup, which I think she'll address. Is that correct, Heather? Yeah,

[01:13:36] Heather: I was gonna say, um, since mine was listed first, I was gonna make sure that the committee knew that any revisions that were recommended by the committee would be consolidated together and any, um, overlap or changes to your point about the board of library trustees. That's how they're listed in the charter. So we were just changing that for consistency so that it aligns with the charter. Okay. Because

[01:14:02] Member Lisa Matichak: I saw the note saying, uh, we changed their name and I didn't know how we did that. Or did we just like, change, decide to change it and not do any formal paperwork?

[01:14:10] Heather: I think, yeah, no, I think that, um, their name has been kind of tossed around in different versions. Um, no formal change, but I think, you know, some people have referred to them as the library board for short, but um, technically the charter calls them the the board of library trustees. Okay. Okay.

[01:14:32] Member Lisa Matichak: Um, so there's no other questions, um, we'll open it up for public comment. I do not see a hand being raised. So we can close public comment um, and bring it back to the committee. Um, if there's any further questions or comments on this. Nice Mary Hicks. So

[01:15:00] Member Alison Hicks: I'm fine with everything except that I do think that the 1st item that we were talking about, I lost the number of it, but that the, um, the reasons that, uh, council members would be able to come virtually, should be expanded, and I even think that that might be something that, uh, the full council would want to discuss. But I would certainly like to add ones like job requirement, you know, uh, children's care, elder care, you know, some of those things, I haven't fully fleshed it out, but, um, I would support it if we could, um, expand the list of reasons. I

[01:15:51] Member Lisa Matichak: recommend Dosian goes to the full council, right? And the full council has the opportunity to discuss it and change it if they want to. Isn't that I saw the son, thumbs up. Okay. Um, sorry. Sorry, I spoke over you. What was that? That's

[01:16:09] Member Alison Hicks: my only comment. The rest of it, I'm fine with it. Okay. Mayor

[01:16:13] Member Lisa Matichak: Ramirez? Thank

[01:16:16] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. So, uh, similarly, I think all of these recommendations are are very strong and I'm happy to support all of them. Um, I, I do think the question of, are there, uh, fringe cases in which we would want to allow a member of the council to participate virtually should be elevated to the council for discussion. Um, I, you know, I, I went through something like this February of last year when, um, I had just gotten out of surgery, and really wasn't no position to go to a council meeting, but, uh, participated nevertheless, which is harder to do if I'm compelled to do so in person. So, I think, not everyone's going to go through surgery, but if someone has the flu, if someone has contagious illness, I do think it's appropriate, if, if there's a means to participate, virtually in a hybrid, hybrid setting. Um, I think, you know, we should allow a council member to do so, but generally speaking, I think once we, once we start, uh, moving to something closer to a pre-pandemic normal. Um, you know, there was the expectation that everyone participate. Uh, in person, and I think that should be sort of a standing obligation, excluding some, uh, as, um, as the vice mayor was describing some, uh, defined scenarios where it would be appropriate to allow, um, a virtual, uh, virtual participation. The only um minor. Uh, correction. I guess maybe this has already been fixed. Sorry if I missed it on page 90 of the PDF. It's section F of council policy A13 conflicting out. Um, maybe I I'm I'm misreading this. It says after a member. But uh the council and and the member shall exit the council meeting and I was wondering if that should be if the council member should uh should I like to the council meeting? Um but that that's what I'm reading on my PDF. Uh, just a minor typo, it's already fixed, no worries, everything else looks good to me. I

[01:18:20] Jennifer Logue: can definitely correct that typo. Can you tell me what section is that under again? I'm familiar with the language. I just. Sorry,

[01:18:27] Member Lucas Ramirez: uh, uh, 8 F. Okay,

[01:18:33] Jennifer Logue: 8 F. Okay. I can clean that up. And then with regard to the recommend, the, you know, I don't know. How you want to proceed. What I could do is prepare, alternative language for consideration, I don't know how you want to proceed with. Are you going to take a vote on whether or not? Okay. Yeah,

[01:19:01] Member Lisa Matichak: I feel like we should decide on what we would want to recommend to council. Um, and then, um, obviously it would be discussed at the council meeting, but I think we should say, um, sort of a straw man to start with. Um, and from my perspective, I think, uh, the fringe cases, where if you yourself have health issues, and maybe it's not that you're ill, but case of head surgery. Um, but you feel well enough to participate in a meeting. Um, but it would make sense for you to not be in the council chambers. I think that's fine to participate virtually. Um, or I would say, um, if you are caring for, um, a sick family member. Um, and you're the only care, uh, provider that really could do that, um, I think that's, um, you know, an acceptable reason. Yeah, I, I in general, feel like, you know, we signed up for this uh, role when we ran. Um, and that we should, the default should be, we're here in person, um, and that there would be a few exceptions to that. Um, and so I'm not, really, um, looking to have a large laundry list of options for when you can participate remotely. Nice there. Yeah,

[01:20:26] Member Alison Hicks: I'm not really looking for a large laundry list, but I am, I am wanting ones a little more expanded from what we've done in the past. Uh, I, you know, I think there, there's some others I think of. I think just if you're sick. You know, I think people used to come in with a cold or flu, and I might rather that other council members not come in if they look cold or flu. I think that was kind of a work norm in the past. With a cold, I would feel pressured to come into some jobs. Um, Isn't that on the list? Was that? Sorry, isn't that already on the list? Is it sickness? I mean, off. Anyway, so that's one. I just think job requirements are another. I don't think job requirements just have to be uh, conferences. Um, And, you know, like if you have to be in another state or another city for for a job. Um, and, uh, yeah, I think that, that, um, childcare as well as, um, senior care was that, was that on your list? I'm not sure. That's not, those are things that I would want people to stay, you know, do remotely every single time, but I think those are acceptable reasons. Yeah,

[01:21:52] Member Lisa Matichak: so I'm fine with the childcare elder care. Um, I guess I have a different perspective about your job. Um, I think you should um, be here. There. Any thoughts? Um, so I'm,

[01:22:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: I'm not prepared to, I, uh, I think define a, a list right now. I think I'm, I'm in general agreement with some of the scenarios we're describing. So I I think it unless I'm mistaken. Uh, a city uh, the city attorney did say we could continue to participate remotely. You could by teleconference. You just have to disclose your location under the Brown Act, right? So it's not like, you know, um, is, is that, is that fair? Um, if, if I elect to participate, you know, outside of the AB 361 um, provisions, you know, I can do so, we've had council members call in in the past, from, you know, uh, out of state or out of country. Um, so, so, but the difference is we're saying. In this case, you know, you wouldn't have to do that because there were some extenuating circumstances were, you know, you don't have enough time to actually get it into the agenda, the disclosed location. Um, or, you know, if you're at your, you know, uh, elderly, parents' house and caretaking, you know, necessarily, you know, your, your parents' home address in a public agenda. Is that, is that kind of what we're talking about, like you can still participate remotely, under ordinary circumstances, you just have to disclose your location. I, I'm,

[01:23:39] Jennifer Logue: what I was understanding, is that we're talking about participating remotely under the circumstance where you're not disclosing your location or posting it in the agenda because that's what the Brown Act allows right now. So we're talking about this kind of anomaly that, that, jurisdictions can do, which is the hybrid meeting and, you know, you can, you can have people, in person and remote, and without, with only posting the one location, the one in person, like council chambers, as the, as the location, and then providing a zoom link. Um, and so what I think I'm understanding and and the way I think I can help move this forward is what I can do is I can bring to counsel. You know, if you, if you want to move this forward to counsel, what I can do is come up with separate draft language on a different piece of paper that would, that would show what we would add in, right? Which would add this exception, this in-between line, that allows for council members to participate, participate remotely. Under a set of circumstances, and maybe I don't, I don't include, you know, I don't, make an exhaustive list. It's it's a such as. And then that way, when this entire item is before the full body, you can debate and discuss what is included on or off that list and provide me direction on how to finalize it. Um, so it's, it's, it's going forward, I think, the way you could make the motion now, if, if you wanted to, is make the motion to forward as written, to counsel for consideration, with the addition of proposed language for creating a categories under which council members can, can participate virtually, under certain circumstances. And I would bring that for the body's consideration. So you, the body would have this entire document that you're seeing in front of you along with this secondary language that could get added in with, with the body, with the council's modifications. So you'd have, as is before the body, with this proposed, this proposed edition. To consider. I

[01:26:00] Member Lucas Ramirez: would be happy to move that and that would give staff the 1st bite at the apple and you can come to council with some, some of these, I, I've been calling them fringe cases. I don't know, but that's the terminology we want to use, but, um, I'm, I'm very comfortable with giving staff an opportunity to, to come up with that list. Vice mayor? I'll

[01:26:28] Member Alison Hicks: 2nd that. I was going to ask a question, but I don't know that I need to do this meeting. I can ask you offline sometimes. Okay,

[01:26:38] Member Lisa Matichak: um. Yeah, after the reading the policy, I feel like perhaps we haven't been following it. Um, maybe because not everybody read it. Um, I know I haven't read every single policy. Um, and I, I think we've been doing things without really realizing that we weren't necessarily following the policy. So I think it's good to have this discussion as well as with the full council. So we have a motion and a 2nd. So we need to do a roll call vote. My name number Hicks? Yes. Committee

[01:27:14] Unknown Speaker: member Ramirez. Yeah. Chair Matachek. Yes. Motion carries 30. Thank you. So,

[01:27:24] Member Lisa Matichak: um, you know, these topics are pretty, um, in depth that some of them, uh, that are on the agenda. Um, and I, I'm looking at the time here, and wondering, you know, I kind of feel like 52 is another, um, big topic. Um. So, um, I don't know if people have a hard stop at four, um, I don't. I have a hard stop at 6 for the airport land use commission meeting. Um, but, uh, You know, I don't know about staff. Um, do we try to reprioritize to cover items we think might be quick uh, to get through them and continue some of the items or do we do the hard ones?

[01:28:13] Unknown Speaker: From a step perspective, I think 57 and 56 are going to be relatively short items. Um, if the committee would like to consider taking those, um, uh, out of order. Um, and then, um, 5.4 I also believe Mary, that's a little bit shorter. I think what we could potentially do, Heather, if that's not too challenging, and I'm sorry since we moved it around anyway. Um, uh, we could just put a pin in 5.2 for a moment. Um, there's no issues on staff's end, and we can go as as long as the committee is comfortable with going. Sorry,

[01:28:51] Member Lisa Matichak: you said, um, so I think 55 and Let me move the agenda up. I apologize. Let me get that up. I don't see a 57 um. But I think 55 is hopefully is a relatively short one. Um, Obviously, 56 would be. Um, apply 4 Not sure. 52 to me is kind of a major one. Although I did sort of summarize it because there was a lot of information there. So maybe it's not as big

[01:29:24] Unknown Speaker: as I think it is. I don't know if I'm, uh, so, so yes, so, um, so 52 is probably the most substantive that we still have. Uh, 54 uh, would be uh, manageable to probably do within the next uh, next half hour. And then uh, the item from John for the downtown committee bylaws. Uh, that is a relatively brief item. And then uh, item uh, 56 uh, uh, was an update associated with. I'm sorry, I misspoke on seven. I said 7. Is that such a quick oral update from staff? So 3 of them, I believe, we could get through in the next half hour, and then we could have a consideration on behalf of the committee for 52. But let me also check in with Heather on Heather, are there urgency matters associated with 52? Not specifically. And Kimbra? Not

[01:30:21] Unknown Speaker: I will divert a heather. Okay. Great. So

[01:30:25] Unknown Speaker: if the committee's open to that idea, we could start with 5455 and 56 and then hold on 52 to allow you to have some potential additional time for a deeper discussion on that. Would

[01:30:38] Member Lisa Matichak: we be able to have, um, another meeting this calendar here? Uh,

[01:30:43] Unknown Speaker: we'd, we'd obviously need to, um, uh, to, uh, provide that item, so we'd need to get it scheduled and scheduling is usually the challenge. Um, but that would be the report is already ready to go. So we just need to find a time frame that works well for everyone. Okay. Okay,

[01:30:59] Member Lisa Matichak: so, um, Actually, do we want to do 551st because it's John Thierre and, um, I think it's the shortest. That,

[01:31:11] Unknown Speaker: that staff's quick update. John, if you'd like to. Jump in, John. Thank you. Happy

[01:31:17] John Lang: to, um, I just have a very quick slide presentation because I think it, um, conveys what we're trying to do, so just give me a 2nd here. Uh, so, uh, good afternoon, members of the committee, uh, John Lang economic vitality manager. Uh, the item that I am trying to bring up for you is, uh, a small change to the downtown committee bylaws. The downtown committee has been in existence for about 24 years, and over that time, little changes have occurred, and a fairly big change occurred as it relates to an organization into in 2020. And that was the Central Business Association, also known as the downtown Business Association. Essentially, It kind of folded, if you will, and was absorbed into the, uh, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and we have brought forward to counsel those changes. Council did approve, um, the Chamber of Commerce to be the authority for the business improvement, um, or business improvement areas, um, last year. And so what we're trying to do is actually clean up the bylaws that reflect the old downtown business association and chamber. And that change is here. So in the composition of the downtown committee, there are, as you see here, 4 groups of folks. Uh, and what I want to draw your attention to is this 3rd group. So in the 3rd group, there are 4 positions. 2 of the 4 reflect the Chamber of Commerce and the downtown Business Association. Now, this is when they were 2 technically separate organizations. They now are technically one organization. There is a nuance there, but they're technically one. And we want to be fairly transparent with this. So the downtown business association does have an advisory board that is conducting business separately. So the chamber does staff, the DBA, um, and they do operate independently, but they're all within the chamber umbrella. So we're going to focus on three, but it's going to impact group one, um, and group three. So this is what it is today. And what we're proposing is to do a little shift. Um, and this is literally shuffling deck chairs. So we are proposing to, out of group 3, move the downtown business association membership up into the top group, which is the property owners and business owners of downtown. So we're looking to add an additional seat in that category. So that's a +one. And then the 3rd category where both the downtown Business Association and the chamber existed. We're gonna reduce one. So the chamber will remain in that category. So what does that effectively look like? Is this? We're literally moving deck chairs. Uh, but this is to provide a little more transparency between the chamber and the downtown business association. So the red line that's in front of you for the downtown bylaws is looking to increase that top category by one, which is moving the downtown business association into that category, and effectively removing them from category three. So there still remains 11 seats, with clear delineation where the chamber exists, and then where the, the now, um, downtown business association as it exists today in 22. Um, we are seeking your approval so we can move forward to city council. That is the end of my report. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:35:17] Member Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from the committee? Okay, well, open it up for, oh, actually, I, um, actually, you answered my question during your presentation. So I'll open up to public comment if there's any members of the public that want to comment on this? And I'm not seeing any hands raised, so we'll bring it back to the committee. Mayor Ramirez. Thank

[01:35:44] Member Lucas Ramirez: you, chair. I happy to move the staff recommendation. Thank

[01:35:47] Member Lisa Matichak: you, and vice mayor?

[01:35:50] Member Alison Hicks: Yes, a 2nd.

[01:35:52] Member Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. So, well, you never roll call, I. I'm supportive of this, so let's do a roll call book. Great.

[01:36:00] Heather: Committee member Hicks.

[01:36:02] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:36:03] Heather: Committee member Ramirez.

[01:36:05] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[01:36:06] Heather: And share Manachek.

[01:36:07] Member Lisa Matichak: Yes. That motion carries 30. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks, John. Okay, so um, Should we do the

[01:36:20] Heather: update? Because that's the next short one. Oh, it's that one's quite short. So that would be fine if that's okay for the committee. Um, uh, staff just providing a brief update, letting you know that there are 3 additional uh, remaining items that are on your work plan uh, for this year, um, which would include uh, some minor modifications that still need to be made to council policy A 10. Uh, which is the authorization of city contracts and agreements. Um, if you may recall approximately 2 years ago, there were a number of refinements made to that. Uh, and uh, some minor additional items are requested by finance. That is a non-urgent item, but we would be having that scheduled for the spring. In addition, there is one additional update or possibly more than one additional update that is needed to the council policy A 15, which is for the shoreline ticket process. Um, and that will be something that we will have uh, for you in the spring. And, and then lastly, uh, we will continue to provide a brief overview, um, update of any pending items, um, at each meeting, so that the CPBC uh, is aware of what their pending items are. Um, and then I will flag for the committee here that, uh, there were a number of items that were raised in public comments, uh, earlier, and so those will be incorporated um, into the minutes, um, and if there's any further action on that, we would need um, that direction from the committee. That concludes my brief report. So

[01:37:44] Member Lisa Matichak: I think we also refer to the CPPC, um, So documenting the comments under item 8. Um, we used to have the practice of, um, limiting it to certain things and we've kind of gotten away from that. Um, And so we said maybe we should put that in a formal policy. I think we did. We referred that, didn't we? And

[01:38:12] Heather: Heather, I don't know if that's anything that's included on your current list. I don't have that on mine. They can certainly be added if that's what the committee desires. I'm sorry what was that question? Uh, refining and defining uh, council uh, comments uh, for section 8 uh, on the council agenda. setting some parameters, if you will, if I'm correct on that chair.

[01:38:35] Member Lisa Matichak: Yeah, at one of our, um, council retreats, we, We talked about limiting our announcements to, um, Things we did where city money, money was expended. And then our regional boards. Um, because we can talk about a lot of different things, given the opportunity. Um, and we've kind of gotten away from that practice. And so I think we said we were going to, uh, I think we referred that to the CPPC, but, hey, that just could have been me hoping we had done that. Um, if nobody else remembers that. I'll bring it up at a council meeting so that we could do the referral. Anybody else remember that?

[01:39:18] Heather: We can certainly take that as a work plan item. Can we do that? Oh, we can take, yeah, we can take that as a work plan item.

[01:39:27] Member Lisa Matichak: Are my colleagues okay with that? If you, I'm

[01:39:33] Member Lucas Ramirez: okay with that. I'm just, uh, out of curiosity, that feels like it fits pretty nicely in, um, A13, which already has other council meeting related regulations. Um, I, do you want to, come, is that something that, that can sort of take a stab at and just go, go to council with, since we're already bringing it to council or do we, does it really need to come back to see CBC?

[01:40:03] Heather: Heather, I think you'd probably want to jump in on the, on this, if I think you'd probably need some direction to define, but. Jennifer.

[01:40:11] Jennifer Logue: for that? Yeah. I I think I I do not remember hearing that, but I've only been at one council retreat, so it's possible that it was a prior one. Um, I can certainly incorporate it into my substantive edits. I just, I need some, there is something about, um, Council disclosures or comments under under item 8 and I just need to know what is it that you're looking for more so I can I can modify that section.

[01:40:43] Member Lisa Matichak: Can we do that at this meeting? Um, I don't want to. Yeah, I, Okay, so the what we had agreed to at the retreat. Um, and this was. Not the most recent retreat. It was the one before that. Um, because actually it was when council member Clark brought this up and he was the one who made the suggestion, that we limit our comments to, um, reports from regional boards to which we've been assigned, or to activities we've done where city money has been expended. And I think that, um, we have to disclose if we've attended something that city money has been expended for. That's someplace else. Um, because I feel like I've seen that. But the one about just limiting comments to those 2 things, that isn't, um, I think specified anywhere. I think so pretty good about doing that, let it be good if it was written down. Okay,

[01:41:49] Jennifer Logue: so limiting comments to about items related to regional boards and situations where you've expended city funds, right? So like

[01:42:00] Member Lisa Matichak: if you've attended a conference because obviously that, um, The city pays for that. Ooh, I just froze. Sorry. Did you hear that? Okay. Was it just my video that rose? For a 2nd? Just for a moment. Okay. Okay. And

[01:42:20] Jennifer Logue: if it was referred by a, at a, prior meeting, I think I can go ahead and incorporate that in, um, If there's no objection, I can just incorporate it in and for council's consideration.

[01:42:35] Heather: And Jennifer, we'd consider this as a part of your prior item, not a part of item, the current staff update. Okay. Vice mayor. Did you have comments, sir?

[01:42:45] Member Alison Hicks: In other words, the kinds of things that wouldn't come anymore would be something from the council transportation committee or somebody, because that's not a regional committee or or something happened at check when you were on the board. Those kinds of things would no longer come to council is what you're saying. Well,

[01:43:02] Member Lisa Matichak: no, if you're assigned to check, you would report on your attendance at their board meeting. Um, but what you wouldn't report on is, um, you know, I went to a, uh, opening of a business. Or something like that. Okay,

[01:43:20] Member Alison Hicks: so what about something like council sustainability committee or council transportation committee? Actually,

[01:43:25] Member Lisa Matichak: I think that actually is a good ad because I think that's helpful for our colleagues. So it would be council committee reports too. Okay. I'm fine with that. I forgot about the point. Okay.

[01:43:36] Jennifer Logue: The only concern I have is it's going to be hard for me to draft this language without knowing exactly what the parameters are. I don't know all the committees that everybody's on and which ones would be. Because I don't know that it. It's not regional boards, it's more than that. Right? I

[01:43:52] Member Lisa Matichak: think you guys appointed or. It's um the regional boards and the internal council committees we've been appointed to. Okay. Yeah.

[01:44:09] Heather: Would the committee like to have that, uh, incorporated into the current work that Jennifer is doing related to item 5.3 um, or have that item come back? I'm fine with it being incorporated. And Jennifer, we're considering this as a part of item 3 5.3 and then we would still need to do public comment on 56. We hadn't wrapped up that item so we can open that chair at your convenience. Okay. Um,

[01:44:44] Member Lisa Matichak: so we'll open up item 5.6 for public comment if there is any. I don't see any hand being raised. So we'll bring it back to the committee here. Um so is there anything else on 5.6? Nothing else on. Okay, so we'll close 56. And then 54? Okay, I feel like we're all over the path on both agenda.

[01:45:14] Heather: Kind of bounced around a lot. So 554 Mary, is 15 minutes workable on your end? Yeah, yeah, it should be. Okay. I'll

[01:45:23] Mary: do my best to keep it brief for the sake of everyone's time. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything that you'd like me to expand on or if you have any questions. What you have before you today is a draft policy that was prepared at the request of one of the committee members to formalize our policy as it pertains to recognition of events. Um, individuals, achievements, and observance months throughout the city. Um, we currently have our practices, but we do not have a formal policy as it pertains to proclamations and certificates of recognition. So the draft policy that you have identifies some terms, one would be appropriate to recognize types of events and issue them. It also sets guidelines for the lead time and information that our office needs to prepare these in a timely manner. Um, as I've stated, the information typically just kind of captures what we've already been doing. You do have some discretion if there's any changes you'd like to make it this time, such as the number of items we would recognize during a single meeting or, you know, things like that. Um, we captured bits and pieces of our past practice as well as incorporating some details from policies from neighboring agencies that we found that were conducive with our priorities. Um, I'm happy to take any questions. I also have deputy city clerk Wanda Wong on the call, um, who is familiar with how we've been doing things historically, if you have questions. Great,

[01:46:42] Member Lisa Matichak: thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? Um, I think I had a couple. Um... I guess I was wondering, um, when we do, um, proclamations or letters or, um, certificates of recognition. Um, do we have a lot that are just initiated by the mayor or a council member versus people asking for them? I

[01:47:26] Mary: wouldn't say so. Typically the ones that we've seen that are issued on a regular basis are the ones that carry over year to year. So a specific awareness month or awareness week for items that we have recognized on an annual basis. We occasionally do receive requests from specific individuals or organizations. Um, and the mayor always has the discretion to decide if it's something that is relevant to the city into the area um, worth recognizing by the city. Um, But I would say the majority of the requests that we receive are ones that we're anticipating and that are honored annually. Okay. Um,

[01:48:03] Member Lisa Matichak: City Clerk Blazer? Did you have a comment? I

[01:48:06] City Clerk Blazer: was just gonna build on that. Of course, you know, this is gonna vary from mayor to mayor. So it'll depend on, you know, what the preference of the mayor is and how much is brought forward by the mayor, but I do agree that a lot of it is year over year. Uh, recognitions and, you know, certificates for Eagle Scouts and and, and things of that nature. Okay. Um.

[01:48:34] Member Lisa Matichak: I guess that's the only question I have. So before we get into comments, uh, we'll open it up for public input. There's any members of the public want to comment on this item? Don't see any hands being raised, so we'll close public input and bring it back to the commission. Um, if there's any other questions on our comments. Mayor Ramirez?

[01:49:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: Feel, thank you. I feel badly dominating all of these, but I'm happy to move the staff recommendations. I kind of wish we had this early in the year because I I turned down a lot and it never feels good to turn somebody down. Vice Mayor Hicks? So

[01:49:22] Member Alison Hicks: I 2nd that motion. So, um, I think I was the one who, um, ask if we could have a policy around this. Um, I know the year I was mayor, we had some requests that, um, I didn't really see the connection to Mountain View. Um, and I think we did very few proclamations and certificates of recommendation, of recognition, um, that year, um, I also felt like I wanted to be incredibly sensitive to stats workload. Um, and so I was looking for a policy that, um, The mayor could um, sort of rely on if they felt like they wanted to pass on a request. Um, of course, the mayor always has the option to um, you know, do what they want to do. But, um, you know, I felt like I could have used something to say, well, this doesn't really fit, you know, the criteria of what we traditionally do. Um, and I felt like, um, in recent years, we've done a lot more than we used to in the past, and I'm very concerned about the amount of time, um, that it takes to put those together, and the amount of time, then we dedicate to meetings, um, going through proclamations and presentations. Um, I personally would like to have fewer of those um, So that we're being respectful of staff time and that so the council meetings are perhaps a little bit shorter. Um, So actually, I would modify, um, the, you know, well, this might be the practice we had. More recently. I'm not sure this was the practice we had before that. Um. And so I actually would like to kind of tighten it up a little bit. Um, so that perhaps we do fewer of these. So I'm kind of wondering what my colleagues think of that. Vice mayor? Well, it sounds to me like you have some specific, that all sounds reasonable. I haven't been mayor, so I haven't been through it myself. It sounds like it might be a useful tool to be able to refer to, but it also sounds like you've thought it through the modifications, so I'd like to hear what they are.

[01:51:52] Member Alison Hicks: Sure, I can do that. So, um, on proclamations, I would change the 2nd one, uh, B, to call public attention to a significant mountain view community event. Period. And, um, on C, I would say to highlight a special period of observance, celebration or recognition for, um, Mountain View, or national occasions, they're important to Mountain View. So basically that would be eliminating regional and state. Um. And then I would also, um, You know, we talked, or we heard a little bit earlier that, um, we could potentially limit, um, the number that are discussed or presented at a council meeting, um, and I would add under one at the very end that a general guideline is one to 2 presentations per council meeting. Um, and the same thing with the certificate of recognition, that a general guideline is one to 2 at a council meeting. You know, I feel like the caveat with all of this is. The mayor can really do what they want to do, so they can ignore the policies and do more or less, but to have some sort of guideline as what I was thinking. Um. There Ramirez? Whoops. You want to go 1st city player? Oh, I'm sorry.

[01:53:34] Heather: I didn't. Don't worry about it. I just wanted to clarify one to 2 presentations for proclamations or certificates, is that combined or one to 2? Um, you know, of each? I

[01:53:48] Member Alison Hicks: was thinking helpful. I was thinking of combined. Okay. We do one or two. Yeah, God. Thank you. That's helpful. Yep. Sorry. Your hand sort of matches your background. Mayor Ramirez. Thank

[01:54:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. I'm I'm in general agreement with with those modifications. I think, um, a guideline makes sense. I, I had tried some, sometimes it was difficult to, to balance them and that's how we ended up with like 4 in a meeting, which I had really wanted to avoid. Um, and it's challenging when there are often temporal components to the proclamations and if we're only meeting, uh, you know, twice a month, then we might miss out on, you know, some kind of, uh, week of significance. Um, so uh, I, I do think just as a, as a guiding principle for staff, one to 2 makes sense. Um, and then, uh, for, uh, B, to, uh, public attention to the significant, uh, you know, Mountain View, event or, I, I, I like keeping the work for, including the term, Mountain View, to make sure we're focusing on, things that do have significance to Mountain View. I don't have a problem with including service or program though, just the event that there is something that we want to elevate, you know, to our to the community's awareness. Uh but but keeping it specific to that and it makes sense and then um for C. There may be um a regional or state occasion that is worthy of consideration, and I guess we would know if it comes to our attention, right? Or none of these preclude the possibility of going outside of the guidelines. Um, so I'm I'm okay with all of those recommendations. Um, you know, focusing on Mountain View, and then just, you know, uh, keeping, keeping it clear that the, the mayor could decide to include a different, you know, recognition or proclamation, if, if it, um, if the, the mayor at the time feels it's appropriate. So happy to add those into the motion. Thank you. And

[01:55:57] Member Lisa Matichak: I see a head nodding from the vice mayor. So, um, um, Mary. Yeah,

[01:56:05] Mary: I just wanted to call out that proceeding um, the bullet for item one. It does note on there that things should be, um, Should be specific to Mountain View. So, you know, that goes for both the certificates of recognition and the proclamation, which is why the text wasn't dropped down and be happy to include it in there as well. But, um, yeah, we want to make sure that it's in line with the council priorities that it does relate to the city. Um, but also does give discretionary, um, power as as Mayor Ramirez mentioned that there may be events that they would like to recognize. Okay. Yeah. Um,

[01:56:39] Member Lisa Matichak: I think it's worth repeating, um, down below, but yes, it is up above, thanks for pointing that out. Um, okay. So any other. Comments or anything? Nope. Okay, so a roll call vote on that one. Committee member Hicks. Yes. Committee

[01:56:57] Unknown Speaker: member Ramirez? Yeah. Can, uh, chair, Madachek? Yes. Uh, motion carries 30 Okay. Thank you. Um. It's

[01:57:12] Member Lisa Matichak: like I've lost my agenda on my table here. Um,

[01:57:16] Unknown Speaker: this is the one item that would remain. It was the 5.2 that will carry over to the next meeting. And we have one minute. You

[01:57:26] Member Lisa Matichak: think we can take one minute? No. And then we're

[01:57:31] Unknown Speaker: on item 6 committee staff, comments, questions, committee reports. Are there any? Nope. Okay. Um. Then

[01:57:45] Member Lisa Matichak: I guess we are adjourned at 359. Thank you all. Appreciate it. This was, I think, a good discussion. There was a lot to it. So thanks very much. Bye now.

• ← Previous
• Next →