June 29, 2023 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:03:33] Chair Lisa Matichak: Are we ready? Thank you. So, um, good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the council policy and procedures committee. This meeting is called to order at 201 PM. And this meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. Um, anyone who's here in person. Um, be sure to fill out a blue card if you want to make a comment on an item. If you are joining us online and using Zoom, the webinar ID is 847-5493-3805. If you are calling in via phone, the phone number is 669-900-9128. And again, the webinar ID is 847-549-33805.

[00:04:23] Member Alison Hicks: When

[00:04:23] Chair Lisa Matichak: the chair announces an item on which wish, which you wish to speak. Try that again. Um, click the raised hand feature in Zoom or dial star 9 on your phone. And when the chair calls your name to provide public comment, if you are participating via phone, please press star 6 to unmute yourself. We will go to uh, the 1st formal item, roll call, and the deputy city manager could uh, take attendance, that'd be great. Committee member Hicks. Committee

[00:04:58] Unknown Speaker: member Ramirez. Here, and share Master. Here. Thank you.

[00:05:03] Chair Lisa Matichak: Next item is approval of minutes, and this is the minutes from December 15th. 2022. Does any member of the committee have comments or corrections on this? Nope. Um, there's no one here in person. Is there anyone virtual? There is one person virtual with no comments. Okay. Um, great. So, um, if there's no comments on this, definitely to approve. Second. And then we'll do a phone

[00:05:36] Unknown Speaker: call vote or point to social hands. Yes, we can do role quality, preferred. Okay. So community member hits? Yes. Committee member Ramirez? Yes. And share about it. Yes. Thank you. Yes, Moshe. Yes, unanimously. Okay.

[00:05:52] Chair Lisa Matichak: Next item is RO Communications. Uh, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items. Um, there is still no one here in person, and we have one person, or we have virtual, so one thing raising your hand. Um, Bruce England. Mr. Angler. Yes,

[00:06:25] Bruce England: thank you. Assume you hear me. Um, yeah, Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. I just actually have a question. I know normally you don't entertain questions, but I'll put it out there anyway. At the last council meeting, when you got to the consent calendar, a question was raised by the mayor, and this is actually something that was raised by some of our community members too, in discussion, we weren't really sure about whether a community member can quote, unquote, pull an item, or whether we just asked, or we mentioned that we wanted to comment on a consent calendar item, but it actually has to be pulled by vote from city council. That doesn't, that doesn't sound right to me. But I just wonder what the procedure is. I think we would all benefit from knowing what it really is. Okay. So

[00:07:11] Chair Lisa Matichak: anyone else? Okay, there's no other comments. No, I will just say, Bruce, maybe we can clarify that at the next council meeting. Um, I think I know the answer, but I'd want the official word. Okay, moving on to item 5.one, which is proposed amendments to council policy A dash 6. So I think I'm gonna take a lead on doing my background on this. Um, so this is a referral from the council to clarify the policy regarding election of mayor and vice mayor. We have discovered that the current policy was not as clear as many of us thought it was. And so before it's used again, we thought we should clarify it. Um, so as chair of this committee, I worked with the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office. Um, to come up with the current draft. And um, We certainly had a robust discussion about, um, the parts that were not clear, especially when you start getting into scenarios. And I would say we analyzed a lot of different scenarios. Um, but you know, there's probably others that we missed and actually I've thought of one even today. Um, But I think it was a great team effort and, um, What we trying to do is clarify our interpretation of the current policy. As opposed to change it. Um, Of course, there can be different interpretations of the current policy. Um, and so that's why we're here to discuss it. Um, if somebody has a different interpretation, please let us know. Um, but I think it's um, useful to sort of stress, test this, um, to make sure we've covered all the bases. Um, the city clerk did collect policies from other cities. And, um, my conclusion based upon looking at all those was, um, there is no one procedure or practice, um, that cities use. Different jurisdictions you know, treat this differently. You know, sometimes they have a directly elected mayor, you know, they don't necessarily have a formal rotation. Um, and so I came away from reading all of those with, well, we can do whatever we want to do because there is no consistent policy. And the one thing though, we did notice in a lot of the policies was, um, a lot of them had prescribed seating arrangements for the dais. Which we never had. So, we drafted one and put it in here, loosely based upon what I've observed, but again, that's another area open for discussion. Um, we, we felt like it's always easier to respond to something than to start from scratch. Um, so that's why we put one in here. So, um, what I suggest we do is we'll have committee questions. Then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we will get back to the draft. And um, We have the version that was posted online, what that is a red line version. Um, the city attorney's office night. Thought of yet another clarification and we made that change in a draft that was handed out. And it's very minor and I'll go through that. Um, but then I think we should also discuss. Is there anything else, you know, and stress test this for different scenarios because you all probably have different ones than we came up with? Um, okay, so let's start with questions from the committee. Are there any? So, so

[00:11:20] Member Alison Hicks: I 1st I think I can guess, but I'm, you know, I'm a slow reader, I think. Um, so can you tell me the real, I can guess from kind of reading this in the last couple minutes, but what were the reasons for you making this change, just so I'm clear? The

[00:11:36] Chair Lisa Matichak: one in yellow? The ones in yellow? So the changes we made that are in yellow. We moved a sentence. that is so for um public uh information here. The, let's see, it would be 2 E. We moved the last sentence because it felt like more of a definition, and we put it, um, under the definitions in the last paragraph. And then, um, in the paragraph, the highest ranking member. We tweak that a little bit, um, to make it clear that it's the day that you are, um, sworn in, as opposed to the day you were elected or appointed, since the start of your term. And then my

[00:12:28] Member Alison Hicks: 2nd question is, why, so for me when I read this, um, seniority, seniority and racks seem to be in the opposite. The definitions seem to be the opposite of what I would expect. I would think, because rank, tell me if I'm reading it wrong. Rank seems to mean how long you've been there or how senior you are. And seniority. Seems to mean how long you've been there. Plus, your rank in the election. So I would flip the, I would flip the words. I would say, uh, senior member is the one who's been there the longest and the highest ranking is the one who's been there the longest plus your rank in the election. I don't understand why it's. I think I could provide some clarification there.

[00:13:29] Unknown Speaker: So, um, what you're describing in terms of your placement in the election refers solely to a tiebreaking provision, if 2 members have to be of equal work in terms of years of service on the council or actually consecutive days of service is the actual formula right now. So, effectively, you would not have 2 senior members. You would only have one member because one member has to have had a higher number of votes than the other. There is ever a tie. So that, to clarify that point. And right now, the current draft that you have before you does not actually use senior. It's essentially a reserved term. It uses highest ranking. The reason for that is in most parliamentary bodies, senior refers to either the age of the member, for example, in the U.S. Senate, the senior member of the Senate, in the eldest member, and as a common courtesy, the body allows that person to sit at the dais when the majority member is out of the chamber. So, but that has no effect on the rank of that member within the body, in terms of where they sit on a committee. Do they head, you know, do they do they head the body, for example? So that is why that term is currently reserved. It is eligible for use if you need it for another purpose in the future.

[00:14:48] Member Alison Hicks: So I think part of what I'm hearing is that the way you've defined these words correlates with the way they're defined with other bodies besides our cities. Yes,

[00:14:57] Unknown Speaker: where we're trying to bring it closer to other bodies so that the terminology works. That's

[00:15:02] Member Alison Hicks: good. It sounds inconsistent with my own reading. Um, but, um, okay, I that's a good enough, a good enough, uh, reason, I guess. Um, Okay. Um,

[00:15:19] Chair Lisa Matichak: okay, I'm not sure we want to call that, who's the oldest? To clarify. To

[00:15:30] Unknown Speaker: clarify, for the mayor of the chair, the term senior can also be some bodies use it not to reverse age, but also just the number who's been there for the most number of years, but without consecutive service. And in the current draft rules. Consecutive service is what determines right order. So you could reserve the term seniority to refer to the person who's been on the council the longest in a non-cumulative fashion. So, Can

[00:15:58] Member Alison Hicks: I, does that, so I'm, we could go back and forth with questions. I don't want to ask all the questions in a row, but, um, so consecutive, I can say, now I'm starting to test it with different cases. So by consecutive, Lisa would rank above Pat because Pat took a break. Is that true? Okay. Just wanted to make sure I understood. Okay. Um, Okay, other people can ask questions and I'll And

[00:16:28] Member Lucas Ramirez: my other people? Yes.

[00:16:30] Member Alison Hicks: Well, at least you could ask questions too.

[00:16:33] Member Lucas Ramirez: So, I think I'll ask, um, This might be, hopefully this will be easy, but, um, you've made clear. this is an interpretation of the existing policy, and it might be helpful for all of us to make sure we're on the same page about the interpretation. So can you walk through or staff or whomever? Um, how, where you identified ambiguities in the existing policy and then interpreted them and how they align with or do not align with how we've practiced the policy, especially given the most recent instance where we had an ambiguity about who would be next in love.

[00:17:12] Unknown Speaker: So, um, unless the chair would like to proceed first, I think this came up most prominently in the selection of the highest ranking member who was not mayor or vice mayor, because, uh, the prior draft rule or the prior rules, effectively had a situation where you had 3 council members who were elected at the same year and then had 2 2 consecutive elections. Potentially all 3 would be eligible as the highest ranking member. And so the tie-breaking provision where you have consecutive years of service, combined with the highest vote out in the election, is then to ensure that technology one person who ranks as the highest ranking number. Does that totally answer one part of your question? Yes. Okay. Can you please remind me what the 2nd part your question was? Um,

[00:18:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: to the extent this aligns with or deviates from how we've practiced the policy, especially in the most recent selection process where there was an ambiguity.

[00:18:12] Unknown Speaker: I see. Okay. So, uh, so to clarify that part, in what we effectively did with these edits is bring 2 components that were actually separated, because there actually was a component in the rules that had highest, uh, number of ballots cast for that individual as a tie-breaking provision, but there was a strange gap because it didn't always apply in every instance. So this closes that gap. You should never have another tie situation. There can only be one individual who will become high striking number.

[00:18:46] Chair Lisa Matichak: The previous way it was written also had a lot of terminology about current term, and length of that term, and if you were in the 1st part of a term, and the 2nd part of a term, and it got very confusing. Um, and, um, I think some people also kind of forgot what the policy actually said, um, which caused some confusion. Um, and when they went back and read it, Or they didn't also like maybe notice certain elements in it. And so we were trying to make this entirely clear. Um, Although, you know, who knows if we really have. And get away from the things that were ambiguous or could be ambiguous, like terms. Now it's specified as the number of days, um, that you have served. So then you don't have to figure out am I in the 1st term or the 2nd term of my time on council, which is what the old policy talked about. Can

[00:19:48] Member Alison Hicks: you tell me what number of days, uh, how that helps? Does that only help if somebody comes in as a 2 year person, which I've seen several times since I've lived in Mountain View, Nick Galliotto took over, was elected to a 2 year term? And then Emily's been appointed to a 2 year term. Is that when it comes into play? We're not talking leap years. Like you had one day left.

[00:20:14] Unknown Speaker: So I can, perhaps. Yeah, go ahead. clarify because I came up with these 2 days. Yes. So the reason for that is, um, days essentially guarantee that in the vast majority of instances, you won't ever need the Thai grading provision at all, because if you have the rare occurrence of 2 individuals who are appointed close in time or elected at a special election close in time, the days effectively give you a clear cut answer as to who is the highest ranking ever without any. So it's

[00:20:46] Member Alison Hicks: mostly appointed close together because elected, we're always elected on the same day.

[00:20:51] Member Lucas Ramirez: is an interesting case because I think technically he was sworn in. There was a regular election, wasn't there? Yeah. And so the people who won the regular election were sworn in at the conventional time. And I thought Galiota was sworn in earlier. And that was the justification for him becoming vice mayor instead of, well, Greg Perry, right? Am I getting this history, right?

[00:21:14] Member Alison Hicks: I think I don't know that history. Okay, Harry was difficult.

[00:21:18] Member Lucas Ramirez: There was a technical justification, and I thought it was like, Gallioto technically was sworn in it earlier. I

[00:21:28] Unknown Speaker: could be wrong with it. I didn't think he was, but getting

[00:21:31] Chair Lisa Matichak: back to this, I don't know, to

[00:21:33] Unknown Speaker: further elaborate on the answer, mayor. The reason why days are also more valuable is that if you can foresee a situation where there are going to be one or more mid-cycle, either appointments or special elections, you can plan ahead and ensure that they are not on the same day, right? Because that effectively removes the tiebreaking aspect. Right? Because so August, even if it's just a matter of one day, you've avoided the issue altogether in the future. So it allows for the council to have more control over its own planning. I

[00:22:09] Chair Lisa Matichak: think a lot of people were also confused about that. Um, as I was saying before the 1st term and the 2nd term. Um, and if you had a break between your turns was the next time, You were here, your 2nd term, if you had already served a 1st term, even though you took a break, and it, and so consecutive days. I appreciate you coming up with that because that makes it much more clear what we're talking about. Yeah. So

[00:22:36] Member Alison Hicks: do we have any, have you been through any scenarios in which people who are appointed, rank hire, I can't really think of this, but rank higher than people who are elected. I don't mean appointed and then go through an election. Like, how does that? Have you been through scenarios with appointees?

[00:23:02] Chair Lisa Matichak: So, um, Not personally in terms of actual happening, but we did talk about some stenos. And I think that's worth discussing to make sure what's in here is what we want. Yeah, I feel like why we tried to document our interpretation of this. I think this, this, um, committee can also say, well, you know what, we want to suggest something else. Um, if we want to do that. I

[00:23:27] Member Alison Hicks: mean, I would like to make sure that anybody who becomes mayor has been through at least one election. Now we could have some disaster where something happens. And we have a lot of appointees and that doesn't happen. But you know, barring that. I, that's what I would like to make sure, and I think this does, but I don't,

[00:23:44] Chair Lisa Matichak: I haven't thought it, it doesn't, it does. Okay, so give me an example. Sounds like you thought of it. Um, Well, yeah, so, um. It could be, according to this policy, that somebody who's appointed, if they're sort of next in line, could be vice mayor. Um, and then mayor without ever going through an election. Because you don't need to do it in the 1st year or something. If they're appointed say for 2 years and um, they are appointed or elected as the vice mayor. Um, and then the vice mayor is then the mayor. That could happen. But why would they be appointed as the vice mayor? They would come in and because they would be the person who hasn't been that yet on the council. I tell you, this got incredibly complicated. Um, So that's why I was saying. We should definitely discuss this bit. Because scenarios like that, that's one of the ones that I thought of after the fact. That I thought, oh, now wait a minute, that could happen. It's not to say that it would, but it could. Yeah,

[00:25:00] Member Alison Hicks: because I would prefer that somebody who never got any votes, not, you know, have to run through. Usually it's for 2 years, but there could be a scenario when somebody likes several months in, something happens to them and someone's disappointed. They're there for a fairly long time. Yeah. Yeah,

[00:25:16] Chair Lisa Matichak: so why don't we get back to that when we talk about changes we might want to make? Any other questions? Um, I,

[00:25:25] Member Lucas Ramirez: I'm sort of running through scenarios now. you've sort of introduced the concept. Um, I, Don't, think I have any other questions, right? Okay. Then

[00:25:38] Chair Lisa Matichak: we'll open it up for a public comment. We don't have anybody here in person. Are there any hands raised online? Okay, there's no hand. based online, so we can come back to us or? Scenarios and discussion. So I have one fairly simple comment. Yes,

[00:25:56] Member Alison Hicks: which is that the seating arrangement, which I think is fine and looks like kind of what we're doing, but am I, am I confused? Is it the opposite of the way we're seated right now? I think it's marriage, but it's not what you guys are doing. Right. So, but it's it's close to it, except it's, I mean, the, Casmir, Mayor, and Vice Mayor, the same, but the, All these, these 4 senior people are a little flicked, right? So my only request is that we, if we, I'm fine. with this, but that we don't change in the middle of this year. I would agree with that. Okay.

[00:26:35] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, let's leave it in. That's my only comment. manager. chair. So, um, the reason why the way the seating is the way it is now is, it's frankly, just because remember we had that empty seat there at the end. And so, normally, I think it would have been similar to this, but it was because council member Mattachek had already moved over closer to sit by the vice mayor. So we had that open seat beside the city attorney. And so that's how that happened and how it all shifted over. But yeah, I think absolutely. He will want to make sure that this does not take effect until the next 2024 because I would like the seating at the next. Yeah, the seating at least. Yes. Yeah, and you

[00:27:21] Chair Lisa Matichak: know, we have had different, um, You know, I thought back from my years on council, um, and it has varied a little bit from year to year. But um, this was similar to at least one other city. Um, and I thought, well, that was probably the closest that I could see from the examples that our city court found, um, to what we kind of do. But again, you know, there's no set role on this one. Yeah.

[00:27:51] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, just to quickly note, I think, uh, go into the, the replacement changes. It's actually going to be it's going to be part of the rules that the seating chart as display will take effect at the 1st meeting in January 2024. The

[00:28:06] Member Alison Hicks: 1st meeting or after. I mean, that's fine. That would be the 2nd.

[00:28:10] Unknown Speaker: The 2nd meeting is that...

[00:28:12] Unknown Speaker: reorganization. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, yes. Sure.

[00:28:18] Unknown Speaker: So, um, I would just say this is really clean for you all because I think every year, a new mayor is kind of trying to figure out what the city clerk or what myself or the city attorney. you know, we've gone through that. Who do I put where? What do I do? And this, frankly, takes some of the pressure off of the new mayor of how the seating should go. So, and this is very similar to what I have seen done in other agencies as well. So this just makes it a lot cleaner and easier, I think, for any incoming there. There's

[00:28:50] Chair Lisa Matichak: one city that I'm familiar with where they ask everyone where they want to sit based upon their seniority or seniority. Yeah. And I thought, oh, that's interesting. Yeah, so I thought, let's... I can only imagine how that might play out. Yeah. So um, maybe we should go through this. Um, and if you have comments or suggestions, um, you know, maybe we can just go page by page. is kind of what I was thinking. So, um, You know, we added that way we put a seating arrangement in here. And we added the definition section is all new. And that's because we felt like it wasn't really clear. And we've added in some ways new concepts versus what was in here before. So Divine's highest ranking and seniority, and basically why those are important. I didn't have any, um, changes to this. The

[00:29:59] Member Lucas Ramirez: only caveat. Well, I wouldn't change anything based on the existing charter, but the charter could change and that could affect our ability to have council members able to serve for 10 consecutive years. So it may it may become moot, depending on where the charter modernization is. But as, I think, this is fine as drafted. Yeah,

[00:30:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: I was comfortable with this part. Then, um, on, uh, the 2nd page. Um, I thought it was interesting that the section of the city charter changed. I'm like, Oh my goodness. Was it not correct in the policy? Um, And this kind of clarified, if you go through A, B, and C, what we currently do, we have always done, um, the mayor 1st and then the vice mayor. We haven't done them jointly. So that clarifies that. Um, We, you know, open the floor for nominations. Section D is one where, as I went through this, I thought, hmm. Um. This is not necessarily what we do, but this is what the policy said. So, I was thinking maybe what we want to do here is, um, specify more closely to what we do, and something to the effect of if there's only one nomination, um, we will vote using, and I don't know what you call it, our, um, the electronic voting system. Um, but if there's more than one nomination, I would suggest, um, that we do what we've been doing recently where we write the names down and we get them to the city clerk. Um so that it's still a secret ballot, so to speak. Just like it is when you use the electronics system, unless you're looking at your neighbors and seeing what they're doing. But, um, you know, it just makes it, I think, more fair. Um, to have it like that. And so I would suggest we change this to have it more closely aligned to that. And I will quickly add, though, that, you know, this is, um, Well, actually, let me take that back. It's only the informal rotation that is the one that the council can do whatever they want to do. Or can we do whatever we want to do, even with the others that are not informal, so to speak? I mean, outside of

[00:32:53] Heather: the city attorney, I would say that the council can always determine it wants to do something different than what it has written in a policy. Right, okay. It's not a legal.

[00:33:02] Unknown Speaker: Right. Okay. The council can always select, um, composition mayor, vice mayor. Uh, seniority amongst members or ranking amongst members. And

[00:33:14] Chair Lisa Matichak: also process we use to okay. So I think, you know, lately we have been specifying what the procedure should be for voting, um, in updates to council policies. So when I read this, our current one doesn't really say that, but I thought maybe if we wanted to, we could hear. make it more consistent with our others. But you 2 are looking at me like, well,

[00:33:36] Member Lucas Ramirez: so I have totally ridiculous process questions if that's okay. Of course. I don't expect. The 1st is just to clarify for us to take any action. We have to make a motion in the conventional way. So we could have this informal process. And then once we find out there's majority support for a given applicant, then somebody would have to move and somebody would have to 2nd that, that, the person who has, who has demonstrated the greatest amount of support would become the mayor of vice mayor, right? That would be the technical action that we would have to take in order for that person to move into a leadership role. So

[00:34:17] Chair Lisa Matichak: we have to make a motion, but what we've typically done is not everybody talks. Somebody will just say, I nominate so-and-so. That's okay. Yeah. And that's what I thought maybe we want to change it too, because that's not what this says.

[00:34:35] Member Lucas Ramirez: So I think that's okay, right? So it's just, at the conclusion of whatever process we determine, you, that person doesn't move into a leadership role until somebody until the council member moves, then somebody seconds, a motion to place that person into a leadership role. Um,

[00:34:51] Chair Lisa Matichak: was when somebody moves, but I don't think it requires a second. Is that correct? Um, if I remember this correctly. So, I

[00:34:59] Unknown Speaker: think I'm not quite fully uh, grasping the, the logistics that are desired. I'm going to start there. Yeah. Because from my understanding, the objective was that. Let me do do a 2nd. Right. So, but my understanding is that uh, you would like it so that influence uh, as to what other council members think does not impact each individual council member's 1st choice in vote. I

[00:35:28] Chair Lisa Matichak: think when it comes to actual voting. So if we back up and talked about nomination first. Um, what we tend to do now is just somebody will nominate somebody and somebody will 2nd it. And then we'll say, are there any other nominations and typically, there's not. And then we just take a vote using the electronic system. So what um, I was concerned about is if there is more than one nomination. That, um, you wouldn't want to, uh, do, for example, a roll call vote, because then it does influence potentially somebody's vote. And so we've been doing votes now by writing down things and passing them to the city clerk and then she tallies the butts. As

[00:36:11] Unknown Speaker: long as the public is ultimately made aware of, uh, what's the public. Yeah. There's no there's no procedural limitation on that. But what I'm, I think what I'm taking away from this is that, uh, you have a few different options that could be, if you want to put into the rules. The 1st simply that for the 1st nomination stage, each council member writes down. There, if there's, if they want to make nominations. And the nominations could then, right? So they would submit the nomination secretly, and the nominations would then be placed on the, on the digital readout so that everyone can see was nominated. And then essentially a stronghold would be done where each council will write down their 1st choice. That could then be submitted to the clerk, because I was posted up. And then the motion could be made because if 6 out of 7 council members all have the same individual as their 1st choice. And I think that's a fairly easy motion. Um, on the other hand, if there are 5 or 6 different nominees, then maybe that's where the process would break down in either situation, or it's not going to be easy to make promotion, no matter no matter which method you use. I

[00:37:24] Member Alison Hicks: have a question on that. Maybe I'm not understanding what you said, but, I don't want a situation where, where 7 people are kind of forced to make nominations and then it gets more complicated than it needs to be. Okay. So,

[00:37:40] Unknown Speaker: uh, Ideally, one or 2 nominations is that. So

[00:37:46] Member Alison Hicks: I guess I think we work better when there's been one nomination. And that it largely, I mean, largely what we're doing is rotating. I don't have to say that. That what this says. We're rotating according to a process. that to some degree ensures that people have some experience before they step into the role. And I think that helps us. I mean, I think this is why there's the informal, uh, whatever it's called here, the informal rotation, because in the past, from what I've heard, there was not like decades past. And it caused sort of bitter feelings way before my time. But bitter feelings between people as they were working together. And maybe not, you know, not doing and maybe not doing that rotation as well. So, I think, I think that I also think that this informal rotation is respectful to voters, because, you know, you're not elected unless you get a lot of votes, and you represent, you know, different members of the community, and so everybody who's voted kind of gets their representation to some degree. Not that the mayor, I mean, our mayor doesn't have that much power above everyone else on counselor, you still need 4 votes, but I think it's a pretty fair process that gives, that makes our work more cohesive. So I wouldn't want, I don't want to, also, I will be overseeing the expresses and I don't want 5 different non-age. Well,

[00:39:17] Unknown Speaker: it sounds like the issue really is, do you vote? Do you do you say the motions on the floor? Do you vote, right? You're saying someone is nominated, a council member and someone has 2nded. The issue becomes if there's another nomination, which we haven't had for many years because of the rotation cycle and people have respected that. But there could be a potential in the future for that to change. But I think the policy that you all or the cracked process, that you all have outlined, would dictate who even gets nominated. Should you follow that process? So if you aren't going to follow the process at all, and let's say it's, you know, something that is like a totally divided council or the election is better, whatever, it, no one wants whoever should be in line to be mayor next to be mayor or vice mayor, then it could totally change. You can nominate, you know, 2 people from the floor. 3 people. I'd say that would be far less likely. The most likely scenario would be 2 people. And it would probably be the person who would be in line pursuant to this policy or a challenger or someone else that I would imagine had, um, There would be some knowledge beforehand that, you know, there would be some desire for it. It would be some reason for it. That's right. That's right. Or at least, with my own act was in a brown act, people would know that something was happening. So, I think that, um, it really is about whether you're going to vote on that motion or not is what I'm hearing. Right. Well,

[00:41:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: I think we vote on it. I just think the process for voting on it is, from my perspective, what needs to be clarified, because our previous policy didn't line up with what we actually have been doing. Heather.

[00:41:12] Heather: Yeah, I was just in listening to everyone's comments. Um, Would it work for pretty guys to add in here that if the informal rotation is being followed? that a motion in a 2nd, the the ceremonial type that you have now where someone, you know, is kind of talks about why they think this person, right? And then you vote, right? When there's only when you're gonna follow what's here. And in the case that you're not going to follow what's here, a caveat that says that we would follow the, the, prescribed practice that we've been utilizing for your appointment process and boards and commissions and committees, and we kind of lay that up. Where you could have nominations and then that could go as, you know, that could go as sideways as it might go, but you'll have something in writing that kind of outlines how that would work. Yeah. I'd be okay with that.

[00:42:13] Member Lucas Ramirez: I wouldn't, so I'm I'm comfortable with that. The clarification I would make is that it would take a majority vote to the council to not follow the prescribed process. So it's very clear. You're electing not to follow the process. That requires majority support. Otherwise you default into it. Yeah. That's a good point.

[00:42:32] Unknown Speaker: So that would actually be the mutual motion, that either

[00:42:36] Member Lucas Ramirez: follow or not follow. Look, you just follow the process until somebody says. I move to not to follow the process. And that's when you know that you're going to have a long eating. No,

[00:42:47] Unknown Speaker: I would imagine people in advance. Okay. I

[00:42:51] Unknown Speaker: would like to briefly return to one of the mayor's items, which is too bad if a qualifier that the mayor and vice mayor be elected. So

[00:43:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: I think that comes later. Okay. Yes. Oh, well, I've only brought it up

[00:43:05] Unknown Speaker: now because it would actually affect. Uh, the timing of sometimes you're going to end up in a situation where neither, uh, there's no one eligible being here or vice mayor, potentially, right? if you're following the rotation sequence.

[00:43:22] Chair Lisa Matichak: I was thinking about that today. Yeah. So, um, if we want to jump to that. I swear how my notes go. This looks like a new version of this, and my notes are on a different version. Um, Yeah. Um. When it says like the informal rotation. on B, the vice mayor succeeds. To the mayor's position. So, And that, um, the, it says here that the mayor has to have had at least one year on the council. Um, I'm not sure how to massage this, but I tend to agree with, um, the mayor. That I think it's important that both the mayor and the vice mayor be people who have been elected at some point. Whether it be currently or in the past. So I could see where, if you had an appointment that was a previously elected. Similar to the applicants we had this time for the appointment, some of them have previously been elected. I'd be okay with them taking that position because they have been elected. Um, but not somebody who has not been through an election. Is that what you're saying? Would you feel comfortable if it was somebody? I was asking

[00:45:03] Member Alison Hicks: a question rather than saying something, but I would agree with that. I mean, I think I've, I mean, what I found out through the last appointment process is that appointments are fairly common, you know, other cities do them. It's not like we did some odd things. Um, but that many members of the community have strong feelings about having people who are elected. Um, you know, in office and I think particularly as mayor and vice mayor. So, I think that probably makes sense. And

[00:45:34] Chair Lisa Matichak: appointees have an opportunity

[00:45:36] Member Alison Hicks: to run. It's not like they're guard for me. Right, mayor, vice mayor. Right.

[00:45:41] Chair Lisa Matichak: Because that could potentially, um, and I guess I would add that, There could be a scenario. Like I said, I was thinking lots of scenarios lately, where, um, The person that would, according to this process, become mayor, well, actually, the 1st they'd have to be vice mayor. But if they were, if we didn't put that in, you could have a vice mayor who hadn't been through an election, if they didn't get elected. And you had, you've already been through everyone else on the council. You would want an incoming person potentially to be. I see the look on your face. We did this a lot. Yeah. Um, next in rotation. But they could only, I mean, they might step right into mayor. Because they're the highest ranking that hasn't yet been May, vice mayor or mayor. And I thought, oh, are

[00:46:48] Member Alison Hicks: we okay with that? You mean with an appointee being vice mayor? If you had, And then may or wants they're elected. That, that sounds fine, except they may not make it and then you...

[00:47:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: No, they wouldn't be vice mayor. Because I thought you just said, oh, okay. Yeah. So, um, But you might end up with the situation where you've been through everybody. Like the 4 people, and now you have 3 new people. And instead of going back to the 4 to do the vice mayor and mayor, you go to the new people. And if one of them has already been Vice mayor or mayor, they could become mayor. without being the most recent vice mayor. This is why we had all kinds of diagrams on the whiteboard. Yeah, I need diaper. So

[00:47:44] Member Lucas Ramirez: I guess I have a few different thoughts. And one of them is, I, I, I understand what you're saying, but I feel like the skill set to govern is different from the skill set to get elected, just because you've been elected doesn't mean you're going to be a good mayor, right? For whatever that's worth, you know, and and similarly, there could be a scenario where someone who is appointed might have had extensive, uh, service, uh, in, uh, in an advisory capacity, for instance, right? So someone like a Robert Cox, who has been an advisory body member forever, who could come in as vice mayor, probably fairly easily. Um, and then there's also a scenario where I, I, if we're going to deny appointees the opportunity to serve in leadership, I would want to extend it to all appointees, regardless of whether they've been elected before, because sometimes people who get elected get unelected by the voters for very good reasons, right? And there could be a scenario where a council didn't like that, appoint someone who had lost and made that person their leader, right? And that may not be in the best interest of the community either, right? Just because, I guess, in my opinion, there's, you know, stupid people get elected all the time. That doesn't mean they're going to be very good mayors, right? Hey, I'm here. Um, so I, I, I don't, I, I think if we're going to say that we want to reserve the privilege of leadership to someone who's been elected, that's okay. I wouldn't want to say just because you've been elected before means that you deserve the privilege of being in leadership again, if you've been appointed to that position, especially if we're taking away their ranking status, right? Because you've had a break. That was a lot of, that was a word salad.

[00:49:35] Member Alison Hicks: I could agree with that. I do, though, think that once you're appointed and you're on counsel, you are in some sort of leadership position, even if you're not mayor.

[00:49:44] Member Lucas Ramirez: Or leadership of the council, right? Okay. I don't personally, I'm not offended by an appointee becoming a vice mayor. That doesn't really bother me, especially, I presumably the council has selected that person to be vice president because I think that person's capable. And if they really didn't think they were capable, they would say, we're going to change the process. And appoint someone or elect someone who is more prepared to serve in that role, then be a point to use. You'd have to have some really bad actors in the council to say we're going to appoint someone who's clearly not ready to be a vice mayor or a marriage to that role. But

[00:50:21] Member Alison Hicks: we're selecting the vice mayor also partly based on the rotation. So, it's not like we, most of the time, the time I've been on council, it's not like we really scratched our heads and tried to figure out who should be the next vice mayor, we, we just picked the person according to the... So we kind of did this last time, so maybe

[00:50:41] Chair Lisa Matichak: you didn't know that. What? Scratch our heads? Yeah. Yeah. Because as we read the policy, um, which is why we got the, um, email from the city attorney, um, saying there was different interpretations. And yes,

[00:50:58] Member Alison Hicks: last time, but that's why we're writing this down. So we don't have to scratch our heads so far. That's right. That's very true. Yes.

[00:51:04] Member Lucas Ramirez: It's going to be impossible, though, to draft a policy that will address every single possible scenario.

[00:51:09] Unknown Speaker: That is very true. So I will just briefly have, I know we're running short on time. So that the committee is aware. Um, putting in a requirement that the mayor advice mayor be elected, um, will result in some situations where a freshly elected individual is the only eligible person on the rotation list to be mayor and vice mayor. And that will occur anytime 3 or more members are elected in one election. So, just to be aware of that. So

[00:51:43] Unknown Speaker: you would have to ask yourself if what's more important is the fact that they were elected. Versus whether they've served time at all on council. Because you could say this only applies to those individuals who were elected. And then that would handle at least, if you are wanting to address the appointed situation, but what Matesh just described would, would happen actually. It would happen based on. The 34. 3 elected, 4 elected, 3 elected, 4 elected. So. Which

[00:52:24] Chair Lisa Matichak: is, sorry, I was not as articulate, but yeah, that's what I was saying where, so it would be okay with me if that person was previously elected. Because then at least they went through a vote, but then, as Counselor Emma Ramirez said, you know, what if? The

[00:52:43] Member Lucas Ramirez: voters don't want that person? Yeah,

[00:52:45] Chair Lisa Matichak: exactly. But they well, let's see. They got elected again because they wouldn't be appointed. So they clearly voted for them more than once and got them in. It's

[00:52:57] Member Lucas Ramirez: the, Yeah. I mean, yeah. This is a tough one. Right, yeah. Part of the, I don't want to pretend to know more than I really do, but I remember, um, back when, um, Larry Stone was on the Sunnyvale Council, he was part of this reform effort where there were a lot of folks who would resign at, uh, like a, this, apparently this was a common thing in Sunnyvale. They would resign sort of tactically to allow the council to appoint their friends. They just had this churn. And so that's why. Uh, uh, then council member stone was part of the effort to, uh, require a special election, I think, in every case. That's how they ended up with the Dave Witham doing, like, retire. He left the council at just a spectacularly awful time because it required a concurrent special election that was, you know, very expensive where they could have just appointed someone for like 5 bucks. think we have a solution. Okay.

[00:53:57] Member Alison Hicks: There we go.

[00:53:58] Unknown Speaker: So to harmonize both positions. So the way we the way we could price it is that a council appointee could be eligible on condition that they have not been recalled or not lost in election. There you go. Oh. Okay. Do that. Can

[00:54:18] Member Alison Hicks: we run through where this leaves us? for the, for next year. Um, if

[00:54:26] Unknown Speaker: that is adopted, um, I think, I think if I have the roster correct in my head, the next mayor, the next mayor right now. Yes, the next mayor, the next vice mayor, I'm going to need some help because I don't know all the senority in my. Right. So

[00:54:45] Unknown Speaker: the income. talking about taking on a point, you know, it would be the top vote getting incoming elected individual. It would be all. Right? Am I? It would be what? Ellen.

[00:54:59] Heather: She's already served. She's served. Right. In this consecutive span of time. So it would be the newest incoming person with the highest of our both. elected who has not served. Right? Okay. In 24? You'll

[00:55:18] Member Alison Hicks: have 4 seats up. Oh, you mean, yeah, no, I mean, who will be vice mayor next year? next year? That's what I was asking. So if Pat ascends to the mayor, if Pat is mayor, who was the vice mayor.

[00:55:32] Chair Lisa Matichak: So it would be either the highest ranking who hasn't served. Um, If, um, Which

[00:55:42] Unknown Speaker: I believe it would be a newly elected. Look, we don't have election last year. Yeah, we have one year before

[00:55:48] Member Alison Hicks: the election of a big system. where Pat would. She does something now. She would

[00:55:54] Chair Lisa Matichak: rotate into mayor. So the other, the person who hasn't been either mayor or voice mayor is Emily Ramos. Um, and then the highest ranking would be, I think, me. Yeah. Because everybody else has been, um, mayor

[00:56:11] Member Alison Hicks: or vice mayor. So we're circling back. So that's what I didn't understand whether whether we're going. So your higher ranking, because you've had more consecutive days, then, Ellen Lucas. Yes, okay. Right.

[00:56:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: Right. Right. And then, in the group that was elected with me, I was the highest vote getter. So I have the highest ranking. That's

[00:56:39] Member Alison Hicks: my other question. It's from your original election? Original. Okay. And so if nobody liked you the 2nd time around, you just barely scratched through, you still... I

[00:56:48] Chair Lisa Matichak: just needed to... Yeah. Yeah. So I think I'm okay with that. You know, I'm stealing like, maybe the CPPC should discuss this again. Yeah, I think we should. Yeah,

[00:57:02] Member Alison Hicks: you could, I was saying, because it's, it is hard. This has been useful, but I think we need one more pass. Yeah.

[00:57:09] Chair Lisa Matichak: So um, I did have some other things. Maybe what I should just do is we end on time is, because the next time, I would like the committee to think about, um, it would be 2 F. Um, which is if there's a vacancy for the mayor or the vice mayor, what do you do? This is very fuzzy, as I would say. Um, so sorry, 2 F in formal rotation, F, if there's a mayor or vice mercy becomes vacant. Um, think about whether or not you would want to, um, define that more. So this is like if I quit today. Does it have become mayor? Yeah. Right. And we can talk about that next time. I'd

[00:57:58] Member Lucas Ramirez: also be interested in what happens if, um, the vice mayor is in, uh, an election year and doesn't get elected, and you have no one ready to fill in or the mayor position in the, in January of the following term. another scenario that's not comfortable.

[00:58:18] Member Alison Hicks: Well, that would have to be spice mayor. She's not eligible to run again. Well, yeah, so then that's similar situation. Right. There's a continuity.

[00:58:28] Chair Lisa Matichak: So I think we said that um... You need us to go. Yeah,

[00:58:35] Member Lucas Ramirez: we go back to the other day. The special. Sorry.

[00:58:37] Chair Lisa Matichak: So we should talk about that scenario. Okay. So why don't we close this item for now? and we'll continue. Sorry. continue that. Is

[00:58:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: it formal motion necessary? I move to continue the item. Yes,

[00:58:52] Unknown Speaker: I read. So I'll do a very, very brief, I will call. Committee member Hicks?

[00:58:57] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:58:58] Unknown Speaker: Committee member Ramirez.

[00:58:59] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes?

[00:59:00] Member Lucas Ramirez: To your manager? Yes. So the 2nd necessary for that motion. So

[00:59:04] Unknown Speaker: just, no, you're fine. So timing noise, we would probably be looking at August-ish, maybe August, early fall. Yeah,

[00:59:16] Chair Lisa Matichak: that's fine. Yeah, December. Yeah, something that way. Yeah. So, um, that would be, we continue item 5.one and can we do a quick, want to do a quick 5.2? We'll do very quick

[00:59:28] Unknown Speaker: on that item. I know. Thank you so much, chair. I would have did bring you a brief overview to the community of your items that you've accomplished for this fiscal year. So for this fiscal year, you've completed 9 items, you've continued one item today, and then you'll receive an additional update today. So 11 for the fiscal year. They are highlighted for you on the 1st date of the memo. For the 2nd page of the memo, we have the highlights of what we be anticipating for the next fiscal year. There are 4 items, the item you've just continued here today, which is the A6. In addition, there is a minor note, which is related to some feedback of a pending item. And we can take feedback on that here today, or context or additional guidance can be offered by the full council. And that is a proposed policy or addition, which is regarding a procedure for doing appointments to outside boards. Our city attorney, Jennifer Alogue, has advised that that needs some additional clarification. And so that clarification can be taken through our meeting here today or can also be taken through direction to the city manager or in open session by the council. So

[01:00:42] Chair Lisa Matichak: I'm under the impression that, um, the studio attorney likes to have made council weigh in on, uh, doing a referral. That the full council would be woodwing and under...

[01:00:54] Unknown Speaker: I think she wanted some additional feedback on this item. I apologize. I thought Jennifer was also gonna be here today. But yes, I think I think that would need to be clarified and for us to be able to place it on the work and get some additional detail. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. So we should bring that up at the next council meeting. Yeah. Okay, September. Okay. Great. And then that concludes Steph's brief report and I'm also happy to answer any questions as the city manager of McCarthy noted. We would be looking at an August or roughly September additionally. Okay. Any

[01:01:28] Chair Lisa Matichak: questions, comments, comments? Okay, so we have another meeting, so we will adjourn this one at 259, so we have one minute to get to the next one. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sorry, nice. I'll start there.

• ← Previous
• Next →