September 21, 2023 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:05:24] Chair Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Hey, let's get started. We'll call to order the meeting of the council policy and procedures committee at 301. And we are expecting the 3rd member any minute now, but we're going to get going. And we'll start with, um, A roll call.

[00:05:50] Chair Lisa Matichak: Committee member Hicks?

[00:05:51] Member Alison Hicks: Here,

[00:05:51] Chair Lisa Matichak: share manager here. And as noted, a committee member on here is arriving shortly. Okay, thank you. The 1st item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from June 29th. Are there any um, corrections or comments on this? No, no? I moved to approve the math. Okay? do we have any members of the public? No, okay, I don't see any here, so no virtual. Okay. We are on YouTube, but as far as Zoom, no members of them. Okay. Thank you. So I'll 2nd the minutes and. Just raise our hands. All those in favorite homes, because it's true. Yeah. Great, that passes unanimously. Um, next is um, item 4 oral communications. And this portion of the meeting is reserved persons, machine to address the committee on any matter that is not on the agenda. And um, I don't see any members of the public or in person. And has anyone joined? virtually? Nope. Okay, so we will close that portion of the meeting. And move on to item 5.one. Um, and this next item is a continuation. And here's... Awesome. Thank you. We just got to item 5.1. And so, as I was saying, this is a consideration of the item that we were discussing in our June meeting, and we didn't have time to finish our discussion, and we're, I think we want to stop that. So we're taking off the topic again. This was a referral from the city council to clarify the policy regarding the election of mayor and vice mayor. Um, because Kirk policy, while, It served us okay for many years. When we reread it, we realized it wasn't as clear as it could be. So we thought we should clarify it. And so I think we'll start if we have any sort of presentation or comments from staff first. Um,

[00:07:58] Unknown Speaker: so, you can give a test off, please, bring his office. I'm going to very briefly, review the discussion, especially if you did that, I can please, and go over, you know, for a type of perspective, some of the proposed as a, to address your commentary from arts. So, um, I, to me, except possible, I try to rewatch the meeting video a few times and distill out what I thought there was through. And those items have been. the structure of the rules, they've been sort of put into their appropriate sections, you know, because they were described, you know, in a manner that had to be translated into an appropriate role. So 1st and foremost, I think I heard a consensus for committee that in order to be eligible as a member or vice mayor, that the individual council member be elected by the voters, and not recently recalled. That, that's, so that has been tucked into the, into the rules. And, and by necessity of how the rules are structured. It's actually separated into 2 separate components. You will see that 1st component on the very 1st page in our definitions. So now in order for takes it becomes a member to be intelligible. They must be someone who has been elected at the least once in appreciating today. And the reason why it's structured that way is because if anyone was elected in, let's just say, 8 years ago. And then they were not reelected, but that we were appointed. When the committee last time was like, that person was at least elected plus by the public, and so they remain eligible. On the other hand, someone who was appointed several times over a 10 year period, but never was elected, should not be eligible. And so that's how that will captures that commentary from the commission. Moving along. Um, We corrected a discrepancy where it was not clear how the election premier and vice mayor should be agendis. So now that they want to pierce it. sort of ministerial edit. There are a couple of more of those that I won't go over, but for substantive rules now that, uh, clearly discussed, you will see that at top of page 3 that has not been recalled, religion, has now been answered. But I placed in there in the preceding 4 years because that would be the relevant time span to effectuate the committee's desire to allow someone who gets recalled, but that succeeds in getting reelected to remain eligible, right? So essentially imagine a situation where a council member is recalled 8 years ago, but then runs for the seat again. 4 years ago and succeeds, they are now eligible again. All the variables. Um, and another uh, concern, which I heard from the committee, but I did not get a clear consensus answer, but I skilled out what I think was something of concern that everyone, I think I came up with a solution, is that there was ambiguity as to what happens if every eligible person has already been mayor one time. So under several E, you will see that I've established a rotational cycle once all eligible individuals have been there at least once. The cycle begins in with the person who has had the longest gap between their 1st term as mayor and the current year. So essentially you would cycle through. based on, you know, uh... I thought that was a way to fairly capture, you know, both changes in the council, and also to capture, uh, sort of a fairness that, you know, if you've, if everyone's gone once, the person who's, uh, had the longest gap in their service between Big Bear should be 1st up to be eligible. But that is something that if the committee wishes to change, I can take notes on what we prefer. And then, another item that was left pending. The committee did not have an answer to the question of what would happen in the event. that someone succeeds to the position of vice mayor or mayor, but only for a relatively short period of time to fill out someone else's term. So to cover that, under some rule F, you will see that I inserted that if a council member fills a vacancy for less than half a year and for the purposes of explicit counting it for 183 days to define half a year. That person then remains alert. So, for example, someone assents to being mayor in October, they would remain eligible in January, the next January, right? Um, That is something that I sort of borrowed from how other succession policies can function in other parliamentary bodies, but if the committee wants to recommend that. I follow ears. I just came up with an SQ solution. That, um, I thought would work. And then, um, this is one correction that I will have to make before the rule set is finalized. But, um, The version that is before you did not adequate capture the voting mechanism or of nomination and actual voting, but I think that's actually something that you all had still wanted food to discuss. So, uh, with your feedback, I will incorporate those changes, the rules as well. And finally, you'll see here that the diet seating order, it currently takes effect on January 8th, 125, but after looking at the calendar, it turns out that the 1st meeting, it's just a peculiarity of the calendar that year, your 1st meeting to select the new mayor is going to be on January ninth. So I'm going to be changing that date to um, to a date after January 9th. Um, So that has been noted. And unless the body has a more particular date of mind, I'm probably going to be putting in January 15th, which would be the 2nd, uh, the 2nd full week of January.

[00:14:20] Unknown Speaker: So just for January. So the 1st meeting would be the 2nd Tuesday in January. Just double checking. That's January 9th. January

[00:14:38] Unknown Speaker: 9th, 2024. This is just for the seating.

[00:14:43] Unknown Speaker: This is just for one that you seating. Oh, right. Right. You want that to be 25 or 24. Oh, that's a really good question. I had said it so that it was going to take effect after the next election. Right. But we change every year. Right. If you prefer, I can change it to 24. That's not a problem at all. Yeah,

[00:15:06] Member Alison Hicks: that's what I thought you intended. Yeah. That's

[00:15:09] Chair Lisa Matichak: that's I forgot what year we were in. So when I read 25, I thought that was next year.

[00:15:15] Unknown Speaker: Let's just skip 24. my gosh.

[00:15:18] Unknown Speaker: They won't change their... So

[00:15:24] Unknown Speaker: would be the 23rd. Okay. So I will change the date then to be January 15th, 2024. Right. So

[00:15:34] Chair Lisa Matichak: what I would like to do, um, because I feel like this is kind of, oh, I'm sorry, what are you done? Sorry, okay. Um, interrupt you there? Um, Let's keep track of the changes and then and summarize so that we're, eventually we've got it so that we don't have to do this again. Because, um, not that I mind doing this, but I feel like this is, Kind of a complex policy. And I want to make sure we all understand what it is and what it isn't. Um, and so then the next step can be it goes to council. Um, So, um, why don't we start with? are there any questions? Clarifying questions or general questions?

[00:16:19] Member Alison Hicks: Just have a really... Probably an easy question about what we just mentioned. Why are we making this effective in January? Why isn't it just after the meeting at which the, doesn't it become effective now? Not that we're going to switch places now, but after, even if it's effective now, after the meeting at which the selection of the mayor and vice mayor take place, That's not going to happen till next. Until 2024. So even if it's effective right now, we don't have to switch seats. And we don't know, this is not a big deal. This is like the smallest possible question, but just in case something happens and we pick a different meeting date for some reason. Just if we make it effective now. So is there a reason? There's probably some reason, are you?

[00:17:10] Unknown Speaker: That is a great question. The 1st draft, the rules from June actually did not have the effect of date language, but the committee did raise a concern that what if by some strange, you know, happenstance, that there is an election for mayor or vice mayor between now and a normal date? So

[00:17:29] Member Alison Hicks: like I quit, right? Right. And

[00:17:31] Unknown Speaker: so to avoid that scenario, that is why... made to

[00:17:36] Member Alison Hicks: insert that. It's so small. I'm not going to fiddle away at this point. I see your point though.

[00:17:46] Chair Lisa Matichak: Okay. And let's see. I don't think I had any questions. Um, is we'll open it up for public comment on this. Is there anyone? there's no one here in person. Is there anyone online yet? Okay. Then we'll close public comment and then we can come back for discussion. So, um, I mean, so many, everyone had a chance, um, to read this and, um, I mean, we can go through page by page, if you want to, or if you just want to go through your audience, there's certain things you want to bring up. Thank you.

[00:18:25] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, so 1st, thank you for rewatching the meeting and capturing this is, you know, I, I, I did have a full appreciation for, um, how challenging it would be to rewrite this policy, um, until I think you and, and, and, and, and, and, thought thoroughly through all the different permutations and possibilities. And so the conclusion I had come to is I just don't think we can realistically account for everything. right? There will always be, however small the chance, there's always a possibility that something that we hadn't foreseen, you know, can come to pass and, uh, alter the way we would want to proceed with the selection process. Um, I, I think there's, there's certainly a lot of value in clarifying the policy, uh, where there are ambiguities. As I thought over the past several, a couple of months, I guess, um, about the impact of doing this now, the thing that I do have some heartburn about is, I, if we were talking about this, you know, in sort of a hypothetical, you know, set of circumstances, I'd be a lot more comfortable with proceeding with, with a lot of the details that we've talked about, but the concern I have is we're making some policy. determinations that will affect likely, the next selection process. And I would feel like if there were an, you know, an obvious choice in the next election, it would concern me less, but for instance, you know, in under the current policy, the appointed member of the council could take a leadership role. And we're making a policy decision that would explicitly prohibit the appointing council member from, you know, taking that that leadership position. And I'm uncomfortable with that. I would rather we forward. So 2 options. One is we forward the, the, the policy as we've drafted it here with a, uh, an effective date following the election. And then, you know, I'm totally comfortable with, with how we've determined it here, or we forward a policy that has the clarifications of the ambiguities and then provide the council with some additional policy considerations. And then the full council at least has an opportunity to say, We understand why, you know, the committee might have felt that it was inappropriate to have an appointed member take on a leadership role, but at least the full council has an opportunity to opine as opposed to us making a policy determination. If, you know, this will almost certainly be placed on the consent calendar, I take it, right? That's typically what happens. And if we make a policy determination, I think we could count on it being told, and it just, it feels like, you know, a good way of approaching this would be, We've clarified the ambiguities, staff and the committee has thoroughly thought through a number of different circumstances and permutations where things might go awry, so we forwarded something that's very thoughtful. And also, here are some policy determinations that the full council may want to consider. Is it appropriate for an appointed member of the council to assent to a leadership role without 1st getting elected by the people. I think either of those, I'd be comfortable with, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. I

[00:21:39] Member Alison Hicks: have a question about particularly about that coming up. I don't know what you mean by clarify ambiguities. You mean in this? I thought that that's what happened between the two. So I just don't understand. There are additional ambiguities. in what's written now?

[00:21:58] Member Lucas Ramirez: No, no, no. So what I mean is the original policy was ambiguous. Okay. which is why the chair and staff spend a lot of time talking about how do we make sure that there are no ambiguities and it's very clear how to switch. current ambiguities. No, no, no. I think the bulk of the policy is very good. The bulk of the policy, I think, is very clear, but there are some policy determinations that personally, I feel uncomfortable, uncomfortable recommending, you know, forwarding, so taking them and putting them with an effective date after the election, I'm totally comfortable with, or, you know, forwarding the clarified policy with some alternatives that are that, that are sort of policy determinations in nature, and then have the full council determine whether we want to enact a policy. that will alter how the selection process next year will go. So

[00:22:52] Member Alison Hicks: are there any policy, there's one policy decision that jumps to the forefront for me and that's an appointed person, uh, becoming vice mayor or mayor? Are there other ones or is that the only one you're talking about? That's the most significant. Is there one of secondary significance?

[00:23:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: If the council elects to not allow an appointed member to ascend to a leadership position. There's not an ambiguity, but there is a policy decision about who the, the next in line would be, right? And that's, there's, it's at once a clarification of an ambiguity. There is no clear next in line. So we've made a policy determination. that is explicitly spelled out here, right? I think it's, if I, if I were to summarize and very, you know, uh, uh, plain language, it would be the, the, a member of the council who has who, where there's been the greatest amount of time since they've served as mayor. That would be the policy determination. But one only, like that only matters if the council decides that an appointed member of the council is ineligible. In

[00:24:07] Member Alison Hicks: this case, some other Europe might be something else. In

[00:24:10] Member Lucas Ramirez: some other year, I don't really care. You know, it's it's just that we're making a policy determination. Like right now, there, I think there is, there's, you know, something close to a prescribed formula, right? We have one member of the council who has not served in a leadership level, right? So under the current policy, because there's no prohibition. That number would be cut by snow.

[00:24:33] Member Alison Hicks: So your problem is because we're talking about this in terms of Emily Ramos rather than Jane Doe, and in the future, it'll be Jane Doe. Right. I mean, I can make a comment on that. Um, So to me, it doesn't, we should be thinking about this in terms of Jane Doe. Um, but it doesn't matter. You know, although the situation we see in front of us now, when we read this through, we think, Oh, so that person would be, you know, and a name comes to it. That would be Emily, that would be, that would be Margaret, you know, as that would be me if I quit right now, you know, like I just said. Um, particular names come to mind. In the future, particular names will be involved. We just don't know who they are. And so I'm not understanding why. Uh, Why, if particular, and in the future, you might look at this and say, you know, 5 years from now, the people who come up under this rubric, Um, you know, issues come to mind. Uh, and they, I don't think they'd be that different than now. So I'm not sure why it would be problematic now and not in the future, or maybe different issues would come up because we can't foresee all the possibilities. Um, So I'm not sure why it's a problem when we know who it involves, but it's not a problem in the future just because we don't know the names of the people. not just the names, who they actually are. That, I mean, I can see bringing this back to council, but I can't, but I'm not sure, your reason for it is not appealing to me. Um, and did I have a 2nd comment? Well, if I did,

[00:26:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: I'll bring it up. Yeah, so, um, I mean, clearly this will go to the phone council, um, and, you know, I don't think any of us are shy about pulling items from the consent counter. So I would imagine it would be both. Um, because, um, it's probably worth a discussion. Um, but I, I do tend to agree, actually, when, um, we were going through different scenarios, we actually, um, started out with completely different names that had nothing to do with the current council members. And we're saying, okay, this person, you know, was in this year of their tenure on the council, and we went round and ran around, and it was only then later that we, um, thought about the current council member. So we were kind of doing the J-Do's stereo when we were going through scenarios at the beginning. Um, And I, I feel um, very, um, compelled to clarify this policy. Um, because there was quite a bit of churn, uh, going on in the background before the last, um, election of mayor and vice mayor and I kind of like to avoid that. And so that's why I felt like we really needed to clarify this. Um, and I've had a number of folks comment about how, um, they did feel like it was very important for, actually, even an appointment to the council, for the persecutive I've been elected. Um, and to me, that carries over to the person needs to at least have been elected once to the Mountain View City Council. to serve uh, in a leadership role. But this wouldn't preclude um, you know. If you do want to focus on names, yeah. They run and they get elected. Um, and then they could, it also would not preclude if I understand this correctly. Um, if um, in the next election, somebody who has previously served. as vice mayor or mayor. Could, and I want to make sure I understand this correctly, they could actually be elected as mayor. and not serve as vice mayor, etc. So you're saying, well, aren't Takahara? Yes. and was elected. He could become mayor. Right off the bat. Um, but yeah, that's what I thought of it. And I, I thought about that. And I thought, well, you know, they've served before as, um, mayor, or vice mayor. Both. And so I guess I don't have a problem with them serving again in that role. They wouldn't have to be vice mayor before they became mayor. Because last time we talked about, we would probably run into the scenario more frequently where, um, We kind of have a hole. So to speak. And, um, We'd have to figure out how to fill it, and that would be one way if somebody was elected, who had been in the leadership role before. So I actually feel okay with this. Um, Now that I had that clarification. Um, because I was a little bit concerned that we might not have somebody. Um, and I guess I could still happen. If somebody, You know, there's so, like I said last time, there are so many scenarios of how this could play out. Or

[00:30:06] Unknown Speaker: even just having a vacancy in the 1st place. That's very hard to predict if and when that were to ever occur too. So, yeah. You're saying when a council person would quit. Yeah, or like what happened previously, which is what led us to you all appointing a council member, no one could predict, you know, certain situations happen, if a council member were to leave for whatever reason. But what we have now is that uh, everyone, save for, uh, one member has served as mayor before. And then in the next cycle, uh, even in next year's election, those that would be in line have sort of last year before. Yeah,

[00:30:56] Member Alison Hicks: I guess what's in what informs me on this is that I was contacted, um, I was not, after Sally stepped down, I did not know how common appointments were. And I, but I was contacted by a lot of members of the public who were, um, really didn't want us to appoint someone, really wanted us to have an election. Yep. And, um, or really wanted us to have some kind of process that would be more, that would give more time, which we were not able to do. And so that, I think that's what people really felt like it wasn't legitimate if we appointed someone. And then after I looked into it more and found out how common appointments were, I was like, you know, I feel like calling everybody back. I said, let's, you know, we're doing it. It's not that unusual. But I did get the feeling that the public really wants somebody to be elected. Um, and and frankly, I, it was reinforced for me when most of the people, when the person we eventually appointed, most of the people in the audience speaking up or for her were not our residents. So I feel like, I mean, honestly, I feel like I don't want, I want, um, You know, I like working with all of our current council. Um, and I feel like, uh, and I want anybody who becomes the next mayor, I want the public to feel like it's a legitimate process, and I feel like it would undermine Emily, frankly, given the way she was appointed, if it doesn't go through a process like this. And not just her, but any Jane Doe or. What is it, Joe Doe or whatever? John Doe. But I like Jim. I feel like, like, and I also feel like if you're running for office, Andrew mayor, and you weren't elected, when you've been criticized for that, to begin with, I just feel like it's really delegitimizing and cause it would cause a lot of upheaval in the community, which I don't, I don't need. I want it to be a process that people see as legitimate.

[00:33:20] Member Lucas Ramirez: Well, I, and I might lose this boat and that's okay. I don't want to belabor the point. I think what I'm, and just to clarify, Emily would not be there next year, right? That would be awesome. I should have said, sorry. Um, which, and that's, I think that's a valid policy perspective to have, right? I could understand it. The concern I have is it feels like, right? Let's say the council really didn't like me, right? So instead of having a hard conversation, that might be true for all I know, right? So self-centered. Um, But like instead of, you know, during the selection processing, you know, even though Lucas is next in line, we feel there are compelling reasons why he shouldn't be vice mayor or mayor, right? And then having that conversation there, it, it, it's, you know, we're going to change the policy in advance of the selection process, specifically to make sure Lucas doesn't become Vice Mayor Romair. That's, it's, that's the, uh, it's more of a perception thing. It doesn't quite feel right, which is why I would rather dance it as a separate policy consideration. Like the intent of this is very good. Clarifying the ambiguities, I think is really important. This is not an ambiguity, right? This is a policy decision. And it's an important one, and I think there are there are valid perspectives on each side of it, but it's, I feel like it's, it's beyond the scope of clarifying. It's saying, you know, we really don't think a, an appointed member of the council should serve in leadership for perfectly valid reasons. It's just if we had done this before Sally stepped off, I would feel more comfortable, then now that we have an appointed person. who has a name, you know, it it, it kind of feels a little, it's not intended to be, it feels a little meat spirited. Yeah,

[00:35:09] Chair Lisa Matichak: I, take a turn here, I, um, certainly don't feel like, um, we are trying to behave spirit, which, um, it shouldn't come. hoping it doesn't come across that way. Um, but I had, um, a similar experience. Uh, The mayor shared where after the appointment, quite a few people contacted me. Actually, a lot of people contacted me before, saying, please do a special election. Um, I felt like that was overwhelming. But we didn't go that route. And then, um, You know, I think most people would have preferred an appointment of somebody who had been elected before. because at least they would have gotten a say. And so I can understand your comments about, um, you know, the same thing sort of applies here that, you know, how would they feel about having someone who has not been elected, be either vice mayor or mayor? And I don't think that would go over very well with our residents. Um, and, you know, I am trying to separate the person from the policy here, and I do believe that way, no matter who it is, that I feel like our residents were pretty clear that they wanted people who had been elected before. Um, So I'd actually be okay if we, um, obviously, they have a little bit more to discuss on this, but sticking with way forward, uh, proposed, uh, policy, because this is a policy. It's a tweet policy, change policy, um, clarified policy, lots of different things. Um, with uh, some new one with seating. And then if the council wants to discuss it, they could pull it and discuss it. And I'm guessing I might do that. I don't know if I will. I feel like the

[00:37:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: advantage of being on this committee is I get to have my say, you know, and I could lose a vote. That's fine. You know, I, I, I want to be fair, I don't, I, I didn't mean to insinuate that there's anything being spirited here. It's just like, you know, that way. It's a it's a difficult policy decision. Yeah. I want to be careful of, you know, a future circumstance, right? Where, you know, there may not be a valid policy determination that's we don't like somebody. So we're going to change the policy so we can get around them, you know? It's, I, I, I would feel, personally, I would, I would support and feel more comfortable with advancing the, the clarifications and then adding, you know, so it wouldn't be a consent item. It would be new business or or, um, but however that would be categorized with, you know, the, the, we discussed this. We think, you know, these clarifications make sense. You know, but we do think it's important for the full council and also the members of the public who have interest in this to say to weigh in on the policy consideration of, is it appropriate to have, you know, an appointed, an appointed member of the council who has not been elected previously, serving a leadership room. And Emily might have thoughts too. You know, she may agree with you. I don't really know. Um, so if it's, you know, forwarded as is, I probably couldn't support it, but if there is the, you know, here's here's language prepared, you know, that we've thought through. Um, it's it's a different policy question, but it's important and it's relevant. And at least the council has an opportunity to the full council has an opportunity to weigh in. I think I can be comfortable with that. Okay,

[00:38:40] Chair Lisa Matichak: so um, before we decide on that, are there any other, um, areas that you want to talk about? Um, Honestly,

[00:38:54] Unknown Speaker: I guess very well thought through. Yeah, you

[00:38:57] Chair Lisa Matichak: know, I could think about this for a very long time and come up with more scenarios. Did you have any other? No,

[00:39:04] Member Alison Hicks: I have other thoughts, but they are completely like, take us in another direction. I just think also the fact that several, um, council members were only, uh, mayor and vice mayor, what, virtually, is something that I think about in terms of picking who would be next. Um, yeah, and that's not in this policy at all, and I don't think I want to put it in, but it does come to mind. That people weren't, I feel like I feel like certain people were not full mayors. I mean, I've never talked to you about that, but I have talked to Ellen about that. Um, you know, that, She was like, half mayor. So virtual mayor. So, you know, that comes to mind as a consideration, but I'm not going to put policy about that anymore. So

[00:39:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: I did have a couple of questions and I appreciate you listening to the meeting again and doing this. Um, reading this draft for us. So on the top of page three. That would be really, really clear. Does this cover? Um, it says the highest ranking member of the council has not yet served as mayor in their current consecutive years of service and has not been recalled in the preceding 4 years. Rotates into the mayor. So, you know, I think we had talked about, um, And we also wouldn't want somebody who had failed to be reelected. So, Is that in here? Or is that covered or is that, did you think better of that?

[00:40:52] Unknown Speaker: The way that the rule is kind of work. It is a little bit unclear because they address the circumstances as they are likely to arise rather than in one succinct situation. So for example, the recalled rule applying 4 years retroactively. Essentially, if someone had been recalled, more than 4 years in the past. And then for whatever reason, they weren't appointed but not elected. They would not be eligible because they would have never been elected, right? So they would not be eligible for me or vice mayor. On the other hand, if they were then elected after a recall. That address is the complete concern that once they've been reelected by the public, they have sort of passed the legitimacy bar that you were describing with the public. So that's how that sort of addresses both circumstances that can arise before and after a recall. I hope that answered your question.

[00:41:51] Chair Lisa Matichak: So I guess to me, recall is different than failing to be reelected. Right.

[00:41:56] Unknown Speaker: So if they had, because the feedback I received from the committee in June was that if someone had lost an election. And then had been appointed, there was actually no consensus on how that situation should be addressed. And so right now, there is no rule to address that situation. The most likely outcome in that situation is that that person would not have enough seniority because their days of service would be lower. They would have a break. And the 1st rule is that they have to have the most consecutive days. Right. So if you have a break for service, you're already going to be fairly low in the ranking. So that's the most realistic way that that would, um, play out, but if the committee has a more specific rule, like, have to, then make a recommendation. So, yeah, I,

[00:42:52] Member Lucas Ramirez: you know, I, and, and, I, I think that the, the votes might be different on the totality of the, the, um, the policy, but I think in the spirit of the intent, as I was thinking about this, any appointed member, regardless of whether they were previously elected or not, probably should be ineligible for, for the leadership role, right? Because even if you've been elected and reelected, you know, there's no guarantee that the voters still support you. And we had an instance in 2018, right? Or a member, somebody who had served in the council for 8 years, tried to get back for a 3rd term and was dead last. You know, so just because you've been re-elected, doesn't necessarily mean that you retain the support of the community. So I feel the simplest way. It's just to say, if you've been appointed, you know, regardless of whether you've been elected before, you're, you're not eligible, you have to. Yeah,

[00:43:48] Member Alison Hicks: I would endorse that. That's a very easy change to make. And

[00:43:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: so you have been currently elected. Right. Sorry, I just want to clarify. Yeah, term

[00:44:01] Unknown Speaker: of office. Yes, yes. I'm okay with that. And I would clarify that about the current term of office. Yeah. So that there's no ambiguity about being elected on a prior term. Yeah. Thank

[00:44:15] Chair Lisa Matichak: you. Sure. Um, let's see. And then, uh, on page 3 again, E. Yeah, part-time it is in yellow. I read that several times and I know we talked about this briefly. Right before the meeting, and I guess I read this as, um, You know, the day their service was complete. And I thought my day, like, for example, me, my, the time when I finished being a council member, or mayor.

[00:44:56] Unknown Speaker: So should it say... So that I can service as mayor. Yes, service as mayor. Yes. I can clarify. Y'all know how I love towards this. That's so important. Oh, sorry. We did catch the typo. We did catch the typo. Yes. Thank you. You see the title?

[00:45:15] Chair Lisa Matichak: The type of hair? The B? Yes. Yes. shall

[00:45:20] Member Lucas Ramirez: be. shall be served. Served as served. Yes. I don't have a problem with words, smithing and incidentally, because the intent is, you know, yeah, right? And once it's clarified, hopefully we don't have to revisit this, you know, for quite some time. Um, and

[00:45:35] Chair Lisa Matichak: then we had previously said we were going to move something, but I talked, uh, before the meeting and we said, oh, no, it makes more sense to leave it here because other changes that have happened. I appreciated the ad at the bottom of the page about 183 days. I thought that was a good, you know, start. Um, and and I guess, you know, it still says in all of this somewhere that the council could choose to do something different. Yes, whatever they want, whatever they want. But here's a straw man for them. Um, Um, let's see. And then when it came to the, uh, let's see, on page two, sorry, I'm going back. Um, Section D about, um, motion and 2nd is in, is not in order for this process. Because what we typically do is we say, I nominate so and so and somebody will 2nd it. And then we ask if there's really more nominations. And since I've been watching council, I've never seen more than one nomination. Um, but I guess that could happen. Um, And so then, um, I think I brought this up last time, if we wanted to clarify what would happen if there were more than one nomination. And I think we, um, We briefly talked about this, but did it make it to this version? It didn't.

[00:47:13] Unknown Speaker: So that very briefly, unfortunately, in editing this multiple times, some language did get dropped accidentally. No worries. And so to just briefly describe what had been captured. is there was some language under several one C that essentially stated that the initial motion, just follow the policy, right? In which case, the mayor and vice mayor positions would be predetermined by the policy, and that ocean would just carry through, and that is one simple vote.

[00:47:48] Member Alison Hicks: But you don't say, if I were the person doing it, I wouldn't say, I make a motion to follow the policy. I would name the person, right? Okay, good. Right. Good. Right.

[00:48:01] Unknown Speaker: Yes, because essentially, you don't have to follow this. Right, right, right. That's, you know, where a 2nd nomination would come in and it would be if there's a little bit of mutiny. Right. And someone doesn't want to follow the policy. you know, so they would nominate at an alternate choice. I

[00:48:17] Member Alison Hicks: have a question of clarification. We always have in the past, or am I remembering wrong? We've had a person. Uh, make emotion and 2nd in the past, haven't we? That's what I remember. You said I nominated. I don't know if it was,

[00:48:33] Unknown Speaker: if I may, um, the, Some changes to C and D that might be helpful. I don't know if chair if you wanted to read them or okay. Um, So right now it says, as opposed as the comet period, the floor should be open to nominations for mayor. And then instead of a period, it would go on to say pursuant to the informal rotation outlined in section 2 of this policy. A motion in a 2nd for the member next in rotation shall be made and a boat would be in order upon receiving a majority vote of the council, that member would be selected for mayor. And then D would read, The council may determine by majority vote that it will entertain additional nominees. If more than one nomination is made, each council member shall vote for one nominee of their choice by ballot. Ballots will be collected, and the city clerk will publicly announce each council members vote. The nominee retaining a majority vote, but the capsule will be selected for mayor. Only issue that could come up there is how you want to handle a situation where every person votes for themselves. I've seen happen. Oh, dear. Ooh. That's Malibu. So I don't know if you want to be that prescriptive or just hope that there's a bit more, you know, that you only get like 2 nominations to vote on or, you know, that you don't get a majority. Where you get 4 or more nominations is where you have the problem. So

[00:50:24] Chair Lisa Matichak: I haven't seen that here, but I guess it could happen. Um, I'm

[00:50:29] Unknown Speaker: not wishing that on you. I'm just kidding. I'm just, I'm just proposing a past worse than me. Yeah, a possible cake in this. Yeah. Um, So let's see. So the end of that, I have in the event, no nominee. Which picture, I'm getting a little lost. Which picture? Honestly, just changes to be that kind of really just memorialize how you've been doing votes by ballot, right? If no one gets a majority vote for someone, then you go back to the table and you rebote until somebody gets a majority vote. But the question is, how do you handle it if you get 4 nominations. So are you?

[00:51:17] Member Alison Hicks: So what are you proposing for that? Because you could just say you can't have more than 3 nominations. Well, no,

[00:51:24] Unknown Speaker: because if everyone makes nominations, you could wind up with a few nominations, depending on the climate. I

[00:51:32] Member Alison Hicks: mean, I guess what I'm proposing is that, you know, when we're discussing, uh, you know, other issues, um, one person makes emotion, you know, if Lisa makes emotion and I was just about to. I mean, I, I, I can, uh, do a substitute, do a substitute motion, but, um, But essentially she, once she gets, essentially, she got there first. So you could just say the 1st 3 people, you get there 1st, you stop it. But you think that's not legitimate?

[00:52:03] Unknown Speaker: No, no, I just, based on the conversation you all had last time, there was, uh, appetite for continuing the process that you have now so that you're not doing roll call votes, right? where everyone can kind of hear what everyone else's vote is going to be. Um, so you have ballot. But, you know, But

[00:52:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: your ballot would have to be for the people who had been dominated. Um, as opposed to just anybody. Right. Um, and so you're suggesting we limit it to 3 nominations or some number.

[00:52:44] Member Alison Hicks: If more than 3 becomes problematic,

[00:52:46] Chair Lisa Matichak: we could limit it to three. Yeah. Oh, but

[00:52:51] Member Lucas Ramirez: can you? right? Can a policy prohibit a member of the council from. I mean, it's not, I guess, you know, it's how prescriptive is this, right? Right.

[00:53:04] Unknown Speaker: We may not want to go that deep. If we, if we, if you, you know, you get to that point, then,

[00:53:08] Member Lucas Ramirez: there are other problems.

[00:53:10] Unknown Speaker: and there's 7 nominees for our mayor. I have a lot of jokes about that. She's like, also, I tender from this meeting. right.

[00:53:19] Unknown Speaker: The city management. So we think it's good to just stop there and hopefully...

[00:53:27] Chair Lisa Matichak: So do you want to read that again? So

[00:53:29] Unknown Speaker: for C. So, uh, oh, I have the bigger font version, so you're not straining your eyes. So essentially, and this is his language that was supposed to be in this version. Apologies to everyone for not having it. Um, so beginning with C. I'm going to read, see in its totality, as it will appear as a final. At the close of the public comment period. before shall be open for a nomination for mayor, pursuant to the information, the informal rotation outline in section 2 of this policy. A motion and a 2nd for the member next in the rotation shall be made, and a vote will be in order. Upon receiving a majority vote of the council. That member will be selected for mayor. So that's clarification

[00:54:16] Chair Lisa Matichak: of what we currently do. Right. Okay, that's that sounded like what we currently do, right?

[00:54:22] Unknown Speaker: And then for D, which now explains the scenario where we have 7 nominees for mayor. The council may determine by majority vote that it will entertain additional nominees. If more than one nomination is made, Each council member shall vote for one nominee of their choice by ballot. Ballots will be collected, and the city clerk will publicly announce each council member vote. The nominee receiving a majority vote of the council will be selected from mayor. In the event, no nominee receives a majority vote, but council members will vote again until one nominee receives the majority vote. That will deal with that. I'm looking at that. Okay. Thank you night. Um,

[00:55:06] Chair Lisa Matichak: we've been there more. Okay, I think that was all I had. So then let's get back to the issue of, um, how do we want to proceed? Um, do we want to, um, take this proposed policy and have it on the consent calendar. If somebody pulls it and we talk about it, or do we want to propose, um, I guess it would be a modification to what we just put together. Um, and then say, and then an option is, or just not have something in here and have, here's a couple options. Um. On that. Oh,

[00:56:00] Member Alison Hicks: with a couple of options you're saying on the consent calendar or as a regular item? Well,

[00:56:05] Chair Lisa Matichak: I don't think it could be on the consent calendar if we have options. Right, right, right. Yeah. So

[00:56:09] Unknown Speaker: it would be a regular item. So typically you would want to at least have a recommendation because otherwise it's a study session. So I think where the committee's going to have to land is making a recommendation to your colleagues. So, That could be to either, you know, accept the policy as you all have discussed or to, um, consider the policy that you're putting before them for council discussion for full council discussion. That's an option. But you wouldn't not, or you wouldn't bring them something with no recommendation. So,

[00:56:50] Chair Lisa Matichak: um, I kind of feel like since odds are it's going to be pulled. that we should have a discussion. So I'm okay putting forth, I guess I would say, put forth this and then have, but, you know, let's talk about this because it is change to a policy. And an alternative is. Not a change, and have the morning ready for that. So

[00:57:18] Member Alison Hicks: putting this, so if I get this right, you're saying, uh, put this as an agenda, a regular agenda item, with a staff recommendation like this, and then with a secondary option, yeah, I would, was that emotion that you just made? It would be the CTC. Yeah,

[00:57:38] Chair Lisa Matichak: it wouldn't be... safety, yeah. Yeah. CBC. Sorry.

[00:57:42] Member Alison Hicks: Oh, yeah, sorry. I just went along with you. Sorry, yes. So was that a motion that you made? Sure. Okay, then I would 2nd it. Okay. All those in favor? Okay,

[00:57:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: that's two, one. And

[00:57:59] Unknown Speaker: is the committee okay with us looking at the towel to see which meeting in October, just timing wise to kind of balance what's on the agenda or what isn't yet on the agenda that we might need to balance this with? Okay. Yeah, all right. So

[00:58:14] Chair Lisa Matichak: should I clarify that in case somebody's watching and you didn't see? Hands or something. So that was 2 in favor. Mayor Hicks and Castle of Badcheck and one of those Council member Ramirez. Oh, wow. So

[00:58:28] Unknown Speaker: is that clear about the staff report, what we're bringing forward? Natasha's going to be late on the report. You've got your attention. Do you want to repeat that? you want to repeat? you want to help? Um,

[00:58:37] Unknown Speaker: I think what I heard, the rules with the election process clarification we went into the record. as the committee recommendation. And then, uh, alternative, alternative to be discussed by the full council. Right. The alternate being not a change.

[00:58:59] Unknown Speaker: One iteration price, right?

[00:59:01] Chair Lisa Matichak: Although the council could do anything.

[00:59:03] Member Lucas Ramirez: When you say, just to clarify, like the clarifications are a change, but it's not the policy determination, right? So I think as an alternative, are we saying no change to the policy or here's the clarifications, but without the question about the alternate or the appointed member issue.

[00:59:23] Chair Lisa Matichak: So it would be the clarification to the policy. And then, um, not changing the specific area when it comes to, uh, who can serve in a leadership role. Got it. Okay. Yes, yes, thank you. Yes. Okay. Anything else? I'll be through it. Thank you, Patesh.

[00:59:48] Unknown Speaker: I appreciate it. Yeah, Heather. Everyone else is. We'll do the minutes as well.

[00:59:54] Unknown Speaker: It might use a video area. Yeah, probably the video. Sorry,

[00:59:58] Unknown Speaker: let me get touch the attention here.

[01:00:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: One more brief item. Um, okay, 5.2. And update on, yes, so as

[01:00:10] Unknown Speaker: you're aware, how we provide us after each meeting for the committee. And this is an update that includes the 2 items that you just completed on your agenda, which is includes today. And then we have 4 items that are ending before the committee for this fiscal year. And those items are noted in the stamp report. All highlight them here, which is the council policy A15, then a speed ticket distribution associated with Shoreline. There are some updates that need to be made to that policy, as well as 2 that are related to financial areas. And that's council policy A11 related to financial and vegetarian policy. And then council policy A 10. That is the authorization to execute state contracts and agreements, and increase certain appropriation limitation appropriations, that will also be brought forward for an update. We anticipate 2 and 3 will come in tandem. And then we, in addition, is just your routine item, which is updating you on various topics. So at each meeting, we'll continue to keep this so that you have a good tracking on what items are coming before you. Okay. And that concludes deaths, brief and forth. Thank you. Any questions, back from us? Oh, go ahead. No, I don't have them.

[01:01:24] Member Lucas Ramirez: Oh, sorry. I'll be quick. So is I know there's something going before the council's finance committee, is that the same thing as council policy, A 11 or is there a different?

[01:01:33] Unknown Speaker: I think it may be, although I'm not sure. So I would need to clarify that with our financingistry of Services director. I mean,

[01:01:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: I'd be happy to do so. Okay, well, so, No disrespect to the mayor, but 2 of us also serve on the CFC, and I would hate to bring the same item between 2 substantially similar bodies. Um,

[01:01:52] Unknown Speaker: like I said, I would need to step, we need to follow up, and I'm not sure if the city manager, McCarthy is aware of that item coming before the finance committee. I

[01:02:00] Unknown Speaker: need to clarify too. It's been a while since I looked it. Okay, it up, so I would just want to make sure, especially since counsel just gave direction during the budget hearing. And so I want to make sure that what we were planning to bring to the council finance committee maybe different or not. Okay. than these 2 items. I want to say vaguely, but I think 3 is more about, um, we've all talked about the support. My authority, department head authority. Um, and I don't believe that was going to the finance committee. Right. Um, the number two, I'm not sure is because it's very

[01:02:36] Unknown Speaker: big. So I need to just double check that. And I, my understanding matches city men and McCarthy on item 3 and then for item two, I understood that to be routine, cleanup changes. So I don't necessarily think it's the item associated with the and it's can be fit. It could be. So we'll clarify it.

[01:02:54] Member Lucas Ramirez: Okay. If it is the same as what's going to the CFC, I would, since you're also the chair of the CFC, right? I don't remember. If, if, if, you are. Right. Well, if you are, I would I would suggest, you know, talking with Steph and you can make the determination about whether it's more appropriate to go to see PPC or CFC. for the same anyway.

[01:03:17] Unknown Speaker: And this memo is reviewed by our department hands, but we'll reclarify just for sure. Cool. Thank you. That's

[01:03:24] Unknown Speaker: a good point. But yeah, I didn't.

[01:03:27] Unknown Speaker: Get yourself the troubles. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[01:03:32] Chair Lisa Matichak: So, um, can we say else on that? Nope. Okay, and I think we're all moving on to the next item. Oh, sorry, forgot about that. In committee reports, any else? Do you have anything else? Okay. Yeah, we're ready to adjourn at 359. I have to go back to San Jose.

• ← Previous
• Next →