November 28, 2023 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:02:14] Chair Lisa Matichak: Hey, we will call to order the meeting of the council policy and excuse the meeting at 9 o'clock on the 28th, and we will start with real call. Many member Hicks

[00:02:28] Member Alison Hicks: here,

[00:02:28] Chair Lisa Matichak: committee member Ramirez.

[00:02:30] Member Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:02:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: Chair manager. Yes. Thank you. We're all here. Yes. Um, next is item three, which is we want more initially, which is approval of the minutes from September 21st. And did any committee members have any comments or? So I had one. And that was, um, On the 2nd page where it says the motion. Um, we actually decided that we would have this as a council new business item rather than on the consent calendar. So we just need to tweak that little part. Is that other's recollection? Because we had the discussion and said, if we put it on the consent, calendar odds are for people. Let's just put it as an agenda. good memories.

[00:03:21] Unknown Speaker: You might want to talk about whether you still want to do that. Yes. Yes. Okay,

[00:03:29] Chair Lisa Matichak: are there any members of the public? Do you not believe so? Let me just verify. Nope. Okay. So, um, don't need to have public comment. So emotion is in order for. I'll move to improve the minutes is amended. And we do a roll call vote. And can you remember hits?

[00:03:52] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:03:52] Chair Lisa Matichak: Committee member Ramirez?

[00:03:54] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:03:54] Chair Lisa Matichak: Share manager. Yes. Thank you Next island is our communications. And there's the public who want to comment on items that are not on the agenda. I don't see any one in person. Has anyone joined us virtually? Okay, we're close at item. And we'll move on to item 5.one. And this is a continuation of an item that we previously discussed in our June and September meetings. And this was a referral from the city council to clarify the current policy because as we read it, we realized it wasn't really clear. And different people had different interpretations. So, um, Why don't we see if there are any any questions and then you can remember the code? Shut up. And then we can bring it back to the team. So are there any committee questions? about the text in particular, as opposed to the other question you just said, about whether we want to talk about that afterwards? Sure. Okay. So I have, um, A couple. Um, 1st though, um, a huge one, which is the election process. I think there is a normal title. The council shall elect one member as opposed to members. Wait, where is that? I have

[00:05:24] Unknown Speaker: a strike through in mind. Right there. Oh. Yeah,

[00:05:31] Chair Lisa Matichak: there's the other strike. There's a strike through that S, but it's very hard to read. Yeah,

[00:05:36] Unknown Speaker: see, mine, the S is crossed through in mine. Okay.

[00:05:39] Chair Lisa Matichak: I forgot to highlight it. I might not have had my glasses on when I saw that. I should have had one yellow. I see it now. Thank you. I see it now. So somebody needs to never die. Yes, yes. Um We probably talked about this, but I've forgotten. On page three. And here's the definition of highest ranking member. Why do we have in there and has not been recalled in the proceeding for years?

[00:06:14] Unknown Speaker: So share that was part of a discussion from the June committee, um, where, uh, through a lot of back and forth. That was part of what the committee wanted in order to have, um, both an experienced council member service mayor. But also not someone who had been recalled by the public. So that, uh, prison is chosen as mayor as someone who has recent electoral success.

[00:06:45] Unknown Speaker: So just to clarify, that's a recalled member who was appointed by a counsel who would be in the rotation. Correct. Okay. Right. Very niche or fringe case. Yes.

[00:06:58] Unknown Speaker: There were a lot of edge cases discussed during the June meeting. So

[00:07:05] Chair Lisa Matichak: I don't see where it says appointed in that definition. That

[00:07:10] Unknown Speaker: is not covered there because that rule specifically addresses only the factor of being recalled. Appointments are covered elsewhere.

[00:07:21] Chair Lisa Matichak: So wouldn't this apply to any council member? It

[00:07:23] Unknown Speaker: would apply to any council. But

[00:07:25] Chair Lisa Matichak: so is there a case where, so I suppose if you were recalled, and then you were elected, then, As long as it wasn't been the most recent 4 years. Well, if you were recalled, um, like in your 4th year. I'm recalled now and I run for election in 2 years. Are you going to let me rotate into May? And I went. So I kind of overcame. Does this policy allow? I can't because I'm...

[00:07:57] Unknown Speaker: So this would, so in that hypothetical situation, if Mayor Hicks were to be recalled at some point. Now. Now. And then is reelected in 2026. Which I can't

[00:08:09] Chair Lisa Matichak: be because I can't run again, but say this is my 1st term. Right,

[00:08:12] Unknown Speaker: right. So in that situation. Uh, it would also have to be the case that all of the other city council members are not eligible in order for this rule to kick in. So in that situation, in that rare instance, where all other city council members already served as mayor. And you were recalled. And I got reelected afterwards, which kind of tells you that the recall was not, you know, people

[00:08:37] Chair Lisa Matichak: change their minds.

[00:08:39] Unknown Speaker: So in that rare circumstance, your sort of recall veil would be lifted 4 years later in 2027. That's how that the current rule would operate. So I

[00:08:49] Chair Lisa Matichak: couldn't be mayor the 1st time. In the 1st year after I was selected. Well,

[00:08:56] Unknown Speaker: you would, if you were elected in November 2026, you would take your oath in January. Oh,

[00:09:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: 27. So I could be. You

[00:09:02] Unknown Speaker: could, right. part way through the year from 2027. Probably through the year.

[00:09:10] Chair Lisa Matichak: Pretty niche, but that's where I think that's the one play, if you're recalled and then you fight back and get, instituted. And it's just recalled, which have we ever had a recall? We've had maybe a long time ago, that I don't know about. We had people who haven't been reelected, but it wasn't... Yeah.

[00:09:33] Unknown Speaker: There's been other situations, but I don't know that it was. situation. Okay. Okay.

[00:09:38] Chair Lisa Matichak: People have threatened it to my face. There wasn't a lot of college. Okay, that's the only question I have. Um. Okay, so um, there's no members of the public here. Has anyone joined us online? Okay, so we'll close public comment. Um, and then uh, is there any further discussion about this? Did you want to bring up? Should it be on the consent calendar or the, yes, should it be on the consent calendar or on new business? I'm okay with it being on the consent calendar, um, I think what we've, primarily done is clarify the current policy. We did add seating. Um, I don't know if that's particularly controversial. Um, but somebody could pull it, um, if they wanted to discuss that. Because there are lots of different options for how you could do seating and we just took a stab at the one that was closest to what we currently do. But other cities I'm familiar with, certainly do other things. And actually, our city clerk gathered information, and I read all that, and I thought, wow, it's completely inconsistent between all

[00:10:56] Unknown Speaker: of the different cities. Um, share and coming in, just why I have it clear on the record. So it's captured for the minutes. So, um, if I understand your desire is to amend the prior draft policy from September, to strike references to restrictions on appointed members, however, preserve the rule for recalled. Um, city council members. Is that is that correct? Yeah, the current draft. Okay. The current draft is actually a revision based on your September notes. Correct. So I'm just making sure that your direction after today is that I strike references to restrictions on potency. Which

[00:11:39] Chair Lisa Matichak: have been taken out of this. Um,

[00:11:41] Unknown Speaker: not entirely. Oh, really? No, no, no. That's why I wanted to. Okay, where? I didn't see any, but where are I? Um, that, uh, I did, uh, I, I had to tuck in restrictions in a lot of different places. So I will have to go through it, strike many point citations. So I will take care of that. But I just wanted it on the record that you were making that motion. Well, now I feel like I need to read it again. You

[00:12:08] Unknown Speaker: want to take the time to walk us through? Yeah. So again? So,

[00:12:15] Unknown Speaker: for example, um, So, for example, under definitions. This is on page one. We'll see that the highest ranking number shall be the number who has served on city council for the greatest number of consecutive days in the preceding 10 years and who was elected by the voters during the current term office. That rule would prohibit an afflictive member from serving as mayor. So as part of your direction, I would strike the 2nd clause and who was elected by the voters during the most preferred tour reliance. In one other location. I believe it's in. I believe it's in the vice mayor rotation, where there's an additional. Actually, you know what? Nope, that was actually the only strike that's required. I had taken care of it prior. So, um, I had made it that way, so it's easy to, um, But, uh, artist.

[00:13:42] Chair Lisa Matichak: I think it would be good just for the, uh, maybe to just confirm once you go through it, one more time and just make sure that you all are okay with removing any other references that you might find or realize after this meeting. Right.

[00:13:59] Unknown Speaker: And that's why I think you could just give me the general direction to make sure that appointed members are not prohibited from serving. Um, captures, I think. Um, Okay. That's the only one you know of. That's the only, and I have that policy that way, but I wouldn't have to strike it from too many places. Okay. Um, but in essence, then the rest of the policy would function as you see right now. and we are, um, per your direction, preserving the, the, the, the, As an alternative, if you're worried about someone who gets elected after being recalled. A 4 year rotation can be produced. 2 years, then someone who is recalled and then elected would effectively be able to service mayor pretty quickly after being elected. So

[00:14:52] Unknown Speaker: through the chair. I feel like the intent is to preclude the possibility of a recalled member from getting appointed by friends on the council, right? So it would be helpful to clarify that this only pertains to recalled members who were subsequently appointed by a city council. And just be very explicit about that. Because because I agree, right? If somebody is recalled and then later elected by the voters, that feels like forgiveness.

[00:15:25] Unknown Speaker: That's fine. So, modify 2C to cover, we call state health members, or a point that they are elected there. Yes. Okay. Okay, so we have 2

[00:15:47] Chair Lisa Matichak: changes. to the current draft. Right. Yes. Okay. Quick

[00:16:03] Unknown Speaker: question, I should have asked earlier, because I'm not immediately finding it, and maybe that's because I'm not good at finding things, but was, is there a provision that allows for a majority of the city council to vote to suspend the rule if there's some compelling reason that a majority fees fit, because I thought we had talked about that.

[00:16:21] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I believe it's one D Roman numeral two. Yep. a council made by... Okay, thank you. Gotcha. Thank you. Yeah,

[00:16:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: we can just say we want to do something. Shorty

[00:16:33] Unknown Speaker: can say. But there would have to be a book. The majority would say we want to abide by some other. Yeah,

[00:16:42] Chair Lisa Matichak: and that's in the current policy, right? Yes, that's yes, always. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then, was that emotion? Yes. Okay. Personal mandated? Second. As a, as a consent, as a consent, okay. I can make that a separate motion, but I'll accept that. Was it friendly? Do you remember case? Yes,

[00:17:15] Chair Lisa Matichak: mini member Ramirez?

[00:17:17] Member Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:17:17] Chair Lisa Matichak: And share of Meditor. Yes. Thank you. Oh, maybe on to... I don't see. I mean, really, how much questions are can I do? Let's see any hands raised. And nobody's here in person from the public, and I assume no one has joined yet, virtually? Okay. Then we can adjourn at 916. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You'll be the quickest.

• ← Previous
• Next →