November 20, 2024 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:01:21] Unknown Speaker: This room is always... little challenging. Oh, God. Ready

[00:01:26] Chair Lisa Matichak: to go? Great, thank you. This meeting is being called, uh, sorry, this meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. Anyone wishing to address the committee virtually, if you join the meeting online at HTTPS colon slash slash, mountain view.zoom.us slash J slash 847-54933805 or by dialing 669-9128 and entering webinar ID 847-54933. When the chair announces the item on which on which you wish to speak, put the raised hand feature in Zoom, or dial star 9 on your phone. When the chair calls your name to provide public comment. If you are participating via phone, please press star 6 to unmute yourself. Any emails received by 8 AM today. We're forwarded to the CPBC. Emails received after 8 AM will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjected to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice. As we strive to create a welcoming, safe and inclusive community for all. This advisory body will commission. Welcome. This committee welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters over which the committee has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the council code of conduct at the government code, may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's problem here. Uh, and Ms. Thomas, you ready? Let's conduct the roll call. Yes,

[00:03:08] Ms. Thomas: chair Ramirez. Uh, Mayor Showalter. And council member Higgs. Sent due to a prior city commitment. Thank

[00:03:18] Chair Lisa Matichak: you very much. We'll move on to item 3 minutes approval. Uh, CPBC meeting minutes, uh, from April 25th, 2023. Does anyone have any comments or questions about the meeting minutes? I move approval. Uh, thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak regarding the meeting? Are

[00:03:39] Member Pat Showalter: there any members there? Is there a three? All right. Oh,

[00:03:43] Chair Lisa Matichak: a scene. On Zoom. On Zoom. Uh, seeing no other, uh, no members of Public Footing to speak. I will 2nd the mayor's motion to approve the minutes, and we'll take the role call. Uh,

[00:03:56] Ms. Thomas: yes, uh, share a name? Yes. And, uh, Mayor Showalter. Yes. Wait,

[00:04:01] Chair Lisa Matichak: thank you very much. Well, now move on to item four, all communications. Item 4 is oral communications from the public. 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 the section. State law prohibits the CPBC from acting on non-agendaized items. Would any member of the public like to provide comment on an item that is not on the agenda? If so, please submit a blue card or if on Zoom, like the raised, raise hand feature, or dial star 9 on your phone. Are there any Zoom participants wishing to speak? With then, thank you. We will now close or will communications and move to uh, item 5 at 5.one, amendments to council policy K2, council advisory bodies, defining boards, commissions, and committees, and other minor amendments. City clerk, other layers will present the item. Uh,

[00:04:56] Heather: good morning. So I don't have a long presentation. This item was referred to, uh, this body by Council member. Um, the city has historically used the term board commissioning committee interchangeably. And, and pursuant to the guidelines set out in city charter section 900. There are specificial fireworks that are being applied to all bodies that the council creates either through charter or ordinance resolution or minute order. And, in an effort to carve out some bodies that may not need to be subjected to that charter section, and it's specific definitions of who's served. Um, this item is being brought forward to allow you to make a recommendation on a definition for committee that may provide this city with a little bit more leeway as to who clicks those on, um, members to committee. So, uh, there's a red line version and then a clean version for you to, um, consider with the added definition of committee. There are some other minor modifications that we made or as cleanup. to the policy, to align more closely with the practice of, uh, either the city clerk's office in terms of recruitment or, um, how the liaisons interact with their bodies. The other thing that, that, Subcommittee should maybe consider today and send also as a recommendation to the council would be, um, any guidance, to staff, about lit bodies mainly to be renamed, to kind of, um, yeah, to kind of fall in line with, who we may want serving on, a committee versus a boarding commission, which is absolutely subject to city charter section 900. We're bound by that. That's true. Oh, that can, that can even Rose have any questions? Yeah, again. Thank you.

[00:07:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: Mayor, if you have any questions. Yeah,

[00:07:33] Member Pat Showalter: I have a bunch of questions. And, uh, so, 1st of all, let's go through. The only one. Basically, what we're saying is, that if it's a commission, then it's got the charter, cardboard, the commissioner or board. Okay, so that means the ones that are in question that should have this, uh, requirement are, um, Except don't are human relations. Uh-huh. Um, she's that. And tennis. Okay. Yeah, right? Yes. So they're the sort of the outlers. Okay. And, um, And the, the, the top 3, as I understand it, the library UPC, Planning Commission, and the, uh, Parks and Rec, are 3 things that are required in the California Constitution for every city to have, aren't they? With my understanding. Um,

[00:08:36] Heather: I'm not sure about constitutional requirements for those. I know that there are some cities that don't have those. So I don't think it's a constitutional requirement. But they are created by the charter. So those are, you know, those we can't, um, amend really in any way. And

[00:08:53] Member Pat Showalter: then the rental housing committee, we pass a charter amendment. Is also created by the charter. So that's created by the charter. So that's clear that's those four, for sure. Okay. And, um, All right. Well, I went through the red line. And, um, I have a bunch of comments, some of which are, you know, I think we just go pretty fast. Is it okay for you sometimes? Um,

[00:09:16] Chair Lisa Matichak: let's do, uh, questions and then we'll go to the public comment. I mean, come back for...

[00:09:22] Member Pat Showalter: Alright, let me go through the ones or questions. All Um. I'm I'm using the red line. Okay. So, um, it's, uh, 6 at the bottom of stage two. Person's being considered for appointment or be appointment, must be interviewed at least once to qualify for appointment to any board commissioner committee. I'm not really opposed to this, but is it is it necessary to be in here? What

[00:09:54] Unknown Speaker: do you mean, is it necessary to begin? Well,

[00:09:58] Heather: which part of it, I guess, are you? I

[00:10:02] Member Pat Showalter: just have, you know, as an environmental engineer, I, um, I, I've always, uh, I've experienced a lot of overregulation. And so I always look to things to say, is that required as to do the job right? I think it's obvious, obviously, it could be still breakfast. But is it required to imagine you? I guess. anyway, so that's one question. Um, I, I, question one was fully... I can think of a time, maybe, when it wasn't, unless somebody was ill, or, um, out of, uh, you know, out of, um, you know, out of town, or...

[00:10:44] Heather: So, if I may. Um, this was added by the CPBC, a few iteration to go. Um, I believe that the thought process was more to do with, um, if someone had interviewed once, they didn't need to come back for a 2nd interview. So, If you had a situation and this happened with rental housing. Right? Right. You ran interviews, then you had a vacancy come up later when we posted the notice of vacancy, you didn't get any new applicants. So you appointed someone from your 1st round of interviews because you didn't have to interview again, right? Okay. So that's what this is more aimed at is that people who have interviewed at least once for the position do not have to come back for a 2nd interview to be considered. So

[00:11:39] Member Pat Showalter: what does it have to do with if you serve for 4 years? And you're being reappointed. It doesn't apply there too.

[00:11:47] Heather: It could if they've reapplied. the, you know, CARC or whoever the interviewing body was, if it was counsel, could take that into consideration and determine whether they wanted to consider that person again, since they had already interviewed once, but that

[00:12:02] Member Pat Showalter: would really be up to their body. And then I was concerned about what's happening with PCAB. Um, because we'll go through the names, I guess, later. Um, laundry will be here in moments. So if you do have a piece app question, she'd be happy to respond. Then the personal code of conduct. With, I, that is page five? Okay. H. All prisons appointed, oh. Yeah. Uh-oh. All appointed members to a body commissioner being assigned a file, a personal service fundex statement, uh, with the clerk, towards her designate. Um, What are you used for? I

[00:12:49] Heather: don't really know what the genesis of this was. So, keep in mind that the red line only applies to where we've removed advisory body in this sentence. This version was already included in the policy. So, how you guys got to a personal code of conduct, at some point in the past is, I, I, I think that was before my time. Um, but it's basically, um, you know... But we refer to

[00:13:20] Member Pat Showalter: it in terms of if we want to remove somebody, if they haven't, you know, I mean, we have the removal care, the removal requirement, if they don't attend, right? That's the main thing. You know, you don't, you don't get kicked off for pretty much anything else. It's just attendance. So this isn't used to say, Yeah, you're not behaving it off. We do have the, we do have the, um, the right as the city council to unappoint somebody. Um, if, if they're misbehaving. I don't think it's ever come up, but. Um,

[00:13:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: 10 years ago. There was the guy who used to serve on the visual arts committee who made, um, anti-Semitic comments, and I think that may have inspired some language. All

[00:14:08] Member Pat Showalter: right, so that is what it's for. Thanks. Okay, okay. I just, it's just, again, I don't want to overregulate. Okay. Um. Oh, I wondered, um, on, uh. page six, it talks about training and getting reached, um, getting, um, this is sort of a little bit aside, and getting paid for that. I wondered, um, do we have training budgets for the other, uh,

[00:14:38] Heather: you know, 3 boards? Your training budget for this for the advisory boards? No? Now, I don't think that any of the departments that are liaisons, support conditions, and committees have a specific pot of money that they're using for training. Um, this most often comes up with AC when they're going to, you know, planning commission, um, training.

[00:14:59] Member Pat Showalter: And there's also the League of Cities has a convention that...

[00:15:04] Heather: Yeah, yeah. So in order to be eligible for reimbursement for any of that, then they would need to comply with this section.

[00:15:13] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, but there isn't like, I remember when I was on the APC, you did have a training. Yeah. And, um, and I used it to take, um, leadership Mountain View. And so that was, you know, that was... And

[00:15:25] Heather: it's possible that CDD specifically has like a pot of money that they're using surfing. that, um, But, again, if it's a member of a board commissioner at community force, and the training that was approved, then to be reimbursed, they would need. Okay, okay. Um, And then, again,

[00:15:48] Member Pat Showalter: being nitpicky. The one right below that, L, um, the city's conflict of interest code, um, we decide everybody has to do a form 700. Do, do all the committees need to do a fine study? I mean I think about what they do. Why do people have to do is form 700. They have to do a form 700. If there's some kind of contractual, or decision making related to a contract, that they do. And I was, you know, it was going, right? isn't that the reason we have it? Basically. Yeah, so

[00:16:22] Heather: not all boards, commissions and committees are outlined in the city's conflict of interest code, but that does come before you every 2 years and you are approving it. So that does outline which bodies are, um, required to style form 700. Obviously, planning commission members are required because they're 87,200. They're government cofilers, right? Um, I think then you've got an, you give me just a second. I can probably find it here. Parks

[00:16:52] Member Pat Showalter: and Rec would certainly be... Yeah,

[00:16:55] Heather: it's basically the bodies that are weighing in on expenditure of city funds that are filing. members like to your youth advisory committee are not filers, right? You've got a couple, you've got some, um, legal determination that city attorney's office is making and that and information is always included in the analysis that comes to you when you approve the city's conflict. Okay.

[00:17:25] Unknown Speaker: I think it would also include in addition to expenditure of city funds, kind of, um, decisions that, um, could be influenced by, um, members of the public. Um, so, preparations for me, for some. Yeah, so I think it's

[00:17:48] Member Pat Showalter: not um, it's not every commission. No, for sure. Like I was thinking for PCAB, for instance. That's trying to think of, they don't have any contractual, um, uh, things that go before them. But

[00:18:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: they might review on occasion. Um, like there might be some technology that the police department may be interested in or, um, I'm trying to think of, uh, I don't know if the automated speed. Yeah, did that happen before, just like a high level, right? At

[00:18:15] Unknown Speaker: a very high level, but they weren't making a recommendation. to the council. So is Flock a company? Yeah, clock is the name of the company that makes the automated license plate reader technology that is commonly used. Okay,

[00:18:28] Chair Lisa Matichak: so it could be that maybe someone happens to be on the flock board or it does business work. and that, yeah, right? And so maybe that kind of. Okay, I'm just,

[00:18:38] Member Pat Showalter: you know, I'm just trying to work through it in my head because people ask, you'd be surprised at questions people ask. things over time. So I'm just trying to understand why, you know, that, and, and the 5700. I mean, I've been filling it out since I was a little planning commission and like, what was it? I mean, literally nonstop and it's a pain in the neck, right? Yeah. I wonder if anybody's

[00:19:01] Ms. Thomas: ever looked at it,

[00:19:02] Member Pat Showalter: but that's okay. That's all right. It's long. But glad to do it, but it's just, I mean, it is, and the other thing I was wearing is, has it ever been discussed as a deterrent for anybody wanting to serve? You know, we have, we have, probably, and I, I've never forgot of it. You ever forget? Uh,

[00:19:19] Heather: no, but I, I, I would, again, go back to, there's the legal component of this where, in certain people, depending on the influence they have over the decision that either staff is making or the recommendation that's coming before council are going to be legally required to file this, so. Okay. I just wanted to talk

[00:19:38] Member Pat Showalter: about it. Just sort of understand about it. Um... Thank you.

[00:19:45] Chair Lisa Matichak: I've got a few quick questions. There are some additional bodies that are not included here, and I'm wondering if they should be referenced, or maybe there's different location for them, the investment review committee, which includes members of the public, along with the council finance committing, I think. a year. Should that be included here? It's not a charter established body council established. Where does that live?

[00:20:12] Unknown Speaker: Um,

[00:20:12] Heather: I think that's part of the subcommittee at Council. Um, as a, as it pertains to the naming convention, they're already called a committee, and so, unless you would prefer that they were, um, subject to the charter section 900 and you want to rename them as a mission or board. And I'm not. I have a lot of heartburn about where it lives because it's kind of attached to subcommittee and it, like I said, it's, All right.

[00:20:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: I don't have terribly strong feelings, but that might be one where it could be better to have like a, uh, well, that's more of a comment, I guess. Um, And then what used to be the design review committee is now that I review consultation and then the CA and subdivision committee. Um, those are also not established by the charter, but those might, we might want to have some firmer regulations about who can serve. So how, um, where do those live?

[00:21:29] Unknown Speaker: So, I

[00:21:30] Heather: will say that the, the list here is specifically what my office handles, right? So my office takes care of all of these, uh, Wednesday, you're talking about the council, either a, um, doesn't appoint you. So in the case of the design review, that's not something that the council is making appointments too.

[00:21:55] Unknown Speaker: No, I'll point the tennis advisory board either.

[00:21:57] Unknown Speaker: You

[00:21:58] Heather: don't, but that one, um, we do have involvement with, um, So that's why. Um, we can certainly add those bodies to a list somewhere, but again, unless you're concerned about the membership and because this is what the item is is really geared toward is. I'm telling my version, right? Do you want it to be more lenient in allowing people that are not citizens, not, residents of the city, 18 years of age, et cetera, to serve? Or are you going to be subject to the provision charter section, right? So I would say you should, we could, um, consider those bodies in that context. And in this conversation. But these are the ones that recruitment, and, um, appointment you have been most, I'm sorry.

[00:23:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: Okay. I mean, we made, the design review committee used to be subject to the charter provisions, so some changes were made to the municipal code update at the beginning of the year, I think, right? I have some recollection of heartburn around that committee in particular.

[00:23:18] Heather: Yeah, and I would have to go through. I wasn't involved in that project. I would have to go through and release the section of the charter. It's something that, um, The code was changed. You'll give staff the authority to create and control the members of that body, then they're no longer subject to either

[00:23:39] Member Lucas Ramirez: the provision

[00:23:40] Heather: of the charter or the brown acts. Um, if it's still a body that's created by the council in any way to perform, it's always going to be subject to the passions of the ground act. And to the extent that you are going to define further committee versus boarding chickens and also this.

[00:24:03] Chair Lisa Matichak: So, thank you. Um, and then I want to make sure I understand. Um So we have, uh, one body, the downtown committee, where historically we've allowed non-residents to participate if they have, uh, they own a property or business or something. So that this committee definition is inclusive of participation also of non-residents, right? Or should we make a special call out for that?

[00:24:31] Heather: Correct. No, if you read the definition for a committee. They, um, don't need to be, um, qualified elector, in a qualified elector, as a resident jumping city, over 18 and assist.

[00:24:46] Chair Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. You have any other questions, mayor, before you get it over going?

[00:24:51] Member Pat Showalter: Yes. Uh, the, uh, investment committee, that's the review committee, the design review for, um, and the ZA. The members of that all have to form files, form 700s.

[00:25:03] Heather: So, if they are not staff members, so, for instance, your investment review committee, yes, they do. Um, the, um, design review. I don't know who's serving on that at this time, but yes, in its previous iteration, it did. And again, that's because of the role that they played. It seems like they should. Exactly. Exactly. Yes, yes, yes. Um, if it's staff level, um, that are, on it. So like the, the CA, I think is, staff, isn't it? Yeah. And so they would be filing in the context of the staffing level designation that we've done in our...

[00:25:54] Chair Lisa Matichak: Yes, they would all be covered.

[00:25:55] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Yeah, that's my question. Thank you

[00:25:57] Chair Lisa Matichak: very much. Oh, let's turn to the public. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Yes, um... First food in April, Webster.

[00:26:09] April Webster: Hello, um, April Webster. I've been a resident of Mountain View, 2010. Um, I am not a citizen. I'm, um, actually from Canada, but I have been down, and this is not my, um, I've actually lived in the same apartment. Um, uh, in Moffatt, uh, near Moffatt Boulevard, um, since that time. And, um, I am very active in the city, and, um, you know, it'd be great not to have, um, that restriction. And, um, you know, a few things, a lot of people of sort of, um, like the middle demographic in terms of age, um, who might want to participate are also immigrants. The tech industry is, for better or for worse, employs a lot of immigrants from different countries. I know from my graduating class, um, You know, after grad school, there was a mass exodus of Canadians. Down to the Bay Area, um, And many of them still live here. Um, I know, and just many of my friends in this industry are also immigrants. And so you have, I looked at the, some of the demographic data per mountain view. Um, from Mountain View, it's about not quite 50%, but around 40, 42, 43% of the population, um, are immigrants. Um, so that's something to think about if you're not, um, making it possible to have, you know, um, giving that opportunity to a good chunk of your population, you're not going to get the full picture or everyone's voice. Um, and then I can talk to you a bit about the process to, um, become a citizen. It's taken me quite a number of years. First of all, you have to, you come in on some sort of visa. You're usually there. There's a lottery, that's like three, four, It's not easy to immigrate into this country is what I'm saying. Um, usually like 3 to 5 years, you're on some sort of visa, maybe 6 years, and after that, if you find a company who's willing to sponsor you, which isn't as likely right now in this current climate. Um, you get onto a green card, but the process of getting a green card, takes another one to 3 years working with lawyers who are very slow in the company. Um, and so it, and you often have to negotiate that. So it takes another few years. Once you get in your green card application submitted. Um, that paperwork done. I was lucky because I'm a Canadian citizen. It only takes me a year. Um, uh, folks who may come from India, it takes up to 10 years for them to go to get their actual green card. Uh, it's a hell of a long time and a very, uh, you need to be with it, you know, dedicated to stick with it through that process. And then the actual citizenship itself. Um, I'm just now, um, uh, um, now able to apply for my citizenship. I'm assuming, like I just had another Canadian friend who went through this, I think it took.

[00:29:16] Chair Lisa Matichak: April, it sounds like your time is up, unfortunately. But thank you for your comments. Thank you so much.

[00:29:24] Member Lucas Ramirez: Next, we have Mike, Casper, John.

[00:29:29] Mike Casper Zack: Hi, everybody. Mike Casper Zack. Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce for another month and vice chair of the downtown committee. Um, 1st thing I wanted to do is really support the effort to clarify this issue. Historically, the downtown committee has had business owners on the committee who were not required to live in Mountain View as long as they owned a business or owned a property in the downtown. Um, I don't think the removing qualified elector is sufficient, because if I recall, qualified elector requires residents and that you be a registered voter. Um, and so, it's ambiguous, then, as to whether residency is required. So I would add a carve out, at least for the downtown committee, that, um, as long as they own a business or own a property in the downtown, they can serve on the committee, because I think everyone else does have to be a resident of Mountain View. At least that's always been the presumption. I had a couple of other comments about some of the things the mayor raised, and one of those had to do with the interview process. There was a situation of 15 years ago where an incumbent library board commissioner was unable to be at the interview, and had been told she did not need to be at the interview, but then was told, no, you needed to be there. And so, there's sort of a question, Does somebody you don't know, um, probably should have an interview, but maybe an incumbent seeking reappointment. If they can't make an interview, could be. So I think that needs to be clarified. I would not add requirements of Form 700. Do anybody that isn't already required to be either by city rules or by the state. I can tell you, for one, that I am no longer on any state boards or anything, because I don't want to file form 700, because mine are about 45 pages long. Um, there was an issue about removal from office, uh, that came up during the, um, Pieces of the Berlin Wall discussion, and that got really nasty in this for AB 1234 training. I personally don't do that because I don't get paid. There are no funds for downtown committee, and I don't take the shoreline tickets. And I don't want to spend an extra two hours doing something that I've already done 20 times. So, I'm happy to answer any questions, but I do support, overall, this revision and clarifying, because we do have a member of the downtown committee, who owns a downtown business, and has been told he is uneligible to be on the committee, because he's not a resident of Mountain View, even though he owns a building and a business downtown. Thank you, Mike.

[00:32:44] Chair Lisa Matichak: Are there any other speakers? Yes.

[00:32:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: Malika? Right?

[00:32:51] Jeanette Grunci: Yes, sorry, this is Jeanette Grunci. I dialed in from Malika Jeanette, my partner and wife's office, and Mike could not have said it better. I am that owner who we own this property in downtown. We purchased it last year and 2 are surprised. We were informed that you cannot be part of the downtown committee, so that that seemed a very strange setup which Mountain View has, that you can own it. You are stakeholder in downtown, but you are not a participant in helping or improving or participating or being in any form of discussion in the downtown committee. Well, you can still be a public speaker, but that doesn't help much. So yes, I, I think what Mike Casper's exact. Uh, we should definitely, uh, ensure whatever language we use, that at least for downtown community or anything related to downtown, it's not about the citizens, but also about the property owners of downtown. Um properties. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:34:07] Ms. Thomas: One more, but should we? Uh... Actually, I'd prefer to wait for just a moment until our chair comes back as we need to, rather than.

[00:34:22] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, I have a question. I didn't catch the name of the gentleman who was speaking, that would be...

[00:34:28] Member Lucas Ramirez: So I have his partner's name. He was logged in as his partner and I wasn't able to catch his name either. I was going to go downtown committee. We can do recording. Okay, sure, sure.

[00:34:36] Ms. Thomas: Anyway, appreciate his COVID, so I just would like to know his name. Yeah. Okay. Just a moment, we'll, uh, we'll get to the 3rd speaker in just a moment. Thank you, chair. We got a 3rd seer, and we did just wrap up comments. of gentlemen making comments associated with the downtown committee requirements. So we'll move to speaker number three. Thank you. Speaker number four, Peter Capo. I'm so sorry, speaking of before.

[00:35:13] Peter Katz: Hi, everyone. Peter Katz, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, and Jhené Karashi is the name that you're looking for. He is the co-owner of M Designs. Um, so I only wanted to address the downtown committee and Mike and Janae have actually said a lot of it, but let me just add, that, um, uh, per the strictest interpretation of paragraph 2 item 2, only residents can serve on the committee. And so, we obviously, we strongly support the recommendation to remove this stipulation. If the overriding criterion for appointment is the city's belief that the person be appointed brings skill, integrity, knowledge, interest, and especially an understanding of the basic obligation to evaluate issues in the broad context of public interest, who better to do that? than the folks who are actually on Castro Street and its surrounding blocks. If the purpose of the DETC is to ensure our downtown is vibrant and meets the need of our residents, our local businesses are the downtown and need to have a voice. However, many of the managers, not just the property owners, but the managers are the ones who need a voice as well. And they are not necessarily residents of Mountain View. Thus cannot serve on the committee. Additionally, the downtown business association and the chamber of commerce are both organizations totally committed to the goals and intent of the committee and are primarily responsible for many of the initiatives that make the goals happen. Yet their leaders would also be ineligible. The DTC directly impacts downtown, businesses, and vice versa. It's a symbiotic and collaborative relationship. Having no voice at the table simply makes no sense. So we urge the council to formalize the DTC requirements to allow qualified non-residents to serve. Thank you.

[00:37:06] Chair Lisa Matichak: No additional speakers. Thank you very much to everyone who provided input. We will now return to the committee for deliberation. Um, mayor. Would you like to start us off?

[00:37:19] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, where is that section about the downtown community or about the, um, that was being discussed about the description of, um, It's

[00:37:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: just the...

[00:37:30] Unknown Speaker: Really, that's just the definition for committee?

[00:37:33] Chair Lisa Matichak: Very 1st page. Yeah. Okay.

[00:37:35] Heather: So qualified elector with, you know, we're using the election code definition means, uh, United States citizen, 18 years of age, older, and a resident of the, um, jurisdiction in which they live. So, um, we're reading committee members as not having to be qualified electors as not having to be over 18, not having to be a resident and not having to be.

[00:38:08] Member Pat Showalter: So, in other words, you're saying that. Oh, it's only related to committees, so we need to change the name of the committee, no.

[00:38:17] Heather: No, no, no, downtown committee. Yeah, committee. So that's commissions, yeah. Right. So we're trying to carve out this definition for committee so that you can have more flexibility on members serving, especially that body, and you can think of like youth advisory committee, right? Those are all under eight tickets. So that would benefit from this.

[00:38:40] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, does it have to apply to all the committees that they not be mountain view residents? I know in the past, CDC is, that has been discussed, that there are some, where that feels, um, important, such as the downtown committee and others, where, um, there might be a preference for mountain people, I guess.

[00:39:02] Heather: So what I would remind everyone is the policy is an over kind of framework, and where we further to find things based on the policy would be at the resolution level. So, if you have a committee where you want them to be able to be, um, non-citizens, but you want them to be residents. We can make that further kind of fine tune in the resolution as long as they fall under this category and their name to committee. We have the flexibility to be more restrictive, but the least amount of restriction that we can apply is through the definition of committee in this policy. So, I would just keep that in mind that, um, we can be, we can fine tune what, pieces of this definition we want to apply to specific committees, but this should be the most that you want a committee to be, so that we can. Mayor, if you have any other questions are coming.

[00:40:17] Member Pat Showalter: Well, You know, I think that, that, that theoretically, this does take care of it, of, in the sense that, uh, a down, and it also would include business managers because, um, they would, they could conceivably not be, um, a qualified elector, but, but they could still fall, fall under the, you know, the last paragraph on, um, uh, page two, you know, however, the overriding criteria, paragraph. Um, so, I, you know, I, Perhaps when we take this to the city council for, um, discussion. Well, we could include in the staff report that the reason we did that, in particular relates to, I mean, most often relates to the downtown committee, but could relate to other committees as well. For instance, remember we had, um, Indian resident. who wanted to serve on the VPAC, and she didn't feel comfortable taking the constitutional pledge, and we could... Um, but I mean, she wasn't, she wasn't. She was a resident. She wasn't a physicist, and she didn't particularly want to become a sensitive. Didn't seem to be relevant for serving on big pack. So, I don't know, what do you think? You think we should include the language here? Um,

[00:41:54] Chair Lisa Matichak: so I, I wouldn't maybe clarify an appreciating the city, clerks, suggestion, maybe a sentence, something along the lines of members, maybe non-residents, unless specified in the establishing resolution. That'd be, Acceptable or totally open to suggest suggestions, but that way we were, we're making clear that there are maybe other restrictions imposed at the resolution level, which may not be, um, otherwise, obvious based on this definition. Are

[00:42:36] Member Pat Showalter: we going to have a resolution?

[00:42:41] Heather: Yeah, so, um, part of what will happen after this comes to you is that we can start bringing resolutions back to you that, um, we needed to clean up some of your work. Or in the case of bodies that weren't established by resolution, we need to establish them by resolution. Um, so, uh, yes, here.

[00:43:04] Member Pat Showalter: So that's coming forward.

[00:43:05] Heather: But after this. Okay,

[00:43:08] Member Pat Showalter: so. Okay, so would there be one specifically for downtown committee that included the downtown? So that that's coming. Okay. But this is enough, if somebody wants to apply now, it can. All right, well, Um,

[00:43:26] Unknown Speaker: would it be helpful, um, to include in the definition, the definition of palsytole? Um,

[00:43:36] Chair Lisa Matichak: I don't have strong feelings. I, so maybe that's a good, Would you have any concern about defining qualified elector? Um. No,

[00:43:50] Heather: I mean, I feel like the code is pretty clear, but if the committee wishes to have that extra, you know, at it, that's, Like,

[00:44:04] Unknown Speaker: um, purpose in raising the question is that for people who don't know, you, you gave them clarification that that means U.S. citizen 18 years or older and resident of Mount View. Um, and so saying that that people, um, that there may be members who are not qualified electors. Um, if people don't know what that means, that would define that for them. So the concern that folks have downtown committee, for example, you know, the comment was, um, it's not enough to say. Some

[00:44:35] Chair Lisa Matichak: people may misunderstand or opt out, mistakenly, the impression that they're disqualified. I

[00:44:42] Member Pat Showalter: think that's a good idea. Okay. But we'd add that, um, to the board's definition. Definition, aircraft, a sentence there. Um, yeah, it could just be a third definition. Or it could be right there. Yeah,

[00:44:55] Heather: I wouldn't, I would just include it in the committee's definition.

[00:45:00] Member Pat Showalter: Or the boards or commissions, where it comes up. It must be a qualified elector. That's the 1st time it comes up. Yeah. Oh, actually. Okay, that's good. Um, okay. And, um, we do, you know, I think, I particularly like this, uh, um, the social writing criteria, statement, uh, the, that's, you know, that's kind of the crux of it is, is the, we, we really want people who, you know, bring skill, knowledge, integrity, interest, all that stuff, I guess. Um. Um,

[00:45:50] Chair Lisa Matichak: do you have comments earlier, Mayor, uh, and there were public comments that spoke to this about, uh, the form 700 Absent impediment. Um, Is there any interest in the committee? Um, and the city clerk. Yeah,

[00:46:09] Heather: if I may, again, just reminding the, that this, again, is it, just an overarching framework, and if you read the, the language for the 47, the 5th thing. What's that? Um, so we're at page 5 L. It clearly refers back to the conflict of interest code that's adopted by the council. This section is only applicable to those bodies that are outlined in the conflict of interest code as filers, they have a legal requirement to file based on their position. So it's not just a blanket, applicability of each to all 4 things, where it's mission. If this is going to only apply to those that are, um, outlined in the conflict of interest code, which may, you know, change from time to time based on what audience you have and the role that they. Okay, perfect. Does

[00:47:10] Unknown Speaker: it include the other package? Um... Let me, I can look.

[00:48:05] Chair Lisa Matichak: It is not required to file apartment.

[00:48:08] Member Pat Showalter: All right, no problem then.

[00:48:11] Chair Lisa Matichak: Um, I'm, uh, I'm gonna be very obnoxious and make emotion unless you have any other comments served. Well,

[00:48:17] Member Pat Showalter: I'm just wondering what the rest of our job is here. We have to go through and try remaining, maybe?

[00:48:22] Chair Lisa Matichak: I, so that we, I will provide some direction based on, I think, of the city clerk's suggestion. So if there are, uh, 1st of all, thank you for preparing this. Um, I know this is something that, um, has been, uh, on, uh, in a stack of many other things that you're working on and if, uh, I really appreciate the effort at times, uh, staff is taking to, uh, uh, make sure all of our boards and committees and commissions are in order, greeting, establishing resolutions where they don't exist and modifying, modifying them accordingly. I'm also very grateful, um, that, um, you're helping us achieve our goal of increasing eligibility, uh, and making it easier for folks who, serve our community, live in our community, uh, better able to, um, uh, serve in in this advisory capacity as well. So, uh, my, uh, I'm going, I will move to approve the staff recommendations, uh, with 2 modifications. The 1st is to include a definition of qualified electors, all of that at steps, discretion about how and where. And then to include, again, subject to staff's discretion and any modifications that you would prefer a sentence along the line. So, um, member, under committees, members may be non-residents, unless specified in the establishing resolution of the committee, uh, or something along those lines to help people reading this policy understand that there may be additional restrictions spelled out in, uh, establishing resolutions and if it makes sense to include a reference to where, um, a member of the public is fine, uh, does establishing. And then the other direction that would provide is, uh, to, uh, uh, have staff return, uh, at an appropriate time with, uh, name changes, uh, to, uh, the public safety advisory board, the tennis advisory board, and the human relations commission to request the, uh, the change in the policy that they're contemplating today.

[00:50:33] Heather: That was particularly... Yes. Anything

[00:50:39] Chair Lisa Matichak: I missed, Mary? Well,

[00:50:41] Member Pat Showalter: I, we didn't really discuss it on page five. Oh, I, oh, about the loyalty oath to the, oh, certificates to the Constitution, the state council. That's good. I thought it was the U.S. Constitution. I'm happy. Oh, yeah, no, it's always going to be the same. Yeah. Thank

[00:51:01] Chair Lisa Matichak: you. Um, staff, any questions or concerns about the motion? Is there a second? second? Thank you very much. I will add just very quickly. I do, there isn't a list of the bodies in the policy and maybe there doesn't need to be. Um, but I would like to, at some point better understand or have staff contemplate, uh, where some of these other bodies live, the investment review committee, the design review consultation, which been sort of thrown in my side for a long time. you know, the things to think about how, how they relate to or don't relate to these bodies. We have kind of a hodgepodge here, right? Where we include the tennis advisory, which never interfaces with the council. The council doesn't point. We do appoint the investment review committee members. And so it's curious to me that. have some in one category and not others when they're maybe uh, kind of a, um, misalignment here. So I, there's no direction really, but maybe some help understanding. Think about those additional committees relative to these ones.

[00:52:13] Heather: And if I may, under the purpose, that was, um, on page one. That was one of the reasons why the, why we called out that the policy didn't apply to subcommittees or ad-hoc committees at the city council, um, we had bought in that, so, including the brick editory, which, again, if the, if the council's not making appointments to them, and maybe that's the call out, that if it's not a body, that's the council is applying to, then this policy didn't. Apply to it.

[00:52:48] Chair Lisa Matichak: Which would make sense if we didn't include the tennis advisory. Nice

[00:52:53] Heather: advisory board. Right.

[00:52:55] Chair Lisa Matichak: Well, but we also we've created these other bodies, too.

[00:52:59] Heather: Yeah. So, but I understand what you're saying, but I'm just saying that the purpose, we we tried to make sure that it was clear that subcommittees, ad hoc committees, none of that, so that would include IRC. of that is being contemplated with this policy. Anything else than by the council or created by the council is. That's where this lives in the 1st stage of their birth. That's what this list.

[00:53:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: Would that be amenable to including an attachment or an exhibit with a list of the bodies to the policy? We,

[00:53:39] Heather: we could, um, under kind of, um, springboarding off of what the mayor said about over regulation, not that that's a regulation, but anytime there's a change to that, right? So as long as that, you know, something that you're... I'm not terribly

[00:54:01] Chair Lisa Matichak: wedded to that. I just, I'm, I have been confused by or frustrated by the treatment of bodies, which is not always clear, understandable or equitable. So, um, I'm not including any direction of emotion. Okay, just, maybe in iterative process over time, I could think about, where do these live and how are they regulated? Or

[00:54:22] Ms. Thomas: Heather, perhaps I could link to a live document that is on, is noted as being on updated on an ongoing basis on a website, something like that. Um, that a way, it's tied to something that is living, um, so that if there's a modification, um, it would be available also for the community to have a deeper understanding as well. I'll think. Okay,

[00:54:43] Chair Lisa Matichak: I'll leave that at status discretion. Yeah. Whatever makes the most sense. Um, any final comments or questions, clarifications? There are none, then let's do the roll call.

[00:54:54] Ms. Thomas: Uh, uh, Chair Ramirez? Yes. And a mere show author. Yes. Fantastic.

[00:55:01] Chair Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Okay. And I'm just, I'm sorry, there.

[00:55:05] Member Pat Showalter: I have another question. Go ahead.

[00:55:07] Chair Lisa Matichak: About the side? Well, we're

[00:55:10] Member Pat Showalter: following up from the setup, yes. Uh, you could do it maybe as questions, comments. Um, following up from this item. reopen the item? Will you open the item?

[00:55:23] Chair Lisa Matichak: I want to, yeah. I mean, unrelated to the motion. You're

[00:55:25] Member Pat Showalter: unrelated to the motion. We're having interviews this Friday. And, um, uh, I would like this policy to apply to all the interviewees. I

[00:55:39] Heather: would recommend that because it hasn't come before the council to be adopted. So this is, you're just making a recommendation to them. Well, is there,

[00:55:50] Member Pat Showalter: I mean, for instance, I know in particular, there's one individual who's been serving on the library board, who wants to serve on the, um, Okay, the serving on the visual arts committee, and he wants to serve on something else. And he was told he couldn't interview because he was a city employee. And it just doesn't seem reasonable. The lack of conflict of interest in. Was there previously

[00:56:21] Heather: anything in here that was... So city charter section 900 prohibit city employees from serving on boards and commissions. And so in the same way that we've applied the residency requirement and the citizenship requirement, we've applied the employment requirement to new applicants. Not on problems. So, he couldn't be considered as an Oregonia, but her? For a new body, he's ended his term, and so, um, certainly after the council considers this policy, he adopts it. And

[00:56:59] Member Pat Showalter: when will it come to us? Um, December 17. Oh, I'm

[00:57:05] Heather: sorry. I'm thinking of the appointments are coming on December 7th. Appointments are coming on the 17th. Um, we can certainly try to turn this around for that meeting, but, um, given your holidays. We'll definitely try and get it in for that meeting, but I'm fixing that simple knowing. plans to be held on. Okay. Any

[00:57:34] Unknown Speaker: other questions? Um. Well, I think... Thank

[00:57:44] Chair Lisa Matichak: you very much. I know we're, we're, um, press for time, so I'll try and get through, um, rest of the agenda. So, thank you very much. We will conclude item 5.one. Um, and it's good to know that um, we'll try and get the updated policy to the council. I'm guessing on consent. Um, for the end of the year. Uh, item 5.2 council policy, uh, procedures, agenda, topic, update, that BDCity manager, confirms, present this information live. And

[00:58:12] Ms. Thomas: the chair. This is just an ongoing routine item where we update you on pending items before you, as you can see from your memo, items one and 2 have been dealt with today. You will have 2 items coming before you. One will be virtual, public participation, in meetings and legislative bodies. That will be a discussion only item. You will also have the gatekeeper policy. Coming before CPBC. That is a new item. It has not come before the CPPPC before, and that will be coming at your next meeting, and then we'll provide, as always, a routine update on any agenda topics that are before you for that fiscal year. We do anticipate a meeting will be approximately February or March. It's a complement of the CPPP class, and you can take that into factors, as it relates to schedule. That includes trust.

[00:59:04] Chair Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on item 5.2. Mm-hmm. So...

[00:59:22] Ms. Thomas: It's just a moment.

[00:59:26] Ms. Thomas: I don't have anyone.

[00:59:27] Chair Lisa Matichak: Um, do we know, so I see there are 3 We

[00:59:31] Ms. Thomas: don't know if they're raising their hands. Ah, okay. That's just a... Well, can

[00:59:37] Member Pat Showalter: I interject with a question? Go ahead, Mayor.

[00:59:40] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, the virtual public participation in meetings of legislative bodies. What do you mean discussion only?

[00:59:47] Ms. Thomas: It's discussion only, and Heather will be leading up that item, because she might like to interject and offer guidance on that. But there is already a protocol that the eyes of being read, as you saw the chair do today. regarding those potential concerns associated with the New Mexico. And we'll be bringing that before you because that was the direction from our prior meeting. Heather, I'm not sure, uh, city clerk, if you'd like to add anything to that discussion item. Um...

[01:00:11] Heather: Also, if you have our item... Okay, I was just

[01:00:24] Member Pat Showalter: remem- I was just remembering that some, uh, adventuring board weren't able to do virtual meetings. And that, I thought that was more an equipment issue than anything. And I wonder, are we, are more, there was a desire for, more of them to be able to have hybrid meetings. Is that move forward? It's not related to this. I don't believe it's... Yeah, unfortunately, that's another... Okay, that's fine. Okay,

[01:00:56] Unknown Speaker: Michael. Not one of my... It was not that

[01:00:59] Unknown Speaker: we need to confirm something.

[01:01:00] Chair Lisa Matichak: No, no problem. Another question, I guess, while we wait. Um, so on that same item, uh, uh, in addition to questions about whether, um, Techn- technology, notwithstanding, uh, there is a policy that governs hybrid participation. So, in other words, do we see anywhere the, uh, does, Every body that conducts public meetings. Are they allowed to have a hybrid component unless otherwise, or are they, should they otherwise have hybrid component unless there is some reason why they could not allow for virtual participation? Is that is there is there a regulation somewhere that says that? We

[01:01:49] Heather: don't have a policy, just why the item is coming to discuss. Maybe Audrey can speak more to, you know, the, um, program, or, you know, having all of bodies, because, hybrid, but they separate, they're able. That

[01:02:13] Audrey: certainly is our intention. Um, and, um, I have

[01:02:19] April Webster: in the past, we do have a speaker. Just fantastic.

[01:02:23] Audrey: Um, I have in the past been able to review data on which ones currently do and which ones don't and why. I don't have that in my memory. Um, and, um, you know, directly communicated to the commissions that it is, um, encouraged, um, and and desirable where possible, have, maybe. Mm hmm. And, and that, that's probably what we can just say.

[01:02:54] Chair Lisa Matichak: I mean, the best question would be, is the attempt to develop policy that regulates.

[01:03:01] Audrey: Um, we, we hadn't, we don't have that on our, on our book and, we just can't create that policy. So I don't know if that's what they're wanting to refer and discuss at a future meeting. I'm

[01:03:15] Chair Lisa Matichak: trying to understand the scope of this. this discussion.

[01:03:19] Heather: It's really to give you a forum to have the discussion you're trying to have right now. Okay,

[01:03:24] Chair Lisa Matichak: whether there should be a policy. Which

[01:03:26] Ms. Thomas: we probably don't want to go deep on now, since it's not on the agenda. Well,

[01:03:30] Chair Lisa Matichak: yeah, but understanding what it is that we're talking about. Um, uh, let's go to the public. We have one April Webster. Hi,

[01:03:39] April Webster: thank you. Um, I may have gone things mixed up. I thought, is this a comment on whether on hybrid or not? Uh,

[01:03:46] Chair Lisa Matichak: we're discussing the um, upcoming items on future agenda. So council policy procedures, agenda topics update is the scope of the discussion. Sorry. Um, I

[01:04:00] April Webster: was gonna just comment on the hybrid, but that sounds, like the wrong timing. Thank you so much.

[01:04:06] Chair Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Um, and there were no, no other public members of the public. Um, okay, so, so then I would understand this to me, there, there would be a policy discussion about the gatekeeper issue. There is not a policy discussion about the virtual public participation. That's just an informational update. Committee could decide at that point too. That's helpful to understand. Um, any other questions or comments? Okay. And we will conclude item 5.2 and move to item six, uh, committee, staff, comments, questions, committee reports, the next item committee, staff, comments, questions, committee reports. No action will be taken on this on any questions raised by the CBBC at this time. Do any CPVs? CPBC members or staff have comments or questions. If we've exhausted our questions. Um, so then we will move on to adjournment on this meeting as adjourned at 1134 PM. And

[01:05:05] Member Pat Showalter: I would just like to think of the staff in particular for, you know, a great report.

• ← Previous
• Next →