September 30, 2025 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:04:40] Unknown Speaker: No

[00:04:40] Unknown Speaker: public, I don't know about it. Yes, go ahead, I'm a little bit.

[00:04:44] Member John McAlister: Good morning, everyone. I'll call this meeting of the, um, of the, uh, mental policy procedures committee, uh, the meeting order, it's, uh, 904 AM, and we have, uh, this meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. So anyone wishing to address the committee virtually, may join the meeting, um, via the Zoom link or by DioA in 669-900-9128 and entering the Lebanon, being listed on the agenda. When the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, uh, click the raise hand feature, is it, or dial-star, not on your phone, when the chair calls your name, provide uh, public comment, if you're participating by phone, press star 6 to a meeting yourself. Any emails received by 5 PM yesterday, we're forwarded to the, to the committee. Uh, emails received after 5 PM where it will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for those for the meeting. Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subjective to disrupted race or verbal attacks by unanimous colors during visual public comment. The same amount of useful, we committed to racial, religious and cultural equity injustice, and we strive to create a wealth maintenance, safe and inclusive community for all. It's just in fact, everybody commission, wealth and respectful, and not threatening public comments regarding matters. Over which he advisory body commission is jurisdiction, comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the council code of conduct, and the government code, maybe grounds for immediately terminating his because comment, period. Um, for, uh, the local, it's like all committee members are present as a 9:05 AM. Um, and the 1st item that will do too, was the minus approval for the CPPC meeting minutes back in March 5th, uh, back on March 5th of 2025. Um, I think you've already seen copies. Are there any questions or comments on the minutes? Um... for me Lucas. I don't know. I don't know. I don't see any public comment. Uh, on the minutes, uh, either in person or virtual. So, uh, emotions in order to improve the minutes. Some of, and I'll 2nd that. Um, all in favor, say aye. Oh, shame. You know, although I as well. So, Remember, Ramirez was, I, I'm just, I broke by it and, you know, Bergen Palister, abstains from the minutes, move on to, or communications from the public on non-agenda items, non-agendaized items, this portion of the meeting is reserved, the person's 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. Stay what group is the CPPC from acting on non-agendize items. Would any member of the public like to provide a comment on an item that is not on today's agenda? You don't see anyone in person or virtually. So we'll close our world communications move on to item 5.one council policy A13. This is in regards to, um, council policies and procedures for motions to reconsider for reconsideration. Um, It's like, uh, do we have, uh, assistant city attorney, um, I have, I'll say good. Good

[00:08:07] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: morning, I'm Diana Fazelli, since city attorney. This item is being brought to you this morning. Um, it's specifically section 11 of mental policy A13. Um, motions for reconsideration, and it's been being brought to the CPPC to discuss and provide direction, sorry, amendments to section 11. Um, At council member Clark's request at the April 22nd, 2025 council meeting. Okay. Um. So

[00:08:38] Member John McAlister: I think just as a reminder, um, we had, uh, the council referred this, uh, at the request to the committee, um, and really the goal there was, you know, there, there are pathways for reconsideration, that's sort of, in this standard course of, um, whether it's Robert's rules or, um, or just standard procedure. But what I was hoping to do is just have a discussion around what parameters we might, um, we might put in our policies and procedures to guide future, um, future councils or, if this were to come up again. So, for example, um, right now, you know, anyone can bring anything back for reconsideration within, you know, certain certain parameters. But, um, I think what we talked about, the meeting was maybe adding, adding a few examples or other, uh, other boundaries such as, you know, demonstrating that something significant and changed, you know, or maybe, maybe a situation to change as opposed to someone just simply changing their mind. You have 4 weeks later or whatever it happens to be. Um, So, I I sent, or I thought I sent, uh, some proposed language, but I need to, uh, pull it back up, I guess.

[00:09:59] Unknown Speaker: Share what you're looking for. What was the time frame from the time the original vote was to the time that it was reconsidered?

[00:10:06] Member John McAlister: Does anybody remember? That one was longer than, I think that was longer than the immediate meeting after, maybe because there was a special meeting. I feel like it happened probably. It felt like it was maybe probably a month. So maybe one or 2 regular meetings after. So

[00:10:22] Unknown Speaker: it was not the next regular or generating meeting. No, not that I recall.

[00:10:37] Member John McAlister: Just in the comparison. So for example, um, Let's say that the deadline is, After reconsideration is passed. Um, so you're beyond your, your normal timeline, let's say that you, you, you've passed that timeline. Um, You know, it currently says that it shouldn't be placed on reconsideration within one year. Um, But we could add language and say, for example, unless the facts or circumstances that were relied upon during the prior discussion have particularly changed. Um, And then we can provide some examples. So, for example, if counselor staff has received new information, that had we known at the time, might have impacted others' decisions, or if there were errors in the original media materials, substantially newer updated information, material changes in the state federal. Like, those are, those are things where you, we might provide leave to bring something back after the, you know, after the, the rate, right? So it's just adding some language to bright, some examples. I'm sorry, I just didn't go out before the meeting. Well

[00:11:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: is it possible to display the language you're suggesting? Yes, I can try. Oh, send it to Michael.

[00:12:03] City Attorney Jerry: You can send it to me or you can plug into the HTMI cord behind you. I also love the language.

[00:12:16] Member John McAlister: Oh, yes, what would you like to do? I think they'll send it. Where is it best to send a cheese? Um,

[00:12:36] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: my email, Michael Schultz. I just said one, I just said one. Okay. Yes. Oh,

[00:12:45] Unknown Speaker: thank you, you had it. I didn't have it. Sorry. Oh,

[00:12:51] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: my God, prove I may before I can log into my email. So

[00:13:25] Member John McAlister: if you have a copy of it. Um. It's really focusing on, on section D. So, I think A, B, and C are pretty clear. So, and E and F as well. So it's really just beeping up section D to add a few different, um, Basically saying if we're going to reconsider something after that normal time frame that we have, um, Not big enough. That's it. So is it the highlighted part? Yeah. Um, I didn't redline it. Um, but I, but I think, um, You got stuff in a towel. So, yeah.

[00:14:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: I have some questions. Yeah, sure. Um, I'm, I'm, uh, is there other, is there a presentation? Do we do public family?

[00:14:28] Member John McAlister: Um, but so, uh, Yeah, so it's really focused on section G and just providing some some examples of situations where The council might find it acceptable to review something after the deadlines pass. Okay, and that, because that was the case that we dealt with, it gets aware, it was, there wasn't really a, It wasn't really a reason provided for bringing it back. And I think that's what, I sense people wanting to avoid. But, uh, just, if you have questions about it, we ask questions. Well, it was the most...

[00:15:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm not telling you. No, I did not move to reconsider, but I supported the motion to reconsider. Um, so the, uh, 1st question is, I know that there are some, um, practical limitations or constraints on, the council's ability to tie its own hands. So, if we amended the policy, um, to prohibit, um, I guess, uh, an untimely motion to reconsider, right? So it's different from what is currently stipulated in the policy, you can do it, if you have a council member, uh, and and basically a 2nd, right? Uh, at least one of whom voted on the prevailing side, um, would that policy actually be enforced? Yes. It would be. So a council could say we're not going to allow something to be placed back on an agenda within a year. That that's true across councils too, right? So at the end, uh, an item is dispensed with in, uh, December after an election. A new council comes in, that council doesn't like that, um, consideration. So they're prohibited for a year from reconsidering that. Or

[00:16:22] City Attorney Jerry: they can amend this policy, change the policy, and then bring it back within a year.

[00:16:26] Member John McAlister: I view this as, like all of our other policies and procedures. If there are 4 people who want to do something different, they could do something different. But there are, we we create these standards and and try and say, here's what we want to generally adhere to. And there should be if we're going to go outside these boundaries, like changing the mayor rotation to do something else, which we have the authority to do. There should be a good reason for it. And so what I tried to do here was just suggest some examples of when we might allow an untimely motion to reconsider. So that's something in between. I'm just going to offer it an untimely motion without any real, uh, or, you know, any demonstrable, reason of had the facts change or what's changed, something between what exists today. And not, but also not completely fine with our hands. I,

[00:17:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: I, I understand what you're trying to achieve. Um, and I have some thoughts about it, but before, just to make sure I have all of the facts and understanding, um, So, with this, also, I'm thinking about, after the 2014 election, the previous council had, uh, adopted the North Bay Shore precise plan, didn't allow housing, the newly elected council wanted to amend it. And I think the city administration, the city manager, uh, proactively brought forward, basically kind of a motion to reconsider. Do you want to add housing? The council said yes. Would this prohibit the administration itself from bringing back an item that had been dispensed by a council within a year, or does it only apply in the narrow context of a council recon motion to reconsider? So

[00:18:16] City Attorney Jerry: I will, I'm going to give you a little bit of backdrop, just to let you, so that you want to understand what you can do here. Robert's rules, if you were going with Robert's rules or Rosenberg rules, they don't allow for this. It's untimely if the motion for reconsideration is not made at the meeting. So, You have adopted rules, which you can do that expand on Robert's rules of order and Rosenberg's rules of order, and you are giving way more flexibility and allowing council members to make motions to reconsideration almost at any time right now with support of 2 council members, right? Under this proposed with new facts and circumstances. So you're perfectly well within your right to modify your rules and to modify Robert's rules and Rosenberg rules, but just for clarification to Robert's rules, you wouldn't be allowed to do that. It would be untimely and would not be able to go forward. That does not, I don't think, ever prohibit an entire item from coming back, being brought back. to be, and I guess, reconsidered, but you're almost starting over. So I would say if, say, a resolution was adopted, right? And you wanted to reconsider that resolution that was adopted, You're bringing that back to either amend it, you're bringing it back to repeal and replace it, you're bringing it back to do many things. So sort of, Depends on the action that was initially taken, but I don't think that this, whatever for prevent counsel from, reconsidering an entire item. It just sort of, I can think of many, many items, right, across the spectrum of things that you've done, you might amend an ordinance. But you might want to amend it again. This won't prohibit you from amending that ordinance again, whatever the vote was to amend that ordinance on September 1st meeting, doesn't mean that you're not going to amend it a 2nd time on September 15th because something new has come up or October or November 15th, right? Less than a year later. So, When you ask that question, I think it really depends on what you're talking about in in the situation where this came up, we were talking about study session direction, right? And a change in study session, direction. So I think you should talk as you're talking about this, you should be thinking about the context then, which, You may want to limit motions for reconsideration. Certainly you don't want to limit yourself in being able to amend an ordinance multiple times, it might come up multiple times something new might change. But in providing direction in study session, right? In the context of study session. Staff is going off to do something that council has directed us to do. And and we're working on it to bring back maybe some final document, resolution, ordinance amendment or some new motion that you're going to make. And so, that's where these motion for reconsiderations can be, can, can, potentially create, um, difficulty. Where there is no change in facts and circles. Right? It's just literally a change in mind. But once you give direction and study session and we go off, a stack when we go off and and do what councils directed, and maybe that's bringing back an ordinance worth per potential amendments. You can still change your mind then. Right. The ordinance is now before council. You are looking at the amendments that we've drafted based on the direction provided in study session and you can still not vote for that and change it at that time. Because it's now the actual action that's before council, right? So I don't know if you want to change motions consideration in general, if you want to change them in the context of study sessions. But you're never bound in the context of a study session, because we're always bringing something back to you later. That's gonna require final action. Well,

[00:22:33] Member John McAlister: I can I can give you 2 examples, one that I was on the prevailing side for, one that I wasn't. The North Bay Shore change. That wasn't a motion to reconsider. That was a new council has been seated and they chose to revisit prior decisions. It wasn't a motion to reconsider, um, because you had new council members, people who voted before weren't there anymore. That, to me, is a material change in, in the legislative landscape that would, if you were to do a motion to reconsider in that case, then you would have a valid reason too. But that probably wouldn't be the vehicle that you could use, and it's not the vehicle that was used for the North Bay Shore change. The one that I was on the other side on. Uh, and didn't agree with, but the council moved forward anyway was, um, shaped cannabis. No, it was Canada. Oh, that's right. We had an election. That was the council members were seated. But it wasn't a motion to reconsider. It was a 2nd reading of an ordinance that went down. So the 1st breeding was approved in December, January, February 1st course. Um, so I don't think any, I don't think there have been any major changes where the motion to reconsider has been a vehicle after a council has changed. And so, I'm trying to find this balance between just not allowing untimely emotions to reconsider, which we currently allow them. But also not just, also having, you know, some parameters around it. So that if you're offering an untimely motion to reconsider, one you've talked to the city manager and the city attorney or whomever 1st and two, you're explaining your reasoning at the day. Sorry, you can...

[00:24:15] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Oh, no, no. Thank you, Jerry. So I would just offer this too. There's some things to be said for technically, you know, what the city attorney said, all that is very true. accurate, but there's something to be said for how you make good public policy. And if me and priority managers or even those of you who talk to community members after a vote is taken taken, if I could tell you the number of times of conversations, where people might feel differently or think differently. There would probably be a lot of times. It would be constant where we would be just revisiting policy issues. Um, those are 2 good examples and I think there's other examples. So I think to some extent, the purpose of this is to also think about how the body makes good policy. And you wouldn't want to be in a situation where it's so easy to do and so freely done that it's, it's really constraining staff's ability to, you know, get the work done or a tampering workload. And to your point, if staff spending months doing something and they come back and you can choose to go a different route in that way, but then the clock starts all over again with getting the work done and then we get backed up by, okay, things aren't, aren't possibly being done at time. So I'll just offer that for you that this, to me, seems about getting at how you make good policy and how you kind of give yourself a little bit of parameters as a body, how you want to act. Yes, you can go outside of these policies, as was stated, because all it takes is 4 members. But I mean, these are kind of guardrails for yourselves. So that's the way I look at it.

[00:26:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: I have a lot of thoughts, but I want to hear your thoughts. Okay. Um, Thank you. Uh, so a few things. I think the part of the, part of why I ask is, we may understand what the policy means and is intended to achieve, but the organization will change, right? Or the ship of Theseus. So I want to make sure that whatever policy is in place after we're gone, presuming it doesn't get changed, is understood in the same manner that we're intending. Um, and I, I, it, it is, it was not immediately obvious. And I think it was clarified in the city attorney's remarks that, um, this would not be interpreted by a future status, meaning, oh, wow, the council does not want to reconsider something, even if there is a change in council. for instance, right? Which is the North Bay Shore example. Um, uh, so, so as long as this isn't, if it's very clear that this doesn't preclude staff from coming back to council within a year on a matter dispensed with, then...

[00:27:06] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Are you gonna speak to that, Lucas? Or council member? Lucas is fine. I always, it's like, are we formal or more informal news? So, you asked, you know, if there was something that the city manager or staff would change or the example was done previously. If there was something material by staff or even something that would change the way that council voted, that was brought to either the city attorney or myself, I don't think this would preclude us coming to you or me coming to the body saying, hey, you all took a vote, but there's something, you know, significant that changed or something that we forgot to put in there, like housing or whatever, we need to bring this back to council. I don't see this precluding something that, you know, administratively from, you know, staff or your appointees, for us to be able to say, this is something that council would need to, uh, bring back. And if you feel like it should be written in, maybe it's just making that addition in there, you know, to say that give that, um, ability to the city manager, you know, if something has changed, that the city manager may raise an issue, however we word it, um, but if you're concerned about that, you can put it in.

[00:28:21] Member John McAlister: A shared understanding is helpful. Yeah. Right.

[00:28:24] City Attorney Jerry: Can I step in here? Sorry. I think we're getting too far afield of what emotion reconsideration is versus bringing an item back for further consideration or further amendment or modification. I think, You need to, Emotion for reconsideration is, You're trying, this is really designed to address the finality of vote on any particular item at a given time. And in the event that you want to change it, you need to go through a different process. It's it's intended to not make it easy. To just willy nilly change your mind on one day you voted yes in favor of the ordinance amendments. You slept on it, and 3 days later, you decided you wanted to change your vote, to know, and nothing has changed. You just have a crisis of conscious and you, and you want to change your vote. That is the kind of thing that you don't want happening because that is just, you will never have finality and vote. There is, there's, and and Robert's rules. It's, it's, it's decorum, it's conduct, it's these legislative bodies. You're supposed to have this quorum and conduct you're supposed to be making decisions and people are supposed to rely on decisions as final decisions when you make them and you make the vote. You shouldn't be able to just change your mind in any given day. One day you have a crisis of conscience and you want to do no, and then you sleep on it again and you want to vote yes. And it's it's to stop that kind of flip-flop. This is not intended to stop you from bringing a major item back for, um, like that's a conversation, for instance, with the city manager saying, We need another study session on the biodiversity plan. We voted on this, but this other issue has come up, a constituent in the community raised this particular issue. We didn't even talk about this. We didn't consider, this isn't a crisis of consciousness. This is a major change in what you want to do or some new aspect of that plan. Just bring that plan back again. It doesn't mean that it even undoes what was done. You just bring it back. You bring the plan back again for further consideration. Let's not motion for reconsideration.

[00:30:52] Member John McAlister: The mayor, the vice mayor, In consultation with staff, have agenda setting. that always remains. What we're addressing here is a very specific. We have taken a final vote on something very specific, whether it's a policy, topic, or ordinance or whatever, or residential norm. And someone wants to revisit them in particular. And what I'm trying to say here is, okay, you can do that in a timely manner already. If you're gonna do it, two, three, 4 weeks later, there has to be a good reason. And here are some examples of good reasons. Um, and oh, and by the way, in addition to having a reason you need to tell staff that you're gonna do it. So that no one's surprised.

[00:31:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Hey, I appreciate the discussion. Um, I feel, um, like I'm a lousy communicator. Um, so maybe I'll, I'll put aside the questions and just share what I think. Um, I think the context is important, right? Where, where this has been a problem, to the extent it's a problem. It's been in study sessions where there was not always a shared understanding of what we're doing. Um, this is part of the reason why I hate study sessions. I think a question of definitive direction is ambiguous in the context of a study session where it's not in the context of new business. Um, that's where I, to the extent, there's a problem. I'm not sure I would agree that there's a problem to begin with, but to the extent there's a problem. It's been in the context of study sessions. I want to make sure that while I agree with what you're saying. The, when I'm long gone and dead, a couple of years, right? When there are different people here, they say the same things that you're saying. Right? So there isn't a situation where, For instance, there's a change in council, that new council, you know, let's say council member McAllister gets a lot of friends, right? And you disagree with some of the things that we've done in the past, right? You and your new colleagues. aren't subject to a rigid application of this new rule, a matter acted upon by the body, shall not be placed on the agenda again for consideration within one year. That's already a rule, by the way. Right, right. So, yes. I don't I don't think there's a problem, right? But to the extent there is, a different city attorney, a different city manager, may look at that and say, that's pretty clear cut. It means if you've voted on something or you've dispensed with it, then you shall not consider it again within a year. Right? So I think, you know, I'm not opposed to some tactical modifications to the language. I just want to make sure everyone moving forward has a shared understanding of what the applicability and, you know, what the interpretation of that language, uh, really means. And the last thing is, I think, I have, I have some trouble with, unless facts or circumstances relied upon during the prior decision that material change, but there's, uh, I, that there's, there's a sub, subjectivity in that, right? So one council member may say, I simply didn't understand what I was voting on, right? Which, I don't want to, like, I think that was a material consideration in one of the more recent motions to reconsider. I didn't understand that this would affect, it would have a concrete impact on the sequel analysis and deprive me of the ability to consider different changes in density. Would that pass muster here? and who gets to decide, right? Does the burden fall on staff to determine if the facts or the circumstances have material materially changed, or is that the council, and if it's the council, then how is this different from the current? Current policy. Who gets to decide what a material change is? The council does.

[00:34:50] Member John McAlister: So, the way that this would play out is, let's take the scenario that happened previously, instead of, instead of it. Instead of just making a motion to reconsider. When you're making that, you would have to identify for your colleagues. Why, you know, it fits within our policies and procedures to do this in an untimely manner. And cite one of these. And the council can decide. That sounds like it's within policy and that's, that's an acceptable. Yeah. And that's an acceptable reason. Or not. I think what's, what would be different under something like this, is that you have a few more parameters, you've also given the mayor of ice mayor of staff, a heads up. Like there's just a little bit, it's just, it feels more like a, It's a bigger deal to bring an untimely motion to reconsider under this framework than it would be before, and it's really just making that very clear to whoever's going to make that motion, that they need to have a really good reason for it. In my opinion. I didn't understand what I was voting on is probably, you know, that's happened to me before, but it's never been. You just, you move on. Um. I guess if it were really, really things. Policy question. But you can explain it. All right.

[00:36:23] City Attorney Jerry: Can I add one more piece of information? Don't forget you always have a motion to amend. Just a completely different type of motion that can always be made. So emotion for reconsideration is one method to change something. And typically has very short parameters and time frames around it, and then there's the other process for emotion to amend, which is a little bit more of a complicated process, which again, it's about process. It's about how easy is it to flip the script, right? Um, You, I agree that I think study sessions are the big problem, and the reason why study sessions were the big problem, and I will refresh everyone's recollection because you weren't here. But the study sessions were a problem is because council cannot take final action in study sessions. And motions for reconsideration apply to final action. But you wanted an ability to reconsider study session direction, even though it is not final action. And so we got into this weird place where you're having these study sessions, you're providing directions, staff is going off, complying with the direction that was provided, to bring back the item. The item, again, still coming back for final action, at which time you are free to amend that final action. But you have council members that did not want to do it in that process, which would have been the proper place to amend it. Not a reconsideration sort of in the middle when we're just working off a direction and not final action.

[00:37:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: In that one case, though, I think that this is why I think this is like, this is an extremely rare event, right? In that case, it was de facto, final direction, because the next step was after the sequel process, right? And if that, the direction is final insofar as we provided, like the maximum development capacity to be studied. So after the sequel was done. You can't go back and say, actually, I wanted greater development capacity, greater intensity in this area. So that that's why. You know, I hate study sessions and I hope a future council gets rid of them permanently because I think that's where the problem is. But in that case, what, what, what choice was there other than a motion to reconsider? So,

[00:38:40] City Attorney Jerry: I mean, I understand what you're saying, and I do think that the, the problem and that circumstances was the nature of study sessions. Right. I mean, I hear what you're saying. I, I, you gave direction that was going to result in final action because action was going to be taken prior to that item coming in. A limiting

[00:39:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: action, right? Like the staff was directed to begin the sequel analysis. Anything that's where the council member had some, some questions or confusion. There would not be a chance to revisit this direction on what should the maximum envelope and sequence be. Right. Without spending

[00:39:18] Member John McAlister: another year doing it all. Exactly, right. And

[00:39:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: that would be another $400,000. Yeah, so I think, you know, um, I don't, I'm gonna vote guess just because I'm, um, I'm ending my time on council and nothing matters anymore. But I think this issue has honestly been addressed in the context of the study session. Like, we explicitly added, you know, the procedure for her reconsideration, where there was an ambiguity, and there was a 34 vote, and one member of the council changed their mind, you know, after that 34 vote in a study session, there was ambiguity about what staff should do, knowing that it was going to come back, and there was going to be a different majority at that time, right? But although, yes, because I am persuaded that the council, the staff are not going to see this as limiting their ability to do work. If it's a 3 board vote, which is the only time this really matters, and I'm, you know, part of the minority, doesn't matter what evidence that council member seeking to change their mind provides, I'm an ideological zealot. So I'm going to support their motion to reconsider, right? It doesn't change anything. Um, but a good soldier. I got my vote.

[00:40:32] City Attorney Jerry: I'm sorry. I know, I really want policies to be good and I know I'm stepping on my own foot here and you're voting, yes, but I want you to think of something else. I'm sorry, because I just don't want to be in a place where you're unclear about your policies. I'm not quite sure why the sentence in there about a matter acted upon shall not be placed on the agenda again for consideration within one year. That's not in robbers rules. Right. You could leave. You've got to make facts and you've got to make a showing for reconsideration. And you can scratch that you can't come back within one year. You could make an appropriate motion for reconsideration, however many times you want, as long as you make the showing. Yeah, I, First,

[00:41:20] Member John McAlister: I didn't, I didn't mean for this to be final language. This was just, because we can, we can add things like, you know, we're not gonna preclude a newly seated council or anything, or this is all the things that you've mentioned. This should be fun of the future. To the one year thing. I actually, that that's in the policy today. But we don't adhere to it, Richard. Well, I, And I made a really good fuss when we didn't adhere to it. Because I think, personally, I think good governance. One of the key things about good governance is that you don't turn into Wisconsin and every 2 years, the party, the majority flips, and they just undo each other's work, and you spend 10 years doing an undoing people's work. Well,

[00:42:05] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: and it has an effect on staff. I mean, because then it's I mean, I wouldn't want to work there. Thank you.

[00:42:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: See, that's why, like, that that line is most, because a majority can always change the policy. Right, that line is really only impactful for staff.

[00:42:23] Member John McAlister: No, it's norm setting for the council, it says, just like the mayor of vice mayor of rotation, all that stuff. It is, this is what we have agreed should be the norms. And you can go outside the norms, but you should be very aware that you are, you. You should make sure that in that case, the public knows that you are going outside the norms. Your staff, everyone, knows that there's an aberration occurring.

[00:42:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, so you and I both, actually, the 3 of us voted the same way in the cannabis side. I wasn't really interested in revisiting it either, right? But a majority wanted to. Majority did not care at that.

[00:43:04] Member John McAlister: And I accepted that because the council would change. So that in my mind was a little different. But I think it's generally good practice. Once you've taken a final vote on something, especially if it's truly final, like an ordinance or a resolution, that you're not just gonna go mess with it within 3 or 6 months. And fortunately, that's very rare. Yeah, this organization. Which is why I like I'm drawing. Sorry,

[00:43:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: I didn't interrupt. No, it's okay. And the last point, you know, I, I, I, uh, support personally, the, um, suggestion from the city attorney, I, I think a matter acted upon by the body shall not be placed. So if we clarify that that's intended to apply only for that council's reconsideration of an item, rather than, you know, for staff to share some modifications, either anticipating a change in the council. I mean, that should be the city manager's you know, discretion, right? I'm anticipating that this is going to come up. So I'm going to prepare in a way that makes sense. I don't want that to apply the staff. And I think my, my narrowly focused challenges, I think, a rigid, there's an ambiguity, right? And there could be a certain, you know, a different city manager, a different city attorney can look at that and say, we can't bring it back. It's not within the year, right? Even if that's staff initiated, as opposed to, you know, a motion to reconsider or enough time. Okay. I wasn't being checked. I I don't. I

[00:44:42] Unknown Speaker: think we're making a lot of something out of nothing. First clarity for the city attorney, you keep saying Robert's rules of order. This says Rosenberg. So what is it?

[00:44:54] City Attorney Jerry: combination of Robert's words and Rosenberg's. You can create your own, um, policies and procedures for the conduct of your council meetings. Some cities just use Roberts. Some cities just use roads. Use a combination of both. You've adopted on your own, which you are allowed to do. That's

[00:45:18] Unknown Speaker: real efficient get in. That was a change, by the way, 10 years ago. Oh, really? I think, you know, Let me re-go back when this occurred. When I heard it was, we had to, you know, they were allowed to do it, voted for it. If I had an opportunity. I would have voted no, even though I said we had to do it. I was one at a thing where I changed my mind on a final vote, but I did it that night. I mean, immediately, I contacted the city mayor. Now, I mean, the city manager, and I said, no, I just don't feel. And I had a change of conscience, but it was, it was immediate. And, uh, Some guy held it against me 8 years later. Um, so, this one, I just, I, I was, um, dubious of the person's motive. I really didn't, you know, when I heard what was going on, I felt, this doesn't sound right, and when it came back, that person didn't even vote the way she wanted, you know, to reconsider, she voted the other way. And it came out. So, I like study sessions. I don't want to get rid of them, because it gives staff, some direction gives us input before it comes back, and we're reinventing in the wheel too many times. And so to the city attorney's point, I totally agree that, We need to make it. For staff, they get there's on a track and they got so many ways they're going right now. And we have to respect their time. And if a council member, who has been briefed on something, had the opportunity to talk to people. Can't make up their mind, TS. It's on the council to know their stuff where they get there and ask the simple questions afterwards. So, I see, but you say some, I just see people aren't doing their job and reading the material and taking every opportunity to get brief toss up if they're not aware of it. So, we have too much to be returning, churning things over and over. And, um, I don't particularly, I mean, all this wording, I would have just said, 3 votes or more. And that gave it a better chance if something's going to happen with 2 people, you go, boom. You know, I've been on council so far and was said, well, I'll just vote for it so we can have a discussion and it doesn't go anywhere. I'd say just make it to 3 or 4 votes, or 3 votes, and then you got at least the majority of people, or you got a solid basis for, okay, people are concerned about it. All this other stuff. You know, the way the state legislature is changing their mind and passing stuff on housing, you know, that's the 1st line is, a matter of fact, so, you know, unless new something new happens. Well, the state comes along, changes the law, so then we have to comply with it. So there's a lot of that going on all the time. So, um. Those are my thoughts. I just changed it to three. The prevailing. I mean, I've been doing this for 9 years, you too, Chris. This was the 1st time it ever came up like this. Um, and I thought that, you know, I would, I'd be happy to just leave and see and forget D altogether. And just say, hey, if you can't figure it out within a, you know, the next, within a month, move on. You know, we've learned what's really good about Mountain View Council. We take a vote. Wait, move on. Don't sit there and no belly ache about, oh, well, we should have just, we move on. And with all the things that are on our plates and all the things that are changing. I just say, go to sea, and go from there, and then, you know, if the laws changes, just like the building code, staff came out, say, hey, we got to change this. We gotta jump on it right now. And I've never seen an example where Staff said, hey, something changed, you gotta just update it. So, That's my thought. What was three? You said a C. I didn't. I heard Steve, but... See, it's just, you can't figure it out in a month. Always. Yes.

[00:49:19] City Attorney Jerry: It just says, yes, you have to make the motion at the same meeting or the next regular adjourned meeting and then emotions for reconsideration meeting after that time would be untimely. Oh right. It just cuts it off. It cuts it off. But it doesn't as... Nope. As council member, McAllister says. That does not prevent a motion to amend staff bringing it back because there's been a change in the law or some other major or circumstances. Um, it also still wouldn't prevent a new body. Yeah, seeking to amend a prior decision that was made by by the council, the prior council. You could, you could bring back an entire ordinance. Right? You in January, you've got 3 new members or whatever, and they say, we want to amend. They bring it up under item 8. I want this ordinance to come back and I want to talk about amendment of these provisions. It doesn't stop that. I

[00:50:28] Member John McAlister: mean, that is the other way to do is just simplify all this and say we're just not gonna, you know, unless someone wants to change the rules. We're just not going to allow untimely motions to reconsider. And if you want to reconsider something, you just have to do it through this other process. I think that's okay. So,

[00:50:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: so it would be, like, like, Council member McCall's purpose suggesting, uh, here's the deadline, right? It's, uh, where the matter was for photos, or at the next regular adjourn, regular meeting, so it gives you a very narrow, you know, period of time. And then, after the so D could simply be after the deadline has passed, a motion for reconsideration is considered untimely at the end. No, just why

[00:51:06] Unknown Speaker: does D even have to be there? And motion for it reconsiders me, ladder is untimely, and that's still, it's rare anyway, right? Like if they're angry. Maybe

[00:51:15] Member John McAlister: was D inserted? Some of this is my language, but some of it is organistic. Was it added because of the studies? No. No, this, that was a,

[00:51:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: the study session was a new, um, entirely different section. So I, I, I actually would be comfortable with this, like, like, as much as I want to give people that chance to reconsider if they really need to, there are clearly our complexities, you know, there's consternation, you know, it's politically fraught, and maybe we just emphasize, and and especially in study sessions where I think this is the only place this is going to be actually a problem. You know, here is where, uh, the action is de facto definitive, right? There will not be a chance to provide input on the scope of the EIR or sign it, right? So everyone, and that's like we, sometimes you have to beat council members over the head with that. But if it's, if it's still not clear to you, you know, with it, you've got the narrow time frame, you can say, shoot, I just realized that you told me that was definitive, whatever. But after that point, it's no longer finally, I can't make a commotive. Yeah,

[00:52:25] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: you can talk time in here. So for C, it's that it can also be brought up at the next regular medium, sometimes that's 3 weeks later, sometimes it's 4 weeks later. So it could happen more frequently because D attempts to put teeth on it. I just want to make sure you all...

[00:52:45] Unknown Speaker: They can't come up. Move on. And and the I think the requirement

[00:52:50] Member John McAlister: to work with a city manager. Yeah. I think that's... So maybe, um, Yeah, I mean, the, the additional language is really meant to, Think about untimely motions reconsider, but I'm, I'm personally fine, simplifying it. I didn't. I wasn't quite sure where it came from to begin with, so I was hesitant to just rip it out, but, you know, that makes sense because there are other mechanisms to address things beyond the next regular meeting, whether it's through that matter of getting, getting a couple other colleagues. So maybe we do that, but we also keep in, uh, if you're gonna do this, tell someone. Don't just surprise. Right, or someone that said that. This is not within the scope of

[00:53:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: this beating, but like, I think clarity in the study sessions is important, right? If it's a new business item and you screw it up, that's on you. Yeah, you know? But if we're doing stuff, you know, a series of straw poles, and on one straw pole, you didn't understand or whatever, right? Like, I think I think clarity at the conclusion, like, here is the definitive direction the council is taking. you know, is that really the direction you want to go? If we have study sessions, I disagree. I have heard over the years study sessions are bad and never good. Um, and and in the case that that you brought up, Council member McAllister, I think that's important because under this rule set, you would not have been able to make that decision, right? Regardless of timeliness, right? It wasn't a motion to reconsider, and there's a public policy element in that the public was denied the opportunity. that's another thing. not good

[00:54:21] Unknown Speaker: government. All of a sudden, we're discussing something we did. 6 months later in the county, the public doesn't have a right. Uh, I'd like to just see D disappear, and if you wanted to touch a little thing on C, but that just too much.

[00:54:34] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Oh, the last sentence, maybe, that they had to talk to the city manager. Yeah, add that to

[00:54:39] Unknown Speaker: C and pass it and we recommend it. think that's fine. So make a motion. Okay. Well, not except for the last line.

[00:54:48] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: And then it wouldn't say untimely motion, it would just say prior to offering a motion to reconsider. No, the whole

[00:54:54] Unknown Speaker: thing be going since the last sentence. Right,

[00:54:56] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: but we have to change the last sentence. Okay. Yeah. I

[00:55:00] Member John McAlister: would, I would like to keep, I would like to not remove anything that's there. Sorry. The, I like the one year thing, but that's just me. Um, sorry, I guess the question is, is, you know, we can work with staff to figure out, to capture kind of what we just talked about. It's really just focusing on the mot- commotions we consider should be timely and you should tell someone about it. Right. And I mean, maybe we just don't,

[00:55:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: the deadline, they're, they're untimely. You can't do it. And to have a motion to reconsider, you have to confer with a city management city trade. those are the 2 elements, right? Can

[00:55:42] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: I throw something else out there for you all to just think about? Um, and this, this, this can work where you all are headed. You could also think about putting in parameters on the number of times that someone could do this. Um, because with eliminating this, then it's basically you can change your mind. You can go talk to people after you take a vote. You can go talk to community members. You can even talk to your colleagues, who can come back at a regular meeting and change your mind. And what if you have a colleague now or in the future that does this very frequently, and is still adhering to all the rules, and maybe they have a 2nd vote. But it's a constant kind of website, so I'm thinking from a staff perspective. Do you want to put parameters around it or not? Like no single council member shall change in their mind. You know, in a year, more than 2 times or one time. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there for the possibilities.

[00:56:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here's why I would respectfully disagree. I think, well, keep in mind that any motion to reconsider still requires a majority of the city council, right? So it's not like a one person unilaterally can can shift the organizational work mode, right? I change my mind. Even like I was not even close, right? I was the one vote and a 6 to one vote, my changing my mind means nothing, right? But also a council member who does that, I think, risks losing a lot of credibility, right? So if they're constantly seeking a motion to reconsider. Yeah, I mean, it still has to be voted.

[00:57:14] Member John McAlister: We just say, no, no. The other thing is, you know, if I were that council member, I felt strongly enough about my 3rd time. I'm just gonna go tap someone else on the shoulder and have them offer them. Well, they have to be a member of the prevailing side, right?

[00:57:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, like, like, that's that's the other thing, right? That person, it would be a strange circumstance where that person is constantly on the prevailing side of the votes and always wanting to to... a good point though. I feel like we probably don't.

[00:57:44] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Yeah, and I suppose if it ever got to that point, that's a bigger conversation. That's a that's a retreat kind of conversation. That's a one-on-one conversation that's getting into probably not so good governance. So, but I just wanted to throw it out. Did I make a motion to do 2nd? Yes. So

[00:58:01] City Attorney Jerry: can I clarify the motion? So you're, you're, keeping C, emotion made for reconsideration made later, if long timely needed, it's not in order. It cannot be taken. Okay. So, maybe we need clarity around what untimely means. Untimely motions are not to be considered not allowed. Okay? Yeah, it's,

[00:58:23] Member John McAlister: it's after the, it's whatever's in the, seeing of Rosenberg's rules. It's after the next regular meeting. Right.

[00:58:32] City Attorney Jerry: It's untimely. Okay. And then, um, you're adding the language about conferring with the city manager or city attorney. Okay.

[00:58:45] Member John McAlister: And hopefully they'll do their jobs and talk about it. But I think it does need... I think under current rules, it does need to be sponsored by 2 or more council members, right? Well, at least one of them is one who is, because I don't want to, I don't want to change what we already have there. If you lose, you can't reconsider. Yeah,

[00:59:02] City Attorney Jerry: it says the matter acted upon, um, uh, maybe reconsideration, reconsidered by emotion of the person who voted on the prevailing side, and then B said any member of the body may 2nd the motion, has to be 2nded, and then the rules require majority of council members present to actually carry that motion. That works for me.

[00:59:24] Member John McAlister: Are you okay with that second, sir? Okay. I just want to make sure we don't have any members of the public that are joined. Somebody named Steph. Staff is me.

[00:59:40] Unknown Speaker: Um, Heather has been on, but... That it. Does he have public comment?

[00:59:48] Member John McAlister: She does not. I don't see anyone else in the room. So, um, there's no public comment on this item.

[00:59:54] City Attorney Jerry: Wait, one last question. Sorry, the recommendation said this goes straight to council, or do you want to see the red lines back to you before it goes to council? Sorry, we need direction on that because the, that the memo left that open. You want to see it or do you want it going straight to council with these amendments and red line for the full body to consider on consent?

[01:00:14] Member John McAlister: Do you care if I review it? I trust the chair. Okay. I mean, it would probably end up on consent anyway, and I can pull it and talk to you, like, talking about it. Okay.

[01:00:24] City Attorney Jerry: So with direction to provide it to the chair for review that it aligns with emotion, and then straight to council after that, not back to CBC. So

[01:00:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: if we make the bones in, Can the chair change it? Okay. No, I mean, the

[01:00:40] Member John McAlister: intent is clear and it's recorded. So yes, if I try and mess with it. Well, we'll say, no, it's like, you know, I will smack my hand. And you'll smack my hand.

[01:00:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: We're going down all these little side roads and it describes me nuts. I apologize. needed clarification

[01:00:56] City Attorney Jerry: on that. On

[01:00:58] Member John McAlister: favor? Uh, do you oppose? So that carries unanimously. 5.2, um, PVC agenda topics, okay? Just

[01:01:10] Unknown Speaker: very brief because you just took care of the items today, the one item that was remaining on our agenda so far for this fiscal year. And so right now, there is nothing that is pending, but as items come in, we'll make sure and sure we have danger.

[01:01:23] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: The only item I would say that's possible, and I need to double check on whether this has to cut the seats to compete or the finance committee, and I think it's the finance committee, but, um, we will probably have some updates to the employee home fire systems program. Um, but I think it goes to CFC, but just putting that on your radar. I have never double checked that. Okay,

[01:01:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I got a couple of, because this is where I can add, because last time I started talking, I guess.

[01:01:49] Member John McAlister: Yeah, so we'll move on from 5.2 to item 6, which is... Oh, I have some questions on 5.2. Oh, sorry. Unless...

[01:01:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, go ahead. Do you have questions on the front one too? I'll roll a goal. Um, thank you. I appreciate it. Um, so, um, we have, among our council, work plan or strategic priorities, the council policy slash template updates. It says update city policies, templates, any documents I needed. Um, I was curious whether, um, you know, at the staff level or perhaps staff in coordination with the chair. If this is an opportunity to go through, or allow council policies that are outdated, unenforceable, you know, uh, duplicative to municipal code, and boy, it'd be nice over time, not tomorrow, not next week, but to go through and just have sort of a work plan, like over the next few years, here are the top priority policies or either repeal because they're not for enforceable or clearly irrelevant for cleanup, right? And then maybe to come back. I would say work with the chair, right? And come back with some reasonable work cadence, I guess. But I'd love to get a sense of how staff intends to operationalize that work when I. Question for you. Are those

[01:03:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: that have to go through the charter or things that we can do internally? Council policies and terms? Okay. So

[01:03:11] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: you're saying that if there's council policies, we might see us meeting cleanup. Or

[01:03:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: just for appeal. I've gone through them and I'm like, has anyone touched this since 1986? You know? So there's charge, you know. See, go clean up, and

[01:03:26] Member John McAlister: now we're, you know, this is, we approved it. You guys voted. I know it. I was trying to figure out how you sequenced them because they're going to reference each other, but I get it. I didn't realize that wasn't working. Did you,

[01:03:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: um, this is... Okay, I'm just asking. Okay, there's a couple things that during the election that started, but, sort of, interesting. You can't take a donation one week before the end. But if you have a, a limit of how much you can get it. That law, that rule is not needed. I don't know why you still can't collect money if as long as you're below the. isn't the muni code, not a council policy. I know. That's why I'm saying if it's something can, is this where we discussed, say, we like to bring this forward review. Um, so I would like to see that change because the 1000, you know, why are you putting up, you can't collect money in the last week? You're big on this uh, political thing. Why does it matter if you have a cash limit? If you got up to, you know, if you're still collecting money, you still haven't reached the limit. Why is that one week so important? I'm sure, because

[01:04:40] Member John McAlister: I actually agree with, because I just went through that. a year ago and it was really, I found it to be really dumb. Um, I understood why it was there, but I think it's interesting, but I don't know if this body... Would that be like a city council? That would just be a council item 8. And then who would review it? Would it, is there a body that would, And a council committee that's appropriate for that or maybe not? election related things as the full council. Yeah.

[01:05:08] City Attorney Jerry: Yeah. Okay. Just a full. I think that's a full council item. So

[01:05:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: is it something we could recommend? Or is it just you just present it? Because it, we have to, someone has to bring it for it.

[01:05:20] City Attorney Jerry: I, I, I think it comes up under item 8.

[01:05:24] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: And it adds to the work plan. Or the city attorney, city clerk, and city manager's office, so we have to look at timing for it and what your intent is.

[01:05:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Your intent is to get rid of it.

[01:05:37] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Intent of the time. That's legal life. Why don't we, you and I can talk. Okay.

[01:05:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So we'll have an idea. Okay. And the other one is, um, this is for the ballad measure, and I don't know if it needs to be recommended. The council, um, change their pay and get more money. The charter? Oh, they charter cleanup. Does that come up because if we're going to the ballot measure? This is the time to do it. Uh, there was supposed to be a study session at some point.

[01:06:07] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: so you can raise it. I'd raise it there because, well, 2 things. First, so there'd be there's 2 separate ballot measures that were that are underway now that we're considering. So the revenue measure ad hoc committee will really just be talking about the revenue measure piece. The charter code cleanup, the city attorney's office and city manager's office are working together on that one. Okay, so not for the ad hoc committee. What you're talking about would be the work that the city attorney's office and my office are working on. And I think that would need to come up as an item that you all discuss when we bring the agenda item forward. When

[01:06:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: you say we all, we all are... You as in council,

[01:06:49] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: once staff brings the item to you all to give feedback on and finalize, but I would just say this. The intents for the charter cleanup, for 2026 was supposed to be very simple cleanup items, changing language, referencing genders, things that are antiquated or outdated. It was supposed to be a little simpler. And then the thought was to, the direction from council was to bring another kind of phase 2 in 2028. Which had a little more, um, probably teeth on the charter. So, bringing a pay increase is probably, I mean, you can do it, but it's probably a little more than a simple cleanup than what we had intended. So just think about it. I would say, just think about that. You can bring it up. You can add it, but it's going to change the, um, It's going to change the simplicity of the 2026 measure. So, yeah. Those

[01:07:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 3 things. So what we have to talk about that. I was talking about the baby. There was something else that we went with the election that we went through that goes, that didn't seem like since. The

[01:08:02] Member John McAlister: finance committee is gonna review the travel stuff, because that got frozen during COVID and everything. So I don't know if that was it, the 3rd one, but... Uh, No, that's all like, those are simple ones. Sure What

[01:08:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: else did we want to change? Well, how about dinner on every meal?

[01:08:28] Member John McAlister: We can do that, simple, strawbell, just. Okay, so we've, did you need directions?

[01:08:34] Unknown Speaker: I was going to just respond, and I could please committee member, council member, um, to your comment about the council work plan item. We are underway on a preliminary action plan for that item, and it will be worked on over the next 2 years, and you're right. Staff is looking forward strategically at how many, you know, years it will take us to update the various policies. But what we've done is we've begun cataloguing all of that, we also have a similar initiative underway, which is looking at all the contracts. Our city attorney's office is ensuring that those are updated and we have a contract work group. There's also working through, you know, some refinements to existing policy there. So we will have a work plan associated with that little subplan, and we are definitely making that a focus over the next 2 years. Is

[01:09:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: that something that could be shared at least with the chair of the CPBC?

[01:09:23] Unknown Speaker: Sure, as we as we develop that, maybe for one of our next meetings, we usually will meet, um, in the spring or we give you an off agenda off agenda medal?

[01:09:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Either way, I mean, as in the next version of this, like yours, because like this, this is usually, like this is literally the meeting that we had today, right? There's got a lot of foresight into what we're going to do. So perhaps that work plan, you know, could be incorporated into the agenda topics, update moving forward, just so we have some planet side on it. You know, what are we going to be doing or what we ever made again? You know? So when you get reelected, they'll

[01:09:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: have that available for you to take care of. I am turned out. I said, when you get reelected. I'm ineligible for reelection. Oh, no, you're not. Two years, but hey, don't ever say never. don't think I'm going to like that one.

[01:10:10] Member John McAlister: There's still no members of the public, I think, amount of 5.2, so we'll close that and move on to item 6. Are there any committed step on this question? Oh, I think we covered most everything just in last. Okay, uh, still no public on item 6, so we'll close that, and we will adjourn the meeting at 1010 AM. Thank you, everyone. Anyways. Thank you. 20

[01:10:37] Unknown Speaker: minutes.

• ← Previous
• Next →