►
From YouTube: Special Charter Commission Meeting July 9, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
E
F
C
E
G
C
E
G
E
B
E
D
E
E
E
A
D
C
Ask
unanimous
fear
on
to
item
to
point
to
our
main
business
for
this
evening,
discussion
on
unfinished
business
related
to
rank
choice.
Voting
if
I
could
ask
Melissa
Manderscheid
to
provide
some
background
on
where
we're
at
today,
some
of
the
history
of
what
happened
at
the
last
meeting
or
starting
with
sort
of
the
council
real
briefly
at
what
they
sent
to
us
where
we
ended
up
at
the
end.
The
last
meeting,
with
some
of
our
options
are
this
evening.
G
All
right,
chair
and
members,
if
you,
if
you're,
not
speaking
right
now,
if
we
could
mute
the
lines
that
way,
people
might
be
able
to
hear
me
a
little
bit
better.
I
will
try
to
be
brief
and
succinct.
I
think
that
for
those
of
you
that
were
unable
to
attend
our
last
meeting,
I
want
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background.
G
There
was
a
public
hearing
on
May
18th
before
the
City
Council
to
act
on
an
ordinance
that
was
calling
for
a
ballot
question
to
amend
the
city
charter
to
adopt
rank-choice
voting
for
municipal
elections
in
Bloomington.
This
public
hearing
occurred
on
May
18th
in
the
City
Council
thereafter
unanimously
adopted
that
ordinance
pursuant
to
state
law.
That
ordinance
was
then
sent
to
the
Charter
Commission
for
a
60-day
peer
review
period.
We
are
now
currently
in
that
review
period.
This
day,
60
of
that
period
is
July,
17
2020.
G
The
ordinance
that
was
sent
again
is
to
place
it
on
the
ballot
in
November.
The
Charter
Commission
first
met
on
June
11th
to
consider
that
ordinance
that
was
sent
to
it
from
the
count
City
Council
and
a
public
hearing
was
held.
Approximately
30
people
participated
in
that
public
hearing
15
of
the
15
Charter
Commission
members
on
this
body.
10
were
present.
There
was
a
motion
to
adopt
the
proposed
amendment
that
was
sent
from
the
to
adopt
the
ordinance
that
was
sent
from
the
City
Council
and
that
received
a
second
and
it
was
voted
on.
G
G
There
was
an
effort
on
my
part
to
get
the
chairs
attention
and
the
chair
thereafter
sought
to
reopen
the
adjourn
meeting
for
the
limited
purpose
of
receiving
a
bit
of
additional
information
about
next
steps.
I
wanted
to
make
you
all
aware
of
the
timing
and
other
considerations
available
at
that
time,
so
that
we
would
know
about
what
to
do
next,
given
that
nothing
had
been
approved
during
that
June
11th
meeting,
there
was
a
very
limited
exception
in
the
rules
of
procedure.
G
Excuse
me,
rather
of
Robert's
Rules
that
allow
for
the
reopening
of
an
adjournment
for
that
very
limited
purpose
of
receiving
additional
information
that
wasn't
able
to
be
communicated
during
the
German
process.
However,
after
that
there
was
some
additional
discussion
and
there
were
two
additional
votes.
Those
votes
were
technically
out
of
under
Robert's
Rules
of
Order,
which
are
the
rules
that
our
body
has
adopted.
G
Although
those
votes
occurred,
they
were
also
the
first
one
was
a
five
five
vote
and
therefore
it
would
not
have
passed
either
I
mean,
and
so
it
being
technically
out
of
order
was
essentially
a
technicality
because
it
didn't
have
any
impact
anyway,
but
it's
as
if
it
never
occurred
for
our
purposes
tonight
and
then
the
second
one
was
a
direction
to
staff
to
set
another
meeting
that
two
did
did
not
technically
occur.
It
was
out
of
order,
but
it
did
receive
a
majority.
G
So
moving
ahead
to
my
recent
times
several
days
ago,
the
chair
contacted
me
and
asked
that
we
set
a
meeting
for
tonight,
the
that
was
that
was
done.
The
materials
that
you
have
before
you
reflect
the
contents,
largely
repeat
the
contents
of
that
earlier
meeting
packet
materials,
with
the
exception
of
a
few
updates
that
I
wanted
to
just
make
you
aware
of.
G
Given
the
passage
of
time,
it
was
relevant
for
me
to
include
the
the
clock
in
that
the
state
law
has
that
60-day
review
period
and
that
ends
on
July
17th
and
before
that
review
period
of
60
days
ends
the
Charter
Commission.
If
it
wants
to,
can
ask
for
an
additional
90
days,
it's
important
to
let
you
know
that,
given
the
fact
that
that
would
need
to
occur
tonight,
because
our
rules
of
procedure
require
a
10-day
notice
before
a
meeting,
so
we
would
be
unable
to
meet
that
notice
requirement
should.
G
Should
there
be
a
desire
to
call
a
subsequent
meeting
after
tonight,
we
wouldn't
we
wouldn't
make
it
within
that
day,
60
time
period.
With
regard
to
what
happens,
if
the
Charter
Commission
doesn't
act
tonight,
the
once
the
60-day
period
has
ended,
the
City
Council
can
move
forward.
The
role
of
the
Charter
Commission
in
this
process
is
advisory,
as
you
recall,
from
the
materials
as
well
as
from
future
past
presentations.
G
On
my
from
me,
the
the
Charter
Commission
has
this
60-day
review
period,
and
during
this
review
period
it
can
either
approve
the
council's
ordinance
I'm
jacked,
the
council's,
or
it
can
offer
substitute
a
substitute
amendment.
Those
are
its.
Those
are
its
choices
and,
in
the
absence
of
doing
any
of
those
things
or
of
asking
for
an
additional
90-day
review
period,
the
City
Council
can
continue
forward.
The
next
step
in
that
process
is
that
the
City
Council
would
consider
ballot
a
ballot
question
language
and
that
would
come
in
the
form
of
a
resolution.
G
That
resolution
needs
to
be
acted
on
within
a
certain
time
period
in
order
to
send
it
to
the
county
prior
to
August
21st,
so
that
it
can
and
have
enough
time
to
prepare
the
ballot.
The
county
prefers
to
get
the
language
sooner
than
that
and
prefers
to
get
it
at
least
a
week
in
advance.
It's
our
preference
that
it
gets
it
a
little
bit
sooner
as
well
in
case
there's
any
any
problems
with
the
language
or
any
concerns
that
we
can
have
time
to
work
that
out.
G
So
the
last
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
City
Council
to
act
on
that
ballot,
language
is
August
3rd
or
where
the
City
Council
is
meeting
several
more
times
in
August
or
other,
not
regular
business
meetings.
It
could
as
well
call
a
special
meeting
if
it
would
desire
to
take
on
that
ballot.
Language
later
then,
August
3rd.
G
G
The
Charter
Commission
was
able
to
ask
questions
at
that
earlier
meeting
in
June
and
then
again
we
connect
through
the
public
hearing
and,
and
then
that
brings
us
to
today.
So
what
I
have
in
your
packet
for
your
consideration
tonight
is,
is
essentially
what
you
had
in
the
packet,
an
11th
meeting
with
the
addition
of
one
more
resolution,
and
that
is
a
resolution
extending
the
review
period
for
an
additional
90
days.
G
State
law
requires
that
that
action
be
done
by
resolution,
and
so
in
order
for
me
to
make
that
that
option
available
to
you
within
the
given
time
period,
I
needed
to
prepare
something
and
put
it
in
the
packet
for
your
consideration
tonight.
If
you
wanted
it,
there's
no
requirement,
obviously,
for
you
to
to
take
action
on
it,
but
I
wanted
to
make
it
available
for
you,
given
that
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
put
together
a
resolution
and
get
it
in
front
of
you
at
the
same
time
as
during
the
meeting.
G
B
B
C
This
meeting
is
not
going
to
be
a
public
hearing,
however,
we
did
receive
a
number
of
communications
from
residents
and
I
would
just
add
for
the
public
that's
listening
and
for
commissioners
as
well
that
if
the
communication
was
sent
or
copied
to
the
council
secretary,
then
we
have
all
received
a
copy
of
those
communications.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
known
for
the
record.
At
this
point,
any
questions
I
would
go
to
Jack
the
logo
Commissioner
below
got.
H
G
C
It
it
was
my
understanding
that
we
had
positive
actions
to
take
that
is
and
I
realize.
There's
some
disagreement
on
this
to
either
approve,
reject
or
add
substitute,
provide
a
substitute
amendment
to
the
council
and
with
my
feeling
that,
due
to
the
early
adjournment
and
questions
about
the
tie,
votes
and
what
event
that
it
was
important
that
we
I
believe
complete
the
business
and
either
have
a
formal
rejection
of
or
rejection
approval
or
substitute
language
or
request
the
communal
continuation,
as
we
could
have
done
on
the
11th.
H
H
G
F
F
F
If
we
do
nothing,
the
item
goes
back
to
the
City
Council
and
it
can
adopt
and
pollution
in
the
back.
Okay.
We
have
yet
to
act
on
to
make
any
of
those
decisions.
It's
not
a
promotion,
but
we've
made
have
passed
yet
so
with
respect
to
any
of
those
choices,
we
haven't
chosen
any
of
them.
So
if
we
chose
today,
for
example,
let's
say
somebody
moved
to
a
during
the
meeting
right
now
and
we
adjourned
and
we
didn't
meet
again
before
that
date.
F
The
result
of
that
is,
it
would
go
back
to
the
council
and
they
will
be
able
to
adapt
a
resolution
and
put
it
on
the
ballot.
So
I
think
and
I
agree
with
the
chairs
decision
to
call
this
meeting,
because
I
would
rather
have
this
group
make
an
affirmative
decision
one
way
or
the
other
as
opposed
to
the.
G
Chair
and
members,
the
role
of
the
Charter
Commission
in
a
particular
process
that
we're
a
part
of
right
now
is
advisory.
The
Charter
Commission
can
can
do,
can
do
none
of
those
and
do
not
take
none
of
those
actions.
It
can
simply
remain
silent
and
not
pass
anything
forward
to
the
City
Council
or
it
can,
and
at
this
point
it
has
not
passed
anything
forward
any
in
taking
any
actions
that
I
would
carry
forward
to
the
Charter.
G
C
G
If
this
meeting
had
not
occurred
yet
tonight,
you
know
that
this
meeting
never
occurred.
I
would
have
communicated
to
the
City
Council.
That
vote
was
taken,
did
that
what's
not
passed
and
the
Charter
Commission
did
not
take
any
did
not
approve,
reject
or
offer
any
substitute
amendments
during
the
16
a
review
period.
Thank.
E
E
First
ran
into
this
when
we
had
this
joint
meeting
with
Council
and
the
Charter
Commission
and
and
I
was
impressed
with
it,
but
I
I
thought.
Maybe
there
there
has
to
be
something
wrong
with
it
and
I
didn't
considerable
inquiry
and
I
I
really
don't
find
much
in
the
way
of
opposition
claims
that
really
hold
any
water,
and
so
I
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
the
Charter
Commission
to
take
action,
and
my
understanding
is
that
we
can
renew
the
previous
motion
from
the
previous
meeting
and,
if
that's
that's,
I
would
move
renewal.
C
C
C
F
C
E
A
Is
my
understanding
that
if
we
had,
if
we
had
a
tada
vote,
five
five
vote
at
that
meeting
that
effectively
was
really
a
no
vote
that
should
have
been
carried
to
the
council,
and
it
seems
to
me
that,
based
upon
the
assumption
that
we
were
going
to
have
a
meeting
tonight,
that
was
not
done.
Am
I
correct
in
that
assumption.
E
Clarification
of
how
he
or
any
of
last
meeting
motions
were
to
be
if
they
were
to
be
reintroduced,
called
in
to
be
introduced
to
be
in
the
proper
manner.
Are
we
at
this
point
now
that
we
have
reintroduced
a
motion,
the
one
and
only
real
motion
and
vote
from
the
last
meeting?
Has
this
been
reintroduced
in
the
proper
manner.
G
Chair
and
members
Robert's
route,
all
for
the
renewal
of
our
previous
motion
when
that
motion
was
made
and
in
disposed
of
without
being
adopted,
and
that
is,
in
my
opinion,
what
occurred
and
during
that
June
11th
meeting
a
motion
was
made.
It
was
seconded,
but
it
was
never
adopted.
So
Roberts
allows
for
on
the
renewal
of
a
previously
unadopted
motion
at
a
subsequent
meeting,
and
so
yes,
it
is
proper
to.
It-
is
procedurally
proper
to
renew
a
motion
at
this
meeting.
C
E
D
C
H
G
A
Just
this
is
Jay
Taylor
again,
I
I
still
go
back
to
the
question.
If
we
have
a
Phi
Phi
vote
and
according
to
my
understanding,
Robert
rules
is
that
that
is
a
no
vote
and
so
I
guess.
My
question
is:
why
are
we
going
back
to
something
that
we've
already
voted
no
on
and
that's
the
question
I
guess
I
have
and
I
know.
This
is
a
contention
among
some
of
the
commission
members
whether
it
was
a
no
vote
or
whether
it
was
just
the
non
vote
and
I
think
it
was
a
vote.
H
H
E
B
Mr.
chair,
that
was
my
same
comment
that
has
been
reiterated
that
we
did
have
a
vote.
It
didn't
it
failed,
but
that's
bright
forward
to
the
council.
Why
are
we
reopening
something
again,
I
think
we
are
opening
ourselves
up
because
it
speaks
to
potentially
the
case
of
okay.
The
Charter
Commission
is
looking
at
it
again
until
we
get
the
positive
votes
to
go
through
and
I.
B
Don't
know
that
that's
the
intent
either,
but
it
just
it's
just
unclear
why
we
had
a
vote,
why
it
wasn't
communicated
and
and
then
the
added
question
to
or
just
a
comment.
We
did
open
the
hearing.
But
why
wasn't
that
made
abundantly
clear
that
that
was
not
the
correct
way
to
do
that?
That
I
think
is
getting
a
host
in
here
too.
C
Commissioner
hunt
I
believe
it
was
in
retrospect
when
we
realized
that
we
had
adjourned
the
meeting
without
taking
affirmative
action
or
looking
at
our
other
options
reopened.
The
meeting
I
think
it
was
more
in
retrospect
that
it
was
determined
that
the
action
we
took
after
that
point
was
was
not
appropriate
again.
I
want
to
continue
the
discussion.
I
know
you
brought
up
some
important
issues.
I
just
want
to
keep
going
around,
make
sure
and
see.
If
some
additional
comments
can
add
some
clarification
to
this
and
I
believe,
commissioner
Peterson,
you
had
your
hand
up
earlier.
F
Yeah
so
and
I
could
I
could
understand
how
the
situation
at
the
last
meeting
would
be
confusing
and
I.
Think
it's
important
to
note,
though,
that
at
the
point
that
we
were
considering
the
motion
to
approve
it,
the
first
motion
that
we
voted
on
we
were
there
were
five
different
choices
that
we
could
make.
At
that
point,
we
could
prove
a
resolution
that
approved
of
the
language.
We
could
reject
the
language,
which
is
choice,
number
two
choice:
number
three:
we
could
offer
substitute
language
choice
number
four.
F
We
could
have
voted
at
any
meeting
to
have
an
extension
or
choice.
Number
five
is
we
could
have
been
without
taking
any
action
and
that
would
send
it
back
to
the
City
Council
okay.
So
those
were
the
five
choices
that
we
that
we
had
to
make
at
the
meeting,
and
the
motion
was
when
the
motion
that
we
were
making
was
whether
we
were
going
to
select
one
of
those
choices
of
the
five
choices,
and
the
answer
was
no
we're
not
going
to
pick
one
of
those
five
choices.
F
It
didn't
consider
the
other
four
choices
that
we
had
so
because
the
the
motion
didn't
receive
a
majority.
We
didn't
pick
the
choice
of
approving
it,
but
it
was
not.
We
were
silent
about
the
four
other
choices
that
we
had
at
the
meeting,
and
so
that's
I
think
to
Commissioner
teamers
question:
that's
why?
Because
here's!
The
thing
is
that,
if
based
on
the
attorneys
opinion
here,
if
we
leave
this
meeting
and
don't
make
a
decision
and
and
it's
like
anything
else-
it
goes
back
to
the
council
and
they
can
go
put
it
on
the
pin.
F
Okay,
that's
what
happens
right
now,
if
we
don't
take
an
action
and
I
think
in
the
in
the
good
sense
of
the
chair
and
looking
at
effectiveness
that
that's
not
a
desirable
outcome
for
this
to
take
I
think
it
would
be
better
for
us
to
affirmatively
either
vote
in
the
affirmative
that
we're
going
to
do
it.
Vote
in
the
affirmative
that
we're
not
going
to
do
it
or
pick
from
one
of
the
other
kind
of
two
options.
F
We're
actually
making
a
decision
personally
I
would
I
would
think
it
would
be
a
bad
thing
if
we
adjourn
the
meeting
and
Senate
connect
that
way,
but
you
can't
have
a
failed
motion
in
a
situation
like
that.
Would
there's
several
choices,
kind
of
make
a
decision
like
that.
That's
not
the
way
it
works
and.
E
E
C
G
G
C
G
It's
that
the
Charter
Commission
can
approve
or
reject
the
proposed
amendment
or
suggest
a
substitute
amendment.
They
could
reject
the
proposed
amendment
or
suggest
a
substitute.
You
know
there's
a
message
that
you
would
like
me
to
carry
forward.
I
can't
do
that.
I
don't
have
any
particular
amended
language
in
front
of
me
tonight
to
offer
up
or
any
direction
to
have
prepared
something
like
that.
E
C
C
C
Melissa
Manderscheid
again
I'm,
not
sure
it
was
clear
on
the
last
question.
So
is
this
the
only
act
we
can
take
or
and
I
realize
there
may
not
know
on
the
floor
and
interest,
but
this
was
to
reject
and
that
precludes
us
from
voting
on
an
extension
or
anything
else.
Correct
I
mean
this
was
a
decisive
action.
Or
can
we
take
a
reject
and
see
if
there's
an
interest
in,
in
other
words,
I'm,
not
making
any
assumptions
about
the
individuals
and
and
the
rejection?
But
is
it
because
there's
a
concern
about
time,
commissioner
hunt.
B
C
G
Cheering
members,
this
statute
isn't
particularly
clear
on
that
point.
It
indicates
period
and
then
you
can
ask
for
an
additional
90-day
review
period
and
then
the
statute
says
after
reviewing
the
proposed
amendment,
then
you
know
approve,
reject
or
suggest
substitute.
So,
though,
you've
certainly
done
one
of
the
three
options
that
you
have
available
to
you.