►
From YouTube: Council Listening Session January 9, 2023
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).
A
All
right
I
will
call
to
order
our
listening
session
tonight
Monday.
What
is
it
Monday,
January,
January,
9th
Sally
I
think
you're
the
only
person
to
call
ahead
of
time
so.
B
Okay
at
the
last
list,
at
the
last
meeting
interesting
session,
I
again
mentioned
previously
speaking
about
my
concern
with
the
inaccurate
description
of
the
rope
that
was
tied
into
an
overhand
loop
knot
and
being
reported
as
a
crude
noose
that
implies
guilt.
I
then
spoke
about
my
concerns
with
the
inaccuracy
of
the
city
and
school
joint
statement
in
2017.
B
The
accurate
testimony
that
was
provided.
I
asked
the
council
to
address
the
concern
of
the
city
reports
that
assume
guilt
and
not
affording
the
right
of
innocent
until
could
be
guilty
after
I
spoke.
The
mayor
commented
about
how
they
feel
last
listening
session.
I
asked
the
mayor
to
explain
how
they
feel
justifies
an
accurate
reporting
and
specifically
an
accurate
reporting
that
assumes
guilt.
Unfortunately,
time
ran
out
so
I
am
again
asking
tonight
for
the
mayor
to
explain
how
they
feel
justifies
an
accurate
reporting
and
specifically
inaccurate
reporting
that
assumes
guilt.
A
Sally,
this
is
pretty
straightforward
and
I
think
you
know
it
and
understand
it.
If
I
call
you
a
name
and
everybody
else
here
is
fine
with
it,
but
you
feel
bad.
Was
it
correct
that
I
called
you
a
name
in
your
in
your?
In
your
view,
if
I
insulted
you,
but
everybody
else
was
cool
with
what
I
said,
but
you
felt
insulted.
A
So
if,
if,
if
a
firefighter
felt
threatened
by
something
in
their
locker,
if
a
firefighter
felt
it
was
an
inappropriate
thing
or
they
felt
threatened,
that
firefighter
was
correct.
That
wasn't
an
inaccurate
statement.
That
was
an
accurate
statement
on
the
on
behalf
of
that
firefighter.
If,
if
people
were
uncomfortable
for
what,
if
they're
uncomfortable
for
whatever
reason,
people
own
their
own
feelings-
and
you
don't
get
to
decide
what
they
are,
nobody
gets
to
decide
to
say.
Well,
it's
not
that
big
a
deal.
B
And
at
no
time
again,
I've
repeated
it
several
times.
I
do
not
object
to
the
investigation
at
all.
There
is
no
objection
to
the
investigation.
The
objection
is
to
the
reporting
and
I'll
give
you
an
example:
I
walk
by
a
table
and
I
see,
there's
a
rope
on
the
floor
and
natural
habit
for
me
would
be
to
pick
that
up
and
tie
it
into
an
overhand
loop
knot
and
set
it
on
the
table.
A
rope
I
would
condense
it
picking
up
toys
I'm,
you
know
it's.
B
Just
a
natural
habit
and
I
sat
on
the
table
and
I
walk
away,
and
then
a
person
on
that
table
reports
that
as
a
crude
noose,
so
he
can
feel
this
way
or
she,
the
person,
can
feel
that
way.
I
have
no
objection
to
the
person
feeling
that
way.
I
have
an
objection
to
the
report,
it
it
going
in
the
paper
and
it
reporting
it
as
a
crude
noose.
Because
now
my
livelihood
is
affected.
B
Then
you
say
that
firefighter
described
it
as
a
crude
noose
and
he
felt
it
was
a
crude
news
and
he
has
every
right
to
feel
that
it's
when
it
gets
into
the
newspaper
it
needs
to
be
corrected.
It
should
have
said
or
when
the
when
the
city
decides
to
put
out
a
report,
the
report
should
accurately
describe
the
knot
as
an
overhand
loop
knot.
B
It
should
be
accurately
described
because
without
describing
it
accurately
sure
this
guy
felt
like
that,
the
guy
at
the
table
or
the
person,
whoever
it
was
felt
that
crude
news
had
been
dropped
off
when
it
was
a
simple
overhand
Loop,
not
my
livelihood
is
affected
because
now
it's
the
city's
reporting
this
as
a
crude
news,
one.
It's
like
no
I
just
picked
up
a
rope
and
tied
it
and
walked
away.
I
thought
I
was
doing
something
good
I
thought
it
was
picking
up.
B
I
was
doing
what
is
normal
and
natural,
and
now
the
city's
describing
it
as
something
like
racist
and
it
had
nothing
to
do
with
that.
It
had
to
do
with
finding
a
rope
on
the
ground
tying
it
and
putting
on
the
table.
That
does
not
discount
the
person
sitting
at
the
table.
It
accurately
describes
what
was
what
was
tied.
It
doesn't
negatively
impact
me
for
the
Rope
to
be
described
accurately.
It
shouldn't
negatively
impact
the
person
at
the
table
for
it
to
be
described
accurately.
B
A
No
Sally
and
okay,
so
you've
said
this
a
few
times.
I
think
we've
addressed
this
at
least
two
or
three
times.
What
we
have
here
is
a
difference
of
opinion.
You
thought
it
was
an
inaccurate
description.
The
city
thought
it
was
an
accurate
description,
duly
noted,
asked
and
answered.
You
thought
it
was
an
accurate,
inaccurate
description.
What
we
put
up,
we
thought
was
accurate
and
that's
where
I
mean
we're
not
going
to
go
back
and
change
the
past.
That
is
what
we
thought,
and
that
is
what
we
moved
forward
with.
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
We
did
see
a
picture
of
the
rope
and
you
saw
it
before
a
statement
went
out.
Yeah,
okay,
okay
and.
B
And
he
can
he
can
identify
that
way.
For
instance,
if
a
witness
saw
a
crime
and
they
thought
thought
hypotheticals.
A
I
asked
you
a
question
how
it
would
fit,
but
I
I'm,
just
I
mean
what
actually
happened
right
and
what
actually
happened
and
I
described
it
countless
times
now
that
is
what
happened.
You
have
your
interpretation
of
it,
the
city
in
an
entirely
different
interpretation
of
it,
and
we
were
supporting
a
firefighter.
It's
been
asked
and
answered,
and
it
was
three
years
ago
Sally
we're
moving
on.
B
That's
the
problem
is
I,
see
the
city
supporting
the
firefighter,
but
not
the
firemen.
It's
like
you
don't
need
to
support.
I
mean
you
support
both
of
them
with
accurate
information.
You
don't
say
the
firemen
was
bad,
you
don't
say
the
the
individual.
Firemen
is
bad,
you
don't
say
the
firehouse
is
bad.
You
report
What
was
seen
and
it's
investigated
and
you
leave
out
all
of
the
assumptions
and
I
have.
A
B
A
C
If
firemen
were
coming
forward
right
now,
complaining
about
this
and
concerned
about
this
I
would
take
it.
I
would
want
to
hear
their
perspective
and
hear
their
concerns.
You
are
not
a
firefighter,
so
you
and
you
have
not
been
accused
of
anything
and
the
residents
of
Bloomington
have
not
been
accused
of
anything.
So
I
don't
understand
like
I.
Just
don't
understand
what
you
want.
I
mean
I
disagree
with
your
opinion,
and
so
you
can
just
leave
it
at
that.
All
right.
D
All
right
and
Patrick
I
would
say
it
sounds
like.
You
have
a
lot
of
conviction
about
this
theory
that
it
was
somebody
trying
to
condense.
A
rope
and
I'd
encourage
you.
If
you
have
heard
from
anybody
that.
D
May
feel
Under
Fire
sense
if
you
have
direct
evidence
that
that
was
the
case.
I
would
really
encourage
you
to
bring
that
specifically
forward,
because
otherwise
this
seems
like
as
much
of
an
assumption
as
what
you're
accusing
the
city
of
so
but
I'm.
Considering
this
case
well
closed.
E
Yeah
I
mean
the
the
stuff
today
was
interesting,
because
the
scenarios
that
were
put
out
one
one
was
the
implication,
was
that
you
were
impacted
directly
and
your
livelihood
was
impacted,
but
nobody,
nobody
in
the
firefighters
case
was
specifically
charged
with
the
maliciousness,
so
it
that
seems
incongruous,
secondarily,
if
you're
putting
it
on
a
table
in
public
view
versus
opening
somebody's
personal
locker
and
putting
it
inside
the
locker.
E
That's
yet
another
piece,
so
the
the
relationships
are
incongruous,
so
I'll
go
back
to
the
beginning
from
what
I
know
and
I
was
only
a
private
citizen
when
this
happened.
So
I
can't
speak
to
the
council's
information
from
what
I
heard
as
same
as
you
I,
never
heard
anybody
in
the
fire
department
on
Fourth
and
say
that
person
you
know
erroneously
accused
us
of
something
or
you
know
their
take
on.
E
That
thing
is
bad,
especially
considering
a
firefighter
would
definitely
know
the
difference
between
those
knots,
as
you
described,
I
think
somebody
mentioned
that
you
know
those
nuts
are
literally
on
the
wall
in
most
of
the
fire
stations,
and
so
a
firefighter
would
know
the
difference
and
that
person's
intention
was
brought
to
the
to
the
city.
So
unless
a
bunch
of
other
firefighters
came
to
the
fore
and
said
nah,
that's
not
what
we
meant.
We
were
playing
a
joke
on
him
or
whatever
like
unless
that
got
resolved
by
other
firefighters,
I.
E
A
Know
we
passed
10
minutes,
no,
that's
our
minimum
time.
So
that's
10
minutes
and
now
Sally
and
I
want
to
take
note
here.
The
four
council
members
here
responded
to
your
question.
There
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
desire
to
move
forward
to
somehow
correct
or
follow
your
point
of
view.
The
question
has
been
asked
and
answered
and
we're
moving
on.