►
From YouTube: Rules Committee Meeting 6-5-2023
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
A
C
B
B
B
A
A
Let
the
record
reflect.
We
started
at
5
p.m,
on
the
dot,
but
we're
gonna
go
through
this
again
because
we're
having
some
technical
difficulties
with
the
audio
so
we'll
roll
call
in.
D
D
A
All
right
and
with
public
comment,
we
will
start
with
Mike
bosilko.
E
Thank
you
just
two
quick
comments:
R3
and
R4
are
three
I.
Don't
think
the
council
needs
a
civility
pledge
actually
I.
Think
robust
exchanges
between
council
members
is
is
what
democracy
is
all
about
being
cordial
and
all
that
is
fine.
But
if
somebody
has
is
emotional
about
an
issue,
they
should
be
able
to
express
it.
E
So
I
would
say
no
to
R3
R4,
I'm,
not
sure
I,
understand
it
entirely,
but
I
hope
you're
talking
about
donor
matching
to
prevent,
as
we've
had
previous
Mayors,
who
have
bottomless
pockets
and
in
BIO
an
election
that
this
ordinance
that
you're
considering
would
allow
a
competitor
enough
funds
to
compete.
So
that's
what
I
hope
this
is
all
about.
Thank
you.
A
All
right
it
is
there
anyone
in
person
that
would
like
to
make
a
public
commentary.
Oh
sorry,
we
have
Tricia
Connolly
next
up.
F
Hello,
Trisha,
Conley,
simple,
quick
things
to
bring
up
R2
I
hope
this
gets
passed,
I
went
back,
May
10th,
and
it
was
clear
to
me
that
on
May
10th
there
was
some
push
to
derive
some
things
through
from
the
last
Council.
F
The
80
Council,
and
you
know,
two
items
were
both
for
introduction
as
well
as
votes
and
two
items
were
for
introduction,
so
shouldn't
have
been
happening
at
the
very
last
meeting
of
the
80th
Council
and
to
avoid
that
you
know,
if
so
be
it
people
have
things
they
want
to
get
in
the
pipeline.
They
should
go
through
the
referrals
process,
so
I
hope
that
all
of
you
will
pass
that
this
evening.
In
addition,
the
civility
pledge,
along
with
Mr
vasilko
I,
feel
the
same.
F
This
is
about
democracy
and
you
all
should
certainly
get
I'm
sure
you're.
All
aware
that
in
our
history-
and
you
know
more
recently,
things
change
because
people
speak
up
and
out-
and
it's
not
always
civil.
It's
passionate.
It's
to
the
point,
and
you
know
who
who
decides
what
what
looks
civil
I
mean.
This
is
pretty
ridiculous.
F
If
you
ask
me
so
I
hope
that
gets
voted
down,
because
this
is
a
bit
ridiculous,
I
mean
you're,
all
adults
figure
out
what
you
need
ask
for
it
and
take
it
from
there
and
the
last
thing
I
would
say
you
know
the
idea
about
donor
matches
for
Mayors
I
I,
like
that
in
spirit,
I,
don't
know
that
I
understand
all
the
details,
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
hearing
about
that.
But
I
just
want
to
point
out
in
this
last
election.
This
special
election
in
the
second
Lord
one
person
was
outspent.
F
You
know
three
times
three
times
the
amount
so
beyond
mayor.
This
is
a
concern.
I
think
we
should
take
up
as
the
city
for
all
positions,
because
we
all
know
we've
got
some.
You
know
Deep
Pockets
and
big
money
in
this
town
and
there's
a
few
players
that
get
to
kind
of
push.
You
know
the
initiative
and
push
in
our
elections,
and
it's
not
okay.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
All
right,
seeing
none,
we
move
on
to
approval
of
the
December
5th
2022,
regular
rules
committee
meeting.
If
I
can
have
a
motion
for
approval,
so
move
is
there
a
second
second
I
just
been
properly
moved
by
councilman
newsman
seconded
by
councilmember
Reed,
any
changes,
councilmember
Harris
hi.
G
A
D
A
A
Right
one
abstention.
This
these
minutes
are
approved.
Moving
on
to
items
for
consideration.
If
somebody
wants
to
move
item
R1,
please.
A
Moved
by
councilmember,
Kelly
and
seconded
about
councilmember
Reed,
who
wants
to
start
off
with
discussion
on
this
on
commission
of
Aging.
D
B
I
I'll
move
item
R2
resolution
for
our
23
amending
city
council
rule
one
adjournment
to
add
rule
1.3.
Second,.
A
H
H
This
rule
doesn't
seem
to
achieve
that
goal
and
so
I'm
just
curious.
If
that
is
the
goal
and
then
two,
if
that's
not
the
goal,
what
is
the
goal,
and,
and
how
does
this
achieve
that
goal.
I
Yeah
I
think
I
think
I
agree
with
you,
councilman
breed
I.
Don't
think
this
would
achieve
this.
That
goal
necessarily.
It
might
in
fact
give
impetus
to
suspending
the
rules
and
having
intro
and
action
on
the
last
council
meeting,
but
I,
but
I
think.
The
idea
here
is
to
start
I
think
this
is
really
just
operationalizing.
I
What's
normally
standard
procedure
in
most
public
bodies
that
we
don't
as
a
representative
body
that
are
elected,
that
we're
not
taking
up
public
time
and
debating
referrals
and
ordinances
that
were
put
forward
by
a
previous
Council,
it's
pretty
simple
and
straightforward
I
mean
I
can
say
what
I
will
say.
What
personally
brought
it
to
my
attention
was
the
debate
about
the
elimination
of
the
board
of
ethics
and
I
when
we
carried
that
forward
and
was
discussing
that.
I
That
was
one
of
the
things,
but
I
mean
it'd,
be
the
same
way
now,
for
example,
I
have
you
know
put
before
finance
and
budget
they
payment
and
lieu
of
taxes,
task
force
that
will
hopefully
sometimes
come
before
Council
but
like.
If
that
never
did,
that
would
then
die
and
would
not
be
carried
forward
to,
and
you
know
many
there,
that's
that's.
Basically
the
idea.
H
Council
member
Reed,
thank
you,
I
think
this
rule
is
totally
in
order,
but
I
will
note
in
Council
Commons
please
upon.
If
you
have
anything
to
add.
But
as
far
as
law
is
concerned,
the
council
is
a
continuous
body,
so
there
isn't
yes,
there's
a
84th
or
whatever
it
is
Council,
but
it's
just
one
body
moving
forward
and
so
I
I
do
think
this
makes
sense
that
I
know
some
of
us
are
familiar
with
the
tree
planting
or
the
sidewalk
planting
or
there's
an
ordinance
that
came
before
us.
H
That
was
introduced
by
the
last
console
that
did
stir
up
some
concern
in
the
community,
and
so
maybe
we
can
avoid
that
I'm
fine
moving
forward
with
this.
J
Well,
I
was
trying
to
think
of
examples
where
I
would
I
guess
have
a
question.
So,
for
example,
on
a
number
of
occasions
we've
made,
we've
had
an
issue
that
we've
forwarded
to,
for
example,
the
environment
board
and
asked
them
to
advise
the
council
about
whatever
the
particular
issue
is,
and
then
they,
the
environment
committee
board,
appoints
a
subcommittee
that
gets
to
work
on
the
issue
and
so
I
guess
I'm
wondering.
I
But
the
conversation
would
pick
up
exactly
where
it's
left
off
there'd
be
no
reason
to
you
know
to
to
to
restart
where
whatever
has
been
begun
here
with
this
Council
I
mean
it's
not
like
we're,
we
would
ignore
any
previous
conversations,
but
if
it
was
a
legislative
matter
that
was
put
before
the
previous
one
and
had
gone
a
legislative
route,
that
included
you
know
committees,
but
of
course
again,
any
information
gathered
would
still
be
valid
and
useful.
A
D
I
think
Mr
chair
this.
This
sounds
reasonable,
but
I'm
I'm
wondering
is
there
an
actual
problem
that
needs
solving
I'm,
not
sure
there
is
and
I
wonder
what
the
unintended
consequences
might
be.
I'm
speculating
about.
You
know
towards
the
end
of
the
term
of
a
council
that
things
maybe
don't
grind
to
a
halt,
but
activity
really
slows
down
because
we're
not
sure
what's
who's
who's
going
to
be
on
the
dice
in
in
the
next
month.
D
We
have
so
much
to
do.
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
slowing
down
at
any
point.
So
I
do
have
that
concern,
although
this
does
sound
like
a
reasonable
rule,
so
a
little
bit
of
a
mixed
bag
on
that.
So.
K
Sure
I'll
just
share
my
experience
in
Springfield
Bill's
all
die
when
the
general
assembly
adjourns
and
they
can
be
reintroduced
by
members
of
the
new
general
assembly.
I.
Think.
The
problem
that
this
is
seeking
to
address,
which
may
not
be
an
active
problem,
would
be
outgoing
council
members
who
have
not
been
re-elected,
introducing
items
which
then
go
forward
when
they're
no
longer
part
of
the
council.
So
the
same
mechanism
would
exist
here.
K
If
you
had
a
council
member
who
had
a
proposed
ordinance
who
was
not
going
to
be
on
the
next
Council,
that
ordinance
could
still
go
forward
if
it
were
picked
up
by
a
member
of
the
following
Council
I'm,
not
speaking
for
council
member
Kelly,
but
I
presume
that
that
is
her.
Intent
would
be
for
there
not
to
be
agenda
items
that
exist
without
the
sponsorship
of
an
existing
member
of
the
current
city
council
that
were
introduced
by
members
of
the
previous
Council.
So
it
doesn't
stop
the
work
either.
K
K
Your
idea
may
have
to
be
reintroduced
as
an
item
on
the
next
council's
agenda,
but
what
it
comes
down
to
is
I
believe
what
we're
seeking
to
have
is
not
have
Concepts
moving
forward
without
any
current
member
of
the
council,
supporting
them,
but
taking
up
staff
time
and
taking
up
agenda
time,
and
so
this
would
prevent
that,
while
still
allowing
for
a
member
of
the
following
Council
to
pick
up
sponsorship
and
carry
them
forward.
J
Well,
just
one
more
example
that
came
to
mind:
I
know
we're
going
to
be
embarking
on
a
major,
comprehensive
plan
process
and
a
zoning
overhaul,
and
that's
going
to
be.
We
won't
be
finished
with
that
by
the
time
this
council
is
has
finished
its
term,
so
I
I
guess
would
that
have
to
be
re-referred.
It
just
seems
that
that
would
seem
unnecessary.
I
I
Maybe
I
don't
know
if
if
someone
else
wants
to
speak
to
that,
but
something
like
that
would
not
be
it
would
not
die
if
we
had
begun
a
comprehensive
plan
project,
just
as
it
just
like,
if
a
developer
had
put
through
a
proposal
that
wouldn't
be
set
back,
that
wouldn't
be
a
legislative
action
per
se
that
a
council
member
was
putting
forward
as
an
ordinancy
point.
H
I
H
H
All
right,
I'll
just
use
my
time
I
do
think
there
is
a
difference
between
what
you
just
mentioned.
There
councilmember
Kelly
I,
do
think
you
know.
Obviously
we
don't
make
referrals
for
plan
development
so
for
developments,
and
so
a
development
would
not
be
in
the
process.
I
get
that
you're
referring
to
the
RFP
I
already
haven't
gone
through,
but
you
know
let's
say
someone
here-
makes
a
referral
to
act
on
some
of
the
recommendations
from
that
comprehensive
planning
process.
H
I
won't
name
any
specifics,
but
just
anything
it
would
seem
as
though
we'd
have
to
again
re-refer
that
now
I
hear
what
councilmember
sufferden
was
saying.
I
will
note
I
I,
not
super,
read
up
on
this,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
Springfield
is
seen
as
a
continuous
body.
The
way
that
a
city
council
is
it's,
maybe
not
neither
here
nor
there
not
super
important,
but
I
I
do
think
that
the
there
could
be
I
mean
we
don't
just
require
one
person
to
make
a
referral
anymore.
H
Again,
I
see
the
Merit
in
this
referral
and
I
I.
Just
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
tweak
this
a
bit
to
avoid
some
of
the
unintended
consequences
that
councilmember,
nusma
and
I
think
Ravel
are
both
alluding
to
and
so
I
wonder
if
you
know
one
of
the
first
meetings
of
the
new
council
at
rules
committee
or
the
referrals
committee,
maybe
the
referrals
committee
is
tasked
with
at
a
meeting
after
their
after
an
election
of
going
through
the
referrals
and
determining
which
ones
still
have
a
valid
sponsor
on
the
council.
H
So
I
can
get
to
yes
to
this.
I
do
think
tweaking
a
few
of
the
words
I.
Don't
have
the
language
in
my
head
now,
I,
don't
know
if
you're,
maybe.
I
H
Mean
that
what
I
would
like
to
tweak
in
my
head.
A
Before
we
move
forward,
if
we
can
go
to
Council
Cummings
I.
L
L
Technically,
this
body
would
still
meet
and
then
adjourn,
and
then
the
new
councils
weren't
in
that
meeting.
But
what
I'm
wanting
to
know
is,
if
you
have
an
in
a
piece,
an
ordinance
that
is
introduced,
and
the
next
vote
will
be
by
the
next
Council
to
be
for
Action.
Is
this
meant
to
kill
that
if
it's
already
been
introduced
or
would
it
still
go
forward
for
action
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
councilmember
Ravel
was
trying
to
talk
maybe
get
into,
especially
with
like
the
comprehensive
plan?
L
I
People
elect
they're
officials
because
of
their
points
of
view,
because
they
feel
they
represent,
whatever
reasons
that
they
vote
for
them,
and
so
I
would
say
that,
yes,
if
you
so,
if
something
comes
up
that
like
I,
gave
the
example
of
the
eliminations
Board
of
Ethics,
as
you
know,
I
was
wanted
to
keep
it,
and
that
was
something
that
was
brought
for
introduction
we
carried
on
with
it.
I
would
say
it's
simply
one
more
meeting
it
would
have
to
cut
well,
it
would
have
to
be
referred
in
this
case
now.
I
This
would
have
to
come
back.
If
it's
a
you
know,
a
general
comprehensive
plan
that
we're
voting
on
it
would
come
back
for
introduction
only
with
the
new
with
the
new
Council,
as
it
should,
as
opposed
to
introduction
by
the
old
one.
However,
they
vote
and
then
and
then
the
next
one
would
pick
it
up
for
Action.
It
would
simply
be
postponed
and
come
back
for
introduction
with
the.
However,
the
legislative
process
would
be
for
I've
never
been
through
a
comprehensive
plan.
So
I
can't
speak
to
that
in
great
detail.
I
I
You
I
can't
remember
what
it
was
something
that
we
had
at
the
very
end
too,
where
it
was
voted
on,
for
it
was
an
ordinance
extending
the
expiration
date,
I
think
for
for
northwestern's
commercial
use,
and
that
was
brought
up
for
introduction
and
then
we,
you
know,
picked
it
up
from
there
and
again
that
to
me
should
have
either
been
finished
or
brought
back
to
us
to
to
consider,
but
it
doesn't
push
it
back
that
you
know
we're
not
talking
huge
time
lapse
there,
but
yes,
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
where
I'm
heading
here
some
wording
along
the
lines
of
any
ordinances
or
resolutions
resulting
from
Council
and
mayoral
referrals
that
have
not
been
introduced
by
the
end
of
a
term
die
that
leaves
open
referrals
coming
from
City
staff,
the
city
manager,
but
we
wouldn't
want
to
kill
those
and
I
think
the
comprehensive
plan
is
probably
one
such
referral,
and
this
ties
it
to
referrals
coming
from
members
of
this
body
and
knowing
that
that
membership
is
going
to
change
and.
A
By
introduce
just
a
question
of
clarification,
do
you
mean
hasn't
gone
through?
The
referrals
process
hasn't
been
on
the.
A
A
I
would
like
to
if
we
can
start
to
be
more
specific
about
what
we
would
like
to
see,
because
I
think
we
all
understand
the
context
in
which
this
discussion
is
being
had.
So
just
let's
start
to
say
exactly
what
we
would
like
to
see
in
the
ordinance.
So
councilman
read
your
next
step
right.
H
I
think
I
I
like
the
direction
the
councilman
Newsome
is
going.
Maybe
it's
you
know,
a
referral
must
have
a
lead
sponsor
who
is
still
on
the
diocese
and
that's
the
way
to
solve
it,
or
maybe
every
referral,
if
it
hasn't
been
acted
on
in
two
years
expires.
H
So
those
are
directions
that
I'm
going
either
it's
required
that
the
lead
sponsor
is
still
on
the
council
or
a
new
lead
sponsor
is
chosen
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
re-referred
to
someone
picks
up
his
lead
sponsor
or
you
know,
maybe
there's
just
a
flat.
If
it
hasn't
been
acted
on
in
two
years,
then
it
expires.
I
think
one
of
those
two
routes
that
way.
If
there
is
something
that
has
been
referred.
The
referrals
committee
has
met.
It's
maybe
gone
to
some
committee,
but
hasn't
appeared
as
inter
for
introduction
for
Council.
I
So
well
I
the
one
yeah
I
can
live
with
that,
and
the
one
little
issue,
though
I
see,
is
like
in
principles.
Something
should
not
have
been
acted
on
if
it
had
died
based
on
the
previous
Council,
so
there
shouldn't
be
Action
Moving
Forward
on
items
that
are
carried
over
from
a
previous
Council,
but
I
also
want
to
say
you
can
also
sponsor
some.
You
can
have
one
sponsor
like
you
don't
have
to
have.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
sponsored
by
three
aldermen
to
move
something
forward,
so
I
think
the.
I
Sponsor
and
two
co-sponsors
I
thought
it
could
be
one,
but
it
just
means
it
wouldn't
be
be
put
to
the
end
of
the
queue
okay,
so
I
mean
so
the
only
problem
I
have
Jonathan
council
member
newsman.
If
I'm
understanding
you're
saying
that
somehow
it
could
sort
of
move
along
legislatively
without
picking
up
sponsors
from
a
previous
term,
can
you
explain
what
you're.
A
And
before
you
go
Cosmo
news,
I
would
like
to
jump
in
because
I
think
this
is
a
good
time
for
me
to
jump
into
my
comments.
I
think
again,
the
rules
are
you
need
three,
so
I
think
just
to
keep
it
simple.
If
those
three
remain,
then
something
should
be
allowed
to
move
forward.
I
mean
we
could.
We
could
consider
one
but
I,
I,
I,
think
just
to
to
stay
in
alignment
with
our
current
rules.
Okay,.
A
D
D
They
can
take
action
without
having
to
re-refer
it
without
having
to
go
through
the
process.
If
no,
if
either
an
ordinance
or
a
resolution,
has
not
appeared
in
front
of
a
council,
then
it
dies.
D
Council
I'm
saying
Council:
maybe
we
need
to
talk
about
committee
but
and
then
the
the
new
twist
here
is
what.
G
D
The
same
three
sponsors
are
continuing
on
the
new
Council
I
think
it
makes
sense
not
have
to
re-refer
it.
What
if
it's
not
the
same
three
sponsors
it's
a
different
three
I
would
be
fine
not
having
to
go
through
a
re-referral
process.
In
that
case,
yeah.
A
H
I
think
I
have
a
motion
for
this.
I
would
move
to
amend
this,
to
say
that
all
and
that
all
referrals
that
do
not
have
three
current
members
of
the
council
as
co-sponsors
by
the
second
meeting
of
the
new
counselor.
You
know
give
some
time
frame
that
those
automatically.
H
I
hate
that
we're
using
the
term
die,
but
they
automatically
are
no
longer
valid
and
maybe
that's
a
way
to
solve
this
so
that
allows
yeah.
So.
A
I
Councilmember
Kelly
I'd
be
happy
to
work
on
that
wording.
I
do
want
to
keep
the
spirit
of
democracy
present
in
this,
in
the
sense
that
if
you
had,
even
if
you
had
the
same
three
on
here
and
say
it
had
gone
through
human
services
or
whatever
else
with
majority
in
the
last
one.
But
now
you
have
a
different
Council
where
it
may
not
have
gone
forward
to
allow
it
to
be
a
an
ordinance
to
now
be
coming
before
Council
for
Action.
Just
because
the
same
three
are
there
I
think
does
not
follow
the
spirit.
I
The
Democratic,
Spirit
intent
of
this
so
I
would
say:
yes,
I
agree
with
the
three.
If
the
three
are
still
here,
it
wouldn't
have
to
go
through
referrals,
yes,
but
it
would
go
through
the
legislative
process
with
the
new
with
the
new
term,
so
I'm
happy
to
work
on
the
wording
and
work
with
anybody.
Who'd
like
to
work
with
me
on
that,
and
we
don't
have
to
move
this
forward
and
I'm
happy
to
have
this
brought
back
at
our
next
rules.
H
A
I
A
Any
extensions
all
right
the
eyes
have
it
all
right.
Next
up
item
are
three.
A
A
All
right,
it's
been
probably
moved.
Is
there
a
second,
it's
been
seconded
by
mayor,
BISS,
city
manager?
Would
you
like
to
introduce
this.
M
Sure,
just
very
briefly,
good
evening,
chair
and
members
of
the
city
council
on
April
20th,
the
Illinois
Municipal
League,
released
a
sample
resolution
and
a
draft
civility
pledge
for
municipalities
around
the
state
of
Illinois
to
consider
adopting,
there's
been
challenges,
especially
in
the
past
couple
of
years,
around
the
state
with
decorum
and
engagement
and
so
forth,
with
elected
officials
and
staff
or
other
folks
as
well.
So
this
was
not
in
response
to
any
one
particular
incident
or
any
one
person.
M
This
was
just
a
matter
of
timing
with
the
release
in
April
of
the
Illinois
Municipal
leagues
pledge,
and
one
of
my
most
important
responsibilities
is
to
ensure
that
the
staff
is
able
to
operate
in
a
respectful
and
professional
environment,
and
that
is
simply
the
goal
of
this
civility.
Pledge
and
I
would
also
add
that,
but
is
also
incumbent
on
staff
as
well,
ensuring
that
we
are
operating
in
a
respectful
and
professional
manner,
whether
that's
our
interactions
as
well
with
the
city
council,
members
of
the
public
or
each
other
as
staff
members.
A
All
right,
any
any
discussion,
all
right,
saying:
none
all
those
in
favor
aye,
all
right,
all
right
any
days,
any
abstentions.
Okay,
that
passes
next
up.
A
It's
been
properly
moved
by
councilmember
Harry
Carters
and
a
second
day
by
council
member
Reed
we're
going
to
start
off
with
council
member.
N
So
I'm
bringing
this
forward
to
the
rules
committee
as
a
kind
of
a
good
government,
ordinance,
I
I,
think
you
know
when
you
look
at
this,
would
be
a
pilot
program
that
would
be
in
our
budget,
a
small
fund
that
would
be
less
than
a
dollar
per
resident,
and
this
would,
you
know,
allow
the
opportunity
for
some
folks
who
might
not.
You
can
be
able
to
run
for
the
office
of
Mayor
to
have
a
shot.
N
H
Reed,
thank
you.
Here's
a
quote
for
Evanston
now
a
donor
system
like
this
I
think,
would
make
it
more
possible
for
someone
like
myself
to
run
for
mayor
or
someone
who
is
not
of
of
of
wealth
and
means,
and
so
I
do
think.
We
need
to
work
on
leveling
the
playing
field,
which
is
the
goal
of
this
I.
H
Don't
know
if
a
small
donor
matching
system
is
that
system
I
tend
to
prefer
an
alternative
system
which
is
democracy
dollars,
which
has
been
implemented
in
a
few
cities
and
from
my
understanding,
those
that
policy
has
been
shown
to
increase
turnout
amongst
low
propensity
voters
and
I
think,
at
least
from
the
first
time
that
it
was
implemented
that
there
was
a
large
increase
in
lower
income.
Voters
who
use
those
democracy
dollars,
which
were
I,
think
25
dollars
per
resident
that
they
could
donate
to
a
candidate
of
the
choice.
H
Maybe
they
got
four
25
vouchers
that
they
could
donate
to
candidates
of
their
choice
and
I.
I.
Think
that
if
we
are
going
to
I,
think
there's
two
outcomes,
one
making
it
more
possible,
for
you
know,
lower
income
or
less
connected
folks
to
run
for
office,
but
two
I
think
a
good
election
policy
should
try
to
increase
turnout
amongst
lower
propensity
voters
and
the
the
small
donor
matching
system
from
what
I
have
seen
and
please,
if
anyone
has
any
data
to
the
different
than
that.
H
Please
share
it
with
me,
but
from
what
I've
seen
is
not
increased
turnout
amongst
low
propensity
voters,
it
has
in
some
cases,
maybe
reinforced
the
doning.
The
the
donation,
habits
of
folks,
who
are
already
likely
to
donate,
and
so
I
think
the
cap
here
is
250
dollars
is
150
150
and
it
would
be
matched
up
to
that
150.
How
many
times.
H
And
so
yeah
I
think
it's
I'm
sorry
I
heard.
Is
it
one
time
four
times.
H
Or
six
times
the
the
donation
will
be
matched
up
to
you
know.
If
you
donate
25,
is
it
match
twenty
five
dollars
or
does
it
matched
150.
H
H
H
O
O
O
We
have
here
yeah.
Sorry
I
was
doing
that
off
mic
on
purpose
to
not
anyway,
so
the
to
to
qualify
for
matching
a
contribution
itself
cannot
exceed
150,
but
the
matchable
part
is
the
first
50..
O
D
H
If
I
can
just
finish
my
last
question
there
sorry
and
then
another
concern
that
I
have
if
we
were
to
move
forward
with
this
again
I'm
going
to
Advocate
hard
for
the
Democracy
dollars.
But
I
do
we
change
the
way
contributions
are
itemized
at
this
point,
because
under
current
state
law,
folks
don't
have
to
itemize
a
contribution,
that's
under
150,
and
you
have
to
itemize
contributions
over
150
and
so
with
this
multiplier.
Does
that
mean
that
the
contribution
technically
is
over
150?
H
L
Had
some
discussions
I
know
she's
had
some
discussions
with
Deputy
City
attorney
ruggie
a
lot
of
those
discussions,
admittedly
have
been
about
implementation,
so
that
that
could
actually
be
something
that
would
have
to
be
ironed
out.
A
K
Sure-
and
it
says
it's
for
Action,
so
this
is
a
question
for
the
sponsor
you
and
I
talked
today.
You
know
at
the
federal
level,
there's
a
three
dollar
option:
that
income
taxpayers
have
where
the
money
goes
into
a
pool
and
that
pool
is
decided,
but
it's
voluntary.
What
would
you
say
to
a
taxpayer
who's
being
compelled
to
financially
support
a
candidate
who
they
may
not
agree
with?
Because
there
is
no
opt
out
of
this
and.
N
K
Not
supporting
election
process
they're
supporting
a
particular
candidate
with
their
money.
This
isn't
money,
that's
going
to
have
more
forums
or
increase.
Judging
anything,
this
is
this
is
money
that
will
go
to
directly
to
a
candidate
that
is
coming
out
of
a
taxpayer's
pocket
without
their
consent.
Well,.
N
One
of
the
things
there's
a
provision
in
there.
If
you,
if
you
want
to
participate
in
the
program,
you
have
to
participate
in
at
least
two
public
forums,
debate,
forums,
and
so
that's
currently
not
required.
I.
Think
that
opens
up
more
discussion
around
the
election
process
and
I
think
maybe
that
would
be
the
the
benefit
for
someone
that
you
know.
Maybe
they
don't
support
that
one
candidate,
that's
getting
their
dollar,
but
it
is
giving
them
the
opportunity
here.
K
K
Think
that's
where
the
issue
is,
and
this
isn't
again
and
we've
talked
about
this
earlier.
You
and
I
today,
I
mean,
and
the
other
issue
is
that
this
is
not
money.
That's
you
know
like
in
the
federal
system
where
you
agree
to
throw
three
dollars
in
a
pool
and
whoever
gets
it
gets
it
whether
or
not
you
agree
with
them.
You've
decided
that
you
value
the
access
to
funds
enough
that
you're
willing
to
put
three
bucks
in
there.
K
And
for
that
reason,
unless
we
fix
that
I
would
be
a
mill
and
I
would
recommend
that
everyone
else
be
as
well.
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I
have
another
concern
regarding
the
limits
on
on
contributions.
Let
me
pull
up
my
notes,
but
somewhere
in
the
proposed
ordinance,
there
was.
G
D
A
Prohibition
on
lobbyists
making
campaign
contributions
to
mayoral
candidates
and
I
am
concerned
about
the
lack
of
a
definition
of
a
lobbyist
and
by
I
think
that's
really
important.
We
don't
want
anybody
who
appears
in
front
of
the
city
council
in
public
comment
or
is
just
exercising
their
first
amendment
rights
to
petition
their
elected
official
to
be
classified
as
a
lobbyist.
O
O
L
The
the
definition
thank
you,
the
portion
of
this
ordinance
does
refer
to
the
definition
of
lobbyists
under
the
Illinois
lobbyist
registration
act,
which
mayor
this
is
referring
to.
So,
however,
that
ordinance
defines
it.
However,
I
will
admit.
D
So
that's
my
concern.
I
understand
that
you
know
for
the
purposes
of
State
lobbying,
there's
a
fairly
robust
system
that
identifies
lobbyists
and
you
can
look
those
up,
but
if
I'm
understanding
correctly
the
law-
and
maybe
it's
the
same
law
that
sets
up
that
system
at
the
state
level
has
not
effectively
been
implemented
for
registering
local
lobbyists.
D
O
A
Thanks
mayor,
you
have
the
have
the
floor
next,
do
you
have
any
additional
comments?
I.
O
O
There's
people
in
this
community
I
know
who
are
opposed
to
that
movement
and
wish
that
hadn't
occurred,
but
we
don't
give
them
a
choice
about
whether
or
not
their
tax
dollars
get
to
go
to
fund
that
kind
of
activity.
We
we
make
a
variety
of
policy
determinations
about
what's
best
for
our
community
and
deploy
resources
accordingly,
a
lot
of
places.
This
is
not
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
idea,
but
it's
not
an
avant-garde
idea.
A
lot
of
places
are
doing
this
very
form
of
effort
to
deal
with
the
flood
of
money.
O
That's
coming
into
campaigns
and
and
frankly
negatively
impacting
governance
and
I
think
there's
no
way
of
doing
that
successfully
unless
you
utilize,
with
the
current
Supreme
Court
and
its
current
interpretations
of
the
relationship
between
money
and
speech
and
politics
without
using
public
funds
as
a
counterweight
and
so
I
hear
the
objection,
but
I
think
we've
got
to
make
a
I.
Don't
think!
That's
like
a
defect
in
this
to
be
fixed,
I
think
that's
a
reality
that
we
need
to
decide
whether
or
not
we
want
to
accept
I
would
strongly
urge
accepting
that
reality.
O
N
Was
just
going
to
respond
to
councilmember
Reed,
because
we've
had
discussions
around
the
Democracy
dollars
and
the
vouchers
which
I
think
is
also
very
exciting.
N
You
know
concept
I,
think
for
me
personally,
when
weighing
small
Turner
match
small
donor
match
was
an
easier
number
to
figure
out,
I
think
the
the
potential
expenditure
in
like
the
Democracy
dollars.
It's
like
well
like
what
what
would
the
the
budget
number
be
and
and
given
that
this
is
like
a
you
know,
pilot
with
the
mayoral
elections.
N
That
that's
was
my
thinking
that
small
Turner
match
was
the
way
to
go,
but
I
do
appreciate
that,
maybe
something
in
the
future
we
can
look
at,
for
you
know
all
dramatic
races
too,
but.
C
H
I
would
I'm
gonna
I
would
like
us
to
table
this
here
at
rules
to
think
about
it
more
and
whether
it's
tabled
or
not,
I
I,
do
think
think.
One
thing
that
is
important
for
us
to
look
at
is
one
I,
don't
believe.
There's
any
in
Evanston
is
quite
often
a
first
but
I,
don't
believe.
There's
any
community
in
Illinois
that
uses
any
kind
of
matching
system
and
I
would
ask
the
legal
department
and.
G
H
Think
there's
a
reason
for
that,
not
just
because
other
communities
aren't
as
Brave
and
Bold
as
we
are
and
Progressive
as
we
are,
which
sometimes
is
the
case.
H
I
I
believe
that
the
Illinois
constitution
has
a
Prohibition
against
using
tax
dollars
to
support
campaigns,
and
so
I
would
just
like
the
Law
Department
to
look
into
that
particularly
article
7
of
the
Illinois
constitution
and
the
Illinois
ilcs
Illinois
compiled
statute,
10
sections,
five,
nine
twenty
five
to
determine
whether
or
not
we
feel
that
this
would
comport
with
state
law
and
our
home
rule.
Authority,
Under,
state
law.
I
So
I
just
I
want
to
have
a
little
bit
more
clarity
on
expense
here
so
I
see
in
the
the
memo.
It
says
that
we
would
be
annual
budget
would
be
68,
000,
750
dollars
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
to
the
clerk's
office
and
also
mentions
that
a
maximum
of
81
000
per
candidate
in
the
I
just
want
to
get
some
clarity
on
what
we're
talking
about
expense.
Wife.
Why
is
it
looks
like
81
000?
I
The
aggregate
amount
of
matching
fund
payments
that
may
be
made
to
a
participating
candidate
participating
candidate
may
not
exceed
81
000.,
so
I'm
a
little
confused
about.
It
looks
like
once
in
that
then
there's
another
Clause
that
says
once
the
total
amount
that's
budget
is
budgeted
has
been
depleted,
then
no
more
no
more
money
should
be
allocated.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
race
right
then
also
involved
to
to
get
your
small
donors
in
so
that
you
can
get
that
money
before
it's
depleted,
so
I
just
want
I
guess.
N
C
N
N
But
I
think
the
at
least
my
reasoning
would
be
if
you
had
that
initial
amount,
which
almost
covers
the
the
81
000
for
one
candidate
after
two
years.
You
know
you'd
be
at
like
bad
at
math,
one
almost
140,
but
that
would
keep
on
growing
and-
and
you
know,
if
the
candidates
do
not
spend
that
money
that
comes
back
into
the
the
fund.
N
There's
the
mechanism
there
that
it.
If
it's
not
spent
it
comes
back
so
I
would
imagine
it
would
be
a
you
know.
It
all
goes
well
an
ongoing
pool
of
money
and
then
that
would
be
adjusted
over
time.
Okay,.
H
Point
of
information,
those
contributions
under
150
are
not
itemized
and
thereby
we
can't
really
track
them.
Unfortunately,
there's.
O
O
It's
depleted,
which
which
could,
as
you
say,
generate
a
race
right
if
they're,
if
they're,
if
the
number
of
mayoral
candidate,
if
the
amount
of
available
funds
divided
by
the
number
of
mayoral
candidates
is
less
than
81
000,
then
they
would
be
sort
of
in
a
race
to
to
get
what
there
was,
which
you
know,
probably
after
the
first
cycle
wouldn't
wouldn't
occur.
O
But
in
response
to
your
other
question
about
what
it
would
have
meant
in
previous
elections,
it's
a
good
question
and
it's
annoying
that
we
can't
answer.
But
in
point
of
fact,
the
whole
purpose
of
this
is
to
change
Behavior,
and
so
knowing
that
wouldn't
be
that
big
a
deal,
because
what
you
really
want
is
to
all
of
a
sudden
make
it
worth
candidates
while
to
spend
their
time
in
a
different
way.
J
Well,
my
reading
of
the
ordinance
is
that
the
68
000
in
the
fund
is
per
election,
so
between
between
Consolidated
elections,
so
basically
for
over
two
years.
That
would
be
the
amount
that
was
in
there.
I
mean
I
have
to
read
through
this
again,
but
I
did
I
did
kind
of
Wonder,
so
I
did
a
little
bit
of
online
research
to
see.
There
are
a
good
handful
of
other
municipalities
around
the
country
who
have
these
small
matching
programs
what's
interesting?
J
Is
it
said
that
New
York
City
has
the
highest
matching
fund
ratio,
which
is
only
six
dollars
to
one?
So
I
was
wondering
how
why
we,
how
we
got
to
nine
dollars
per
one
dollar
to
be
matched,
and
then
a
couple
we
require.
Even
candidates
who
don't
participate
in
the
matching
fund
program
are
still
required.
J
J
And
then
I
guess
I
do
have
the
same
kind
of
question
that
council
member
Kelly
had,
which
was
that
you
know
we
could
pretty
soon
get
to
the
point
where
the
that
total
of
that
68
000
has
been
allocated
and
people
are
still
it's
early
in
the
whole
election
cycle.
And
you
know
if
you
get
if
you
get
going
really
early,
you're
you're
in
good
shape,
but
otherwise,
no
so.
A
So
similar
to
one
of
our
last
issues,
I
think
we
have
time
on
this,
and
so,
if
we
could
I
would
recommend
as
chairs,
seeing
as
how
many
questions
we
have.
If
we
can
get
a
motion
to
table
this.
D
A
All
right,
it's
been
properly
moved
and
seconded
all
those
in
favor
all
right,
all
right
I
mean
A's,
any
abstentions;
okay,
that
wouldn't
they
one
day.
Okay,
next
up,
we
have
our
five.
If
somebody
wants
to
make
a
motion,
I.
N
A
D
Yeah
yeah
thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
I
guess.
When
we
last
met
at
the
redistricting
committee,
we
didn't
realize
this
had
to
make
a
stop
at
rules
before
it
got
the
council.
So
here
we
are.
This
is
an
intermediate
step.
D
I
gave
a
presentation
to
Council
on
April
10th
the
map
at
that
point
had
a
total
population
deviation
of
3.35
percent
based
on
an
additional
round
of
public
feedback.
The
committee
made
some
changes
to
the
map
and
the
current
map
that
the
committee
has
recommended
to
council
for
approval
has
a
total
population
deviation
of
2.57
percent.
So
from
that
perspective,
it's
an
improvement
over
the
map
that
this
Council
saw.
Previously,
this
map
continues
to
meet
our
our
three
guiding
principles:
number
one.
D
We
continue
to
have
three
Awards
that
are
minority
non-white
number
two.
We
have
downtown
Evanston
represented
by
Mal
by
multiple
council
members
and
number
three.
We
have
engaged
in
kind
of
a
light
touch
approach
here.
D
So,
on
behalf
of
the
members
of
the
redistricting
committee,
we
submit
this
map
to
council
for
to
the
rules
committee
as
an
intermediate
step
before
it
goes
to
council
for
final
approval
and
I
did
just
email,
some
PDFs
that
maybe
should
have
been
in
the
packet,
a
better
version
of
the
map
and
and
the
demographic
breakdown
as
well
and.
L
A
Soon,
as
we
still
have
an
opportunity
to
discuss
this
I'll
ask
if
we
limit
our
comments,
we'll
go
councilman
Marie,
but
if
we
have
one
more
item,
it's
6
p.m.
I'd
like
to
start
our
next
meeting
shortly
and
then,
but
we
have
one
more
item
but
councilman
Reed,
nothing
beautiful
all
right.
So
all
those
in
favor
all.
L
Right
I
mean
ages,
just
one
sorry,
yes,
sir,
my
apologies
hi.
The
map
that
was
emailed
by
council
member
newsma
will
be
the
map.
That's
in
the
council
packet.
The
map-
that's
in
this
packet
is
not
gonna,
be
the
map
I
downloaded
an
older
version.
It
included
in
this
packet,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
body
aware.
A
All
right,
all
those
in
favor,
any
assistance,
1A,
okay,
D1
item
under
item
for
discussion,
can
someone
please
move
item
D1.
D
A
Second
day
by
councilmanusma
discussion,
council
member.
K
K
We
don't
cap
discussion
at
committees
that
precede
City
Council
meetings,
City
Council
meetings,
don't
start
at
a
defined
time.
We
have
people
who
are
arriving
at
the
published
time
expecting
for
city
council
to
happen
who
sit
through
extended
discussion.
That's
happening
at
the
preceding
committee
meetings
as
a
matter
as
a
practical
matter.
Our
Council
meetings
don't
really
start
until
at
least
45
minutes
past
the
time
we
start
because
of
public
comment,
mayoral
announcements
and
so
forth.
A
A
So
after
reviewing
all
the
options,
I
certainly
would
support
that
and
we'll
be
open
to
any
other
ideas.
But
I
think
that's
reasonable.
Just
say:
look
if
it
starts
at
six.
We
ended
at
six
and
then
anything
left
on
the
agenda
goes
to
the
next
meeting.
Councilmember
read
your
light
was
on
council
member
goddess.
N
In
in
talking
with
council
member
suffered
and
today
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
would
maybe
help
us
get
hit
that
on
time
start
is
maybe
moving
planning
and
development
that
might
be
an
option
that
tends
to
be.
There
are
certain
meetings
that
have
more
discussion
and
need
more
discussion,
but
it
might
make
sense
to
move
that,
as
you
know,
that
can
you
know,
we've
had
items
that
you
know
me
personally
didn't
think
there
would
be
tons
of
discussion
and
the
more
you
dig
in
you
know
there
needs
to
be.
N
You
know
more
information
and
you
know
Direction
on
how
to
go,
and
this
is
a
question
I
think
for
city
managers,
so
I
I
think
would
it
be
possible
to
have
designations
for
certain
items
that
need
to
be
acted
on
acted
on,
so
there
could
maybe
be
a
priority
set
with
certain
agenda
items
that
would
need
to
be
acted
upon
in
that
session
versus
ones.
That
could
maybe
wait
two
weeks
or
a
month.
So.
M
A
Or
council
member,
are
you
mayor
this.
O
Thanks
Mr
chairs,
just
two
really
quick
things:
first
of
all,
I
think
doing
something
about
this
problem
is
a
good
idea.
If
we
do
just
literally
operationalized
by
a
rule,
it
cut
off
of
meetings.
I'd
want
to
have
Clarity
on
what
the
how
that
rule
could
be
suspended
because
you
don't
want
to
have
it.
You
don't
want
to
okay,
the
Clock
Struck
5
45,
we
turned
into
pumpkins,
and
now
we
can't
make
payroll
next
week
or
whatever
you'd
want
you'd
want
some
Escape
valve.
O
Even
if
it's
a
unanimous
vote
of
the
committee
doesn't
suspend
that
rule
you'd
want
some
Escape
valve
and
the
other
thing
I
just
want
to
say.
I
haven't
ever
said.
This
I've
said
this
privately
to
a
lot
of
people.
I've,
never
said
it
out
loud
and
certainly
not
into
microphone.
But
now,
since
we're
on
this
conversation,
I
feel
I
want
to
get
on
the
record.
O
I
find
the
system
where
we
have
a
council
meeting
and
right
before
it.
We
have
two
committee
meetings
that
go
through
essentially
the
entire
Council
agenda,
with,
in
one
case,
seven
ninths
of
the
same
people.
In
the
other
case,
five
nines
the
same
people
and
repeat
all
these
discussions
with
the
same
people
on
the
same
evening,
I
find
that.
D
I
think
this
is
the
case
where
there
is
a
problem
that
needs
solving,
so
I'm
glad
we're
talking
about
potential
Solutions
here,
I'm,
not
a
fan
of
a
hard
stop
for
a
committee
meeting,
because
we
need
as
much
time
as
we
need
to
have
those
discussions,
and
sometimes
anpw
meetings
have
gone
on
yeah
longer
than
anticipated.
P
d-
maybe
more
so.
But
we
can't
say
ABW
is
always
quick
and
easy
too.
D
H
You
I
I,
certainly
appreciate
council
member
Safran
for
for
making
this
referral.
I
do
think
it's
an
issue,
a
city
clerk
for
the
last
or
for
the
previous
term.
I
certainly
had
my
fair
share
of
residents
raise
this
issue
with
me.
I
personally
think
it
might
even
be
an
open
meetings,
act
concern
that
we
sometimes
start
Council
hours
after
the
posted
start
time.
H
H
H
I
would
I
too
would
support,
given
what
mayor
biss
said
and
council
member
newsma's
concerns
I
I
too
think
it
would
be
nice
to
have
some
time
between
a
committee
meeting
where
things
are
introduced
and
the
council
meeting
where
those
items
are
actually
adopted,
so
I
would
be
supportive
of
moving
the
committee
meetings
to
another
day.
H
I
would
also
be
supportive
of
setting
a
hard
stop
time
or
start
time
for
Council,
and
if
we
have
to
you
know,
adjourn
meetings
to
the
next
day
or
a
future
date.
I
think
that's,
okay,
I
I
think
we
can
go
either.
One
of
these
routes,
I
think
I,
would
prefer
moving
the
Committees
to
another
day.
Thank
you.
Councilmember.
A
I
I
think
mayor
base.
Your
point
is
well
taken
about
the
same
council
members
voting
sometimes
three
times
or
or
over
twice
from
each
group,
the
p
d
and
APW,
but
those
are
usually
in
the
consent
agenda.
So
it's
generally,
unless
it
gets
pulled
off.
Most
of
those
items
are
pretty
much
just
voted
through.
So
so
I
do
think
that
Focus
time
is
probably
important
on
pnd
and
APW.
So
I
would
agree,
I
think
if
we
could
move
those
to
a
different
evening.
That
would
make
more
sense.
A
Yeah
I
think
the
issue
we're
going
to
run
into
is
that
there
are
other
committee
meetings
on
different
nights.
I
think
the
only
day
that
will
probably
make
sense
is
a
Monday
and
then
we're
basically,
every
Monday
we'd
have
some
type
of
standing
or
council
meeting,
which
I
think
is
what
was
recommended
in
the
packet
and
certainly
if
his
body
is
interested
in
that
we
can
move
forward,
but
I
think
all
the
other
nights.
A
There's
committee
meetings
that
are
happening
in
the
evening
most
of
the
nights
and
I
think
it
would
be
difficult
to
figure
out
where
to
where
this
could
fit.
I
want
to
be
clear
that
even
on
this
agenda,
there
were
at
least
two,
maybe
three
items
that
we
didn't
have
to
get
through
all
tonight
that
we
probably
could
have
held
discussion
on
until
the
next
meeting
and
would
not
have
been
worse
off
because
of
it.
So
I
think,
regardless
of
what
we
do
just
better.
A
Managing
of
the
time
that
we
do
have
is
a
good
first
step
before
we
start
looking
at
different
days
for
meetings.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
We
wouldn't
be
limiting
discussion
councilman
new,
so
we
would
simply
be
saying:
okay,
let's
be
you
know,
kind
of
judicious
with
the
time
that
we
have
here
understand
when
we
can
move
something
to
the
next
meeting
and
then
pick
it
up
where
we
left
off
again.
A
There
was
at
least
two
items
that
aren't
urgent
at
all
that
we
could
have
a
cut
discussion
a
bit
early
to
move
it
to
the
next
meeting
and
I
think
we
would
have
been
fine
council
members
suffered
and
I
believe
is.
A
K
Nick
tell
me
if
this
is
not
possible
under
our
rules,
but
I
believe
you
know
we've
gotten
into
this
tradition
of
going
late.
We
don't
always
have
to
do
that.
We
could
recess
committees
and
then
reconvene
them
after
the
completion
of
the
city
council
meeting
and
you
don't
have
to
have
a
hard
stop.
You
don't
have
to
have
a
meeting
on
another
night.
L
That
that's
correct,
Robert's,
Rules
and
the
city
council
rules
would
allow
several
mechanisms
that
would
allow
for
that
to
happen.
What
Robert's
Rules
would
allow
for
recess
and
reconvene
even
on
a
different
day,
even
if
it
doesn't
have
to
be
that
same
night.
There's
also
a
mechanism,
you
could
add
a
time
to
the
agenda
so
once
the
agenda
is
adopted
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
J
On
I
guess,
one
other
option
to
suggest
that
I
would
like
to
suggest
is
maybe,
if
we're
moving
pnd,
for
example,
to
another
non-council
night.
Maybe
it
only
needs
to
meet
one
once
a
month
it
could
meet
and
we
could
have
a
marathon
session,
because
the
the
items
that
come
to
pnd
do
need
a
lot
of
discussion,
but
they're
usually
not
super
time
sensitive.
L
Sure
Council
Cummings
briefly,
because
it's
come
up
a
couple
of
times
in
reviewing
of
the
city
code.
When
it
comes
to
p
d,
there
are
some
items
that
go
to
p
d
that
don't
need
to,
and
so
staff
has
been
looking
at
and
talking
with.
Siemens
are
still
in
the
mayor
about
not
sending
them
to
p
d
anymore
because
they
shouldn't
be
going
to
pnd
anywhere
according
to
the
city
code,
but
we
just
send
them
to
p
d,
so
that
could
help
shorten
some
of
your
pnd
meetings.
P
Yes,
we
have
actually
in
in
the
past
and
I'm,
not
actually
saying
that
the
past
was
better,
but
in
the
past
we
limited
the
number
of
council
members
on
ampw
before
and
then
the
other
five
council
members
served
on
p
d
and
the
meetings
met
simultaneously
so
that
the
two
committees
started
at
at
five.
And
if
you
had
an
item
at
at
ampw
that
you
wanted
to
make
sure
you
heard
or
spoke
on,
then
you
it
was
around
the
corner.
P
I
won't
say
that
that
actually
allowed
us
to
successfully
start
our
meetings
on
time,
but
I
think
that
it
it
would
it's
a
possibility
that
if
you
knew
you
had
a
hard
stop
and
you
had
two
hours,
then
you
then
you
use
the
two
hours
you
know.
Another
possibility
is,
if
of
suggesting
on
the
agenda
the
amount
of
time
that
something
should
be,
should
take
for
discussion
and
and
then
move
on
after
that.
So
we
so
all
of
us
can
all
of
us
on.
The
committee
can
see
all
right
this.
D
I
was
going
to
ask
the
city
manager
about
impact
on
staff
before
I
get
to
that
I
want
to
address
councilmember
Wynn's
thoughts
about
simultaneous
meetings,
which
would
be
a
good
way
of
getting
more
done
in
a
limited
period
of
time.
I'm
wondering
about
the
impact
in
you
know
the
era
of
live
streaming,
staff's
ability
to
live
stream,
both
and
and
folks
who
might
be
interested
and
in
discussions
happening
at
both
committees.
We
have
to
pick
and
choose
so
that
might
that
might
not
be
the
best
option.
D
Yeah,
but
to
my
original
question,
this
is
for
city
manager,
Stowe
right
now
we
have
Monday
night
meetings.
Second
and
fourth
Mondays
of
the
month.
The
staff
has
that,
on
their
calendar,
their
basically,
they
block
out
Monday
those
Monday
nights,
they're
not
planning
to
do
anything
but
stick
around
the
Civic
Center
or
at
least
be
available
online
until
some
cases
midnight.
D
M
A
G
Thank
you
so
I
think
it's
a
number
of
things,
my
sorority.
We
do
put
time
limits
so
I
appreciated
you
saying
that
or
in
our
items
where
you
get
so
much
time,
but
I
think
we
as
a
council
have
to
govern
ourselves
and
I
know.
We
all
want
to
be
heard.
It's
important,
but
I've
received
quite
a
few
emails
where
people
say
we
only
get
two
minutes,
but
you
all
get
a
half
an
hour
to
talk
about
something
we
need
to
govern,
govern
ourselves
appropriately.
We
need
to
come
on
time.
G
H
Yeah
I
I
think
that
one
is
council
member
when
noted
to
a
degree
this.
This
has
been
a
problem
for
decades.
It's
not
a
new
problem.
It's
been
a
problem
in
previous
councils,
my
four
years,
the
city
clerk.
It
was
a
problem
at
just
about
just
about
every
meeting
it
felt
like
and
so
I
think.
The
real
thing
is
trying
something
new,
new
and
and
I
think
that
new
thing
would
be
moving
our
our
meetings
to
another
day.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
staff
has
clue.
H
A
I
think
just
real
quick,
councilmember
suffering
as
the
person
that
referred
this.
Do
you
have
any
Direction
after
hearing
the
discussion.
K
I
just
want
to
step
if
we
say
we're
starting
at
6,
30
6
30,
whatever
makes
the
most
sense.
It's
least
disruptive
to
everybody.
I
mean
I,
think
having
the
option,
the
recess
committees,
Works
changing
nights
sounds
a
little
bit
more
complicated,
but
it
could
work.
Simultaneous
committees
could
work,
you
know
and
my
only
I
don't
have
a
I,
don't
really
care
how
we
get
there.
But
I
think
like
people
who
come
here
at
seven
expecting
a
city
council
meeting
have
a
right
to
have
a
city
council
meeting.
It
starts
at
seven
or
seven.
A
Councilman
Reed
I
was
it
felt
like
you
were
going
to
make
a
motion.
Can
you
just
work
with
staff
to
bring
something
back
to
our
next
rules?
Committee
meeting
I'll
be
chair
and
I
commit
to
making
sure
whatever
is
worked
on
collaboratively,
but
this
body
makes
it
back
on
the
next
rules
committee
agenda
I.
Don't.
A
The
next
meeting,
so
that
item
is
for
discussion
so
seeing
no
matter
no
further
matters
before
us.
I
call
the
meeting
adjourned.