►
From YouTube: Rules Committee Meeting 10-19-2020
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
E
B
F
A
A
Perfect,
mr
vasilco,
you
have
three
minutes.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
tonight.
C
Thank
you
for
having
me
so
there's
only
one
agenda
item
and
I'm
curious
why
aldermen
think
they
deserve
more
compensation,
for
instance
than
the
mayor,
I'm
curious
why
compensation
is
more
than
doubled
and
I
understand
there's
some
intricacies
regarding
insurance,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
you're
more
than
doubling
your
compensation
you're
doing
that,
while
you're
laying
off
staff
or
reducing
staff
hours
or
provid,
requiring
furlough
days
for
staff,
etc,
you're
enriching
yourselves,
while
you're,
financially
hurting
others,
including
citizens
and
staff.
C
I
guess
many
of
you
think
of
this
as
a
career,
and
it's
really
not
supposed
to
be
a
career
you're
supposed
to
be
public
servants,
and
it's
just
that
it's
not
being
paid
like
a
full-time
corporate,
employee
or
ceo.
C
If
you
want
full-time
compensation
and
benefits,
quit
your
current
part-time
job
as
an
alderman
and
you
know,
go
out
and
seek
a
full-time
job,
and
actually
many
of
you
have
both
so
you're,
really
just
gaming,
the
system
at
the
taxpayer's
expense.
C
So
I
would
appreciate,
as
elected
officials,
not
employees
that
you
reject
this
compensation
package
since
I
have
extra
time
I'd
like
to
use.
It
also
express
my
dismay
over
the
upcoming
voted
council,
and
I
hope
that
many
of
you
who
said
you're
going
to
vote
no
on
that
contract
do
so
and
that
some
of
you
that
were
contemplating
voting.
Yes,
that
you
change
your
mind
and
vote.
No.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
mike
and
next
we
have
item
r1.
At
the
request
of
the
rules
committee
staff
prepared
a
memorandum
addressing
the
compensation
being
proposed
for
elected
officials
of
the
city
of
evanston.
This
is
open
for
discussion.
So,
if
you
have
any
discussion
now
is
the
time
is
there
any
staff
presentation.
G
Well,
I'm
wondering:
did
people
get
the
comments
that
I
sent
regarding
the
staff
memo
asked,
I
wasn't
sure
how
to
transmit
my
comments,
because
I
didn't
want
to
violate
the
open
meetings
act
and
I
asked
this
morning
if
dar
could
communicate
my
memo
to
the
committee.
Did
you
receive
it?
Okay,
okay,
good.
H
G
So
I'd
like
to
discuss
that
for
the
public
and
also
especially
for
mr
silco,
just
briefly
some
of
his
more
pointed
comments
I
spent
over
30
years
earning
quite
a
bit
of
money
in
the
real
estate
and
development
business,
raising
two
children
having
they
were.
I
was
a
single
parent.
I
put
them
both
through
college.
I
owned
two
homes
during
that
time
divorced
two
different
men
all
that
time.
I
also
served
the
people
in
the
city
of
evanston,
my
original
salary.
G
When
I
started
out
or
compensation
working
for
the
city
of
evanston
as
a
public
servant,
alderman
was
around
two
thousand
seven
hundred
dollars
a
year.
I
have
given
my
entire
adult
life
serving
the
people
of
evanston
and
the
eighth
ward,
and
I
have
done
it
because
I
love
doing
it
and
I
have
made
my
ward
better
so
much
better
and
I
have
not
begrudged
anybody
one
minute
of
that
time.
G
I
believe
I
have
the
best
attendance
record
in
the
city
of
evanston
all
germanic
history.
Having
said
that,
we
are
not,
as
I
say
in
the
memo,
we
are
not
like
any
any
city
employee.
We
you
can't
compare
us
to
any
group,
we
we
under
any
other
circumstances.
Our
salaries
would
be
illegal.
We
are
not
compensated
anywhere
near
the
minimum
wage
right
now.
G
It's
too
bad.
We
value
our
constituents
and
I
think
most
of
our
constituents
value
us.
It
sometimes
gets
very
tiring,
listening
to
to
comments
like
mr
vasilco's
putting
putting
all
the
men
down
who
sometimes
work.
You
know
40
50
hours
a
week,
sometimes
in
the
middle
of
the
night
there
is
no.
There
is
no
nine
to
five
with
alderman
nobody's
asking
for
a
huge
raise.
G
G
We're
not
we're
not
governed
by
those
laws
as
aldermen.
However,
however,
there
is
that
ideal
and
we
work,
we
work
our
butts
off
and
there
is
no
reason
why
some
alderman-
and
I
don't
begrudge
you
this
and
I
will
fight
for
you
to
have
all
the
insurance
you
need
and
if
you
get
sick
and
you
leave
the
council,
I
want
you
to
keep
that
insurance,
but
there
is
no
reason
some
of
us
get
17
18
20
000
more
a
year
than
others,
and
you
know
that
especially
the
women.
G
You
know
that
it
should
be
equal
pay
for
equal
work.
That's
all
I'm
asking
for,
and
if
mr
vasilco
and
some
of
his
ilk
don't
think
that's
right,
we
just
have
to
go
against
what
he
thinks
and
we
have
to
make
it
right.
This
isn't
even
for
us,
we
some
of
us
might
not
be
here
just
think
if
the
person,
if
I
don't
get
reelected
if,
if
robin,
doesn't
get
and
somebody
with
six
kids
gets
elected
in
our
place,
you're
gonna
be
paid.
G
That
person's
gonna
be
getting
family
insurance,
so
this
is
for
it
the
next
the
next
group
of
aldermen
might
be
us,
might
not.
We
might
all
get
replaced.
So,
let's,
let's
just
do
the
right
thing
here.
This
should
have
been
done
years
ago.
I
never,
I
never
got
any
traction
on.
It
should
have
been
done.
I
I
remember
alderman
simmons
when
she
was
on
the
compensation
committee
four
years
ago.
She
she
thought
this
was
the
right
thing.
G
A
No,
that's
not
right,
I
think
so!
No
is
there
any
other
council
member.
I
missed
clerk.
Reed's
public
comment
so
I'll
get
to
that
after
the
council
members.
Any
further
discussion
from
counsel
ottoman
fleming.
I
Oh
yes,
thank
you.
I
have
a
question
about
the
memo,
because
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
I
feel
like.
We
asked
a
variety
of
questions
in
the
mem
last
week
we
were
last
month
when
we
were
here
a
few-
I'm
not
really
seeing
here.
So
I
know
that
there
was
questions
about
legality
and
I
I
do
agree
with
equal
pay.
I
do
understand
you
know
that
it.
I
I
think
the
memo
states
that
if
I
get
insurance
like
I
get
the
family
insurance,
they
don't
consider
that
compensation,
but
I
think
the
point
as
a
city
is
paying
paying
that
money
out.
Whether
or
not
you
know
someone
takes
insurance,
so
I'm
just
want
to
be
sure
about
the
legality
of
it,
because
in
this
memo
it
goes
through
a
few
different.
I
didn't
understand.
J
So
if
I
can
address
alderman
fleming's
question,
so
first
of
all,
the
scenarios
at
the
bottom
of
the
memo
only
go
towards
addressing
what
alderman
rainey
was
suggesting
about
the
equal
pay
for
equal
work
and
she
conceded
earlier
just
a
few
minutes
ago
that
equal
pay
for
equal
work
does
not
apply
to
city
council,
because
you
are
not
employees
of
the
city
of
evanston.
So
that
was
the
only
reason
for
those
particular
points
at
the
bottom.
As
far
as
legality
there's
nothing
illegal
about
what's
being
proposed.
J
I
think
that
one
question
specifically
asked
about
the
taxation
for
income,
so
for
all
of
the
aldermen
who
decide
to
elect
health
insurance
through
the
city.
Those
deductions
would
come
directly
out
of
your
paycheck
and
those
would
go
towards
reducing
taxable
income
for
the
aldermen
and
we
certainly
could
entertain
paying
any
alderman
the
eighteen
hundred
dollars
per
year
that
is
being
paid
to
city
employees
for
waiving
the
health
insurance
as
well.
We
haven't
done
that
previously,
but
there's
nothing
illegal
about
that
either.
J
Sure
so
some
employees
get
the
benefit
of
that
because
it's
obviously
more
affordable
for
the
city
to
pay
the
eighteen
hundred
dollars
per
year
than
to
the
insurance
to
the
insurance
providers
for
insuring
an
employee.
So
we
want
to
try
to
encourage
folks
who
have
other
insurance
coverages
available
either
through
a
spouse
or
through
the
military,
to
take
that
option,
and
then
we
would
give
them
an
ins.
So
it's
basically
an
incentive
waiver,
basically
incentivizing
them
to
waive
our
insurance
to
hop
on
to
either
their
spouse's
insurance
or
even
a
parent's
insurance.
J
I
Okay
and
so
I'll,
just
kind
of
speak
to
not
necessarily
mr
basil,
but
my
thoughts
on
the
matter.
This
is
a
difficult
job
and
I
think
that
we
all
would
agree
that
you
know
we
work
more
than
we're
paid
for,
but
it's
also
a
choice
we
made.
I
think
that
many
of
us
have
talked
about
citizens
who
are
surprised.
We
don't
have
an
office
and
a
staff,
and
you
know
really
no
real
support
when
they
contact
us.
I
I
However,
I
think
we
talked
also
last
year
about
even
us
having
some
kind
of
support
staff
right.
Our
job
would
be
easier
if
we
even
had
someone
to
make
our
appointments
for
us,
which
we
don't
have
so
while
I
do
think
that
council,
you
know
ideally
should
make
more
just
because
it
allows
better
representation.
I
My
only
I
think
my
second
thought
here
is
just
because
we
are
in
such
a
bad
time
financially
right.
We,
we
have
cut
a
lot
of
staff,
we've
cut
a
lot
of
services
for
people,
and
so
my
only
concern
is
that
you
know
if
we
were
in
a
better
place,
financially
and
a
better
outlook
for
next
year.
I
This
would
be
a
no-brainer
for
me,
but
I
am
a
little
bit
conflicted
just
because
we
have
we
do
have
so
many
people
who
are
struggling
and
for
us
to
give
ourselves
a
raise
at
this
point.
Just
you
know.
Maybe
just
doesn't
look
very
well,
but
I
do
think
we
you
know
for
the
future,
whether
it's
me
or
not,
people
should
have
the
option
to
be
paid
at
least
closer
to
the
amount
of
time
that
they
put
in.
G
I
Right
now
I
get
that
and
I,
like
I
said
my
only
my
only
reservation
is
just
because
we're
in
a
bad
financial
year.
I
definitely
think
that
people
you
know
should
be
paid
equally.
I
agree
I
mean
I
don't
even
necessarily
love
that
our
staff
are
making
1800,
they
don't
get
insurance,
but
that's
not
the
question
at
hand.
I
just
I'm
a
little
concerned
just
because
it's
not
a
great
financial
year
for
us
as
a
corporation.
G
G
I
I
G
I
A
Right,
if
it's
so
did
I
hear
thank
you
for
the
discussion.
I
don't
know
if
I
hear
audrey
fleming
saying
she's
going
to
take
her
husband's
insurance.
I
don't
see
it
as
a
debate.
Everyone
has,
you
know
as
their
right,
but
I
think
kimberly
had
a
comment.
Did
you
have
something
to
say
kimberly
just
for
clarification.
E
The
city
council
does
have
staff
a
designated
staff
person
that
is
darp
restaurant.
She
is
her.
Title
is
automatic,
mayoral
secretary,
so
if
you're
not
utilizing
dart
in
that
capacity,
then
you
know
we
need
to
have
that
conversation
so
that
that
can
be
understood.
How
that
can
be
be
supporting
how
she
can
better
support
you,
but
as
the
alderman,
you
do
have
a
staff
that
has
designated
full
time
to
support
you
all
in
some
of
those
activities
that
you
mentioned.
L
All
right
I'll
take
it,
so
I
I
just
want
clarification.
Oh
marie,
I
understand
the
situation
is
trending,
but
our
job
here
is
to
come
up
with
a
solid
policy
rationale
for
compensation
that
will
attract
candidates
that
look
like
evanston
and
incentivize
people
to
take
time
out
of
their
lives
and
the
other
things
they
have
to
do
in
order
to
run
for
these
important
jobs.
I
don't
know
that.
I
understand
how
your
proposal
does
that.
L
Could
you
help
me
understand
the
policy
rationale
for
making
this
a
cash
payout
rather
than
a
benefit,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
benefits
that
you
know
some
aldermen
use
some
all
they're
doing
benefits
the
wrong
word,
a
lot
of
things
that
all
them
are
entitled
to
outside
legal
counsel,
technical
assistance
travel.
There
are
things
that
some
other
use
from
aldermen
don't,
but
we
don't
pay
those
who
don't
use
it.
L
G
G
L
And
I
guess
then
this
is
a
question
for
jennifer
lynn
because
she
addressed
this
in
her.
L
No,
I
understand
I
read,
I
read
what
you
wrote
and
I
guess
the
question
and
I
have
and
I'm
sorry
it's
not
the
question
for
you
is
a
question
from
jennifer
lin.
Everyone
is
compensated
the
same
in
the
context
of
employment
where
everyone
receives
a
salary
and
then
they
receive
a
level
of
insurance
that
they're
eligible
for
correct.
G
But
alderman
suffered
him
if
that,
if
that
family
insurance
is
taken
away
from
you,
like
the
compensation
committee
suggested,
people
would
have
to
dig
into
their
own
pocket
and
come
up
with
real
money
to
buy
that
insurance
outside
of
the
city
of
evanston.
So
anybody
who
continues
to
say
that
that
is
not
compensation
or
that
you're
not
being
financed
for
that
insurance
is
somehow
not
working
with
the
same
arithmetic
that
we
all
learned
in
grade
school
and.
A
I,
and
so
I
agree
with
ottoman
rainey
and
I
know
we're
going
to
get
to
jen's
response,
but
it's
certainly
compensation
so
in
the
example
where
we
have
some
of
the
council
member
who
elect
to
take
the
insurance
when
they
have
a
spouse
who
could
easily
insure
them
at
no
cost
to
them
that
it
or
some
cost
to
the
spouse,
that
cost
is
actual
compensation
somewhere,
so
either
that's
a
savings
that
they
have
with
their
spouse's
insurance
or
employment
somewhere.
That
is
more
actual
dollars
into
the
household.
A
So
I
do
see
where
making
some
adjustments
to
compensation
would
attract
more
candidates.
So
if
someone
did
make
the
you
know
37
000
a
year,
that's
you
know
a
little
bit
closer
to
a
living
wage.
You
know
allowing
folks
an
opportunity
that
maybe
be
on
a
resource
or
don't
have
a
spouse
at
home
that
is
supporting
them
financially
or
they're,
not
retired,
with
some
sort
of
retirement
income
it
allows
us
to
have
some
diversity
and
representation
on
the
council.
A
So
right
now
what
happens
is
if
you
have
someone
who
is
a
single
had
a
household
with
a
moderate
or
low
income?
It's
going
to
be
near
impossible
for
them
to
manage
the
responsibility
of
being
aldermen
and
and
they're
in
their
full-time
job.
Now
some
do
it
anyway,
but
I
hear
what
ottoman
rainey
is
saying
that
this
would
be
equal
pay
and
it
also
could
attract
and
alderman
fleming
just
said
it.
It
could
attract
more
candidates
to
the
council.
A
G
J
Sure
so
alderman
suffered
and,
to
answer
your
question
currently:
yes,
all
of
the
alder
men
are
making
salary
wise
the
same
amount
of
money,
so
it
is
currently
equal
pay
at
15
990.
J
The
benefits
are
offered
and
they're
the
same
that
are
being
offered
to
everybody,
but
different
people
are
electing
different
coverages
different
types
of
plans,
so
you've
got
two
aldermen,
for
instance,
who
are
single.
Then
you
have
some
aldermen
who
have
elected
hmo
plans
versus
ppo
plans.
So,
yes,
the
city
is
contributing
differently
towards
those
different
plans
based
on
coverage
and
tier.
But
just
I
just
wanted
to
say
one
thing:
the
cost
of
the
city,
the
total
cost
of
the
city
is
quite
different.
J
So
currently
using
the
current
status
quo,
the
city
is
paying
approximately
279
661
for
your
salaries
and
your
contributions
towards
health
insurance.
If
we
were
to
pay
the
37
000
for
the
nine
of
you
that
would
total
333
000.
So
there
is
a
a
53
000
increase
in
total
costs
to
the
city.
Using
the
proposed
plan.
L
Thank
you
and
the
we've
gotten
pretty
far
away
from
what
the
compensation
committee
recommended,
which
would
have
been
a
pretty
substantial
move
in
the
other
direction.
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
you
have
that
number
in
front
of
you,
but
what
they,
what
they
recommended
would
have
been
a
much
lower
total
cost
to
the
city.
J
Right,
I
think
that
the
previous-
I
I
don't
recall
all
the
details,
but
I
think
the
compensation
company
might
have
recommended
that
the
city
no
longer
pay
insurance
for
the
elected
officials
or
that
you
would
pay
a
hundred
percent
of
the
insurance,
but
not
on
top
of
your
current
salary.
So
no
that's.
G
L
H
Could
you
could
you
repeat
what
what
what
you
said
about
the
the
different
costs
to
the
city
is
that
it
is
that
roughly
sixty
thousand
dollars
what.
J
So
assuming
status
quo,
where
all
of
the
aldermen
receive
their
fifteen
thousand
nine
hundred
and
ninety
dollars
per
year
as
salary
and
then
the
city
contributes
their
percentage
of
the
health
insurance
premiums.
That
total,
if
it
remains
status
quo
currently
for
this
year,
is
279
661,
as
quote
unquote,
total
compensation
for
the
nine
aldermen.
J
H
Okay,
so
that's
roughly
what
six
six
thousand
dollars
per
alderman,
that
choosing
that
plan
will
cost
the
city
of
evanston.
Is
that
give
or
take?
Oh,
my
gosh?
Okay.
J
H
Well,
let
me
just
say
one
one
other
thing,
and
that
is
I
mean
from
the
beginning:
I've
always
looked
at
our
compensation
of
the
15
000
as
compensation
and
looked
at
the
health
insurance
as
a
benefit,
and
I
think
at
least
I
didn't
want
to
go
off
the
track
and
start
calling
it
all
compensation,
because
I
never
felt
comfortable
doing
that
because
each
one
of
us
is
different.
So
that's
what
I've
been
struggling
with.
So
my
druthers
as
I've
said
at
the
beginning,
is
just
to
leave
things
as
they
are
I've.
H
A
A
Like
if
it
was
to
like
right
now,
we
have-
I
guess
we
have
some
larger
families-
are
the
ones
that
are
getting
us
to
that
thirty
seven
thousand
dollars
to
increase
the
compensation,
call
it
compensation
and
then
have
an
insurance
benefit.
That
is
capped
at
a
dollar
amount.
Or
is
that
not
an
option
for
the
way
insurance
plans?
Work.
J
So
I
think
that
would
be
similar
to
what
kimberly
had
recommended
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
which
was
is
some
sort
of
dollar
matt
flat
dollar
amount
like
let's
call
it
a
an
insurance,
stipend,
so
x,
amount
of
dollars
per
month
that
might
cover
halfway
or
might
cover
75
percent
of
it
or
again
you
would
all
come
up
with
some
figure,
some
flat
amount.
That
would
cover
that
and
then,
if
you
choose
to
use
it,
you
use
it.
If
you
choose
not
to
use
it,
then
it
convinces
yours
as
cash.
J
K
Yes,
I
have
a
question
for
jennifer.
I
I
found
your
your
memo
very
interesting
on
the
page
two,
where
you're
talking
about
these
various
examples
of
employees,
for
example,
bullet
number
three
talks
about
a
healthier
ppo
employee
would
be
quote
paid
less
than
a
more
sickly
ppo
employee
and
those
kinds
of
examples
I
mean
is
that
would
that
be
the
case
if
we
were
talking
healthy
alderman,
with
a
ppo
plan
versus
a
not
so
healthy
alderman
with
a
ppo
plan?
A
So
ottoman
wilson.
F
Miss
lynn,
I
guess
just
to
clarify-
and
I
think
what
she
just
said
was
that
we
can
choose
to
do.
You
know,
there's
the
salary
and
then
there
would
be
an
insurance
stipend
of
x
dollars
and
you
can
use
that
for
the
insurance
and
then
that's
not
independently
taxable
income,
and
if
you
choose
not
to
use
it
for
the
insurance,
it
would
just
be
part
of
you
just
get
that
money
paid
in
your
compensation.
Is
that
correct
and
is
that
legal.
J
Yes,
it
is,
it
would
be
similar
to
your
cell
phone
stipends,
so
you're
getting
paid,
you
would
get
taxed
on
it.
You
would
get
you
know
you
paid
on
it
taxed
on
it
and
then,
if
you
use
it
for
health
insurance,
those
health
insurance
deductions
would
effectively
reduce
your
taxable
income.
So,
yes,
it
would
all
be
legal.
F
E
Well,
we
were
going
back
to
the
conversation
around
compensation
and
you
know
per
our
conversation.
The
last
meeting
we
were
looking
for
the
set
annual
amount
that
you
all
were
going
to
approve
for
ordinance
as
to
the
stipend
or,
if
that's
a
direction,
you
all
would
like
to
move
forward
with.
We
can
investigate
more
and
come
back
to
you.
That
does
not
require
us
to
have
to
follow
the
ordinance.
E
It
is
just
because
the
ordinance
language
requires
us
to
be
able
to
provide
the
compensation
for
the
perennial
that
you
will
be
approving
per
state
statute.
So
if
the
stipend
idea
is
something
you
want
us
to
explore,
we
can
definitely
do
that
and
come
back
with
some
options
for
you
all
to
look
at
like
we
did
for
the
telephone
stipend,
but
for
the
purpose
of
this
evening.
It's
a
matter
of.
E
Do
you
want
to
continue
with
the
current
model
of
having
the
compensation,
be
your
annual
stipend
salary,
which
then,
if
that's
the
case,
we
need
to
identify
how
you
like
to
see
that
dollar
amount
increase
or
decrease
per
the
memo
that
I
sent.
That
was
attached
to
the
last
meeting.
A
month
ago,
a
few
weeks
ago,
excuse
me,
I
can
share.
E
You
know
what
the
recommendation
was
that
was
presented
by
the
compensation
committee,
which
was
an
increase
of
of
keeping
it
flat
for
2021
2022
and
then
having
an
increase
of
2.5
and
2
2023
and
3.0
in
2024.
So
I
can
share
that
with
you
all
again.
If
that
will
help.
A
Are
we
running
into
some
sort
of
a
deadline
and
by
which
we
must
have
this
concluded
for
the
next
council?
So
what
kind
of
calendar
opportunity
do
we
even
have
for
more
meetings
about
for
discussion
on
this
before
we
take
an
action.
A
E
Don't
have
that
many
more
meetings
left,
so
we
would
like
to
get
this
as
quickly
on
to
the
26th
meeting
if
possible.
If
not,
then
we
would
have
to
make
sure
this
is
all
approved.
No
later,
then,
I
think
is
it
november
10th
alex
yeah.
I
think
it's
correct.
J
Okay,
if
I
may,
as
you're
thinking
about
these
things,
you
have
to
think
about,
if
you,
if
you
went
with
the
model
that
the
compensation
committee
had
recommended
so
basically
a
ppo1
single
rate
that
would
be
given
to
all
of
the
aldermen
and
then
essentially,
anybody
who
wanted
to
purchase
up
buy
up
into
a
family
plan.
They
would
pay
the
difference
out
of
their
of
their
salary
and
their
compensation.
J
You
have
to
think
about
what
that
looks
like
so
you
know,
you've
got
a
ppm,
I'm
just
looking
at
my
other
sheet
here,
the
the
ppo
the
single
rate
is
approximately.
J
I'm
just
talking
about,
if
you
were
just
thinking
about
what
some
annual
stipends
would
look
like
or
monthly
stipends
would
look
like
if
you're
looking
at
a
ppo
single
that
would
be
about
8
200
a
year.
So
maybe
that's
the
you
know
if
you're
looking
at
some
difference
between
a
fully
loaded
family
plan
versus
a
ppo
single,
that's
the
that's
the
largest
difference,
so
8
200
a
year
compared
to
the
24
000
a
year.
A
Okay,
clerk
reed,
if
you
can,
I
apologize
for
skipping
over
you
on
public
comment.
If
you
can
share
your
summit
now,.
D
Yes,
my
camera
isn't
turning
on,
but
that
is
fine,
I'm
still
a
little
wet
from
early
voting,
so
I
just
wanted
to
mention
I'm
glad
you
held
off
for
a
bit
because
I
do
want
to
there.
We
go.
I
can
start
my
camera
now.
I
do
want
to
mention
a
few
things
and
first,
since
we
were
just
on
the
topic,
I
just
want
to
mention
that
the
the
various
cost
you
know,
basing
you
know
the
status
quo
versus
you
know
this
new
plan.
D
You
know
the
alderman
rainey's
proposal
is
is
somewhat
irrelevant
because
again
a
new
council
could
be
elected
where
we
have.
You
know
everyone
with
a
family
of
four
taking.
You
know
the
full
insurance
and
in
fact
we
could
have
a
mayor
with
a
family
of
six.
You
know
taking
insurance,
so
the
the
status
quo
really
could
balance
out
anywhere
from
you
know
where
we
are
now
to
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
more
depending
on
who
gets
elected.
D
G
D
Yes,
I
do,
but
what
my
my
comment
here
is
is:
is
that
what
we're
really
deciding?
What
the
real
decision
making
process,
I
think,
should
be
based
on
equity
right.
It
should
be
based
on
not
on
you
know
the
equity
of
if
the
aldermen
are
paid
the
same.
It's
about
allowing
you
know.
As
alderman
fleming
said,
we
are
in
a
tough
financial
time
and
we
know
that
low-income.
D
You
know
essential
workers
have
been
born
the
brunt
of
this,
so
we
should
create
a
system
that
allows
for
that
single
mother
of
two
who's
working
full
time
at
target
in
our
community
to
be
able
to
have
a
voice
on
the
council,
and
we
need
to
compensate
that
mother
of
two
enough
to
make
this
a
realistic,
viable
way
for
her
to
participate
in
her
democracy.
D
But
the
real
reason
I
came
to
today
to
speak
was
on
the
mayor's
salary.
You
know
there
was
a
discussion
last
meeting
about
creating
equality
amongst
the
aldermen.
You
know
because
currently
one
alderman
or
several
aldermen
have
four
folks
on
their
on
their
insurance
plan.
We
want
to
create
that
same
equality
for
the
mayor's
office.
So
if
the
mayor
gets
elected
with
six
children,
they're
compensated
the
same
amount
as
a
mayor
who
gets
elected
with
no
children.
D
C
G
So,
as
my
my
proposal
for
37
000
is
really
our
salary
plus
about
20
000
for
a
stipend,
for
I
mean
that's
what
it
adds
up
to
for
buying
any
insurance
you
want
and
it
takes
care
of
the
mom
at
target
it
takes
care
of.
You
know
the
mayor
wants
to
get
included.
I
I
didn't
want
to
speak
for
the
mayor,
I'm
I'm
taking
care
of
aldermen.
G
I
don't
know
from
the
mayor
and
I
don't
know
from
the
city
clerk
I
figured
they
need
to
speak
up
on
their
own
behalf,
but
I'm
talking
about
comparing
alderman
to
alderman.
I
know
how
much
work
we
do
and
that's
what
I'm
talking
about
so
the
the
I
am
telling
you.
I
sat
through
every
single
meeting
of
the
compensation
committee.
They
do
not
believe
that
aldermen
should
be
given
money
to
pay
for
family
insurance.
I
disagree
totally
with
that
notion.
Alderman
should
have
the
ability.
G
A
At
this
point,
we
need
we
need
to
give
staff
some
direction
and
it
doesn't
sound
like
we
have
ottoman.
What's
your
hand
up,
I'm
sorry.
F
Yeah
sorry,
I've
got
a
funky
first
time
using
the
background.
So
I
I
was
gonna.
I
guess
float
a
suggestion,
so
alvin
simmons.
I
think
this
is
where
you're
headed,
but
I
was
gonna
suggest
that
to
get
it
in
front
of
council
that
we
move
this
forward,
but
that
we
have
staff
not
to
make
extra
work
for
anybody,
but
I'm
gonna
make
work
for
them.
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
they
just
prepare
two
options.
F
One
is
with
the
stipend
option
and
the
one
as
it
is
as
far
as
the
actual
salary
goes,
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
keep
the
salary
the
same
and
not
have
increases.
F
F
It
for
the
rest
of
our
lives
and
not
get
anywhere
so
in
order
to
advance
the
advanced
issue
and
suggest
that
they
prepare
both
ordinances
and
then
we
can
come
up
with,
hopefully,
the
best
iteration.
Out
of
that.
A
You're
right,
that's
where
I
was
going
with
that
ottoman
wilson
and
I
just
have
to
say,
like
I
know
we're
calling
it
insurance
and
compensation,
but
the
insurance
is
certainly
compensation.
Otherwise,
those
of
you
that
could
absolutely
have
your
insurance
taken
care
of
by
your
spouse
have
done
it
likely
because
of
the
cost
savings
and
the
additional
revenue
that
would
come
out
of
your
household.
If
you
did
an
alternative,
so
it's
compensation,
mayor,
hagerty,.
B
F
Is
so
the
two
would
be
the
stipend
that
we've
been
talking
about,
so
you
get
the
salary
which
I'm
proposing
and
an
insurance
stipend
of
x
dollars.
Whatever
it
comes,
I
think
it's
20-ish
thousand
the
alternative
ordinance
would
be
keep
it
the
same
as
it
is
now,
and
you
know
somewhere,
you
know
in
there
is
going
to
be
what
we
end
up
doing,
but
we
just
need
to
get
it
to
council,
so
we
can
pass
spend
time.
Okay.
B
All
right
got
it
my.
I
would
just
ask
the
council
once
it
makes
its
decision
on
this
at
the
city
council
meeting
to
consider
whether
this
ought
to
be
something
for
that
future
council's
handled
directly,
as
opposed
to
appointing
a
citizen
panel
who
does
a
lot
of
hard
work
comes
up
with
something
and
you'd
have
to
go
back
and
look
historically
to
see
if
it
has
been
adopted
or
not,
but
certainly
if
option
a
which
you've
all
been
talking
about
tonight
is
adopted
by
the
council.
B
You
know
that's
far
from
where
the
compensation
committee
was
so.
I
just
questioned
whether
there
really
should
be
an
ad
hoc
committee
put
together
or
whether
the
council
ought
to
just
address
this
and
have
these
kind
of
conversations
that
we're
having
in
rules
committee
meetings
in
the
future.
E
Kimberly
just
clarity
because
of
alderman
wilson,
the
stipend,
if
it's
something
that
we
are
looking
for,
we
wouldn't
put
a
dollar
amount
to
it
because,
similar
to
the
other
stipends,
they
are
attached
to
your
rules,
the
rules
of
city
council
and
it's
not
a
part
of
the
ordinance
because
they
now
allow
you
flexibility
to
adjust
where
the
council
might
see
a
need
for
it
in
the
future.
E
F
G
A
So
we're
moving
forward,
giving
staff
direction
on
two
proposals,
one
with
the
stipend
and
one
as
the
initial
recommendation
that
we
had
general
consensus
on.
I
thought
at
our
last
meeting
and
it
sounds
like
I
and
it
sounds
like.
We
also
have
a
referral
from
mayor
hagerty
to
go
to
rules
to
eliminate
compensation
committee
in
the
future
and
have
this
be
a
rules
committee.
B
I
I
think,
that's
something
I'm
suggesting
whether
it's
you
know
this
council
or
the
next
council
that
that
handles
that
question
is
debatable.
A
Okay,
so
do
you
want
this
council
or
the
next
council
so
that
we
can
give
staff
direction.
A
Right
so
we're
going
on
record
as
recommending
to
the
next
council
that
they
consider
looking
at
the
history
of
the
compensation
committee
and
what
has
been
accepted
from
their
recommendation
and
consider
issuing
a
action
at
rules
committee
and
with
that,
is
there
any
further
discussion.
I
just
needed.
F
A
That's
the
numbers,
it's
still
kind
of
like
we're
just
using
that
number
as
a
model
because
of
this
current
council,
but
to
other
points
like
who
knows
what
the
family
makeup
will
be
on
the
next
council
and
then
will
it
be
equitable
if
we
do
have
a
family
of
six
and
right
now
we
have
you,
know
the
largest
family,
maybe
a
four
or
whatever
it
is.
So
it's
just
like
just
a
random
number
really,
because
we
don't
know
what
the
makeup
of
the
next
council
will
be.
A
But
if
that's
the
direction,
if
we
have
to
have
a
number,
then
we're
saying
that
we
would
not
be
providing
compensation
to
a
family
of
more
than
four
because
we're
using
this
current
council
as
a
reference
ottoman
win.
M
Jen,
could
you
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
the
37
000
number
that
were
were
using?
That's
I
mean
about
once
you
get
above
a
certain
number
of
children.
It
doesn't
matter.
Is
that
right.
J
M
A
Helpful
to
know
so
that's
really
helpful
to
know.
In
my
case
I
have
you
know
two
adult
children
that
still
would
have
qualified,
but
they
had
insurance.
When
I
came
here-
and
I
opted
not
to
you-
know-
tax
the
the
the
residents
of
evanston
with
additional
insurance
that
was
already
covered,
but
that's
what
I
did
in
my
family
situation.
So
with
that
do
you
have
enough
direction
to
come
back
to
us
with
two
options
for
action?
A
Yes,
okay,
if
there
is
no
further
discussion,
do
we
have
a
motion
to
adjourn.