►
From YouTube: June 29, 2023 Special Meeting of Mountain View Council Policy and Procedures Committee, CPPC
Description
Live teleconference of the Mountain View Council Policy and Procedures Committee Special Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2023.
A
A
A
A
B
A
Okay,
next
item
is
oral
Communications.
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
committee
on
any
matter,
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
committee
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items.
B
C
C
A
question
was
raised
by
the
mayor,
and
this
is
actually
something
that
was
raised
by
some
of
our
community
members
too.
In
discussion
we
weren't
really
sure
about
whether
a
Community
member
can
quote
unquote
poll
an
item
or
whether
we
just
asked,
or
we
mentioned
that
we
want
to
comment
on
a
consent,
calendar
item,
but
it
actually
has
to
be
pulled
by
vote
from
city
council
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
sound
right
to
me,
but
I.
Just
wonder
what
the
procedure
is.
I
think
we
would
all
benefit
from
knowing
what
it
really
is.
A
A
C
A
A
The
city
clerk
did
collect
policies
from
other
cities
and
my
conclusion,
based
upon
looking
at
all
those
was
there,
is
no
one
procedure
or
practice
that
cities
use
different
jurisdictions.
You
know
treat
this
differently,
you
know.
Sometimes
they
have
a
directly
elected
mayor.
You
know
they
don't
necessarily
have
a
formal
rotation
and
so
I
came
away
from
reading
all
of
those
with
well.
A
We
could
do
whatever
we
want
to
do,
because
there
is
no
consistent
policy
and
the
one
thing,
though
we
did
notice
in
a
lot
of
the
policies,
was
a
lot
of
them
had
prescribed
seating
arrangements
for
the
dance
which
we
never
had.
So
we
drafted
one
and
put
it
in
here
Loosely,
based
upon
what
I've
observed,
but
again,
that's
another
area
open
for
discussion.
A
But
then
I
think
we
should
also
discuss.
Is
there
anything
else
you
know
and
stress
test
this
for
different
scenarios,
because
you
all
probably
have
different
ones
than
we
came
up
with
okay.
So,
let's
start
with
questions
from
the
committee.
Are
there
any
so
so
I
first
I
think
I
can
guess
but
I'm
you
know
I'm
a
slow
reader
I.
Think
so.
Can
you
tell
me
the
RE
I
can
guess
from
kind
of
reading
this
in
the
last
couple
minutes.
A
The
definitions
seem
to
be
the
opposite
of
what
I
would
expect.
I
would
think,
because
rant
tell
me
if
I'm
reading
it
wrong
rank
seems
to
mean
how
long
you've
been
there
or
how
senior
you
are
and
seniority
seems
to
mean
how
long
we've
been
there,
plus
your
rank
in
the
election,
so
I
would
flip
the
the
I
would
flick.
The
words
I
would
say,
the
senior
member
is
the
one
who's
been
there.
The
longest
and
the
highest
ranking
is
the
one
who's
been
there.
The
longest
plus
your
rank
in
the
election
I.
F
So
what
you're,
describing
in
terms
of
your
placement
in
the
election
refers
solely
to
a
tiebreaking
provision.
If
two
members
have
to
be
of
equal
work
in
terms
of
years
of
service
on
a
council
or
actually
consecutive
days
of
service
is
the
actual
formula
right
now
so
effectively
it.
You
would
not
have
two
senior
members.
You
would
only
have
one
member,
because
one
member
has
to
have
had
a
higher
number
of
votes
than
the
other.
F
There
is
ever
a
tie
so
that,
to
clarify
that
point
and
right
now,
the
current
draft
that
you
have
before
you
does
not
actually
use
senior
it's
it's
essentially
a
reserved
term.
It
uses
highest
ranking.
The
reason
for
that
is
in
most
parliamentary
bodies.
Senior
refers
to
either
the
age
of
the
member.
F
For
example,
in
the
U.S
Senate,
the
senior
member
of
the
Senate
is
the
eldest
number
and
as
a
common
courtesy,
the
body
allows
that
person
to
sit
at
the
diocese
when
the
majority
member
is
out
of
the
chamber
so,
but
that
has
no
effect
on
the
rank
of
that
number
within
the
body
in
terms
of
where
they
sit
on
a
committee.
Do
they
head,
you
know,
do
they
do
they
head
the
body,
for
example,
so
that
is
why
that
term
is
currently
reserved.
It
is
eligible
for
use.
If
you
need
it.
A
F
A
B
F
To
clarify
for
the
mayor
this
year,
the
term
senior
can
also
be
used
to
some
bodies,
use
it
not
to
revert
age,
but
also
just
the
number
who's
been
there
for
the
most
number
of
years,
but
without
consecutive
service
yeah.
In
the
current
draft
rules,
consecutive
service
is
what
determines
rank
order
so.
A
So
can
I
does
that
so
I'm
we
could
go
back
and
forth
with
questions.
I
don't
want
to
want
to
ask
all
the
questions
in
a
row,
but
so
consecutive
like
consent
now
I'm
starting
to
test
it
with
different
cases,
so
by
consecutive
Lisa
would
rank
above
Pat
because
Pat
took
a
break.
Is
that
true?
Okay
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understood
this?
Okay,
okay,
other
people
can
ask
questions
and
I'll.
G
F
Potentially
all
three
would
be
eligible
as
the
highest
ranking
member,
and
so
that
tie-breaking
provision,
where
you
have
consecutive
years
of
service,
combined
with
the
highest
vote
counts
in
the
election,
is
meant
to
ensure
technology.
One
person
who
ranks
as
the
highest
ranking
member
does
that
hopefully
answer
one
part
of
your
question.
Yes,
okay
can.
G
F
I
see,
okay,
so
so
to
clarify
that
part
in
What
We
effectively
did
with
these
edits
is
bring
two
components
that
were
actually
separated
because
there
actually
was
a
component
in
the
rules
that
had
highest
number
of
ballots
cast
for
that
individual
as
a
tie-breaking
provision.
But
there
was
a
strange
Gap
because
it
didn't
always
apply
in
every
instance.
So
this
closes
that
Gap.
You
should
never
have
another
Thai
situation.
There.
G
A
Although
you
know
who
knows
if
we
really
have
yeah
and
get
away
from
the
things
that
were
ambiguous
or
could
be
ambiguous,
like
terms
now,
it's
specified
as
the
number
of
days
that
you
have
served
so
then
you
don't
have
to
figure
out,
am
I
in
the
first
term
or
the
second
term
of
my
time
on
Council,
which
is
what
the
oil
policy
talked
about.
Can
you
tell
me
what
number
of
days
how
that
helps?
A
A
C
C
A
G
There
was
a
regular
election,
wasn't
there
yeah,
and
so
the
people
who
won
the
regular
election
were
sworn
in
at
the
conventional
time
and
I
thought
galiota
was
sworn
in
earlier,
and
that
was
the
justification
for
him
becoming
vice
mayor.
Instead
of
what
Greg
Perry
right
am
I.
Getting
this
history
right,
I.
A
B
G
G
F
Days
are
also
more
valuable.
Is
that
if
you
can
foresee
a
situation
where
there
are
going
to
be
one
or
more
mid-cycle,
either
appointments
or
special
elections?
You
can
plan
ahead
and
ensure
that
they
are
not
on
the
same
day
right,
because
that
effectively
removes
the
type
the
tie-breaking
aspect
right,
because
so
long
as
even
if
it's
just
a
matter
of
one
day,
you've
avoided
the
issue
altogether
in
the
future.
So.
A
Yeah
I
think
a
lot
of
people
were
also
confused
about
that
outside
the
same
for
the
first
term
and
the
second
term,
and
if
you
had
a
break
between
your
turns
was
the
next
time
you
were
here
your
second
term.
If
you
had
already
served
the
first
term,
even
though
you
took
a
break
and
it
and
so
consecutive
days,
I
appreciate
you
coming
up
with
that,
because
that
makes
it
much
more
clear
what
we're
talking
about
yeah
so
do
we
have
any?
A
Have
you
been
through
any
scenarios
in
which
people
who
are
appointed
rank
higher
I
can't
really
think
of
this,
but
rank
higher
than
people
who
are
elected,
I,
don't
mean
appointed
and
then
go
through
an
election
like?
How
does
that
have
you
been
through
scenarios
with
appointees,
so
not
personally
in
terms
of
actual
happening,
but
we
did
talks
about
some
stereos
and
I.
Think
that's
worth
discussing
to
make
sure
what's
in
here
is
what
we
want.
A
A
C
B
A
F
A
A
E
A
B
A
Yeah-
and
you
know
we
have
had
different-
you
know
I
thought
that
for
my
years
on
Council
and
it
has
varied
a
little
bit
from
year
to
year,
but
this
was
similar
to
at
least
one
other
city
and
I
thought
well.
That
was
probably
the
closest
that
I
could
see
from
the
examples
that
our
city
court
found
to
what
we
kind
of
do.
But
again,
you
know:
there's
no
set
rule
on
this.
One.
C
F
D
So
I
would
just
say
this
is
really
clean
for
you
all,
because
I
think,
every
year
a
new
mayor
is
kind
of
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
city
clerk
or
with
myself
or
the
City
attorney.
You
know,
we've
gone
through
that
who
do
I
put
where
what
do
I
do,
and
this
frankly
takes
some
of
the
pressure
off
of
the
new
mayor
of
how
the
seating
should
go
so,
and
this
is
very
similar
to
what
I've
seen
done
in
other
agencies
as
well.
A
So
maybe
we
should
go
through
this
and
if
you
have
comments
or
suggestions,
you
know,
maybe
we
can
just
go
Page
by
page
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
thinking.
So
you
know
we
added
that
we
put
a
seating
arrangement
in
here.
We
added
the
definition.
Section
is
all
new
and
that's
because
we
felt
like
it
wasn't
really
clear
and
we've
added
in
some
ways
new
Concepts
versus
what
was
in
here
before.
G
The
only
caveat
well
I
I,
wouldn't
change
anything
based
on
the
existing
Charter,
but
the
charter
could
change
and
that
could
affect
our
ability
to
have
council
members
able
to
serve
for
10
consecutive
years.
So
it
may,
it
may
become
moods
depending
on
where
the
charter
modernization
is,
but
as
I
think
this
is
fine.
As
drafted.
A
A
Section
D
is
one
where,
as
I
went
through
this
I
thought.
This
is
not
necessarily
what
we
do,
but
this
is
what
the
policy
said.
So
I
was
thinking.
Maybe
what
we
want
to
do
here
is
specify
more
closely
to
what
we
do
and
something
to
the
effect
of.
If
there's
only
one
nomination,
we
will
vote
using
and
I.
A
Don't
know
what
you
call
it
our
the
electronic
voting
system,
but
if
there's
more
than
one
nomination,
I
would
suggest
that
we
do
what
we've
been
doing
recently,
where
we
write
the
names
down
and
we
give
them
to
the
city
clerk
so
that
it's
still
a
secret
ballot.
So
to
speak,
just
like
it
is
when
you
use
the
electronic
system
unless
you're
looking
at
your
neighbors
and
seeing
what
they're
doing,
but
you
know
it
just
makes
it
I,
think
more
more
and
so
I
would
suggest
we
change
this.
B
A
Have
it
more
closely
aligned
to
that
and
I
will
quickly.
Add,
though,
that
you
know
this
is
well
actually
I,
let
me
take
that
back.
It's
only
the
informal
rotation
that
is
the
one
that
the
stencil
can
do
whatever
they
want
to
do,
or
can
we
do
whatever
we
want
to
do
even
with
the
others
that
are
not
informal
so
to
speak.
F
A
A
Also
process
we
use
to
okay,
so
I
think
you
know.
Lately
we
have
been
specifying
what
the
procedure
should
be
for
voting
in
updates
to
council
policies.
So
when
I
read
this,
our
current
one
doesn't
really
say
that,
but
I
thought,
maybe
if
we
wanted
to,
we
could
here
to
make
it
more
consistent
with
our
others.
But
you
two
are
looking
at
me
like.
G
B
G
I
I
have
a
totally
ridiculous
process
questions
since
that's,
okay,
so
of
course
the
first
is
just
to
clarify
for
us
to
take
any
action.
We
have
to
make
a
motion
in
the
conventional
way,
so
we
could
have
this
informal
process
and
then
once
we
find
out,
there's
majority
support
for
a
given
applicant,
then
somebody
would
have
to
move,
and
somebody
would
have
to
second
that
that
the
person
who
has
who
has
demonstrated
the
greatest
amount
of
support
would
become
the
mayor
of
vice
mayor
right.
A
A
G
A
A
F
A
Think
when
it
comes
to
actual
voting,
so
if
we
back
up
and
talked
about
nomination
first,
what
we
tend
to
do
now
is
just
somebody
will
nominate
somebody
and
somebody
will
second
it
and
then
we'll
say:
are
there
any
other
nominations
and
typically
there's
not,
and
then
we
just
take
a
vote
using
the
electronic
system.
So
what
I
was
concerned
about
is
if
there
is
more
than
one
nomination
that
you
wouldn't
want
to
do.
F
As
long
as
the
the
public
is
ultimately
made
aware
of
what
the
events
were,
yeah
there's
no
there's
no
procedural
limitation
on
that,
but
what
I
I
think
what
I'm
taking
away
from
this
is
that
you
have
a
few
different
options
that
could
be
if
you
wanted
to
put
into
the
walls.
The
first
is
simply
that
for
the
first
nomination
stage,
each
council
member
writes
down
there.
C
F
A
A
A
We
work
better
when
there's
been
one
nomination
and
that
it
largely
I
mean
largely
what
we're
doing
is
rotating
I.
Don't
have
to
say
that
that's
what
this
says,
we're
rotating
according
to
a
process
that,
to
some
degree,
ensures
that
people
have
some
experience
before
they
step
into
the
role
and
I.
Think
that
helps
us.
I
mean
I.
Think
this
is
why
there's
the
informal,
whatever
it's
called
here
at
the
the.
A
Because,
in
the
past,
from
what
what
I've
heard,
there
was
not
like
decades
past
and
it
caused
sort
of
bitter
feelings
way
before
my
time,
but
bitter
feelings
between
people
as
they
were
working
together
and
maybe
not
you
know
not
doing
and
maybe
not
doing
that
rotation
as
well,
so
I
think
I
think
that
I
also
think
that
this
informal
rotation
is
respectful
to
voters.
Because
You,
Know,
You're,
Not
Elected.
A
Unless
you
get
a
lot
of
votes
and
you
represent,
you
know
different
members
of
the
community
and
so
everybody
who's
voted
kind
of
gets
the
representation
to
some
degree,
not
that
the
mayor
I
mean
our
mayor
doesn't
have
that
much
power
above
everyone
else
on
Council.
You
still
need
four
votes,
but
I
think
it's
a
pretty
fair
process
that
gives
that
makes
our
work
more
cohesive,
so
I
wouldn't
want
I,
don't
want
to
also
I
will
be
overseeing
the
next
classes
and
I
don't
want.
D
Five
different
numbers:
well,
it
sounds
like
the
the
issue
really
is:
do
you
vote?
Do
you?
Do
you
say
the
Motions
on
the
floor?
Do
you
vote
right,
you're
saying
if
someone
has
nominated
council
member
and
someone
has
seconded
the
issue
becomes
if
there's
another
nomination
which
we
haven't
had
for
many
years
because
of
the
rotation
cycle,
and
people
have
respected
that,
but
there
could
be
a
potential
in
the
future
for
that
to
change,
but
I
think
the
policy
that
you
all
or
the
process
that
you
all
have
outlined
would
dictate
who
even
gets
nominated.
D
Should
you
follow
that
process?
So
if
you
aren't
going
to
follow
the
process
at
all-
and
let's
say
it's,
you
know
something
that
is
like
a
totally
divided
Council
or
the
election
is
bad
or
whatever,
and
no
one
wants.
Whoever
should
be
in
line
to
be
a
mayor
next
to
be
mayor
or
vice
mayor.
Then
it
could
totally
change.
You
can
nominate,
you
know
two
people
from
the
floor.
Three
people
I'd
say
that
would
be
far
less
likely.
A
D
E
D
A
E
Would
it
work
for
you
guys
to
add
in
here
that
if
the
informal
rotation
is
is
being
followed,
that
an
emotion
and
a
second
that
the
ceremonial
type
that
you
have
now,
where
someone
you
know,
is
kind
of
talks
about
why
they
think
this
person
right
and
then
you
vote
right
when
there's
only
when
you're
gonna
follow.
What's
here
and
in
the
case
that
you're
not
gonna,
follow.
E
A
G
G
F
A
F
A
That
I
think
it's
important
that
both
the
mayor
and
the
vice
mayor
be
people
who
have
been
elected
at
some
point,
whether
it
be
currently
or
in
the
past.
So
I
could
see
where,
if
you
had
an
appointment
that
was
a
previously
elected
similar
to
the
applicants.
We
had
this
time
for
the
appointment.
Some
of
them
have
previously
been
elected,
I'd,
be
okay
with
them,
taking
that
position
because
they
have
been
elected,
but
not
somebody
who
has
not
been
through
an
election.
D
A
Would
agree
with
that
I
mean
I
I.
Think
I've
I
mean
what
I've
found
out
through
the
last
appointment
process.
Is
that
appointments
are
fairly
common.
You
know
other
cities
do
them.
It's
not
like.
We
did
some
odd
thing,
but
that
many
members
of
the
community
have
strong
feelings
about
having
people
who
are
elected.
A
A
G
I
understand
what
you're
saying
but
I
feel
like
the
skill
set
to
govern
is
different
from
the
skill
set
to
get
elected.
Just
because
you've
been
elected,
doesn't
mean
you're,
going
to
be
a
good
mayor
right.
It
I
for
whatever
that's
worth
you
know,
and
and
similarly
there
could
be
a
scenario
where
someone
who
is
appointed
might
have
had
extensive
Service
as
in
in
an
advisory
capacity,
for
instance
right.
G
So
someone
like
a
Robert
Cox,
who
has
been
an
advisory
body
member
forever,
who
could
come
in
as
vice
mayor,
probably
fairly
easily,
and
then
there's
also
a
scenario
where
I.
If
we're
going
to
deny
a
Pointe
is
the
opportunity
to
serve
in
leadership?
I
would
want
to
extend
it
to
all
appointees,
regardless
of
whether
they've
been
elected
before,
because
sometimes
people
who
get
elected
get
unelected
by
the
voters
for
very
good
reasons
right
and
there
could
be
a
scenario
where
a
council
didn't
like
that.
C
G
A
G
Leadership
of
the
council
right:
okay,
I
I,
don't
personally
I
I'm,
not
offended
by
an
appointee
becoming
a
vice
mayor
that
doesn't
really
bother
me,
especially
I.
Presumably
the
council
has
selected
that
person
to
be
vice
mayor
because
I
think
that
person's
capable
and
if
they
really
didn't
think
they
were
capable,
they
would
say
we're
going
to
change
the
process
and
the
point
someone
or
elect
someone
who
is
more
prepared
to
serve
in
that
role
than
be
appointed
to
use.
A
C
F
Aware
putting
in
a
requirement
that
the
mayor
advice
they
are
being
elected
will
result
in
some
situations
where
a
freshly
elected
individual
is
the
only
eligible
person
on
the
rotation
list
to
be
mayor
and
vice
mayor
and
that
will
occur
anytime.
Three
or
more
members
are
elected
one
election.
So
just
to
be
aware
of
that.
C
D
You
could
say
this
only
applies
to
those
individuals
who
were
elected,
and
then
that
would
handle
these.
If
you
are
wanting
to
address
the
appointed
situation,
but
what
matesh
just
described
would
would
happen.
Actually
it
would
happen
based
on
the
three
four
three
and
elected
Oregon
elected
three
elected
four
get
elected
so.
A
G
F
G
A
G
Is
a
tough
one
right,
yeah
part
of
the
I,
don't
want
to
pretend
to
know
more
than
I
really
do
but
I
remember
back
when
Larry
Stone
was
on
the
Sunnyvale
Council.
He
was
part
of
this
reform
effort
where
there
were
a
lot
of
folks
who
would
resign
at
a
like
this.
Apparently
this
was
a
common
thing
in
Sunnyvale.
They
would
resign
sort
of
tactically
to
allow
the
council
to
appoint
their
friends.
G
They
just
had
this
churn,
and
so
that's
why
Ben
council,
member
Stone
was
part
of
the
effort
to
amend
the
charter
to
require
a
special
election
I
think
in
every
case,
that's
how
they
ended
up
with
the
Dave
whitham
doing
like
retire.
He
left
the
council
at
just
a
spectacularly
awful
time
because
it
required
a
a
concurrent
special
election.
That
was,
you
know
very
expensive
where
they
could
have
just
appointed
someone
for
like
five
bucks
at.
F
B
D
E
F
A
F
A
Pat,
wood
yeah
should
we
rotate
into
an
air,
so
the
other
the
person
who
hasn't
been
either
mayor
or
vice
mayor
is
Emily
Ramos
and
then
the
highest
ranking
would
be
I.
Think
me
yeah,
because
everybody
else
has
been
mayor
or
vice
mayor,
so
we're
circling.
So
that's
what
I
didn't
understand,
whether
whether
we're
go
so
your
higher
ranking,
because
you've
had
more
consecutive
days
than
Ellen
Lewis?
Yes,
okay,
right.
B
A
And
then
in
the
group
that
was
elected
with
me,
I
was
the
highest
vote.
Getter,
so
I
have
the
highest
ranking.
That's
my
other
question.
It's
from
your
original
election
original
okay,
and
so,
if
nobody
liked
you
the
second
time
around
and
you
just
barely
scratched
through
you
still,
okay
I
just
need
it
yeah
yeah,
so
I
think
I'm.
Okay,
with
that,
you
know
I'm
feeling
like
maybe
the
cppc
should
discuss
this
again.
A
C
A
A
E
E
G
B
B
Thank
you.
So
much
chair,
I'm,
going
to
give
a
brief
overview
to
the
committee
of
your
items
that
you've
accomplished
for
this
fiscal
year.
So
for
this
fiscal
year,
you've
completed
nine
items.
You've
continued
one
item
today
and
then
you'll
receive
an
additional
update
today,
so
11
for
the
fiscal
year.
They
are
highlighted
for
you
on
the
first
page
of
the
memo.
For
the
second
page
of
the
memo
we
have
the
highlights
of
what
you'll
be
anticipating
for
the
next
fiscal
year.
B
There
are
four
items:
the
item
you
have
just
continued
here
today,
which
is
the
A6.
In
addition,
there
is
a
minor
note
which
is
related
to
some
feedback
of
a
pending
item,
and
we
can
take
feedback
on
that
here
today
or
context,
or
additional
guidance
can
be
offered
by
the
full
Council,
and
that
is
a
proposed
policy
or
addition
which
is
regarding
procedure
for
doing
appointments
to
outside
boards.
B
A
B
Doing
a
referral
that
the
full
Council
would
be
wood
wing
and
I'm,
saying
I
think
she
wanted
some
additional
feedback
on
this
item.
I
apologize,
I
thought
Jennifer
was
also
going
to
be
here
today,
but
yes,
I,
think
I
think
that
would
need
to
be
clarified
and
for
us
to
be
able
to
place
it
on
the
workplace
and.