►
From YouTube: September 21, 2023 Council Policy and Procedures Meeting
Description
Live Teleconference of the September 21, 2023 Council Policy and Procedures Meeting
A
B
A
A
A
A
Right
next
is
item
four
oral
Communications
and
this
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
persons
machine
to
address
the
committee
on
any
matter.
That
is
not
on
the
agenda
and
I.
Don't
see
any
members
of
the
public
here
in
person
and
has
anyone
joining
virtually
nope
okay,
so
we
will
close
that
portion
of
the
meeting
and
move
on
to
item
5.1,
and
this
next
item
is
a
continuation.
A
We're
taking
off
the
topic
again,
this
was
a
referral
from
the
city
council
to
clarify
the
policy
regarding
the
election
of
Mayor
and
vice
mayor,
because
current
policy,
while
circus
okay
for
many
years
when
we
reread
it,
we
realized
it
wasn't
as
clear
as
it
could
be.
So
we
thought
we
should
clarify
it.
E
Thank
you,
so
I
have
two
weeks
are
possible:
I,
try
to
re-watch
the
meters
or
re-watch
the
meeting
video
a
few
times
and
distill
out
what
I
thought
and
those
items
have
been.
The
structure
of
the
rules
they've
been
sort
of
put
into
their
appropriate
sections.
You
know
because
they
were
described.
You
know
in
a
manner
that
had
to
be
translated
into
an
appropriate
role.
E
So,
first
and
foremost,
I
think
record
a
consensus
committee
that,
in
order
to
be
eligible
or
vice
mayor,
that
the
individual
council
member
would
be
elected
by
the
voters
and
not
recently
recalled
that
that's
so
that
has
been
tough
to
the
into
the
rules
into
in
by
necessity
of
how
the
rules
are
structured,
it's
actually
separated
into
two
separate
components.
You
will
see
that
first
component
on
the
very
first
page
in
our
definitions.
E
E
That
we
were
appointed
the
committee
last
year
was
that
that
person
was
at
least
elected
plus
by
the
public,
and
so
they
remain
eligible.
On
the
other
hand,
someone
who
is
appointed
several
times
over
a
10-year
period
but
never
was
elected,
should
not
be
eligible,
and
so
that's
how
that
will
captures
that
commentary
from
the
committee
moving
along.
E
We
corrected
a
discrepancy
where
it
was
not
clear
how
the
election,
Premiere
and
vice
mayor
should
be
agendized.
So
now
at
least
or
sort
of
ministerial
edit,
there
are
a
couple
more
of
those
that
I
won't
go
over,
but
for
substitute
rules.
Now,
that's
crazy.
We've
discussed.
You
will
see
that
the
top
of
Page
Three
that.
E
I
placed
in
there
in
a
preceding
four
years,
because
that
would
be
the
relevant
time
span
to
effectuate
the
committee's
desire
to
allow
someone
who
gets
recalled,
but
that
succeeds
in
getting
reelected
to
remain
eligible
right.
So
essentially,
a
management
situation
where
council
member
is
recalled
eight
years
ago,
but
then
runs
for
the
seat
again
four
years
ago
and
succeeds.
They
are
now
eligible
again
everything.
E
A
clear
consensus
answer,
but
I
distilled
out
what
I
think
was
something
of
concern
to
everyone.
I
think
I
came
up
with
a
solution
is
that
there
was
ambiguity
as
to
what
happens
if
every
eligible
person
has
already
been
mayor.
One
time
so
under
under
sub
rule
e,
you
will
see
that
I've
established
a
rotational
cycle
once
all
eligible
individuals
have
been
there
at
least
once
the
cycle
begins
in
with
the
person
who
has
had
the
longest
gap
between
their
first
term
as
mayor
and
the
current
year.
E
A
C
A
E
To
capture
sort
of
a
fairness
that
you
know,
if
you,
if
everyone's
gone
wants
and
the
person
who's
had
the
longest
Gap
in
their
service
between
the
bear
should
be
first
up
to
be
eligible.
But
that
is
something
that,
if
the
committee
wishes
to
change,
I
can
take
notes
on
what
we
prefer
and
then
another
item
that
was
left
pending.
E
The
committee
did
not
have
an
answer
to
the
question
of
what
would
happen
in
the
event
that
someone
succeeds
to
the
position
of
vice
mayor
or
mayor,
but
only
for
a
relatively
short
period
of
time,
to
fill
out
someone
else's
term
so
to
cover
that
under
sub
rule
F,
you
will
see
that
I
inserted.
If
a
council
member
fills
a
vacancy
for
less
than
half
a
year
and
for
the
purposes
of
explicit
counting
183
days
to
Define
half
a
year
that.
D
E
So,
for
example,
someone
ascends
to
being
mayor
in
October,
they
would
remain
eligible
in
January,
the
next
January
right.
That
is
something
that
I
sort
of
borrowed
from
how
other
succession
policies
couldn't
function
in
other
parliamentary
bodies.
But
if
the
committee
wants
to
recommend
accepting
for
that
I'm
all
leaders,
I
just
came
up
with
that
as
a
customer
solution
that
I
thought
would
work,
and
then
this
is
one
correction
that
I
will
have
to
make
before
the
rule
set
is
finalized.
E
But
the
version
that
is
before
you
did
not
have
it
was
captured
to
be
voting
mechanism
or
both
nomination
and
actual
voting,
but
I
think
that's
actually
something
that
you
all
had
still
wanted
proof
to
discuss.
So
with
your
feedback,
I
will
incorporate
those
changes
to
the
rules
as
well,
and
finally,
you'll
see
here
that
the
diet
seating
order.
It
currently
takes
effect
on
January,
8th
2025.
E
F
E
E
A
So
what
I
I
would
like
to
do
because
I
feel
like
this
is
kind
of?
Oh
I'm.
Sorry,
are
you
done
yeah,
okay,
let's
keep
track
of
the
changes
and
then
and
summarize
so
that
we're
eventually
we've
got
it.
So
we
don't
have
to
do
this
again
because
that's
okay,
mind
doing
this,
but
I
feel
like
this
is
of
a
complex
policy
and
I
want
to
make
sure
we
all
understand
what
it
is
and
what
it
isn't.
A
C
I,
just
have
a
really
probably
an
easy
question
about
what
we
just
mentioned.
Why
are
we
making
this
effective
in
January?
Why
isn't
it
just
after
the
meeting
at
which
that
it
doesn't
it
become
effective?
Now
not
that
we're
going
to
switch
places
now,
but
after
even
if
it's
effective
now
after
the
meeting
at
which
the
selection
of
the
mayor
and
vice
Merit
take
place,
that's
not
going
to
happen
until
next
until
2024.
C
E
E
A
F
Meeting
and
capturing
you
know,
I
I
didn't
have
a
full
appreciation
for
how
challenging
it
would
be
to
rewrite
this
policy
until
I.
Think
you
and
and
councilmember
matishak
and
others
had
thought
thoroughly
through
all
the
different
permutations
and
possibilities,
and
so
the
conclusion
I
had
come
to
is
I.
Just
don't
think
we
can
realistically
account
for
everything
right.
F
I
I
think
there's,
there's
certainly
a
lot
of
value
in
clarifying
the
policy
where
there
are
ambiguities,
as
I
thought
over
the
past
several
a
couple
of
months,
I
guess
about
the
impact
of
doing
this
now.
The
thing
that
I
do
have
some
heartburn
about
is
I.
If
we
were
talking
about
this,
you
know
in
sort
of
a
hypothetical
high
level
set
of
circumstances.
I'd
be
a
lot
more
comfortable
with
proceeding
with
with
a
lot
of
the
the
details
that
we've
talked
about,
but
the
concern
I
have
is
we're
making
some
policy
determinations.
F
That
will
affect
likely
the
the
next
selection
process
and
I
would
feel
like
if,
if
there
were
in
you
know
an
obvious
choice
in
the
next
election,
it
would
concern
me
less,
but,
for
instance,
you
know
in
in
under
the
current
policy,
the
appointed
member
of
the
council
could
take
a
leadership
role
and
we're
making
a
policy
decision
that
would
explicitly
prohibit
the
appointed
council.
Member
from
you
know,
taking
that
that
leadership
position
and
I
I'm
uncomfortable
with
that
I
would
rather
we
forward
so
two
options.
F
We
understand
why
you
know
the
the
committee
might
have
felt
that
it
was
inappropriate
to
have
an
appointed
member
take
on
a
leadership
role,
but
at
least
the
full
Council
has
an
opportunity
to
apply,
as
opposed
to
us,
making
a
policy
determination.
If
you
know
this,
this
will
almost
certainly
be
placed
on
the
consent.
Calendar
I.
Take
it
right,
that's
typically
what
happens
and
if
we
make
a
policy
determination
I
think
we
could
count
on
it
being
told,
and
it
just
it
feels
like
you
know,
a
a
good
way
of
approaching
this
would
be.
F
We've
clarified,
the
ambiguities,
staff
and
the
committee
has
thoroughly
thought
through
a
number
of
different
circumstances
and
permutations
where
things
might
go
awry.
So
if
we
forwarded
something,
that's
very
thoughtful,
and
also
here
are
some
policy
determinations
that
the
full
Council
may
want
to
consider.
Is
it
appropriate
for
an
appointed
member
of
the
council
to
ascend
to
a
leadership
role
without
first
getting
elected
by
the
people?
I
think
either
of
those
I'd
be
comfortable
with
and
I'm
interested
in
hearing
your
thoughts,
I.
C
F
F
No,
no,
no
I,
think
the
physical.
The
policy
is
very
good.
The
book
of
the
policy
I
think
is
very
clear,
but
there
are
some
policy
determinations
that
personally
I
feel
uncomfortable,
uncomfortable
recommending
you
know
forwarding
so
taking
them
and
and
putting
them
with
an
effective
date
after
the
election
I'm
totally
comfortable
with,
or
you
know,
forwarding
the
clarified
policy
with
some
Alternatives
that
are
that
that
are
sort
of
policy
determinations
in
nature
and
then
have
the
full
Council
determine
whether
we
want
to
enact
a
policy
that.
E
C
F
If
the
council
elects
to
not
allow
an
appointed
member
to
ascend
to
a
leadership
position,
there's
not
an
ambiguity,
but
there
is
a
policy
decision
about
who
the
the
next
in
line
would
be
right
and
that
that's
there's
it's
at
once
a
clarification
of
an
ambiguity.
There
is
no
clear
next
in
line
so
we've
made
a
policy.
Determination
is
explicitly
spelled
out
here,
right,
I!
Think
it's
it.
If
I
were.
F
Very
you
know
plain
language.
It
would
be
the
the
a
member
of
the
council
who
has
who,
where
there's
been
the
greatest
amount
of
time
since
they've,
served
as
bear.
That
would
be
the
policy
determination.
Thank
you,
but
one
only
like
that.
Only
matters
if
the
council
decides
that
an
appointed
member
of
the
council
is
ineligible.
F
C
C
C
You
know,
although
the
situation
we
see
in
front
of
us
now
when
we
read
this
through,
we
think,
oh
so
that
person
would
be
you
know,
and
a
name
comes
to
it.
That
would
be
Emily.
That
would
be
this.
That
would
be
Margaret.
You
know,
as
that
would
be
me
if
I
quit
right
now.
You
know
like
I
just
said
particular
names
come
to
mind
in
the
future.
Particular
names
will
be
involved.
We
just
don't
know
who
they
are
and
so
I'm
not
understanding.
C
You
know
issues
come
to
mind
and
they
I
don't
think
they'd,
be
that
different
than
now
so
I'm,
not
sure
why
it
would
be
problematic.
Now,
and
not
in
the
future,
or
maybe
different
issues
would
come
out
because
foresee
all
the
possibilities
so
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
a
problem
when
we
know
who
it
involves,
but
it's
not
a
problem
in
the
future.
Just
because
we
don't
know
the
names
of
the
people,
not
just
the
names
who
they
actually
are.
C
A
So
I
mean
clearly
this
will
go
to
the
full
Council
and
yeah
I.
Don't
think
any
of
us
are
shy
about
pulling
items
from
the
consent
calendar,
so
I
would
imagine
it
would
be
both
because
it's
probably
worth
the
discussion
but
I
I
do
tend
to
agree.
Actually,
when
we
were
going
through
different
scenarios,
we
actually
started
out
with
completely
different
names.
A
It
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
current
council
members
and
we're
saying
okay,
if
this
person
you
know
was
in
this
year
of
their
tenure
on
the
council
and
we
went
round
and
round
around,
and
it
was
only
there
later
that
we
thought
about
the
current
council
members.
So
we
were
kind
of
doing
the
Jane
Doe
spario
when
we
were
going
through
scenarios
at
the
beginning
and
I
I
feel
very.
A
Yeah
they
run
and
they
get
elected,
and
then
they
could.
It
also
would
not
conclude
if
I
understand
this
correctly,
if
in
the
next
election,
somebody
who
has
previously
served
as
vice
mayor
or
mayor,
could
and
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
this
correctly,
they
could
actually
be
elected
as
mayor
and
not
service
by
smear.
Is
that
true.
B
A
A
D
A
E
B
A
C
Here
before
yeah
I
guess
what's
in
what
informs
me
on
this,
is
that
I
was
contacted.
I
was
not
after
Sally's
stepped
down.
I
did
not
know
how
common
appointments
were
and
I,
but
I
was
contacted
by
a
lot
of
members
of
the
public
who
were
really
didn't
want
us
to
appoint.
Someone
really
wanted
us
to
have
an
election
and
or
really
wanted
us
to
have
some
kind
of
process.
That
would
be
more.
C
But
I
I
did
get
the
feeling
that
the
public
really
wants
somebody
to
be
elected
and,
and
frankly
I.
It
was
reinforced
for
me
when
most
of
the
people,
when
the
person
we
eventually
appointed
most
of
the
people
in
the
audience
speaking
up
or
for
her,
were
not
our
residents,
so
I
feel
like
I,
mean
honestly
I
feel
like
I.
Don't
want
I
want.
C
You
know,
I
like
working
with
all
of
our
current
and
I
feel
like
and
I
want.
Anybody
who
becomes
the
next
mayor
I
want
the
public
to
feel
like
it's
a
legitimate
process
and
I
feel
like
it
would
undermine
Emily.
Frankly,
given
the
way
she
was
appointed,
if
it
doesn't
go
through
a
process
like
this
and
not
just
her,
but
any
Jane,
Doe
or.
C
A
F
F
D
F
Like
right,
let's
say
the
council
really
didn't
like
me
right
so,
instead
of
having
a
hard
conversation,
that
might
be
true,
I
know
right,
so
so
self-centered
but
like
instead
of
you
know
during
the
selection
process,
saying
you
know,
even
though
Lucas
is
next
in
line,
we
feel
there
are
compelling
reasons
why
he
shouldn't
be
vice
mayor
or
mayor
right
and
then
having
that
conversation
there
it
it
it's.
You
know
we're
going
to
change
the
policy
in
advance
of
the
selection
process,
specifically
to
make
sure
Lucas
doesn't
become
vice
mayor
or
mayor.
F
That's
that's
the
it's
more
of
a
perception
thing.
It
doesn't
quite
feel
right,
which
is
why
I
would
rather
Advance
it
as
a
separate
policy.
Consideration
like
the
intent
of
this
is
very
good.
Clarifying
the
ambiguities,
I
think
is
really
important.
This
is
not
an
ambiguity
right.
This
is
this
is
a
policy
position
and
it's
an
important
one
and
I
think
there
are.
There
are
valid
perspectives
on
on
each
side
of
it,
but
it's
I
feel
like
it's.
It's
beyond
the
scope
of
clarifying.
It's
saying
you.
F
An
appointed
member
of
the
council
should
serve
in
leadership
for
perfectly
valid
reasons.
It's
just
if
we
had
done
this
before
Sally
stepped
off,
I
would
feel
more
comfortable.
Then,
now
that
we
have
an
appointed
person
who
has
a
name,
you
know
it,
it
kind
of
feels
a
little
it's
not
intended
to
be.
It
feels
a
little
neat
security.
A
A
You
know
the
same
thing
sort
of
applies
here
that
you
know
how
would
they
feel
about
having
someone
who
has
not
been
elected
be
either
vice
mayor
or
mayor
and
I?
Don't
think
that
would
go
over
very
well,
and
you
know
I
am
trying
to
separate
the
person
from
the
policy
here
and
I.
I
do
believe
that
way,
no
matter
who
it
is
that
I
feel
like
our
residents
were
pretty
clear
that
they
wanted
people
who
had
been
elected
before
so
I.
A
I'd
actually
be
okay,
if
we,
obviously,
we
have
a
little
bit
more
to
discuss
on
this,
but
sticking
with
we
forward
proposed
policy,
because
this
is
a
policy.
It's
a
tweaked
policy
change
policy,
clarified
policy,
lots
of
different
things
with
some
a
new
one
with
seating,
and
then,
if
the
council
wants
to
discuss
it,
they
could
pull
it
and
discuss
it,
and
maybe
somebody
might
do
that.
F
I
feel
like
the
advantage
of
being
on
this
committee
is
like
a
tap
my
say.
You
know,
and
I
could
lose
a
vote
and
that's
fine.
You
know
I
I
want
to
be
fair,
I
I,
don't
I
I
didn't
mean
to
in
to
insinuate
that
there's
anything
being
spirited
here.
It's
just
like
you
know
that
way.
Yeah,
it's
it's
a
it's
a
difficult
policy
decision,
yeah,
I,
I
I,
want
to
be
careful
of
you
know
a
future
circumstance
right
where
you
know
there
may
not
be
a
valid
policy
determination.
F
It's
we
don't
like
somebody,
so
we're
going
to
change
the
policies,
so
we
can
get
around
them.
You
know
it's
I
I
would
personally
I
would
I
would
support
and
feel
more
comfortable
with
advancing
the
the
clarifications
and
then
adding
you
know.
So
it
wouldn't
be
a
consent
item.
It
would
be
new
business
or
or
but,
however,
that
would
be
categorized
with
you
know
the
we
discussed
this.
F
We
think
you
know
these
clarifications,
make
sense
you
know,
but
we
do
think
it's
important
for
the
full
Council
and
also
if
the
members
of
the
public
who
have
interest
in
this
to
say
to
weigh
in
on
the
policy
consideration
of,
is
it
appropriate
to
have
you
know
a
an
appointed,
an
appointed
member
of
the
council
was
not
been
elected
previously
serve
in
a
leadership
role
and
Emily
might
have
thoughts
too.
You
know
she
may
agree
with
you.
I
don't
really
know
so.
If
it's
you
know
forwarded,
as
is
I
probably
couldn't
support
it.
F
A
C
I
have
other
thoughts,
but
there
are
completely
like
take
us
in
another
Direction,
so
I
just
think
also
the
fact
that
several
council
members
were
only
mayor
and
vice
mayor.
What
virtually
is
something
that
I
think
about
in
terms
of
picking
who
would
be
next
yeah
and
that's
not
in
this
policy
at
all
and
I.
Don't
think
I
want
to
put
it
in,
but
it
does
come
to
mind
that.
C
A
Does
this
cover,
it
says
the
highest
ranking?
Member
of
the
council
has
not
yet
served
as
mayor
in
their
current
consecutive
years
of
service
and
has
not
been
recalled
in
the
preceding
four
years
rotates
into
the
mayor.
So
you
know
I
I
think
we
had
talked
about
and
we
also
wouldn't
want
somebody
who
had
failed
to
be
re-elected.
E
E
Actually,
if
someone
had
been
recalled
more
than
four
years
in
the
past
and
then
for
whatever
reason
they
were
appointed
but
not
elected,
they
would
not
be
eligible
because
they
would
have
never
been
elected
right,
so
they
would
not
be
eligible
for
mayor
or
vice
mayor.
On
the
other
hand,
if
they
were
then
elected
after
a
recall
that
addresses
the
cleanest
concern
that
once
they've
been
re-elected
by
the
public,
they
have
sort
of
passed
the
legitimacy
bar
that
you
were
describing
with
the
public.
E
Right
so
if
they
had,
because
the
feedback
I
received
from
the
committee
in
June
was
that
if
someone
had
lost
an
election
and
then
had
been
appointed,
there
was
actually
no
consensus
on
how
that
situation
should
be
addressed,
and
so
right
now
there
is
no
rule
to
address
that
situation.
The
most
likely
outcome
in
that
situation
is
that
that
person
would
not
have
enough
seniority,
because
their
days
of
service
would
be
lower,
they
would
have
a
break,
and
the
first
rule
is
that
they
have
to
have
the
most
consecutive
days
right.
E
A
F
Of
somebody
who
had
served
in
the
council
for
eight
years
tried
to
get
back
for
a
third
term
and
it
was
dead
last
you
know
so,
just
because
you've
been
re-elected,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
you
retain
the
support
of
the
community,
so
I
feel
the
the
simplest
way
is
just
to
say.
If
you've
been
appointed,
you
know,
regardless
of
whether
you've
been
elected
before
you're
not
eligible
yet.
A
A
And
then
in
on
page
three
again
e
H
part-time
message
in
yellow
I,
read
that
several
times
and
I
know
we
talked
about
this
briefly
right
before
the
meeting
and
I
guess:
I
read
this.
As
you
know,
the
day
their
service
was
complete
and
I
thought
my
day
like,
for
example,
me
my
the
time
when
I
finished
being
a
council
member
or
mayor.
So.
E
A
Some
time
and
then
we
had
previously
said
we
were
going
to
move
something,
but
I
talked
before
the
meeting,
and
we
said
oh
no.
It
makes
more
sense
to
leave
it
here
because
of
other
changes
that
have
happened
and
I
appreciated
the
ad
at
the
bottom
of
the
page
about
183
days,
I
thought
that
was
a
good.
A
E
C
D
D
Nominations
for
mayor
and
then
instead
of
a
period
it
would
go
on
to
say
pursuant
to
the
informal
rotation
outlined
in
section
two
of
this
policy,
a
motion
and
a
second
for
the
member
next
in
rotation
shall
be
made,
and
a
vote
would
be
in
order
upon
receiving
a
majority
vote
of
the
council.
That
member
would
be
selected
from
here
and
then
D
would
read.
D
The
council
May
determine
by
majority
vote
that
it
will
entertain
additional
nominees
if
more
than
one
nomination
is
made.
Each
council
member
shall
vote
for
one
nominee
of
their
choice
by
ballot.
Ballots
will
be
collected
in
the
city.
Clerk
will
publicly
announce
the
shelves
members
vote,
the
nominee
receiving
a
majority
vote
of
the
capital
will
be
selected
for
mayor.
F
E
C
D
D
C
D
C
I
mean
I,
guess
what
I'm
proposing
is
that
you
know
when
we're
discussing
you
know
other
issues.
One
person
makes
emotion,
you
know
if
Lisa
makes
emotion
and
I
was
just
about
to
I
mean
I.
I
can
do
a
substitute
right,
do
a
substitute
motion,
but
but
essentially
she
once
she
gets.
Essentially
she
got
there
first,
so
you
could
just
say
the
first
three
people
you
get
there
first,
you
stop
it,
but
you
think
that's
not
legitimate.
D
F
D
D
E
E
A
E
Right
right
and
then
for
for
D,
which
now
explains
the
scenario
where
we
have
seven
nominees
for
mayor
the
council
May
determine
by
majority
vote
that
it
will
entertain
additional
nominees
if
more
than
one
nomination
is
made.
Each
council
member
shall
vote
for
one
nominee
of
their
choice
by
ballot.
Ballots
will
be
collected
and
the
city
clerk
will
publicly
announce
each
Council
member's
vote.
The
nominee
receiving
a
majority
vote
of
the
council
will
be
selected
for
mayor
in.
A
A
Do
we
want
to
take
this
proposed
policy
and
have
it
on
the
consent
calendar?
Somebody
pulls
it
and
we
talk
about
it
or
do
we
want
to
propose
I
guess
it
would
be
a
modification
to
what
we
just
put
together
and
then
say,
and
then
an
option
is
or
just
not
have
something
in
here
and
have
here's
a
couple
options.
A
D
A
A
So
I
kind
of
feel,
like
since
odds,
are
it's
going
to
be
pulled
that
we
should
have
a
discussion
so
I'm,
okay,
putting
forth
I,
guess
I
would
say,
but
for
this
and
then
have.
But
you
know,
let's
talk
about
this
because
it
is
change
to
a
policy
and
an
alternative
is
not
the
change
and
have
the
boarding
ready
for
that.
C
C
D
A
B
E
C
B
E
A
F
Anything
would
you
say
just
to
clarify,
like
the
the
clarifications
are,
a
change,
but
it's
it's
not
the
the
policy
determination
right,
so
I
I
think
as
an
alternative.
Are
we
seeing
no
change
to
the
policy
or
here's
the
clarifications?
But
without
the
question
about
the
alternate,
the
appointed
member
issue.
A
B
On
yeah
so
as
you're
aware
how
we
provide
this
update
in
this
meeting
for
the
committee-
and
this
is
an
update
that
includes
the
two
items
that
you've
just
completed
on
your
agenda,
which
is
includes
today,
and
then
we
have
four
items
ending
before
the
committee
for
this
fiscal
year
and
those
items
are
noted
in
the
Stanford
board.
I'll
highlight
them
here,
which
is
the
council
policy
815,
that's
being
data
distribution
associated
with
Shoreline.
B
There
were
some
updates
that
need
to
be
made
to
that
policy
as
well
as
two
that
are
related
to
financial
areas
and
that's
Council
policy,
a11
related
to
financial
and
budgetary
policy
and
then
Council
policy
A-10.
That
is,
the
authorization
to
execute
State
contracts
and
agreements
and
increase
certain
appropriation
limitation
Appropriations.
That
will
also
be
brought
forward
for
an
update.
B
The
anticipate
two
and
three
will
come
in
Tandem,
and
then
we,
in
addition,
is
just
your
routine
item,
which
is
updating
you
on
various
topics,
so
at
each
meeting,
we'll
continue
to
keep
this
so
that
you
have
a
good
tracking
on
what
items
are
coming
and
that
concludes
Steph's
brief
report.
Thank
you.
Any
questions.
F
F
E
A
So
item
so
I
would
just
want
to
make
sure,
especially
since
Council
just
gave
Direction
during
the
budget
hearing
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
what
we
were
planning
to
bring
to
the
council
finance
committee
may
be
different
or
not.
Okay
than
these
two
items,
I
want
to
say
vaguely
that
I
think
three
is
more
about.
We've
all
talked
about
this
before
my
authority
department,
head,
Authority
and
I-
don't
believe
that
was
really
to
the
finance
committee
right.