►
From YouTube: NOV 29, 2021 | Charter Review Commission Special Meeting
Description
City of San José, California
Charter Review Commission Special Meeting of November 29, 2021
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=892717&GUID=716EEAC5-DC05-4CE8-ACDB-0549D7A8E4FA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
E
A
B
Thank
you
good
evening
and
we
don't
have
a
consent
calendar
tonight.
We
have
one
item,
a
new
business
with
two
motions.
The
first
one
is
to
approve
the
charter
review.
Commission's
final
report
authorize
the
chair
to
make
any
technical
changes
and
authorize
the
chair
to
transmit
the
final
report
to
the
city
council.
B
I
wanted
to
review
for
commissioners
and
the
public
the
process
for
tonight
that
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
follow.
First
of
all,
I
just
want
to
express
my
own
gratitude
to
the
commissioners,
to
our
staff
of
the
city
and
to
consultants
who
work
so
hard.
This
entire
process
of
11
months
there's
over
100
hours
of
just
commission
meetings,
public
hearings
and
subcommittee
meetings
and
planning
meetings
so
really
appreciate
everyone's
service
dedication
and
and
really
in
great
intentionality
and
and
the
dedicated
service
that
you
provided
to
the
city.
B
I
would
start
tonight's
process
by
really
making
sure
that
this
this
report
accurately
reflects
the
record
and
the
deliberations
of
the
body
and
it's
a
fair
representation
of
the
commission's
positions.
So
that's
the
goal
of
this
report,
and
so
what
I've
asked
is
that
our
consultant
go
through
and
review
the
document
itself
in
terms
of
just
the
framework,
the
layout,
the
positioning
of
the
organization
of
it
and
then
making
sure
that
all
the
edits
were
incorporated
into
the
from
the
draft
into
this.
B
This
final
draft
that
you
see
tonight
so
I'll
ask
lawrence
to
do
that,
and
then
I
will
take
a
motion
to
adopt
the
report
and
we'll
go
then
to
the
public
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
the
commission
for
your
discussion.
Any
final
comments
you
would
like
to
make
and
then
we'll
take
a
final
vote
just
for
two,
a
few
points
of
clarity
that
I
wanted
to
review
on
the
record
tonight.
First
of
all,
I've
checked
with
the
city
attorney
and
this
well
actually
city
clerk
about
the
brown
act.
B
The
brown
act
does
not
call
for
us
to
have
the
attachments
or
the
report
itself.
It
just
makes
sure
that
the
agenda
has
been
posted
appropriately
in
the
timeline,
so
it
was
appropriately
posted
along
with
the
original
draft,
and
this
final
draft
does
not
have
to
be
part
of
the
brown
act.
The
report
is
due
december
3rd,
not
the
14th.
B
B
I
know
that
I'll
let
the
city
clerk
speak
for
herself,
but
she
doesn't
really
have
a
writing
role,
and
I
think
that
there
was
some
question
about
that.
She
can
help
us
in
the
making
sure
it
gets
done
or
answering
any
questions
that
we
have.
But
the
writer
of
the
report
really
is
civic
makers,
along
with
just
the
organizational
pieces
that
I've
helped
with,
as
well
as
with
the
city
clerk,
but
neither
of
us
have
done
any
of
the
writing
itself.
That's
all
come
from
the
record,
your
edits
and
the
the
layout.
B
That's
been
done
by
civic
makers
as
part
of
their
contract.
I
don't
think
I've
known
throughout
this
process
who
is
advising
who,
whether
it
be
organizations
council
members,
the
elected
officials,
whoever
might
be
advising
you
or
or
advice
that
you're
seeking
from
others.
I
don't
really
know
that.
That's
ever
been
a
question
for
me.
B
B
We've
taken
a
lot
of
feedback
from
commissioners
through
your
subcommittees
and
through
the
work
that
you've
sent
us
before.
So
I
feel
like
the
process
we've
tried
to
include,
rather
than
exclude
anything
and
figure
out
ways
to
add
it
to
the
report,
to
keep
it
substantive,
as
well
as
clearly
informative
to
the
record,
so
that
the
council
can
read
the
report
to
see
the
vast
deliberations
we
had
the
materials
we
had
the
speakers
that
we
had
and
then
the
recommendations.
B
G
G
I
think
it's
just
important
to
note,
as
we
come
to
this
final
report
and
and
for
the
public
record
to
review
the
process
by
which
these
recommendations
have
been
drafted,
revised
and
then
voted
on
the
recommendation.
Each
recommendation
was
drafted
and
initially
shared
with
the
commission
for
review
and
initial
feedback.
G
If
the
authors
and
the
ad
hoc
subcommittee
so
desired,
they
revised
that
recommendation
and
then
those
recommendations
were
each
of
the
recommendations
were
shared
with
the
public
at
a
public
hearing,
if
so
desired.
Those
recommendations
were
revised
again
shared
with
commissioners
again
for
provisional
voting.
If
so
desire.
They
were
revised
again
for
a
third
time
then
presented
for
final
voting
and
sometimes
with
additional
revisions
and
the
motions
being
voted
on
in
itself.
G
The
final
voting
on
the
on
the
final
ad
hoc
subcommittee's
recommendations
was
thursday.
11
18.
commissioners
were
presented
with
the
final
draft
recommendations,
including
a
minority
report
on
friday
november
19th,
and
that
that
those
recommendations
really
was
compiled
by
by
staff
and
by
civic
makers,
myself
and
and
some
of
my
colleagues
but
really
was
written
by
you.
The
the
verbage
that
was
included
was
taken
directly
from
the
recommendation
memos
developed
by
each
ad
hoc
submitted
ad
hoc
subcommittee
and
voted
on
and
approved
by
by
you
as
commissioners.
G
The
the
final
edit
was
done
for
through
a
lens
of
a
few
different
things.
Certainly,
clarity,
making
sure
that
what's
being
presented,
is
as
clear
as
possible.
As
far
as
what
the
recommendations
are.
That's
why
each
recommendation
itself
has
a
suggested
record
charter
recommendation,
changes
that
includes
the
sections
themselves
and
redline
changes
thereof.
G
G
The
format
was
a
big
part
of
that
we
decided
to
in
consultation
with
with
the
chair
and
the
the
city
clerk.
We
condensed
the
the
eight
or
nine
different
elements
of
the
recommendation.
Memo
template
into
three
primary
elements
of
the
final
recommendations.
That
was
a
summary
of
the
recommendation
that
was
being
made.
That
includes
just
the
change
itself,
without
any
kind
of
rationale
or
context.
That's
also
what
went
into
the
executive
summary
of
the
report.
G
The
second
section
for
each
recommendation
was
the
the
problem
that
was
trying
to
be
addressed
by
the
recommendation.
The
third
section
was
why
this
recommendation-
and
that
included
some
some
of
the
background
that
you
wrote
as
commissioners
and
also
in
the
certain
instances.
What's
what
some
of
the
the
changes
that
a
recommendation
went
through:
changing
from
charter
change
to
a
policy
recommendation,
etc,
and
then
there
was
another
section
for
each
recommendation,
which
was
the
charter
language
itself.
If
for
policy
recommendations
that
were
recommended,
that
section
was
not
necessary.
G
After
a
charter
review
commission
overview,
which
is
much
more
about
the
process
and
the
timeline
and
all
the
early
deliberations
about
engagement
and
subcommittees
and
and
the
all
that
context,
is
there
as
the
chair
requested,
but
the
bulk
of
the
report
is
the
recommendation
section,
which
includes
all
the
detail
and
all
the
depth
again
edited
only
for
clarity,
readability,
format
and,
most
importantly,
you
know
the
overall
lens
that
I
looked
at
was
fidelity
to
the
author.
The
author's
intent
so
definitely
can
confirm
what
what
the
chair
said.
G
I
was
the
one
sitting
behind
my
computer.
Putting
this
all
together.
There
was
no
advice
from
any
elected
officials.
You
know,
I
think
tony
and
fred
were
a
little
tired
of
me
as
well.
But
what
you're
looking
at
really
is
is
my
best
attempt
to
take
all
the
opinions
that
were
presented
and
and
reflect
them
back
in
the
most
orderly,
readable
player.
Clear
way
is
possible.
That,
most
importantly,
is
your
intention.
G
G
There
are,
is
an
extensive
citation
research
reference
speaker
list,
as
well
as
some
archive
documents
for
for
posterity
that
are
saved
to
the
city
website.
With
that,
I
think
I'll
turn
it
back
to
the
chair.
That's
what
I
wanted
to
share.
As
far
as
the
the
overview
of
the
report
format
and
the
process
we
went
through
to
get
here.
B
Thank
you
and
then
the
technical
edits
that
we
talked
about
at
in
the
motion
that
I'm
going
to
ask
for
in
a
second
really.
Are
there
some
links
that
need
to
get
archived
into
from
the
city,
so
just
making
sure
that
all
the
links
are
connected
into
the
report?
Some
of
the
citations
we've
asked
for
we're
still
waiting
for
some
of
those
in
terms
of
just
being
able
to
label
citations.
B
We're
going
to
do
one
more
round
of
syntax
checks,
which
is
just
is
council
capitalized
everywhere
things
like
that
and
then,
if
there's
any
identify
typos
throughout
the
report
will
make
those
kinds
of
things.
So
that's
really
the
only
technical
edits
that
we'll
make
in
terms
of
just
finishing
the
report
off
this
week
to
get
it
in
by
friday
to
turn
it
into
council
on
to
the
office
on
on
friday.
B
What
I'm
gonna
do
now
is
ask,
I
see,
there's
some
hands
up
and
I'm
gonna
ask
you
to
hold
on
for
just
a
second,
I'm
gonna
ask
for
a
motion.
So
we
have
something
on
the
floor,
so
the
public
can
respond
and
then
we'll
come
to
commissioners
for
their
discussion
and
then
there
for
their
actions
as
they
see.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
commissioner
marshman
to
make
the
motion
and
I
do.
B
You
have
plenty
of
time
for
discussion
and
I'm
going
I'm
using
the
agenda
itself
to
get
that
motion
on
the
floor,
and
then
you
can
make
your
comments
at
that
time.
So
I'm
asking
commissioner
marshman
to
make
a
motion,
and
commissioner
marshman
and
mr
df
were
the
two
other
city-wide
appointments.
As
I
asked
commissioners
from
each
of
the
subcommittees
to
make
their
recommendations,
I
thought
it
would
be
good
if
we
asked
one
of
the
the
city-wide
to
be
able
to
make
this
motion.
C
B
I
I
I
this
spain,
spain,
was
booted
out
in
1821,
okay,
so
the
the
catholic
church
had
a
there
was
a.
There
was
a
militaristic
religious
element
to
catholicism
at
that
point,
because
the
missions
were
presidios,
they
were
garrisons
for
the
military,
for
the
spanish
military.
Okay.
So
when
they,
when
the
spanish
got
booted
out,
so
did
the
missions.
So
did
the
missionaries
the
franciscans
get
out?
Why?
I
D
D
I
like
I
say
I
haven't
looked
at
the
document,
but
I'm
saying
from
what
I've
seen
you
know
has
been
going
on
to
these
meetings
that
I've
been
attending
is
that
it's
really
not
true
to
the
science
what's
being
addressed
in
the
climate
crisis,
and
so
you
know
the
the
just,
like
my
husband
said,
even
with
the
ipcc,
the
intergovernmental
panel
on
climate
change.
They
look
at
the
science,
but
it's
all
put
through
politics
and
economics,
and
they
even
put
in
that.
We
can.
D
You
know,
capture
carbon,
which
is
not
true,
that's
bs
and
when
our
city
even
decides
right
now
to
do
a
car,
you
know
a
carbon
neutrality
or
net
carbon.
That
is
bs2
because
it's
still
not
looking
at
that.
We
need
to
keep
it
in
the
ground
and
stop
emitting
the
the
carbon.
Not
there
is
no
techniques
to
to
bring
it
in
and
then
on
top
of
it
we
didn't
really
look
in
the
even
in
the
document.
D
The
science
which
you
know
my
husband
as
a
scientist
looked
at
and
presented
to
the
commission,
was
saying
that
we
really
needed
to
look
at
our
fossil
fuel
emissions
and
and
have
every
department
look
at
that,
but
that
was
not
included.
It
was
just
this.
This
group
of
people
that
were
going
to
do.
I
don't
know
exactly
what,
but
I
mean
I
I'm
glad
for
the
that
we
made
some
progress.
D
I'm
not
belittling
that,
but
it
needed
to
include
all
that
we
were
was
included
in
the
document
by
the
science
and
also
in
terms
of
inclusion.
It
was
really
resiliency
how
we're
going
to
protect
the
people,
because,
right
now
the
government
is
protecting
business
as
usual:
neoliberalism,
that's
all
about
economics
and
the
individual
and
business,
and
that's
where
the
people
are
are
threatened
and
we're
not
looking
at
taking
care
of
the
people,
and
that
was
also
part
of
it
was
resilience.
D
J
J
You
have
ideas
of
a
of
housing,
workforce
protection,
mobility,
transportation,
economic
development,
all
are
part
of
the
future
of
equity
ideas.
That's
really
impressive!
You
also
have
the
concepts
of
safety
in
there
and,
as
my
letters
to
yourselves
this
past
week
noted,
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
write
a
letter,
so
you
can
get
a
feeling
of
where
I'm
coming
from
on
issues
and
where
the
direction
we
could
be
headed.
We're
going
to
be
talking
about
community
safety
issues
in
the
next
few
weeks
here
in
san
jose.
J
Those
things
may
be
lacking
just
a
bit
in
how
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
these
issues
in
the
next
few
weeks
and
it's
important.
We
have
to
learn
those
conversations
better
and
I
just
think
the
future
of
a
community
safety
has
to
work
hand
in
hand
and
arm
and
arm
is
how
I'm
trying
to
learn
to
say
it
with
the
future
of
open
public
policy
ideas.
J
I
think
the
two
can
make
a
great
combination
and
without
each
other
I
think
something's
going
to
be
lacking
in
the
future
that
we
have
to
address
that
goes
with,
along
with
the
technology
policy
board
ideas.
You
know
that
has
to
be
a
future.
We
have
to
consider
technology
oversight
the
same
as
we're
considering
police
review
community
oversight
at
this
time.
J
A
K
Yeah
I
mean
your
charters.
Are
it's
like
a
college
student
union
down
there
working
on
a
term
paper
so
irresponsible,
so
immature
leftist
minded
it's
complete.
It's
complete,
left-wing
pablum
for
everybody.
You
need
to
this
city
needs
to
be
more
responsible.
It's
the
most
irresponsible
group
of
people
running
this
place.
Just
look
around
that
downtown.
K
It
should
be
called
plywood
city
right,
but
you
know
what
what
should
be
in
the
charter.
Is
that
you're
going
to
work
to
make
the
downtown
better
right?
I
mean
I'm
sure
this
charter
is
a
joke.
The
city
is
a
joke.
The
police
department's,
a
joke,
the
fire
department's,
a
joke.
Everybody
is
a
joke
and
they're
they're
labeled
as
this
par
excellence,
because
it's
the
10th
largest
city
in
the
nation
and
there's
so
much
money
here
I
don't
see
any
of
it
in
the
roads
and
the
infrastructure.
I
just
see
burned
out.
K
Buildings
potholes,
oh,
but
we're
gonna
spend
all
this
money
on
a
road
diet
that
shouldn't
be
in
the
chart.
The
charter
should
be
no
more
road
diets
until
all
the
roads
are
paved
and
the
potholes
are
fixed,
but
this
city
irresponsible,
immature
teenagers.
This
is
how
teenagers
think
of
how
you
run
this
place.
You
guys
are
a
joke.
You
know
what
everyone
should
resign
and
shame
and
hang
their
heads
down,
because
you
guys
are
a
bunch
of
losers.
K
This
charter
means
nothing
and
what
you're
gonna
try
to
deliver
to
people
who
don't
have
anything
is
going
to
be
comical.
This
whole
place
is
coming.
It's
a
charade.
It's
worse
than
a
saturday
night
live
episode.
When
you
watch
these
city
council
leaders,
you
guys
should
all
be
ashamed
of
yourself.
You
should
all
resign.
A
H
E
E
B
A
B
B
H
E
E
Our
our
subcommittee
chair
magnolia,
submitted
her
final
edits
to
our
section
and
by
wednesday
and
previous
to
that
I
had
submitted
my
separate
changes
and
then,
after
she
submitted,
I
used
the
wrong
document
to
include
my
changes
and
so,
as
a
result
lawrence
received,
he
received
magnolias.
He
received
my
individual
one
separately,
but
then
by
mistake
I
also
sent
him
where
I
had
inserted
my
changes
into
the
wrong
version
of
magnolia's
document.
B
G
G
To
that
document,
the
document
I
received
from
from
you
on
sunday
had
your
changes
and
the
last
ch
last
change
by
anyone
else
was
also
at
that
same
exact
time.
It
was
the
same
edit
by
commissioner
siegel.
So
all
the
changes
that
were
made
prior
to
yours
on
sunday
were
incorporated.
There
are
no
changes,
we
missed.
They
were
all
reviewed,
they're
all
incorporated,
so
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
anything
getting
missed.
I
realized
that
there
was
a
little
bit
of
confusion.
I
did
ask
you
to
integrate.
G
E
B
A
A
G
So
are
you
looking
at
the
corrected
version
that
was
sent
out
by
megan,
because
the
first
version
that
went
out
did
not
include
redline
track
changes
so
anything
that
was
not
the?
What
I
did
not
include
were
anything
that
went
against
the
the
format
of
the
document,
and
I
worked
to
include
those
elsewhere
in
the
document.
G
So
if
there
was
additional
context
that
was
intended
to
be
added
to
the
summary
section
which
I
mentioned
before
the
idea,
there
is
just
to
have
the
changes
and
not
the
rationale
for
those
changes
which
is
included
in
the
actual
recommendations
section.
The
that's
an
example
of
some
of
the
changes
that
that
were
made,
but
that
I
made
sure
that
the
the
rationale
was
included
in
the
full
recommendations
section.
So
I
reviewed
all
the
changes.
The
the.
G
What
you
see
as
red
line
is
what
I
consider
to
be
substantive
changes
to
the
copy
of
the
recommendations
that
you
received
on
the
24th.
There
were
edits
to
typo's
grammar
style
that
I
did
not
redline,
because
I
wanted
to
to
really
highlight
what
I
saw
as
a
substantive
changes.
But
you
know
I
I
spent
12
hours
yesterday
going
through
all
three
documents
to
incorporate
that
and
you
know
I
I
reviewed
everything
so.
A
I
my
edit,
wasn't
it
wasn't?
You
know
it
didn't
change
everything.
It
was
just
more
of
an
affirmative
tone
and
I
wanted
to
combine
the
keeping
our
form
of
governance
the
same
with
the
council
manager.
They
were
split
into
two
but
they're.
They
should
be
in
the
same
one
because
they're
in
the
same
memo.
A
G
You
know
it's
possible
that
there
were
so
your
edits
were
to
the
summary
section
not
to
the
recommendation
itself.
You
know
I
chair,
I
don't
know
how
you
wanna
to
go
about
this.
I
I
do
want
to
avoid
going
into
a
situation
where
we're
going
page
by
page
review
here.
I
I
I'm
willing
to
accept
you
know
I
have
received
some
some
emails
that
are
basically
formatting.
I
intended
this
to
be
italicized.
I
wanted
this
to
be.
You
missed
a
quote
from
that.
G
G
I
tried
to
make
all
the
wordy
wording
of
the
changes
active
instead
of
passive
and
to
make
the
the
the
the
style
of
the
recommendation.
Titles
the
same.
So
some
of
them
started
with
the
the
promotion
of
home
membership
opportunities
versus
create
a
charter
charter
review
commission.
So
there's
two
stylistic
choices
to
go
there.
I
chose
the
the
active
voice
to
say,
create
a
charter
recognition,
promote
home
ownership
opportunities
so
that
level
of
change
was
made
again.
As
far
as
a
consistency
and
readability
perspective.
B
So
I
think
what
I'd
say
is
viceroy
johnson.
We
can
double
check
to
see
if
it's
splitting
those
two
things
back
out
again
and
make
sure
that
those
are
the
those
technical
edits
are
made
to
make
sure
that
your
edits
are
correctly
integrated
or,
if
they're
not
integrate,
where
they're
integrated
and
to
make
sure
that
that
is
accurate.
I've
taken
a
note
of
it,
but
we
will
definitely
be
one
of
the
things
that
we
can
look
at
for
sure.
Commissioner,.
A
My
other
question
is
whether
it
would
be
possible
for
us
to
have
another
day
to
review
this
document.
It's
quite
expensive,
there's
been
a
lot
of
edits
made
and
I
just
don't
feel
that
we
should
be
rushed
to
to
wrap
up
this
process
tonight
if
we're
not
comfortable
with
all
of
the
edits
that
have
been
made,
we
still
need
time
to
really
think
about
these
edits.
I
mean
we've
put
11
months
into
this
process.
I
do
not
want
to
be
steamrolled
through
the
process,
so
I
would
like
another
day
to
review
these
edits.
B
Can
the
clerk
give
us
some
clarity
around
timing
here?
Is
there
can
we
adopt
the
report
tonight
and
then
with
the
final
edits
coming
by
wednesday,
so
that
we
can
get
to
the
report
done
on
friday,
because
we
can't
call
another
meeting
because
we
would
have
we
would
be
way
after
we
can't
agendize
a
meeting
this
week.
We
have
to
give
notice
for
the
week.
So
that's
where
I'm
wondering
if
the
clerk
has
any
thoughts.
L
Thank
you.
I'm
deeply
concerned
that
we're
violating
the
city's
sunshine
ordinances,
not
because
we're
violating
an
ordinance,
but
because
none
of
us
have
had
time
to
read
this
document.
It
was
sent
at
11
o'clock
for
a
5
30
meeting.
I
haven't
had
time
to
read
it,
I'm
just
glancing
through
it.
I
know
my
fellow
commissioners
have
been
working.
They
haven't
had
time
to
read
it.
The
public
has
said
they
haven't
had
time
to
read,
it
nobody's
read
it.
So,
how
could
we
be
ex
folks
don't
vote
for
something
you
haven't
read?
L
You
don't
need
an
attorney
to
tell
you
that
I'm
gonna
just
say
in
terms
of
my
edits,
so
this
document
does
not
reflect
the
document
that
we
voted
for
and
it
does
not
reflect
the
edits
that
I
made
and-
and
I
believe
that
there
are
multiple
hours
of
my
edits
that
didn't
make
it
into
this
document.
I'll,
give
you
an
example
of
some
of
them,
so
my
edits
were
for
a
title.
L
It
says
something
equally
weird
add
a
native
land
acknowledgement
add
to
the
charter
a
land
acknowledgement
granted
by
the
mewekma
ohlone
tribe,
that
recognizes
san
jose's
on
the
sacred
and
ancestral
lands.
So
what
this
says
is
we
have
voted
that
the
ohlone
tribe
is
going
to
grant
us
the
city
of
san
jose,
a
declaration
that
says
that
san
jose
is
on
sacred
ancestral
native
lands.
That's
backwards,
it's
baloney,
it's
not
what
we
voted.
G
I
I
I
didn't
write
that
language.
Commissioner
siegel,
that's
pulled
from
the
document
you
shared
and
the
summary
of
that
recommendation
was
different
in
two
different
places,
and
so
I
had
to
make
choices
about
what
to
include
that's.
I
didn't
write
that
language.
I
can
you
know
it's
it's
in
the
document
you
sent
so
completely.
L
G
You
is
that
the
last
edit
that
was
sent
via
your
document
was
the
same
last
edit
that
was
in
maria.
I
don't
think,
there's
I
don't
see.
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
the
edits
that
I
I
saw
all
the
edits.
I
had
to
make
changes
about
what
edits
to
include,
because
there
were
some
inconsistencies
in
the
edits
that
were
shared
and,
and
I
I
did
make
choices
about
the
readability
of
this
document
and
also
again
for
the
summary
section.
G
L
So
what
I
wrote,
what
I
wrote
is
completely
rational,
understandable
and
what
is
written
here
is
completely
irrational,
not
understandable.
I
I
could.
I
could
go
for
what
I
wrote
at
a
native
land
acknowledgement
approved
by
this
commission
to
the
city
charter,
recognizing
that
san
jose
is
on
the
sacred
ancestral
native
land
of
the
milwaukee
loney
tribe.
I
cannot
go
for
the
final
sentence.
Add
to
the
charter,
a
land
acknowledgement
granted
by
the
moek
maloney
tribe
that
recognizes
that
san
jose
is
on
the
sacred
ancestral
native
land
of
the
molecule.
L
G
G
L
M
G
I
chose
not
to
include
that,
because
that
was
a
separate
recommendation
that
was
embedded
in
the
recommendation
that
was
approved
by
for
the
policing
and
community
oversight.
I
didn't
want
to
add.
I
felt
it
would
be
disingenuous
to
add
a
set
at
another
recommendation
at
the
same
level,
the
report
that
was
not
voted
on
separately
by
this
commission,
so
I
I
chose
to
I
did
I
choose
to
not
include
that
for
clarity,
readability
and
for
the
format
of
the
report.
G
Recommendation
is
still
in
the
in
the
report.
It's
in
the
it's
in
the
policing
recommendation,
it's
item
e
and
that
recommendation
is
there,
but
I
did
not
elevate
it
to
the
level
of
a
recommendation
memo
that
that
the
other
recommendations
that
were
voted
on
were
at
again.
That's
that's
a
report.
Formatting.
L
G
G
L
Am
not
sure
that
the
documents
that
so
my
belief
is
there's
several
hours
of
my
of
not
mine.
My
subcommittees
edits
that
are
not
in
this
final
document,
and
it
really
would
take
me
a
couple
days
to
go
through
and
figure
out
what
you
did
and
what
you
didn't
include
and
that
reason
again
is
because
you
went
on
vacation
last
week.
We
didn't.
G
Have
a
signal
you
know,
commissioner
siegel,
I
really
don't
appreciate
your
insults
to
my
professionalism.
I've
been
I've
been
dealing
with
your
emails,
telling
me
that
when
I
should
or
should
not
be
in-
and
I
I've
worked
very
hard-
and
you
know
I
understand
that
this
report
voted
on
by
23
people
is
not
gonna.
100
percent
reflect
exactly
what
how
someone
else
would
have
written
it.
G
What
I'm
trying
to
do
is
bring
us
to
a
point
where
we
all
recognize
that
the
intention,
the
the
this
report
reflects
the
deliberations
of
this
council
as
best
as
possible.
Given
the
constraints
we
have
to
work
under
and
and
those
constraints
include,
develop,
delivering
a
report
this
friday-
and
I
I
agree-
that's
that's
difficult.
It's
very
difficult.
L
So
what
would
have
been
really
useful
for
us
if
we
would
have
had
somebody
to
work
with
this
whole
week
from
civic
makers?
If
we
would
have
had
somebody
there
to
work
with,
then
we
would,
I
feel,
like
we
wouldn't
be
in
this
dilemma,
this
pickle
that
we
are
now.
I
do
not
feel
that
this
final
report
actually
accurately
represents
what
we
voted
on.
Nor
do
I
feel
like
I.
Any
of
us
could
even
know
that,
since
we,
I
don't
think
any
of
us
have
thoroughly
read
it
or
compared
it.
B
C
Thank
you
I'm
just
looking
at
this,
and
I
I
saw
it
last
week,
but
I
thought
that
the
subcommittee
that
worked
on
it
would
have
corrected
it.
The
support
a
community
opportunity
to
purchase
act.
We
did
not
vote
on
that.
We
voted
on
exploring
a
community
to
purchase
act.
There
was
a
lot
of
very
active
conversation
about
this
and
I
think
at
the
end
we
said
well,
could
we
vote
on
explore
and
throughout
this
this
recommendation.
C
C
N
You
know
I'm
in
education,
it's
very
busy
right
now,
as
you
can
imagine,
I
did
not
have
five
minutes
in
my
day
to
look
at
this.
I
I
couldn't.
I
work
it's
the
monday
after
a
holiday,
it's
busy
I
was
back
to
back
today.
I
I
cannot
agree
to
the
the
changes
that
I
am
aware
of
that
were
not
changed
and
not
written.
As
you
know
what
we
intended.
N
B
B
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is,
if
that's
the
pleasure
of
the
commission,
we
do
that
and
what
we'll
do
tonight
is
just
hear
from
you
around
those
items
just
like
I'm
just
keeping
a
laundry
list
of
them,
but
things
that
have
come
up
so
that
if
we
you
get
a
full
reading
of
the
report,
seeing
where
things
were
integrated
and
if
there's
still
questions
those
can
come
back,
but
wednesday
would
be
the
final
vote.
Then,
if
you
have
the
additional
time
it's
never
going
to
be
enough
time.
B
H
B
F
B
M
Thank
you
chair.
You
know.
I
do
think
that
if
there
are
significant
concerns
about
whether
or
not
somebody
proposed
that
the
red
line
language
does
not
reflect
what
the
pm
lifestyle
committee
wants
to
be
represented,
I
think,
at
the
very
least,
we
need
to
see
what
was
being
proposed
or
submitted
by
pmi,
so
that
we
can
run
a
comparison,
and
that
would
just
be
helpful
at
least
for
context.
M
I
will
say,
though,
having
reviewed
the
voting
and
elections
section,
you
know,
there's
been
no
contention,
at
least
from
our
folks
that
there's
been
any
inconsistencies
there.
I
believe
that
it's
all
been
captured.
I
would
recommend
that,
if
the,
if
it
makes
our
jobs
easier,
that
we
can
just
focus
on
the
areas
where
there's
some
contention
or
there's
some
confusion
and
make
sure
we
get
to
declare
that
but
like
unless
somebody
else
in
my
super
committee
can
say
that
there's
something
missing,
I
do
believe
that
we've
got
ours
covered.
A
A
A
P
P
The
first
one
is
thank
you
for
tony
for
for
putting
together
the
possibility
for
a
wednesday
meeting.
I
think
that
brings
a
lot
of
relief.
I
do
share
some
of
the
sentiments
that
commissioner
segura
and
fuentes
and
other
folks
have
brought
up
in
terms
of,
and
commissioner
tran
about
ensuring
that
at
the
last
minute,
we
we
do.
The
best
we
can
to
tie
up
the
loose
ends
ensure
that
all
voices
are
heard.
P
So
I
I
appreciate
the
thinking
on
wednesday
in
terms
of
trying
to
make
that
meeting
happen,
a
couple
of
things-
and
I
think
this
is
more
directed
towards
lawrence
as
the
as
as
a
civic
maker,
seems
to
have
been
the
hand
behind
or
the
typing
hand
behind
behind
the
final
report
that
we
got
today.
So
in
terms
of
and
I'll
try
to
be
as
technical
as
possible.
I
have
three
points.
P
G
Let
me
just
speak
to
that
really
quickly.
That
was
at
the
request
of
the
city
clerk,
because
there
were,
this
commission
did
not
recommend
a
change
to
the
governance
structure,
and
yet
that
was
one
of
the
the
directives
from
the
council.
The
city
clerk
asked
me
to
call
that
out
specifically
that
and
and
to
your
point
vice
chair
johnson.
That's
why
there
is
a
separate.
I
separated
the
the
approved
recommendation
to
allow
council
members
to
put
forward
candidates
for
city
managers.
G
I
I
did
decide
to
to
to
separate
again
at
the
request
of
of
the
city
clerk,
the
the
commission's
finding
on
governance
structure
from
the
specific
recommendation
around
hiring
of
of
city
managers.
Likewise,
for
voting
in
elections,
there
was
another
directive
that
was
regarding
the
timing
of
district
elections.
You
all
voted
to
to
recommend
moving
the
timing
of
mayoral
elections.
G
The
voting
election
subcommittee
found
that
they
they
did
not
think
it
would
be
that
that
this
commission
should
recommend
changing
the
timing
of
district
elections,
and
so
just
to
emphasize
that
commissioner
percival
provided
language
based
on
the
deliberations
of
that.
That
subcommittee
and
again,
this
is
to
to
be
reflective
of
the
specific
directives
from
council
that
created
this
commission.
So
we,
when
council,
read
this,
we
read
this.
P
P
Worded
in
a
way
where,
where
it's
much
more
explicit,
that
that's
what's
happening
because
I
think
in
the
report
it
just
sort
of
jumps
into
you
know
with
regards
to
right
before
the
recommendations.
I
don't
know
if
that
needs
to
be
another
section,
but
I
still
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
city
attorney
question,
but
the
night
that
we
voted.
P
H
P
Okay,
how
to
do
this
differently
right?
What
I?
What
I
see-
I
don't
know
if
you
can
share
screen
or
if
I
can't,
but
on
page
23,
page
23,
24
25,
all
that
language
comes
from
the
recommendation
that
our
subcommittee
put
forward,
and
that
was
basically
like
the
background.
You
know,
like
the
first
couple
of
questions,
that's
asked
on
the
template,
but
it
looks
like
that
was
extracted
to
be
used
to
explain
why
we
didn't
go
that
route.
P
So
what
I'm
saying
is
both
both
can
be
present
in
this
final
report,
and
by
doing
that,
we
would
have
to
keep
the
thing
we
voted
on
right.
The
recommendation
we
voted
on
whole,
which
actually
starts
on
page
26
in
the
final
report,
and
to
also
check
off
what
the
city
clerk
office
wants
to
make
clear
to
to
the
council.
P
P
I'm
just
I'm
just
really
afraid
that
we're
we're
dividing
up
a
recommendation
that
we
voted
on
as
as
a
whole
and
we're
splitting
it
to
satisfy
two
different
requests,
and
I
don't
know
if
our
recommendation
should
be
should
be
split
up
to
to
explain
to
council
why
we
did
what
we
did.
I
think
the
report,
not
the
report,
but
the,
but
the
recommendation
can
stay
whole
with
this.
P
H
P
So
I
would
I
would.
I
would
ask
commissioner
johnson
johnson
was
a
primary
author
of
that
recommendation.
Am
I
speaking
correctly
about
the
recommendation
we
put
forward
the
way
that
I
see
it
is
all
the
statistics
that
are
up
there
in
terms
of
the
population
of
san
jose.
All
of
that
was
used
in
the
recommendation.
That's
now
worded
as
council
members
to
make
nominations
on
on
on
city
manager.
A
H
H
So
you
know
I
understand
you
might
want
things
exactly
in
the
same
order,
but
I'm
I'm
trying
to
to
help
the
council
read
your
recommendations,
check
off
like
see
what
you've
done
and
and
have
it
be
clear
to
them.
I
I
personally
think,
as
you
know,
a
former
english
teacher
that
calling
it
out
separately
helps
the
council,
who
is
the
one
who's
ultimately
going
to
make
the
decision
instead
of
to
me,
if
we
can
put
them
back
together,
you're
burying
it
and
they
they
asked
you
to
do
this
one.
H
They
didn't
ask
you
to
do
the
city
manager
one,
I'm
not
saying
that
that's
bad,
that
you
chose
to
do
the
city
manager,
that's
fine,
but
they're.
Looking
for
this
mayor,
council
government
structure,
they're
going
to
look
for
that
heading,
because
that
was
one
of
the
key
items
they
gave
to
you
and
we
move
it
back
into
under
the
city
manager
heading
it
gets
buried,
it
gets
lost.
H
H
But
ultimately
it
is
your
report,
I'm
just
that.
That's
my
that's
that's
why
we
had
to
pulled
out
because
I
had
council
members
who
have
been
following
along
saying
they
never
talked
about
mayor
council
government
structure.
Well,
I
don't
see
anything
on
that
and
it's
like
oh
well.
They
did
so,
let's
make
sure
we
we
present
it
to
the
council,
so
they
can
find
it
easily.
P
P
With
regards
to
specific,
it
is
a
commission's
opinion
that
moving
the
mayor
council
government
structure
will
not
improve
accountability
representation.
So
I
see
what
you're
saying
tony
I
just
I
just
bring
it
up
because
of
just
just
on
what
we
voted
on
right.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
what
the
commissions
work
and
what
we
voted
on
is
is
as
accurate
as
possible
here.
P
You
know
well
like
now
it's
a
package,
but
back
then
it
was
just
one
recommendation
considering
what
tony
said
if
someone
seconds
it
or
someone
believes
that
it
needs
to
be
added,
you
know
more
than
myself
and
and
vice
chair
johnson,
please
let
us
know,
but
if
this
is
the
way
to
go,
if
this
is
the
best
way
to
communicate
to
council
that
we
did
touch
on
it.
These
are
the
reasons
now
acknowledging
that
we
are
taking
language
from
the
recommendation
to
show
council
look.
P
This
is
why
we
went
with
what
with
what
we
went
with
and
then
maybe
also
including
a
little
disclaimer
that
the
commission
didn't
necessarily
vote
on.
What's
on
page
26
per
se,
allow
council
members
to
make
nominations
for
city
manager,
candidates.
We
did
not
vote
on
that.
That
was
part
of
the
recommendation.
P
That
was,
that
was
a
result
of
the
recommendation,
but
giving
it
that
exclusive
title
kind
of
makes
it
sound
like
that's
what
we
just
focused
on
and
if
there's
a
way
to
bridge
that
gap.
If
anyone
on
the
on
the
commission
or
readers
of
the
public
or
city
council
feel
wow,
we
just
totally
sidestepped
everything
and
we
just
went
straight
to
who
has
power
to
vote
for
the
city
manager.
That's
really
wasn't
the
conversation
that
we
had.
P
It's
just
a
second
point:
I'm
sorry
I'll
just
use
my
second
talking
stick
here
in
terms
of
the
dissenting
memos.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
feels
this
way,
but
if
earlier
in
the
process
that
would
have
been
made
clear
that
towards
at
a
certain
point,
along
with
the
minority
report,
there
will
be
a
section
or
opportunity
to
provide
dissenting
memos.
P
P
You
know
doing
what
we
have
to
do,
making
plans
with
our
families
and
then
thursday
for
sure
right,
if
you
celebrate
or
or
or
observe
the
holiday
you're
in
the
throes
of
entertaining
and
planning
and
making
sure
you
know
things
go
right
for
for
the
dinner
for
people
hosting
for
the
festivities,
and
then
that
gives
you
maybe
friday
morning
right
to
create
something.
If
you
do
want
to
present
something.
So
I
feel
that
the
dissenting
memos.
P
Personally,
I
don't
know
if
someone
else
feels
this
way,
but
I
feel
that
the
minority
report
in
itself
is
the
voice
of
the
dissenting
whatever
we
want
to
gather
out
of
a
dissenting
memo.
I
think
that
is
communicated
through
the
minority
report,
so
I
think
just
the
last
minute
of
that
inclusion
and
at
the
same
time,
that
the
voices
of
the
folks
that
do
disagree
with
what
we've
done
on
the
commission
and
the
whole
is
baked
into
the
work
and
and
the
verbiage
in
the
minority
report.
P
So
I
would
like
to
see
actually
the
removal
of
the
dissenting
memos
one,
because
I
don't
think
we
had
enough
time
to
to
craft
it
to
really
consider
it
and
at
the
same
time,
I
really
go
back
to
giving
us
that
transparency,
because
I
would
have
been
starting
a
memo
log
on
the
side,
knowing
that
every
commissioner
will
be
given
an
opportunity
to
write
an
individual
analysis
and
historical
look.
This
is
how
I
feel
it
went.
This
is
what
I
agree
with.
This
is
what
I
disagreed
with.
P
I
think
that
for
me,
I
held
back
on
that
because
I
think
that
undermines
the
spirit
of
what
23
of
us
wanted
to
do.
Have
the
conversations
here
and
then
agree
to
disagree
but
move
forward
with
consensus,
and
I
think
a
dissenting
memo
opportunity
kind
of
gives
that
I
don't
know
it's
not
in
line
with
that
spirit
of
look,
we
produce
the
product,
and
this
is
what
we're
moving
forward.
I
think
this
gives
an
opportunity
for
for
for
undermining
that
that
spirit
that
we
all
set
forth
in
in
in
trying
to
observe
since
january.
P
O
C
C
When
the
context
of
the
overall
recommendation
is
we
think
things
should
stay
the
same.
I
think
there
are
two
things
one
one
is
just
to
acknowledge
that
and
leave
it
separate.
The
other
possibility
is
in
the
recommendation
to
acknowledge
up
front
that
what
we
have
done
here
is
give
more
power
to
the
council.
C
This
is
a
power
the
council
did
not
have
and
we're
recommending
that
it
does
have
that.
So
so
that's
not
no
recommendation
on
changing
the
structure
that
is
shifting
ever
so
slightly
something
to
the
council.
For
what
that's
worth,
I
I
I
take
louis's
point
on
the
descent.
I
wrote
a
quick
one
on
the
on
the
14
council
members,
because
I
thought
it
was
important
to
understand
what
the
arguments
were
there
and
that
we
weren't
those
of
us
who
voted
against.
It
were
not
against
expanding
the
council.
C
A
B
F
Thank
you.
I
I
want
to
thoroughly
agree
with
commissioner
marshman
as
well
as
commissioner
baroccio.
I
appreciate
the
clerk's
point
about
the
value
for
the
clarity
of
our
communication
city
council
to
have
a
heading
that
clearly
conveys
the
connection
in
our
recommendation
and
the
council's
direction.
I
think
that
can
be
accomplished
in
a
heading.
It
is
a
single
recommendation
that
the
commission
voted
on
the
standard
that
we've
been
asked
to
apply
to
approving
this
report
is.
Does
the
report
convey
the
will
of
this
body
of
23
people?
F
The
will
of
this
body
of
23
people
approved
a
single
recommendation
that
exactly.
I
really
appreciate
how
commissioner
marshman
said
it,
because,
probably
better
than
I
will
and
those
words
were
echoing
through
my
head.
It
was
a
recommendation
in
the
affirmative
to
to
keep
the
mayor.
Excuse
me,
the
council
manager
form
of
government
and
to
increase
the
powers
of
the
council,
and
I
want
to
read
for
the
benefit
of
our
fellow
commissioners
and
the
public.
F
What
the
language
is
that
our
committee,
you
know-
I
appreciate
vice
chair
johnson,
saying
these
were
my
changes,
but
she,
actually
you
know
in
in
her
leadership
role,
submitted
those
changes
with
the
backing
of
our
committee.
If
I
remember
correctly
so
the
executive
summary
language
that
that
we
had
submitted
is
the
commission
finds
that
keeping
the
current
manager
council
form
of
governance
model
maintains
accountability,
representation,
representation
and
inclusion
at
san
jose
city
hall.
F
Furthermore,
by
giving
members
of
the
council
the
ability
to
nominate
prospective
city
managers,
along
with
the
mayor
increases
equitable
representation
in
the
applicant
pool
for
the
city
manager
appointment
process,
which
will
benefit
all
residents
in
san
jose.
I
I
don't
think
it
could
be
clearer
when
paired
with
a
heading
that
this
is
a
recommendation
that
is
in
response
to
the
council's
direction,
to
study
this
issue.
F
So
so
I
I
do
believe
that,
with
the
clerk's
very
thoughtful
recommended,
edit
about
the
heading
of
this
section,
that
having
this
recommendation
forwarded
to
the
council
in
the
way
that
the
commission
approved
it
with
the
executive
summary
edits
that
our
committee
submitted
and
with
the
integration
of
that
recommendation.
On
pages
23
and
further
that
we
discussed
into
a
single
recommendation
is
appropriate.
F
Unfortunately,
it
seems
that
the
message
of
the
commission
didn't
come
all
the
way
through
to
the
rules
committee
that
we
had
really
intended
for
that
recommendation
to
come
to
the
city
council
in
advance
of
the
others
again
in
service
of
voters,
the
public
and
and
candidates.
So
it's
only
recently
clicked
for
me
again.
Apologies
to
be
on
the
slow
team,
sometimes
here
that
that
has
has
not
happened,
and
so
at
the
very
least.
F
However,
we
have
one
recommendation
that
we,
as
a
commission
felt,
could
move
faster
and
needed
to
move
faster
in
order
to
do
our
best
service
to
voters
and
the
public.
And
so
I
have
language
if
that's
helpful,
for
people
to
to
hear,
but
just
to
add
a
couple
of
sentences
again
to
that
section
of
the
report
to
convey
that
element
of
the
commission's.
F
B
Yeah,
I
mean
I'm
kind
of
making
a
laundry
list
of
all
the
different
edits
and
stick.
My
question
will
be:
what's
the
best
way
to
kind
of
do
that,
let's,
let's
finish
the
round,
and
then
I
think
I
I
should
be
able
to
answer
your
question
but
appreciate
your
solution
too,
as
well
as
the
challenges
that
you
put
forth.
Commissioner,
quaytran.
M
Thank
you
a
couple
of
quick
points.
Well,
you
know
in
terms
of
of
how
some
of
the
recommendations
are
being
presented
right,
namely
the
recommendation
about
how
allowing
city
council
members
to
to
nominate
candidates
for
city
manager
and
for
not
changing
the
timing
of
district
elections.
I
think
it
might
be
important
it
doesn't.
M
It
might
be
important
just
to
add,
in
a
brief
note,
just
to
to
explain
the
procedural
context
for
these
decisions
and
when
I
say
brief
note
I
mean,
like
you
know,
for
the
city
council
nominations
it
can
just
be.
This
was
approved
as
part
of
the
recommendation
to
keep
the
council
manager
form
of
government
right,
something
like
that.
Maybe
we
don't
have
to
change
the
heading.
We
don't
have
to
change
the
call
out,
but
make
a
very
specific,
explicit
line
that
says
that
this
is.
M
That
was
how
it
was
adopted
and
similarly
for
the
recommendation
or
for
the
non-recommendation,
for
changing
the
the
time
of
timing
of
district
elections,
we
can
simply
say
that
it
was
never
brought
before
before
the
full
commission,
because
the
subcommittee
did
not
support
it
because
the
subcommittee
did
not
approve
it.
It
was
not
forwarded
to
the
full
commission
for
discussion
review.
N
I
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
mark
danny.
I
I
just
noticed
when
we
were
discussing
the
pages
23
through
25
and
then
being
split
into
two
sections,
that
lawrence
had
sort
of
said
that
it
was
the
city
manager
and
the
city
clerk
that
had
made
the
recommendation
to
split.
N
G
E
You
know,
we've
got
a
document,
that's
over
100
pages
that
we're
trying
to
edit
with
a
large
with
a
large
committee,
and-
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
make
sure
we
organize
ourselves-
coordinate
our
work
to
finish
this
up
in
time
for
friday.
And
so
with
that,
I
want
to
suggest
that,
as
somebody
else
had
mentioned,
I
think
it
was
commissioner
marshman
asking
about
whether
or
not
we
actually
have
a
quorum
for
wednesday.
Q
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
we
could
get
some
clarification
on
on
voting
if
we
do
have
another
meeting
or
two
meetings,
I
think
my
concern
is
that,
given
the
short
notice
of
all
of
this
and
all
of
us
have
very
busy
lives,
some
of
us
can
be
available.
Some
nights,
not
others.
I
I
personally
would
feel
bad
that,
after
a
number
of
months
of
working
on
this,
that
I
I
couldn't
be
around
for
a
final
vote
because
of
very
short
notice
from
previous
commitments.
Q
L
Thank
you
just
along
the
lines
of
what
commissioner
percival
said.
I
would
personally
ask
that
the
edits
that
we
made
and
we
submitted
to
you
on
wednesday,
the
24th
around
8
30
pm
that
that
be
sent
to
the
those
edits
along
with
all
the
side,
comments
that
everybody
could
see
be
sent
to
all
the
commissioners
and
also
be
posted
for
the
public
to
see,
because
I
I
I
don't
think
I
should
really
have
to
spend
another
four
or
five
hours,
comparing
the
edits
we
already
gave
with
the
current
document.
L
L
L
B
L
A
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
agree
with
the
commissioner
percival
that
it'd
be
really
disappointing,
not
to
be
able
to
vote
on
some
of
the
work
that
we've
done
for
11
months.
I
think
we
should
take
a
preliminary
vote
tonight
and
hope
that
the
changes
that
need
to
be
made
can
be
made
I'm
out
of
town
from
wednesday
through
the
weekend.
So
I'm
going
to
call
the
question.
B
So
what
I
try
would
love
to
see
is
if
we
can
do
some
of
that
work
between
now
and
wednesday
night,
so
that
on
wednesday
night
we're
simply
reviewing
what
people
agreed
to
already
that
those
areas,
especially
in
the
one
subcommittee
and
commissioner
seagal's
subcommittee,
her
report
to
make
sure
that
there's
an
alignment
there.
If
we
could
work
on
that
before
wednesday,
then
wednesday
night,
we
could
have
not.
We
wouldn't
have
to
be
reviewing
the
whole
thing
again
and
we
could
take
the
final
vote
on
wednesday.
B
That
would
be
my
suggestion
in
terms
of
how
we
move
forward,
because
civic
maker
isn't
available
on
wednesday
night
either.
So
we
couldn't
spend
all
night
going
through
edits,
but
I
just
think
it's
the
most
efficient
is
if
we
can
submit
edits
beforehand,
work
those
through
and
you've
only
identified.
I
think
you
know
10
areas
in
which
you
feel
like.
B
There
are
some
pieces,
mr
brocio
and
others
have
suggested
some
very
helpful
comes
from
outside
some
very
helpful
edits
kinds
of
what,
if
we
frame
it
this
way
or
add
these
two
sentences,
things
like
that.
I
think
a
lot
of
that
can
happen
in
the
next
two
days,
I'm
hoping
and
then
for
wednesday
night.
We
really
are
just
going
to
take
the
final
vote
and
be
able
to
do
that.
B
B
If
you
don't
want
to
spend
all
the
time
in
the
in
the
kind
of
back
and
forth,
you
can
submit
your
actual
documents
themselves.
That
would
be
another
option.
My
suggestion
is,
though,
that
we
finished
the
editing
of
this
report
and
these
areas
that
you've
identified
to
see
if
we
can
get
some
agreement
on.
What's
the
best
way
to
do
that
or
what's
the
best
way
to
it,
should
finally
be
in
the
report
and
then
take
a
final
vote
on
wednesday.
L
Okay,
I
I
would
be
okay
with
that,
as
long
as
everybody
and
the
public
gets
the
edits
that
we
submitted
to
civic
makers
on
wednesday
at
10
30.,
I
would
like
everybody
to
get
that
and
have
access
to
the
side
comments,
and
if
that's,
okay,
I
believe
that's
what
you
said
chair.
Yes,
I
would
then
be
okay
with
your
suggestion.
B
G
G
Yeah
there's
one
subcommittee
that
and-
and
this
is
a
situation
where
it's
probably
worthwhile
getting
megan's-
help
to
go
back
and
just
confirm
that
the
language
and
the
motion,
megan
or
tony's-
help
to
go
back
and
get
the
language
and
the
motion
to
be
explored.
But
that's
fine
by
me
again,
I'm
not
attached
to
what
the
content
of
these
file
recommendations
are
it's
important
to
me
that
they
reflect
the
the
deliberations
and-
and
you
know
the
recommendations
are
voted
on
by
all
of
you.
G
C
B
O
O
So
it's,
mr
chairman,
I
too
am
one
of
those
that
will
be
out
of
town
and
actually
in
a
water
convention
as
well
as
well
as
I
have
conflicting
meetings
that
are
during
wednesday
and
thursday.
So
I
don't
want
folks
to
think
I
have
a
lack
of
commitment
to
following
this
through
in
the
end,
but
I
did
want
to
express
my
concern
for
what
all
the
commissioners
and
so
and
folks
that
have
never
voted
together.
You
can
hear
this
coming
from
both
sides
from
every
side
and
every
corner.
O
I
I
think
the
report
is
not
an
accurate
reflection
of
what
the
subcommittees
have
pushed
forward
from
the
standpoint
of
the
subcommittee.
I
I
sit
on.
I
agree
with
all
the
commissioners
that
sit
with
me
that
the
report
does
not
contain
the
spirit
and
the
expectation
of
what
we
wanted
to
see
come
forward.
I
don't
want
to
see
something
where
we
have
the
tail
wag,
the
dog,
where
we're
looking
at
those
that
are
being
paid
to
put
this
together
and
think
they're,
reflecting
the
conversations
and
the
vote
of
the
commission.
O
I'd
rather
have
the
commission
ultimately
be
able
to
say
this
is
what
we're
voting
on.
This
is
where
this
is
going
and
the
final
report
to
reflect
whatever
the
vote
of
the
commission
was
so
I
will
try
and
log
on
wednesday
and
thursday
or
whenever
we
have
the
meetings,
but
it's
not
a
guarantee.
That
would
be
there.
O
I
am
happy
that
you're
moving
forward
at
least
a
provisional
vote,
but
I
do
want
folks
to
know
that
my
support
for
provisional
vote
is
with
the
expectation
that
everything
I
heard
from
commissioner
manley
from
commissioner
matsumura
from
commissioner
buressio
from
commissioner
all
sorts
of
different
commissioners
that
we
can
get
this
right.
We've
put
a
lot
of
work
into
this.
We
put
a
lot
of
time
into
this
and
I
do
want
to
thank
all
the
commissioners
for
all
the
support,
all
the
staff.
O
This
part
I
want
to
thank
lawrence
for
for
his
support
and
I'm
hoping
that.
However,
we
move
forward
that
when
we
are
having
these
conversations,
we
can
disagree
without
being
disagreeable.
There
was
a
point
when
I
raised
my
hand
earlier
when
I
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
the
interruptions
of
folks
is
definitely
something
that's
disagreeable.
A
B
Commissioner,
I'm
hoping
we
can
get
the
report
right
before
then
so
we're
just
taking
a
final
vote,
and
so
people
that
are
out
of
town
could
just
log
in
for
it.
That
would
be
my
goal,
we'll
see
how
fast
we
get
to
it.
Commissioner
fuentes
and
commissioner
brocio
the
cl.
The
question
has
been
called
so
I'll
go
back
to
comments,
but
could
we
get
to
that
vote?
Please,
because
the
question
was
called
so,
commissioner
matt
samara.
F
Thank
you
and
I
want
to
echo
everyone's
thanks
and
appreciation
to
the
chair
and
to
the
staff.
So
so
I
think
so
two
things
the
the
question
has
been
called.
I
think
on
the
original
motion
and
the
original
motion
hasn't
been
amended
yet
so
I
want
to
be
super
clear.
Well
and
I
shouldn't
even
say
yet.
The
original
motion
hasn't
been
amended
period,
it'll
be
at
the
discretion
of
the
maker
and
seconder.
What
to
do
with
that?
So
I
want
to
just
be
super
clear.
F
Are
we
voting
on
the
original
motion
or
are
we?
Is
there
somebody
going
to
propose
an
amendment
I
think
in
in
order
to
propose
an
amendment?
One
chair,
for,
I
think
everything
you
laid
out
in
terms
of
potential
process
was
tremendously
helpful,
but
we'll
need
to
sort
of
narrow
down.
What
is
the
actual
motion
because-
and
what
does
a
provisional
vote
mean
so
that
everybody
is
crystal
clear
on
on
that
and
on
what
happens
if
we
still
have
very
substantial
conversation
wednesday?
F
I
know:
that's,
that's
not
the
the
plan,
but
you
know
it
is.
It
is
a
possibility,
and-
and
I
wouldn't
want
us
to
be
planning
a
meeting
in
order
to
just
rubber
stamp
something
you
know
and
not
really
make
sure
that
that
we're
planning
that
meeting
to
carry
out
our
full
responsibilities
as
a
commission.
A
E
I
agree
we
should
see
we
have
a
quorum
and
I
regrettably,
am
going
to
be
voting
no
on
this
motion
because
number
one,
I
believe,
literally,
that
we
have
until
december
the
14th
or
13th
whatever
14th.
I
think
what
is
written
in
the
directive
to
us,
and
I
think
we
should
be
strong
and
courageous
enough
to
say
we're
going
to
take
all
that
time
to
do
this
right.
E
I
think
there's
too
many
questions
and
concerns
in
this
document
right
now
to
even
for
a
provisional
vote
and
also
I'll
I'm.
The
other
reason
I'm
voting
against
is
that
I
think
it
was
extremely
unfair
in
it
for
all
of
us,
I'm
not
saying
fred,
chair
ferrer
lawrence
anyone,
I'm
not
blaming
anyone,
but
I
think
it
was
not
fair
for
us
to
try
and
get
this
final
document
today
and
then
try
and
do
all
this
work
on
it.
E
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
fuentes.
I'm
going
to
ask
all
commissioners
if
they're
available
to
meet
at
5
30
on
wednesday.
If
you
could
raise
your
hand,
some
of
you
have
your
hands
up
already,
so
make
no
just
raise
your
virtual
hand
please
and
we'll
make
it
your
virtual
hand,
so
that
megan
can
take
the
cap.
H
B
B
We
got
just
another
farm
at
5
30.,
so,
okay
yeah,
I
yeah.
I
think
that
to
me
is
that
my
my
goal
would
be
to
move
us
in
that
direction
and,
commissioner
fuentes,
I
would
say
to
you
that
I,
my
recommend,
my
representation
to
the
commission
was
that
we,
I'm
sorry
to
the
council
to
the
rules
committee
was
that
we
would
turn
in
the
report
on
december
3rd.
O
B
J
O
B
Is
that
acceptable
to
the
maker
of
the
motion?
Commissioner?
Marshman?
Yes
and
commissioner?
Yes,
thank
you.
Okay,
so
there's
a
some
people's
hands
are
still
up
because
of
the
the
quorum
vote,
so
I
know
that
you're
not
trying
to
speak
at
this
point.
I
appreciate
it
just
to
make
sure
okay,
so
now
your
hand
is
up
means
you
want
to
talk
to
the
motion,
so
the
motion's
been
revised.
P
P
One
of
the
things
that
is
not
captured
in
the
subcommittee
recommendations
because
they
did
happen
before
thanksgiving
is
the
position
that
we'll
take
on
the
dissenting
memos
and
if
they
will
be
included,
is
that
something
that
is
implied
in
the
wednesday
meeting?
That
will
that
that
we'll
talk
about
or
should
we
do
a
second
friendly
amendment
to
make
sure
that
that's
included,
because,
again
that
that's
not
in
any
subcommittee
recommendation,
I
think
I'd
take
that
as
a
second.
B
F
B
I
I
think
provisional
means
that,
with
the
contingency
that
the
report's
going
to
change
in
the
ways
that
we've
talked
about
that
at
that
point,
we
would
be
taking
a
final
vote
saying.
Yes,
all
those
things
that
were
considered,
I
think,
have
been
considered
and
I'm
ready
to
support
the
full
report.
B
L
B
O
F
Okay
and
so-
and
I
heard
reference
to
the
subcommittee
edits
that
were
submitted
being
posted,
I
think
the
posting
is
intended
to
indicate
the
full
commission
or
for
those
who
vote
on
vote.
Yes
on
the
motion,
the
commitment
to
follow
up
on
all
of
the
changes
and
and
make
a
final
decision
on
what
all
of
those
changes,
as
well
as
reviewing
everything
else
that
we've
discussed
tonight.
So
I
just
I
want
to
be
again
very
clear.
A
provisional
vote
is
is
a
commitment
to
finish
the
discussions
that
we've
started
tonight.
Q
H
Q
B
Q
H
B
L
L
A
L
B
A
F
Thank
you.
I
I
did
want
to
just
see
whether
we
would
get
more
attendance
on
thursday.
I
know,
of
course
it
is
bad
for
the
chair
and
of
course
we
want
to
have
the
chair
here,
but
but
I
just
thought
it
would
be
valuable
to
know
if
we
could
get
more
attendance,
because
you
know
it
would
be
unfortunate
to
have
to
finalize
this
report
with
just
a
bear
quorum.
B
E
Yes,
let's
see
here,
I
would
like
to
know
if,
in
the
motion
is
there
language
that
says
that
we
are
including
the
all
the
comments
that
are
made
by
commissioners
and
again.
This
has
to
do
with
various
corrections
that
we
talked
about
tonight
and
more
that
we'll
be
talking
on
tuesd
I
mean
on
wednesday
or
thursday
and
or
thursday.
E
But
if,
if
we
were
to
have
this
in
the
motion
or
have
another
amendment
that
says
that
we
are
actually
going
to
accept,
whatever
corrections
to
the
to
the
draft
are
made
by
commissioners
where
things
like
they're
going
back
to
their
original
actions,
original
documents
that
said
x
and
they
were
going
to
change
the
the
draft
to
me,
acts
rather
than
any
any
edits
that
have
been
made.
Am
I
clear
in
what
I'm
asking.
A
G
G
G
So
I'm
okay
with
letting
go
of
that,
but
I
I
think
you
know
that
means
that
we're
going
to
have
a
much
less
readable
document
in
that
every
recommendation
would
have
a
separate
format.
So
you
know
that
there
is
a
balance
here
of
of
consistency
and
the
presentation
to
counsel
and
honoring
the
spirit
of
these
deliberations,
which
I
believe
me
in
full
support
of.
So
my
my
request
would
be
that
and
again
all
of
the
doc.
All
the
language
is
pulled
directly
from
recommendations.
G
I've
restructured
it
to
to
condense
from
the
eight
or
nine
sections
of
the
memo
template
to
the
to
four
of
the
recommendations.
The
format
of
the
final
recommendation
report,
my
request
would
be
that
we
try
to
stick
to
that
at
very
least
that
format
so
that
people
that
are
reading
this
know
what
to
expect
and
can
compare
and
contrast,
apple's
apples,
instead
of
going
on
a
roller
coaster
ride
as
they
read
every
different
recommendation.
E
B
M
Thank
you
chair,
I
only
know
I
would
want
to
make.
Is
that
you
know
for
us
to
get
this
across
the
finish
line.
I
would
hope
that
we
can
give
each
other
a
bit
of
faith.
Right.
Trust
is
something
that
that
always,
of
course,
has
to
be
earned,
but
we're
so
close
to
the
finish
line.
I
think
so
far
all
indications
have
been
that
we're
all
trying
to
stay
true
to
the
original
memos
and
that's
from
all
sides
the
perspective
of
staff,
our
consultant
and
the
commissioners.
M
So
I
you
know
I'm
going
to
be
voting
in
support
of
this,
partly
in
defense
of
the
fact
that
we
had
a
work
plan
that
was
approved
two
weeks
ago,
and
you
know
that
was
hopefully
supposed
to
give
us
enough
time
to
plan
ahead.
But
I
was
really
supporting
this
because
we
should
all
you
know,
put
you
know
putting
the
time.
Let's
get
these
words
out.
M
O
I
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
so
this
was
that
at
first
I
wasn't
asked
for
a
point
of
water,
because
I
was
listening
to
commissioner
fuentes
and
I
actually
agree
with
her.
I
I
think
that,
where
we
are
with
the
report,
there's
things
that
have
been
lost
in
terms
of
the
what
we're
trying
to
send
and
the
kind
of
communication
that
we're
trying
to
send
to
council.
So
so
I
was
hoping
that
you
would
entertain
a
motion
potentially
by
commissioner
fuentes
after
we
carry.
O
Hopefully
this
motion
moving
forward
that
indeed
we
can
move
forward
with
making
sure
that
whatever
we're
trying
to
communicate
is
contained
in
the
final
report.
You
know,
democracy
is
never
something
that's
ever
ever
clean
or
ever
perfect,
and
we
should
not
let
the
vote
of
the
commission
be
lost
to
to
basically
editorial
trying
to
ensure
that
we're
communicating
it
clear.
I
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
make
sure
that
our
voices
and
our
votes
are
heard.
B
I
see
the
city
clerk
has
her
hands
up,
maybe
he's
going
to
say
the
same
thing,
but
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
have
the
spirit
of
the
conversation
be
in
the
document,
but
make
it
super
readable
and
clear
and
to
really
understand
what
is
being
recommended
and
then
the
second
piece
is
the
argument.
If
there's
edits
in
the
argument
that
you've
submitted
and
that
you
didn't
see
captured,
that
would
be
something.
I'd
still
think.
B
H
L
L
H
L
L
L
B
Okay,
are
you
ready
for
the
question,
so
this
is
the
provisional
vote
to
support
the
recommendations
of
the
report
and
with
the
provisos
that
we
will
be
sending
out
the
subcommittee's
final
red
lines,
as
well
as
the
document
itself,
so
that
folks
can
be
able
to
compare
subcommittees.
I
recommendations
to
the
draft
that
we
use
that
was
posted
for
tonight's
meeting.
K
Q
M
P
H
N
B
Thank
you.
The
second
motion
that
I
wanted
to
ask
commissioner
grocio.
Commissioner
brocio
is
asking
that
the
dissenting
views
be
removed
from
the
report.
The
designing
views
came
from
commissioners
at
their
request
to
be
able
to
enter
it
into
the
record
so
questionable.
Do
you
want
to
make
a
motion
that
we
could
have
on
the
table
to
discuss.
P
Yes,
well
clarity
before
before
before
I
do,
that
is,
is
this
the
right
way
to
go
about
it
or,
or
should
we
be
going
about
it
where
we
vote
to
have
the
dissenting
section
in
there?
I
don't
know
like
what
would
be
the
best
approach
is
this?
Is
this
the
right
way
to
to
go
about
it
to
to
shoot
down
the
idea
for
the
lack
of
better
terms
or
to
solidify
the
idea.
P
G
P
B
P
B
So
the
commission
commissioners
sent
a
request
to
be
able
to
file
dissenting
opinions.
I
so,
let's
I'll
I'll,
take
it
historically
take
a
step
back.
It
was
my
direction
to
ask
tony
to
do
that.
So
in
the
spirit
of
inclusion,
and
I
felt
like
I've
tried
to
include
as
many
different
perspectives
as
possible.
B
Without
regard
to
my
own
opinion,
I
felt
that
commissioners
would
ask
to
submit
dissenting
views,
that
we
should
include
them
and
they
did
have
the
opportunity
they
are
on
the
losing
side
of
a
vote,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
their
perspectives
were
any
less
important.
They
just
weren't
the
will
of
the
commission,
and
so
I
said
that
we
would
allow
it,
but
we'd
have
to
open
it
up
to
everyone.
B
There
was
such
small
minority
votes
on
all
of
the
recommendations
that
it
really
wasn't
the
vast
majority
of
commissioners,
who
would
be
doing
that
since
the
vast
majority
of
commissioners
agreed
on
almost
every
vote.
So
it
was
my
direction
that
let
let's
open
this
up,
but
we
would
need
it
quickly
so
that
we
could
see
it
submitted
as
part
of
the
report.
B
B
B
That's
the
reason
I
asked
that
I
I
said
we
could
include
it.
I
don't,
I
think.
If
I
said
no,
we
couldn't
include
it.
Then
I
would
say
that
the
challenge
around
inclusion
would
come
back
up
again
and
saying.
Well,
the
chair
is
being
unfair,
because
now
he
only
wants
certain
opinions
to
be
a
part
of
the
report.
B
I'm
going
to
get
you
know
yelled
out
either
way.
So
that
was
my
my
suggestion
to
staff
and
then
tony
put
the
note
out
to
all
of
you
so
that
you
all
have
the
opportunity
again.
So
the
few
votes
that
were
in
the
minority
of
the
recommendations
had
the
ability
to
do
that
if
they
could
do
in
a
timely
fashion,.
P
Right:
okay,
no!
Well!
Thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
background.
Yes,
I
would
like
to
put
a
motion
out
there.
I
appreciate
your
your
thinking
and
and
and
who
tapped
you
to
to
voice
that
thinking
to
open
up
an
opportunity
for
for
dissenting
opinions.
I
think
I
think
my
only
issue
with
that
is
not
the
dissenting
opinions
that
could
be
on
the
record.
P
P
B
P
P
B
Busy
week
for
me
too,
but
I
was
just
trying
to
be
responsive
and
say:
yes,
we
definitely
could
do
it.
Okay,
let's
make
sure
we
open
it
to
everyone
so
that
make
sure
that
all
thoughts
are
included.
It's
not
a
part
of
the
recommendation,
it
doesn't
change
the
recommendation
right,
but
it's
part
of
the
record.
So
when
council
reads
this,
they
can
say
that
here
are
the
other
other
arguments
that
folks
did
have,
but
it
was
clearly
not
in
the
majority
of
the
commission's
view.
P
P
P
A
P
So
yeah
I
can,
I
can
add
clarity,
and
I
forget
the
page
that
it's
on,
but
maybe
lawrence
you
can
as
a
principal
writer.
Maybe
you
can
you
can
reference
it,
but
were
the
dissenting
memos
there's
only
two
dissenting
memos
show
up
is
in
the
first
page
of
the
minority
report
lawrence.
Would
you
be
able
to
speak
to
to
that,
so
I'm
not
suggesting
that
the
minority
report
section
be
removed,
that
is,
that
is
totally
out
of
bounds.
P
A
G
G
M
You
want
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
arguments
and
whatnot
are
included
and
heard,
and
the
one
thing
we
I
tried
generally-
I
guess
we
generally
should
not
be
doing-
is
getting
into
an
argument
just
on
the
papers
right
where
we
just
memos
get
edited
back
and
forth
just
so
that
they
start
arguing
back
and
forth
with
each
other.
I
don't
you
know
if
the
if
the
comments
or
the
you
know
some
of
these
dissenting
opinions
get
included
in
the
con
argument
or
get
filed
as
a
separate
document.
M
You
know
separate
from
this
report
or
any
way
you
know,
maybe
just
just
because
it
can
shorten
this
document,
I'm
fine
with
it,
but
generally
speaking,
I'm
not
going
to
be
supporting
in
any
kind
of
motion
that
would
just
basically
say
strike
the
whole
thing.
So
at
least
the
way,
as
I
understand
it
now,
commissioner
borosio
and
you
know,
and
then
unfortunately
I
won't
be
able
to
support
it,
just
because
I
don't
think
we
should
be
in
the
practice
of
just
striking
entire
opinions.
B
L
Thank
you
just
as
a
friendly
amendment
to
commissioner
borosio,
how
about
we
move
those
two
memos
into
the
dissenting
opinions
we
or
the
con
arguments
right.
So
there's
a
space
arguments
against,
and
so
I
could
see.
For
example,
commissioner
marshman's
point
about
14
she
feels
is
random,
that's
easily
something
that
could
go
right
in
arguments
against.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
see
why
it
wasn't
there
in
the
first
place.
I
think
it
you
know
we
could
just
move
those
two
memos
strike
them
from.
L
You
know
remove
them
from
the
report,
but
just
add
them
as
con
arguments
just
cut
and
paste
and
stick
it
right
in
there,
because
it's
a
legitimate
argument
against
they.
That's
something
that
they
want
to
say
they
should
say
it
and
the
body
of
the
report
and
to
give
it
separate.
You
know
to
make
it
a
separate
document.
L
F
Thank
you
so,
and
I'm
wanting
to
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
commissioner
barrosio's
argument.
I
I
heard
the
argument
that
commissioner
siegel
just
made
so
I'm
trying
to
understand.
If
that's
your
perspective
as
well,
I
I
think
I
might
have
been
hearing
something
a
little
different
from
you,
which
is
that
there
may
have
been
a
number.
There
may
be
a
number
more
commissioners
with
dissenting
opinions
who
would
want
to
submit
memos,
but
the
this
system,
the
method
that
was
used
to
include
dissenting
memos
in
the
final
report-
privileges.
F
Those
who
happen
to
be
able
to
meet
the
deadline,
the
two-day
deadline
for
friday-
and
so
I
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
that
a
more
fair
process
that
would
sort
of
give
equal
weight
to
everyone
who
wants
to
submit
a
dissenting
memo
would
be
to
root
all
dissenting
memos
by
way
of
letters
from
the
public
to
the
city
council
for
the
december
14
city
council
agenda.
Do
I
understand
your
argument
correctly.
P
A
Q
Q
Those
are
very
different
arguments
than
what
was
specifically
communicated
by
members
of
this
commission
so
that
to
me
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
dissenting
report.
That
is
people
who
do
a
deep
reading
of
this.
This
document
can
see
some,
maybe
some
connections
to,
but
it
makes
a
distinction
between
what
a
minority
number
of
members
on
this
commission
said,
or
one
person
said
versus
general
opposition
arguments
that
are
out
there
on
these
different
topics.
H
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
at
any
time
for
any
council
meeting,
anybody
can
submit
a
letter
up
until
the
day
of
the
meeting.
So
if
somebody
wanted
to
submit
a
letter,
we
would
mark
them
letters
from
the
commissioners
and
separate
them
out
from
letters
from
the
public,
but
that's
something
that
we
do
for
every
single
council
meeting
for
every
single
council
item.
C
Marshman
yeah,
as
someone
who
who
wrote
one
seeing
seeing
the
opportunity
presented
on
wednesday-
and
I
wrote
it
friday
afternoon-
I
did
try
to
capture
the
sense
not
only
of
of
what
I
thought,
but
of
the
other
folks
who
voted
no,
some
of
whom
I
I
have
had
conversations
with
afterwards
and
and
things
that
were
said
at
the
meeting.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
taking
these
out
of
the
report.
If
others
feel
like
they
didn't
have
opportunities
and
they
and
they
want
to.
C
C
C
K
In
terms
of
why
someone
or
a
group
of
someone's
feel
the
majority,
you
know
voted
the
wrong
way,
the
the
way
that
our
process
was
structured
over
the
year.
We
for
because
of
the
brown
act,
is
the
complexity
of
of
serial
meetings
and
such
we
went
into
subcommittees,
and
you
know
in
the
subcommittee
process,
it's
also
kind
of
a
mini
vetting
of
ideas,
and,
and
so
it
was
not
made
early.
K
It
took
me
by
surprise,
because
what
I
thought
would
be
a
document
or
a
section,
capturing
the
back
and
forth
and
the
nuance
of
discussion
between
commissioners
before
arriving
at
the
final
vote.
What
I
found
was
a
document
that
just
archived
the
the
failed
recommendations,
the
ones
that
did
not
get
approved
by
our
commission.
So
it
was
not
a
nuanced.
You
know.
This
is
why
the
commission
decided
on
14
council
districts
instead
of
20
or
or
staying
the
same
or
whatever.
K
I
think
those
those
arguments
are
important
for
the
the
council
to
consider
and
not
just
the
council.
I
mean
the
next.
The
next
charter
review
commission
future
historians,
who
are
looking
back
at
documents,
because
you
know
we're
looking
back
into
the
documents
from
the
1980s
or
whenever
the
last
one
was
today,
and
so
I
think
for
for
historic
sake,
that's
that's
important
and
the
the
formatting
of
the
memo
structure
that
we
have.
You
know
what
are
we
trying
to
solve?
K
So
I
wouldn't
support
striking
any
descent.
I
wrote
a
dissent
for
anyone
following
who
doesn't
know
that,
so
I
I
but
I
I'm
not
tied
to
the
formatting,
and
I
don't
care
where
in
the
document
it
is
necessarily,
although
I
I
do
think
that,
including
in
the
con
section,
perhaps
like
taking
a
a
page
or
more
document
and
reducing
it
to
a
bullet
point
to
include
in
a
paragraph
and
a
majority
of
memo
is
something
I
would
oppose.
K
I
do
feel
it's
important
to
be
part
of
the
final
report,
and
this
was
something
I
think
that
has
been
apparent
or
we
should
have
been
aware
of
since
the
beginning,
because
the
minority
report
was
a
part
of
it.
It's
just
towards
the
end.
It
kind
of
got
murky
about
you,
know,
formatting
and
specifically,
what
would
be
included.
So
I
I
would
be
voting
against
this,
and
I
would
encourage
my
commenters
too,
as
well.
F
B
Yes,
I
appreciate
that
I
agree.
Is
there
any
other
commissioners
would
choose
to
identify
themselves
as
saying
I
would
want
to
submit
a
descending
opinion
and
they're?
Not
they
don't
have
to
be
extensive,
but
just
their
own
thoughts
if
they
wanted
to
do
that
given
more
time,
is
there
anyone
that
has
the
desire
to
do
that.
B
F
F
The
other
is
if
we
said
that
the
path
for
all
dissenting
and
there's
probably
gazillion
actually
so,
there's
two
that
come
to
mind
for
me
right
now,
the
other
is
is
if
we
said
that
the
path
for
all
memos
laying
out
dissenting
opinions
is
to
be
submitted
at
city
council
on
december
14th
as
letters
from
the
commissioners,
in
which
case
the
deadline,
as
the
clerk
said,
would
be,
I
guess
the
morning
of
either
on
december
13th
through
the
morning
december
14th,
and
that
we
would
be
routing
all
their.
You
know.
F
C
C
A
Yes,
just
I
am
on
the
fence
of
whether
we
want
to
write
something
or
not.
I
did
write
a
few
paragraphs
and
that
was
edited
by
lawrence
and
I
was
okay
with
the
edits,
although
I
probably
wouldn't,
if
I
write
it,
wrote
my
own
memo,
I
probably
wouldn't
have
edited
it
that
way.
So
if
there
is
an
opportunity,
I
might
thank
you
something.
Okay,.
B
So
the
motion
on
the
floor
is
by
commissioner
brocio
is
to
eliminate
the
two
descending
opinions
that
are
in
the
report.
Currently
lots
of
options,
if
you
vote
for
this
or
vote
against
it,
but
that's
really
that's
the
only
motion.
That's
on
the
floor
is
the
removal
of
those
two
descending
opinions
from
the
report.
P
Brocio,
yes,
there
was,
there
was
a
friendly
amendment.
I
think
I
think
it
came
from
commissioner
seagal
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
the
spirit
of
this
isn't
isn't
to
eliminate
the
voice.
Right,
isn't
isn't
to
undermine
that
process.
It's
just
unfortunate
that
we
had
48
hours
on
the
worst
time
on
the
calendar
to
to
prepare
a
memo
either
dissenting
something
that
you
liked
or
that
we
liked
but
didn't
pass
or
that
passed,
and
you
didn't
like
right.
P
L
B
L
P
Know
like
they
could
be,
as
as
they
are,
obviously,
as
we
heard
from
both
commissioners,
both
authors,
that
they
spend
time
and
they
each
have
their
own
purpose
in
in
doing
so.
I'm
just
thinking
the
minority
report
the
way
it's
formatted
again.
I
do.
I
do
agree
with
with
commissioner
dieppe's
understanding
that
when
he
saw
the
report
it
didn't
capture
the
spirit
of
what
he
was
thinking
and
possibly
other
commissioners
on
how
the
minority
report
was
going
to
look
that
it
was
going
to
capture
the
nuances,
the
discussion.
P
P
B
K
Yeah,
I
I
just
want
to
well.
I
appreciate
council
member
commissioner's.
You
know
allowance
to
not
edit
the
substance
of
anything
in
the
reports.
I
I
just
kind
of
push
back
on
his
framing
of
the
issue.
I
get
that
the
city
clerk
sent
out
an
email
with
48
hours,
but
but
I
think
that's
a
bit
unfair
to
frame
it.
K
That
way,
because
from
from
day
one
of
this
commission
for
this
adventure
we've
embarked
on,
we
knew
that
there
would
be
a
minor
report,
and
I
think
anybody
who
was
on
the
minority
end
of
a
vote
and
had
something
that
they
felt
they
wanted
to
get
in.
The
record
would
have
paid
attention
to
kind
of
hey
where's
how's
this
going
to
shake
out,
and
where
would
this?
K
Where
will
this
opinion
or
where
will
this
comment
go
in
in
the
document
and
and
most
of
us
were,
you
know
more
concerned
with
our
subcommittee
work
and
and
because
the
majority
of
the
group
was
in
the
majority
right,
so
I
don't
think
that
the
commissioners
were
shortchanged
in
any
way.
In
terms
of
you
know,
I
I
I
poked
around,
I
asked
and
then
so
we
got
48
hours
to
write
something,
but
there
should
have
been
others
right.
K
Who
said:
hey
we're
always
talking
about
the
majority
report
and
the
final
report,
but
what's
going
to
happen
with
the
with
the
minority
opinions,
and
that
suggests
to
me
that
there
probably
weren't
that
many
and
in
the
ultimate
you
know
result
there
were
only
two
submitted.
So
I
think
everything
is
still
kosher
unless
you
know
but
anyways,
that's
just
my
opinion.
So
again
I'll
still
vote
against
this
thanks.
F
Thank
you
for
myself.
I
I
I
understand
that
I
don't
believe.
Commissioner
barroso's
intent
was
ever
to
not
include
dissenting
opinions
in
in
the
report,
and
I
am
supportive
of
including
dissenting
opinions
for
myself.
I,
I
think,
there's
a
real
distinction
between
the
kinds
of
memos
that
commissioners,
yep
and
marshman
have
put
together
and
and
that
those
do
belong
where
they
are
now
in
the
report.
I
don't
think
they
they
fit.
F
If
that
would
give
you
adequate
time
to
submit
your
memos
recognizing
that,
I
think
the
purpose
of
dissenting
many
memos
is
to
express
the
individual
opinion
of
the
commissioner
submitting
them.
So
therefore,
it
would
be
okay
that
the
rest
of
the
commission
had
not
reviewed
them,
because
there's
there's
really
no
need
for
us
to
do
so.
In
order
for
them
to
achieve
their
intended
purpose,.
P
For
for
the
next
step
right
for
it
to
go
to
council,
knowing
all
these
pieces
now
in
discussion
after
the
motion
was
called
by
myself
and
seconded
by
by
commissioner
seagal.
I
think
with
all
that
in
mind.
Yes,
I
think
that
that
second
friendly
amendment,
your
friendly
amendment,
does
capture
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
is
ensure
that
everyone
has
an
opportunity
right
either
either
we
all
have
an
opportunity
or
we
all
don't
right,
because.
P
L
If
we
could
change
it
to
friday,
because
I
understand
that
some
subcommittees
don't
have
that
much
that
they
have
to
do
by
wednesday,
but
we
have
you
know
almost
a
dozen
recommendations,
so
it's
not
really
fair
to
us.
It
doesn't
really
give
us
that
much
more
time
since
we're
coming
back
here
on
wednesday,
so
if
we
could
just
move
that
to
friday,
I
think
that
would
be
fair,
more
fair
to
us.
B
Okay,
so
we
don't
really
need
a
motion
for
this
if,
in
fact,
you're
just
if
everyone's
in
agreement
to
say
anybody,
only
one
commissioner
is
identified
as
potentially
writing
one.
So,
commissioner
matzke,
if
you
could
turn
it
in
by
friday,
it
could
be
included.
It'll
be
maintained
where
the
descending
opinions
are,
which
is
in
the
minority
report
and
will
be
signed
off
by
individual
as
the
individual
as
a
whole.
Commissioner,
quaytran.
P
Can
I
can,
I
say
something
chair
of
course
sure
so
thank
everyone
for
for
these
last
25
30
minutes
of
of
discussion.
I
really
do
think
honoring
the
process
is
is
important
and
even
some
of
these
little
details
need
need
to
be
discussed,
so
I
just
wanted
to
share
everyone's.
I
wanted
to
tell
everyone
thank
you
for,
for
the
discussion
and
time
to
talk
about
this.
P
P
B
O
L
E
E
B
E
M
L
P
B
B
K
What
I
just
listened
to
was
amazing.
What
did
I
tell
everybody
before
it's
being
run
by
a
bunch
of
teenagers
man
trying
to
sneak
stuff
in
and
not
doing
the
work
and
people
not
correcting
things
properly?
It's
unbelievable
now.
What
would
be
funny
is
if
they
put
something
in
there
and
nobody
saw
that
they
gave
city
hall
back
to
the
native
people,
the
alone.
That
would
be
funny.
K
K
The
air
is
good
for
her.
This
goes
to
show
you
that,
when
nobody's
watching,
which
you
guys
violated
the
brown
act,
you
violated
the
sunshine
laws
unbelievable.
This
is
what
susan
hammer
used
to
do.
She's
only
almost
wrecked
christmas
in
the
park
by
trying
to
vote
out
the
word
christmas
and
take
the
manger
away.
She
did
that
illegally
and
didn't
got
caught
just
like
you
guys
got
caught
tonight.
This
was
funny.
This
is
like
watching
you
guys
get
a
traffic
citation,
it's
unbelievable.
K
What
you're
doing
you
guys
should
really
look
at
yourselves
in
the
mirror
and
say
what
am
I
doing
with
my?
What
am
I
doing
to
myself
and
the
city?
I
mean
you
you're,
not
following
proper
procedures.
I
mean.
If
you
go
10
miles
over
the
speed
limit,
you
probably
get
a
ticket
for
a
thousand
dollars.
You
guys
are
violating
you
guys
are
violating
real
laws,
not
even
in
fractions.
Are
these
even
felonies?
I
don't
know,
but
you
guys
need
to
sharpen
your
pencil.
You
need
to
get
organized,
you
need.
K
I
Yes,
thank
you.
I
really
want
to
thank
commissioner
fuentes
for
your
commissioner
fuentes
and
bros,
because
you
you
get
it,
you
understand
it
and
you
it's.
I
know
it's
hard
to
articulate
that
within
the
context
of
these
conversations,
because
we
have
normalized
the
injustices
that
have
continued
to
infect
my
community,
the
chicano
community
and
the
mexican
community
on
the
east
side
of
san
jose
and
sausage
has
been
affected
by
policy
like
this.
That
was,
I
agree
with
mr
the
homeboy,
my
co-pilot.
I
Okay-
and
I
get
it
for
my
examination
and
I
look
at
it-
and
I
see
this
kind
of
of
of
a
10th
grade
a
10th
grade.
English
teacher
would
have
not
accepted
that
it
would.
It
was.
The
language
was
not
clear
it
was.
It
was
inconsistent
with
the
principles
that
we
are
asserting,
especially
with
respect
to
equity.
I
Okay,
this
this
city
is
not
going
to
get
away
with
anymore
forging
documents
and
forging
the
word
equity
onto
documents
so
that
it
could
legitimize
that
document
for
the
future,
so
that
when
they
look
at
these
crimes
against
humanity,
because
that's
what's
going
to
happen
here
and
what
they're
going
to
do
is
they're
going
to
examine
san
jose,
okay
and
what
is
happening
right
now
is
san
jose.
There
is
a
knowledge
of
that.
I
There
is
a
knowledge
there's
an
operating
principle
that
acknowledges
that,
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
future-
and
that
is
this
place
is
going
to
be
examined
for
all
the
gentrification,
that's
going
to
be
happening
within
the
next
10
years.
Okay,
so
I
could.
I
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for.
D
D
D
That's
wrong
because
that's
not
you
know,
and
then
you
know
they
acquiesce,
which
was
wrong.
So
I
think
it's
important
for
the
record
to
say
that
we
had
originally
crisis
in
our
report,
and
this
is
why
the
dissent
dissenting
or
some
type
of
you
know
not
only
the
majority
opinion,
because
the
majority
opinion
is
not
all
the
whole.
D
That's
10
to
15
degrees
above
normal
is
a
result
of
a
ridge
of
high
high
pressure
stretch
across
california,
and
this
ridge
is
preventing
any
storms
from
the
pacific
ocean
pushing
into
california,
and
it's
not
acting
like
a
blocking
mechanism
and
streaming
all
that
moisture
into
the
pacific
northwest,
and
that's
why
british
columbia
is
being
flooded.
They
have
their.
D
You
know,
they've
been
able
to
turn
the
rivers,
it's
so
bad
up
in
british
columbia
and
in
in
the
also
in
washington
state
all
the
the
rain
and
flooding
that's
going
on
and
we're
having
droughts
that
we
have
to
build
and
be
prepared,
and
this
is
where
you
know
just
having
that
document.
That
shows
that
we,
you
know
that,
just
because
you
know
to
make
it
politically
acceptable.
We
had
to
take
out.
The
word
crisis
you
know
is
not
right,
so
we
definitely
need
the
dissenting
to
show
the
full
doc
claire
beekman.
J
All
right,
thank
you,
I'm
in
agreement
with
tessa,
it's
interesting
to
show
the
dissenting
opinion.
I
don't
know
what
you
can
call
it
the
dissenting
minority
opinion.
I
find
a
good
name
for
it
to
show
that
you
know
this
is
a
consensus
project
process,
we're
building
and
that
you
know
to
offer
different
points
of
view.
It
can
be
important
and
meaningful
and
helpful
and
to
work
on
those
terms.
Good
luck!
How
to
do
that.
You
know
the
the
feeling
I
got
from
the
rules
and
open
government
meeting
of
october
25th.
J
J
You
guys
are
stressed.
I
I
hope
you
don't
have
to
be
too
stressed
about
this
and
can
work
towards
forgiveness
ideas
as
you're
having
this
upcoming
meeting
this
wednesday.
Thank
you
for
those
efforts
to
conclude.
I've
been
speaking
the
past
month.
If
you
do
possibly
have
the
option
of
working
into
january
and
early
spring,
there
may
actually
be
some
legal
language
issues
that
you
have
to
work
out
for
the
future
of
the
ballot
language
in
june
of
the
charter
process.
J
Good
luck,
if
you
will
be
doing
that
and-
and
you
know
it's
possible
that
you
know
if
you
do
that-
work
with
that
specific
intention
of
legal
language
issues
that
can
be
a
way
to
talk,
to
continue
to
talk
to
the
equity,
roundtable
and
coveted
forums
that
are
starting
up.
You
can
give
good
advice
and
to
be
of
help
for
the
reimagined.
B
A
A
A
A
Q
K
A
K
Q
I
B
F
A
F
Thank
you.
So
it's
it's
actually
following
up
on
the
issue
that
I
raised
earlier
regarding
conveying
to
the
city
council
the
the
importance
of
moving
as
expediently
as
possible
on
the
issue
of
the
mayoral
election
timing.
The
reason
that
I'm
I'm
bringing
this
up
now
versus
wednesday
is
is
because
we
do
have
the
full
commission
here
and
sort
of
in
the
spirit
of
what
some
of
my
colleagues
had
said
about
the
value
of
having
the
full
commission
able
to
vote
on
on
items.
F
B
Me
for
interrupting
I'd.
Ask
the
clerk
I
wasn't
clear
about.
Could
everybody
put
themselves
on
mute,
please?
I
wasn't
clear
about
the
issue
you're
raising,
because
with
the
clerk
clarify
for
us,
I
submitted
the
that
document
to
the
rules
committee
as
soon
as
we
passed
it.
So
what
I'm
I'm
confused,
mr
mutts,
more
about
what
you
are
looking
for
in
terms
of
the
action
you
want
us
to
take.
F
So
the
the
intent
of
us
submitting
it
early
to
the
rules
committee
was
for
it
to
come
up
early
for
a
vote
to
counsel.
I
I
think
you
know
that
rules
committee
didn't
receive
the
information
that
that
was
the
intent
and
so
they
just
received
and
filed
the
letter
rather
than
taking
action
to
advance
it
to
city
council.
F
I
think
we
may
have
not
been
as
clear
as
we
should
have
been
as
a
commission
about
the
the
reason
that
we
were
forwarding
it
to
them
early,
partly
because
you
know
that
other
item
regarding
council
member
jones,
the
vice
mayor,
jones's
a
memo
with
a
council
member
jimenez
came
up
right.
So
there
was
a
lot
going
on
that
day.
So
so
this
piece
got,
got
lost
and,
and
so
my
motion
is
to
add.
H
B
That's
what
I
understood
I
wanted
to
make
sure
so,
commissioner
matsumura,
is
that
your
understanding
that
the
rules
committee
received
it
but
chose
not
to
take
action
on
it
in
a
free
way
that
we
were
suggesting
hey?
This
is
timely
and
we
really
wanted
to
get
it
to
it's
important
to
us
that
we
get
it
too
early
and
that's
why
we
did
it.
That's
what
it
says
in
the
memo,
but
the
rules
committee
said
thank
you
and
we
will
wait
till
the
rest
of
the
report
comes
in
so
they
didn't
see.
F
So
my
understanding
was
that
the
rules
committee
didn't
get
the
message
clearly
enough
from
us
that
there
was
a
recommendation,
that
it
moved
forward
to
the
council
on
a
on
a
different
timeline,
and
so
my
motion
is
is
simply
to
add
two
sentences
to
the
report
encouraging
them
at
this
point.
It
is
all
moving
forward
as
a
single
piece
right,
so
that
is
compliant
with
the
the
action
that
the
rules
committee
took.
You
know
whether
or
not
they
would
have
taken
that
action
given
sort
of
a
message
from
the
commission.
F
That
of
what
our
recommendation
was
so
it
is.
It
is
now
to
add
a
couple
sentences
to
the
report
urging
the
city
council,
having
received
150
page
report
as
one
item,
to
move
this
piece
as
expediently
as
possible
because
of
the
the
public
interest
and
benefit
of
of
doing
so,
and
I
have
draft
language.
B
Yeah
so,
commissioner,
I
don't
think
we
need
a
motion
for
that,
because
that
is
the
intention
of
the
commission
and
we
can
add
that
that
those
kind
of
sentences
to
the
document,
because
we
already
have
that
position-
that's
the
position
we
took
in
the
letter.
It
obviously
didn't
work,
but
we
should
definitely
add
it
back
into
the
commission
report.
B
We
could
definitely
do
that
as
it's
our
intent,
then
it
is
still
our
intent
and
we
still
recommend
that
you
take
action
on
this,
as
you
digest
the
rest
of
the
report
that
you
still
take
action
on
this
in
terms
of
urgency
because
of
the
fact
that
there's
a
timing
implication.
So
I
don't
think
we
need
a
motion
for
that,
because
I'm
happy
to
make
sure
that
we
add
those
sentences,
because
it
is
the
intent
and
it
was
the
intent
of
the
commission
when
you
authorized
the
memo
from
me
to
the
rules
committee.
F
B
H
Yeah,
whenever
we
have
a
commission
that
comes
to
an
end,
we,
as
you
know,
minutes,
usually
get
put
on
the
agenda
for
approval
by
the
commission.
But
whenever
we
have
a
commission
ending,
we
add
an
item
to
authorize
the
chair
to
review
and
approve
the
minutes
without
having
to
bring
them
back
to
the
commission.
B
P
P
H
Well,
so
just
you
know
the
logistics
behind
wednesday's
meeting.
Is
it's
actually
the
same
meeting
as
this
one?
It's
the
same
agenda.
We're
adjourning
this
meeting
to
another
date.
It's
almost
like
we're
calling
a
recess
between
when
we
end
tonight
and
when
we
pick
back
up
on
wednesday.
So
this
is
the
same.
Essentially,
the
same
meeting
is
wednesday.
H
H
L
H
Yes,
and
no,
because
I
won't
let
anybody
change
minutes
into
something
that
doesn't
reflect
what
actually
happened,
so
he
would
he
might
be.
If,
if
somebody
comes
back
to
me-
and
this
has
happened
a
few
times-
you
know
at
council,
they
may
contact
me
before
the
approval
and
say
I
don't
think
that's
what
happened.
I
think
this
other
thing
happened
and
I
go
through.
I
will
re-watch
the
meeting
we
go
through
the
transcripts.
We
make
sure
we've
we've
got
what's
accurate,
so
he
can't
come
in
and
say:
oh
change
it
to
this.
H
I
because
I
would
say:
no,
that's
not
what
happened
where
we
we
do
exactly
what
happened.
So
I
I
have
rejected
people's
who
try
to
insert
like
their
their
emotions
into
minutes
because
minutes
are
dispassionate.
It's
just
a
straight
record
of
of
the
action
that
happened.
So
yes,
he
he
in
one
way
he
will
be
able
to
make
edits,
but
we
will
not
let
him
change
the
action
of
what
actually
happened.
L
Thank
you
for
that.
I
think,
because
we've
had
like
30-something
meetings,
we've
had
so
many
past
meetings,
it's
impossible
for
anybody
to
remember
what
has
happened.
What
has
not
happened,
so
I
would
just
make
a
friendly
amendment,
which
is
all
the
minutes
that
this
commission
charter
review
commission
has
already
approved
because
we
went
through
and
we've
approved
minutes,
whatever
we've
approved
and
the
ch
and
whatever
we've
already
seen.
Whatever's
been
posted.
We've
already
seen
them
if
the
chair
just
wants
to
approve
those.
That's
okay!
L
L
A
H
H
We'll
have
sometimes
a
department
will
will
tell
us
well,
the
minutes
will
go
through
get
approved
by
council,
we've
written
them
and
then
a
department
will
look
at
it
and
say:
oh,
you
know
that
that
dollar
figure
is
wrong
or
they
didn't
approve
item
e,
and
then
we
just
we
can
make
amendments
to
the
minutes
after
the
fact.
So
if
you
come
back
and
say
you
guys
are
really
wrong
like
I
know
this
is
not
what
happened
and
it's
it's
not
correct,
then
we'll
redo
them
and
have
him
reauthorize
them.
H
H
L
H
I'm
pretty
sure
they
will.
I
need
to
double
check
with
craig
in
the
the
tv,
the
tv
crew,
but
we
have
all
of
our
meetings
for
city
council
going
back
a
decade
on
the
website.
So
even
if
they're
not
on
on
youtube,
they
would
probably
be
on
our
website
because
the
the
videos
are
currently
posted
in
two
places.
L
H
No,
maybe
by
wednesday
they're,
not
no.
No,
I
mean
you
got.
It
takes
a
long
time
to
write
good
minutes,
because
it's
not
just
about
capturing
the
action.
It's
also
the
formatting
and
we
are
in
massive
draft
form.
I
haven't
reviewed
any
of
them.
Megan
writes
them,
I
review
them
and
then
they
go
to
you
guys.
We
have
we're
not
even
in
that
we've
had.
H
I
can't
tell
you
how
many
I
I've
had
a
meeting
almost
every
day
in
november
and
megan
has
been
a
part
of
almost
all
of
those
meetings.
She
has
not
had
time
to
go
through
and
write
she's,
sending
things
to
translators,
updating
websites,
updating
agendas,
sending
correspondence
to
you
to
the
redistricting
commission
posting
memos
to
redistricting,
as
well
as
to
you.
She
has
not
had
the
opportunity
to
write
the
minutes
in
any
way
form
that
would
be
ready
for
you
guys
to
approve
them
in
24
hours
or
48
hours.
B
The
only
other
thing
I
would
say
I'll
call
the
question.
The
only
other
comment
I'd
make
is
the
commission
is
approved
all
the
minutes
that
have
been
submitted,
with
almost
no
corrections
that
I
can
recall.
So
the
idea
that
somehow
the
minutes
are
going
to
change
in
any
dramatic,
dramatic
way.
The
only
time
I've
ever
questioned
the
minutes
is
that
we
just
go
back
to
the
record
to
make
sure
that
that
was
the
actual
vote.
B
Or
I
mean
those
are
the
only
kinds
of
there's
no
real
editing
on
my
part
as
much
as
just
looking
as
another
set
of
eyes,
but
as
you've
approved
all
the
minutes.
Up
to
the
point
of
when
our
last
series
of
meetings
happened,
there's
been
almost
no
corrections,
so
megan's
done
a
great
job,
so
I
feel
like
we'll
still
continue
that
tradition.
I
Yes,
pulsar
from
the
horseshoe,
the
this
I
mean
it's
rude
to
do
what's
being
done
right
now,
okay,
because
I
know
I'm
being
lied
to,
I
know
I'm
being
conned.
I
know
I'm
being
gained,
and
it's
like,
like
blatant
like
right
here
in
front
of
my
face.
Lawrence
is
not
going
to
get
away
with
what
he's
done
tonight.
He
is
equivocated.
He
is
stuttered.
He
is
because
he's
searching
and
looking
for
that.
I
I
All
right,
you
win
tony
anyways,
so
what
these
minutes
is
that
I
need
to
be
able
to
examine
those
and
to
critique
them
prior
to
in
a
significant
amount
of
time,
so
that
I
can
formulate
a
position
with
respect
to
those
documents,
because,
if
I'm
not
reflected
in
them,
if
my
mother's
not
reflected
in
them,
if
the
chicano
community
is
not
reflected
in
them,
these
are
invalid
and
they're
illegitimate
period
period.
We
are
25
of
the
cover,
deaths
and
50
of
the
coveted
infections
not
too
long
ago.
I
Okay,
this
that
needs
to
be
reflected.
People
just
want
to
split
and
talk
about
this
being
an
inconvenience
for
them
and
they
got
lives
outside
of
here.
Well
then,
go
to
that
we
need
committed
members
of
this
of
the
community.
We
need
soldiers
committed
to
this
community.
Why?
Because
it
is
war
against
the
people
and
the
war
is
fought,
not
with
guns.
It's
not
fought
with
swords.
It's
fought
with
language
in
these
documents,
and
this
is
why
the
challenges
are
so
direct
and
forward
and
aren't.
J
Hi
clay
beekman
here
thanks
for
the
meeting
tonight,
thanks
for
the
ways
you've
allowed
public
comment
tonight
to
go
back
to
what
I
think
was
kind
of
a
changing
event
of
how
we
worked
the
public
process
for
this
whole
committee
commission
meeting
process
back
in
may
the
events
of
the
vta
incident
in
in
may
it
kind
of
changed
the
course
of
how
we
talked
about
the
open
public
accessibility
of
the
process,
and
I
think
that's
being
noted
here
right
now.
We
don't.
J
We
fell
behind
on
issues
of
accessibility
and
public
accountability.
I
think
the
subcommittee
process,
I
I
think
we've
learned
some
important
lessons
since
may,
and
we're
trying
to
come
around
to
what
a
good
open
public
accessible
process
can
be
for
the
subcommittee
process.
You
know
that
can
be
hopeful
and
helpful
in
the
city
of
berkeley.
They
fully
easily
work
that
way
and
they
always
invite
the
public
to
the
subcommittee
process
and
we're
learning
those
lessons.
I
hope
the
recordings
from
the
subcommittee
process
can
be
made
available
to
the
public.
J
This
can
help
sort
out
this
issue
of
the
minutes.
Concerns
we're
having
right
now.
I
think,
and
I
think
we
can
build-
you
know
good
luck,
how
we
can
do
that.
I
think
we're
learning
important
lessons
since
may,
and
you
know
it
shows
you
can
feel
it
so
good
luck
in
how
you
can
work
on
this
issue
and
and
make
it
an
open,
accessible
process
and
a
fair
process
for
all
of
us.
Thank
you.
H
D
Thank
you.
I
guess
my
speaker
is
supposed
to
start
again.
Did
you?
Do
you
hear
me
hello?
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
oh
you
can
hear
me
good,
okay,
good.
Well,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what's
going
on,
but
I
guess
the
minutes.
It
seems
like
you
know
something
that
you
said
to
magnolia,
that
you
know
the
minutes
are
not
going
to.
You
know
she's
not
going
to
actually
be
able
to
see
it
or
it's
going
to
change.
Or
you
know
it's
not
going
to
be
very
clear.
D
You
know.
I
appreciate
the
diligence
of
the
commission
to
really
make
sure
that
you
know
what's
going
forward
is
what
they
want
to
see.
So
we
appreciate
all
the
diligence
so
far
and
definitely
like
what
blair
was
talking
about
with
our
subcommittee's,
that
that
is
something
that
needs
to
be
revealed
more
and
that
needs
to
be
more
open,
and
so
a
lot
of
the
protocols
of
of
this
like,
like
you
know
like
even
like
chair
ferrer,
said
I
mean
he
was
lucky.
We
even
got
as
much
time
as
we've
gotten.
D
So
you
know
we're
fortunate
that
we
even
got
this
amount
of
time
to
do
anything,
but
we
do
need
to
work
on
the
process
and
keep
it
going.
The
you
know
the
people's
agendas,
the
the
commissions
and
this
commission,
like
blair,
has
been
saying
too
that
we
could
extend
this
commission
to
really
work
more
on
the
people's
issues,
but
definitely
the
that
issue
of
the
subcommittees
being
open
is
very
important.
D
B
Q
B
E
B
Thank
you
megan
before
I
go
to
commissioner
calendar
tony,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
adjourn
this
correctly
because
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
a
journey
or
what
we're
doing
so
I'll
go
to
commissioner
calendar
first
and
then
before
you
give
me
direction
around
the
change
of
the
meeting.
Thank
you,
mr
calendar,
and
thank
you,
mr.
O
Chairman,
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
point
of
personal
privilege,
because
I
do
not
know
if
I'll
be
able
to
join
you
on
wednesday,
but
I
did
want
to
thank
you
for
your
leadership
over
these
11
months.
I
had
entertained
if
I
should
make
a
motion
to
continue
to
meet
every
monday
night
for
the
next
six
months
in
order
to
resolve
all
our
steady
issues,
but
I
don't
know
if
there'd
be
support
for
the
motion.
O
I
also
want
to
thank
again
tony
and
megan
for
their
help
and
their
staffing
on
this,
and
these
are
never
easy
things
to
do.
I
do
recognize
what
it
is
to
be
able
to
from
a
public
service
standpoint,
so
I
do
want
to
thank
them
for
supporting
the
commission
as
well
as
one
to
think
lawrence,
as
well
as
all
the
commissioners.
O
O
A
lot
of
folks
have
showed
up
just
as
much
as
the
commissioners,
many
folks
don't
know,
but
the
subcommittee
that
commissioner
seagal
led
we
met
almost
every
friday
night
for
months
and
months
and
months
it
was
quite
intense,
and
so
there
was
a
lot
of
folks
that
were
able
to
do
things
and
get
things
done.
Hence
the
length
of
the
report.
So
thank
you
to
everyone.
Thank
you
to
commissioner
seagull
as
well
for
her
leadership.
P
H
H
B
A
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
since
I
won't
be
here
wednesday,
I
also
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity
to
throw
a
few
thank
yous
around
first
and
foremost
to
you,
mr
chair,
for
your
leadership
and
your
patience,
and
you
have
more
patience
than
anyone.
I
know
I
also
wanted
to
thank
lawrence
and
his
staff
for
the
excellent
work
that
you
did
tony
and
megan.
We
wouldn't
have
made
it
through
all
of
these
meetings
without
you.
So
thank
you.
A
So
much
also
wanted
to
thank
the
members
of
my
subcommittee,
and
particularly
the
vice
chair,
who
happened
to
be
the
chair
of
our
subcommittee,
christina
for
her
leadership
in
moving
us
along
and
and
getting
us
having
some
of
the
first
recommendations
out
the
door.
So
I
hope
everyone
has
a
wonderful
life
and.
L
B
L
B
L
That's
fine.
I
just
want
to
say
for
the
record
that
we
we
probably
do
have
dissenting
opinions
and
by
noon
we
will
not
be
sending
them
in
by
three
we
can,
but
not
by
noon,
and
if
that
means
we
can't
do
it,
then
that
means
that
we
can't
do
it
and
that's
just
what
the
record's
gonna
have
to
reflect,
but
we
can
do
it
by
three.
So
I
don't
I
mean
it's
our
work.
All
you
guys
have
to
do
is
just
attach
it
we're
the
ones
that
have
to
write
it.
E
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
minute
to
say
that,
in
addition
to
thanking
everyone
else
has
been
said,
I
just
want
to
mention
that.
I
hope
that
all
of
us
will
continue
working
together,
because
you
know
we're
making
recommendations
and
we're
no
longer
going
to
carry
the
title
of
commissioners,
but
you
know
we
have
to
maintain
our
investment
in
our
recommendations
for
our
city,
and
we
are
a
amazing
group
and
I
think,
if
we
continue
to
support
the
recommendations,
moving
them
forward,
they'll
have
a
better
chance
of
being
successful.
B
B
Great
seeing
them
then
I'll
adjourn
us
to
wednesday
at
5
30..
If
you
know
you're
not
going
to
be
here
for
sure,
if
you
could
let
the
clerk's
office
know
just
so
that
we
want
to
make
double
sure
that
we
understand
the
quorum.
If
folks
are
going
to
call
in
and
have
a
very
short
window,
it
also
be
helpful
if
you
let
the
clerk's
office
know,
so
we
can
make
sure
that
we
try
to
adjust
the
the
schedule,
the
rest
of
the
agenda
at
that
time.
So
thank
you.
G
Chair
very
briefly,
I
won't
be
able
to
attend
because
of
child
care
responsibilities
on
friday.
Excuse
me,
wednesday
that
I
can't
get
out
of
my
wife
works
in
the
evening.
So
thank
you
all.
It's
my
honor
and
privilege
to
support
you.
Congratulations
on
the
excellent
work
and
hope
to
see
you
all
in
the
future.
Thank.