►
From YouTube: Special Governing Body Meeting 12/28/2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We
are
now
live
streaming
and
ready
to
call
the
meeting
to
order.
It
is
a
special
governing
body
meeting
it's
1202
on
tuesday,
the
28th
we'll
begin
with
the
pledge
of
allegiance
led
by
councilwoman
virial
salute
to
the
new
mexico
flag,
led
by
councilor
lindell
and
an
invocation
from
councillor
garcia,
followed
by
any
remembrances.
That
folks
would
like
to
make
at
that
time.
So
please
rise
for
those
three
items
before
we
start.
B
D
D
D
D
A
Thank
you,
counselor
anyone
else
with
remembrance
at
this
time.
A
I
would
just
send
out
all
my
thoughts
to
people
who
are
dealing
with
struggling
with
overcoming
covid
at
this
time,
it's
continuing
to
flare
and
spike,
and
we
shouldn't
take
any
any
health
for
granted.
Let's
look
after
each
other,
look
after
those
who
are
sick
and
bring
us
all
through
this
in
a
healing
fashion.
F
E
Councillor
romerworth
here
we
do
have
counselor
v
ho
coupler,
also
marked
as
excused
councilwoman
b
real
president
mary.
You
have
a
quorum.
A
C
D
G
G
A
A
F
A
G
Thank
you,
mayor,
webber,
and
I'd
also
like
to
introduce
matthew,
mccarley
who's,
our
outside
counsel,
in
the
opioid
litigation,
including
the
settlement
agreement.
G
So
those
folks
have
a
21
billion
dollar
settlement
with
standard
language
that
is
really
non-negotiable
and
if
we'd
like
to
participate
in
the
state's
allocation
agreement,
which
will
be
the
state's
portion
of
that
21
billion,
which
is
approximately
220
million,
then
we
need
to
accept
this
settlement
agreement.
So
matthew's
available
to
answer
questions
about
the
agreement
specifically,
and
we
can
do
that
part
in
open
session.
If
it's.
G
If
it's
questions
about
the
agreement,
if
we
want
to
delve
into
how
this
impacts
other
parts
of
the
litigation
which
are
ongoing
against
the
distributors,
retailers
and
local
defendants,
then
we
should
go
into
an
executive
session.
But
if
there's
questions
about
the
agreement
itself,
then
we
can
do
that
in
open
session
and
we
don't
need
to
go
into
executive
session,
but
I
did
include
an
executive
session
in
case.
We
wanted
to
go
into
any
other
parts
of
the
strategy
and
our
litigation
on
this
matter.
G
My
understanding
is
that
albuquerque
and
the
county
of
santa
fe
have
both
voted
to
join
the
settlement
this
week.
I'm
not
sure
if
we
know
about
other
local
governments
in
new
mexico,
but
I
think
we
were
anticipating
that
quite
a
few
of
them
would
also
be
voting
before
january
2nd.
So
the
reason
for
the
special
meeting
is
that
we
did
need
to
have
this
type
of
vote
in
order
to
be
one
of
the
in
the
to
be
in
the
primary
group
of
settling
parties.
G
So
I
think
that's
my
introduction.
I
don't
know
if
matthew,
if
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that
broad
statement,
and
then
we
can
go
to
questions.
A
Thank
you
so
erin
you
may
have
to
guide
us
if
a
question
takes
us
into
an
area
where
an
executive
session
would
be
necessary,
you'll
have
to
advise
us
to
that
effect,
and
I
know
we
have
the
link
in
our
on
our
calendar
so
that
if
an
executive
session
is
warranted,
we
can
always
do
that
and
then
there
is
an
action
item.
Should
we
choose
to
go
down
that
road
at
the
end
of
this
discussion.
A
Very
good,
so
the
the
questions
that
are
germane
that
are
not
required
for,
for
which
an
executive
session
are
not
required,
would
be
have
have
to
do
with
the
details
of
the
proposed
settlement
and
the
specifics
of
what
would
be
we
would
be
agreeing
to
so
I
I
think
we
should
provide
ample
room
for
that
and
if
it's
able
to
be
done
in
a
completely
open
and
transparent
session,
let's
stick
with
that.
A
So
I
will
just
look
for
hands
to
go
up.
If
there
are
members
of
the
governing
body
who
would
like
to
ask
questions
of
of
either
the
city
or
attorney
or
mr
mccarley
council
dendell
your
hand
is
up
just
if
you're
going
to
put
a
hand
up
any
anybody.
Please
give
me
an
ample
notice
if
we're
going
to
do
it,
do
it
physically,
rather
than
with
the
little
hand
on
the
screen,
counselor
indeli,
your
many
hands
are
up.
C
Thank
you
mayor.
So,
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
I
read
an
article
in
the
new
york
times
that
the
u.s
district
court
for
the
southern
district
of
new
york
had
delivered
some
seemingly
very
bad
news
to
the
sackler
family
that
they
rejected
the
that
they
don't
have
protection
from
civil
lawsuits
in
return
for
their
4.5
billion
contribution,
and
I
know
this
has
been
a
painful
negotiation
to
get
to
where
everyone
is
today.
C
Does
that
have
any
potential
of
changing
what
our
settlement
should
be
or
what
our
settlement
is
or
is?
C
If
you
could
just
comment
on
that,
that
would
be
great.
H
One
aaron,
it
doesn't
have
any
impact
on
the
settlement
that
we're
here
to
discuss
today.
The
settlement
that
we're
discussing
today
is
just
with
the
three
distributors.
H
H
We
have
hopes
that,
although
the
attorney
general's
office
in
new
mexico
worked
hard
on
that
and
they're
disappointed
that
this
means
that
the
sacklers
may
have
to
put
up
more
money
to
get
this
matter
settled,
but
that
is
separate
and
apart
from
the
settlement
that
we're
talking
about
today,.
A
A
Maybe
you
can
give
us
following
up
on
councillor
lindell's
question
a
picture
of
what
the
settlement
is
in
front
of
us,
where
what
its
boundaries
are,
what
it
includes
what
it
doesn't
include
and
why
the
recommendation
would
be
for
us
to
participate
as
albuquerque
and
who
else
was
it
aaron
that
you
said
also
the
county
already
agreed
to
do
this,
give
us
a
sense
of
the
the
pros
and
cons
of
us
joining
with
albuquerque
and
the
county
at
this
time.
Please.
H
Sure
thank
you
mayor,
and
I
I
forgot
to
thank
you,
mayor
and
council
members
for
allowing
me
to
be
here
today
to
discuss
this.
I
appreciate
it
to
give
you
a
little
bit
more
a
background.
There
was
an
agreement
between
these
three
defendants,
these
three
distributors
and
johnson
and
johnson
that
had
been
worked
on
for
about
a
year
and
a
half,
because
the
the
state
attorney
general
disagreed
with
the
allocation
amount
that
was
designated
to
come
back
to
the
state
of
new
mexico.
H
His
initial
response
was:
is
that
he
was
not
going
to
participate.
The
state
was
not
going
to
participate
in
the
settlements
because
of
that.
If,
if
the
attorney
general
opts
out,
then
the
subdivisions
really
don't
have
a
way
to
participate
in
those
settlements.
H
There
was
some,
I
believe,
political
pressure
at
work
here,
but
I'm
not
you
know
I'll
I'll
leave
that
politicians
but
they're
the
the
attorney
general
changed
his
mind
with
regards
to
the
distributor
agreement,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
he
he
told
us
that
he
did
was
is
that
he
felt
that
that
the
counties
and
municipalities
needed
to
get
some
money
to
help
address
this
problem
quickly.
H
As
far
as
the
pro
cons
of
of
participating,
the
pros
are,
of
course,
getting
the
maximum
dollars
back
to
the
state
and
getting
some
money
to
the
city
as
quickly
as
possible.
H
H
In
addition,
we
don't
like
the
payout
time.
That's
18
years
is
a
long
time.
We
would
have
preferred
a
short,
shorter
payout,
but
also
a
a
con
is
is
that
we
would
have
to
litigate
against
these
defendants
at
trial,
and
as
the
council
knows,
we
came
previously
to
discuss
that
matter.
A
H
That's
correct
and
thank
you,
mr
mayor,
for,
for
bringing
that
up.
There
is
a
ongoing
negotiation
between
the
state
and
the
subdivisions
on
allocation
of
the
money
that
has
been
set
aside
in
this
settlement
for
the
state
of
new
mexico.
H
H
The
the
state
feels
like
at
this
time-
and
I
agree
with
them
that
it's
it's
probably
we
don't
have
enough
time
to
come
up
with
an
abatement
model
and
so
they're
willing
to
agree
on
a
just
a
straight
up,
split
of
the
money
and
that
money
will
be
coming
back
to
the
city.
H
H
What
I
believe
will
be
a
favorable
deal
with
them,
so
we
can't
tell
you
exactly
how
much
money
the
city
will
get,
because
that
would
be
dependent
upon
the
allocation
agreement
in
state
allocation
agreement,
and
since
we
haven't
reached
that
yet
we
don't
know,
I
would
say
under
under
the
15
70
15
model,
the
city
would
get
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
a
million
dollars
in
cash
from
these
three
defendants
and,
of
course,
there's
other
defendants
that
we're
see
were
pursuing.
H
So
that
wouldn't
be
the
end
of
the
litigation
and
monies
coming
back
to
the
city,
but
that
would
be
under
the
15
percent
model.
So
I
would
think
that
the
the
amount
if
we
agreed
on
60
40
split,
would
be
north
of
that
quite
a
bit.
A
H
If
the
city
chooses
not
to
participate
in
this
settlement
agreement
with
these
distributor
defendants,
then
we
would
have
to
continue
to
pursue
them
in
litigation
and
because
the
attorney
general
has
elected
to
participate
that
would
trigger
what's
what's
called
a
lone
pine
order
from
the
mdl
judge,
we
would
have
to
present
pretty
quickly
our
our
experts
to
the
defendants
for
deposition
and
a
expert
report
to
them
and,
as
as
many
of
you
know,
we
haven't
been
able
to
conduct
any
discovery
in
this
litigation
because
it's
been
stayed
in
the
mbl,
and
so
it's
basically
a
bad
thing
for
us.
H
If
we
don't
participate,
we
we
would.
We
would
be
have
our
hands
tied
behind
our
back
severely.
A
Okay,
other
that
pretty
I
just
wanted
to
lay
the
landscape
out
in
front
of
everybody.
I
may
have
forgotten
some
points
that
are
salient
aaron.
Is
there
anything
I
left
out
that
you
think
we
need
to
put
out
there
before
we
entertain
specific
drill
down
questions
from
members
of
the
governing
body.
H
I
don't
have
anything
else
except
to
say
that
we
do
recommend
that
the
city
participate
in
this
settlement.
If
the
city
elects
to
participate,
then
what
would
happen
is
we
would
register
the
city
that
would
generate
a
participation
document
which
we
can
fill
out
on
behalf
of
the
city
electronically.
H
A
And
then
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
the
one
million
dollar
number
that
you
floated
out
there.
That
was
purely
as
a
example
of
if
we
went
with
what
other
jurisdictions
did
with
15
70
15.
That
might
be
an
estimate
under
this
total
amount
that
would
come
to
the
city.
But
if
it's
a
60
40
different
allocation
model,
it
will
be
a
different
amount
that
one
million
was
just
a
sample
for
that.
A
A
Thank
you
questions
from
other
members
of
the
governing
body,
councilor
lindell.
You
have
the
floor.
C
Thank
you
mayor,
so
just
trying
to
clarify
this.
C
H
I'm
saying
that
under
the
1570-15
model,
which
the
state
of
new
mexico
is
not
going
to
adopt,
15
of
that
would
be
approximately
a
million
dollars
and
it
would
be
paid
out
over
18
years.
H
But,
as
the
mayor
pointed
out,
that
number
is
going
to
be
north
of
a
million
dollars
and
so
because
we
don't
have
an
agreement
yet
with
the
state.
We,
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
or
probably
even
an
approximate
amount,
but
I
would
say
that
it's
probably
it's
going
to
be
north
of
a
million
dollars
paid
out
over
18
years.
H
H
So
we
didn't
have
to
wait
the
eight
years,
which
is
in
their
standard
agreement,
which
other
jurisdictions
have
signed
on
to.
I
believe
that's
what
one
of
the
things
that
the
attorney
general
is
trying
to
do,
and
with
johnson
and
johnson.
So
hopefully,
if
we
can,
if
he
can
reach
an
agreement
with
them,
hopefully
it'll
be
less
time
or
no
time
for
the
payout
for
that
those
defendants,
but
these
particular
defendants,
these,
the
distributors,
they're
large
companies.
H
They
claim
that
their
revenue
is,
they
have
small
margins
revenue,
although
that
they're
very
wealthy
companies,
but
they
don't
make
a
lot
of
money
because
they're,
just
distributors
and
transportation
costs
is
up
and
so
that
they
need
that
time
to
pay
out
the
amounts
that
they're
asked
that
they've
agreed
to
pay
out,
which,
for
the
whole
country,
is
approximately
21
billion
dollars,
and
so
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
C
Okay,
thank
you,
ms
mcsherry.
Can
you
give
us
a
basic
accounting
of
how
much
in
legal
costs
we
have
at
this
point
in
time,
pursuing
this
settlement.
G
Mayor
weber,
council
lindell,
we
have
a
contingency
fee
agreement
and
actually
I'll,
let
there's
a
there's
a
separate
agreement
regarding
legal
fees
in
this
particular
settlement
agreement,
and
it
does
require
some
modifications
to
that
agreement.
So
the
percentages
are
changed
under
the
settlement
agreement.
So
let
matt
you
talk
about
that.
A
little
bit.
H
Yes,
thank
you
and,
and
thank
you
for
reminding
me
to
talk
about
that.
My
favorite
subject:
attorney's
fees,
but
the
the
the
city
actually
is
getting
a
great
deal.
What
we're
required
to
do
under
the
distributor
agreement
is
to
forfeit
our
contract
with
the
city
for
attorney's
fees,
which
were,
if
you'll
recall,
is
a
contingent
fee
which
the
maximum
amount
was
15,
and
then
we
have
to
go
and
request.
H
Attorney's
fees
from
the
mdl
judge
and
the
maximum
that
we
can
recover
is
four
percent,
so
the
the
city
is
getting
a
great
deal.
I
believe,
as
far
as
attorney's
fees
are
concerned,
there's
also
a
separate
cost.
H
H
The
attorney's
fees
were
taken
off,
the
top.
A
fund
was
created
by
the
mdl
judge
and
that's
the
reason
why
we
have
to
go
and
petition
him
for
our
attorney's
fees,
but
the
maximum
that
we
can
recover
is
four
percent.
The
reason
why
they
did
that
is
there
are
many
jurisdictions
throughout
the
country
that
did
not
pursue
this
litigation.
H
They
did
not
want
them
to
receive
a
windfall
for
not
hiring
attorneys
and
they
didn't
want
the
city
of
santa
fe,
for
example,
to
be
punished
for
hiring
attorneys
and
we
believe
it's
fair,
and
I
think
that
that's
the
reason
why
it
was
done.
C
Thank
you
I'll
yield
the
floor
for
now
mayor.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
F
H
The
money
is
supposed
to
be
spent
on
abatement
of
the
epidemic,
the
it's
a
little
loose
about,
where
than
the
abatement
funds
that
have
been
set
up,
the
76
the
70
15
model,
with
the
abatement
fund
receiving
70
most
states
put
a
lot
of
strings
on
that
and
a
lot
of
requirements.
H
There
are
some
restrictions
in
the
agreement.
It
is
supposed
to
be
used
to
abate
the
epidemic,
but
it's
not
as
tight
as
the
other
fund
that
was
created
with
the
other
models,
and
you
know
we,
you
can
take
a
look
at
that.
It's
one
of
the
exhibits
and
the
agreement.
The
agreement's
public
and
aaron
has
a
copy
of
that
that
you
can
share
with
you,
but
you
can
take
a
look
at
it
and
see
what
it
says
about
that.
H
G
You
thank
you,
mr
mayor
good
question
mayor
every
counselor,
but
it
is
posted
on
our
agenda
so
that
it's
available
for
folks
to
look
at
thank.
H
The
good
news
is
is
that
in
the
under
the
15
17
15
model
that
70
abatement
fund
you
have,
you
have
to
apply
for
it
every
year
with
this,
because
the
attorney
general
is
agreeing
to
split
the
funds,
the
funds
will
automatically
come
to
the
city
and
there
won't.
The
city
won't
have
to
do
requests
every
year.
The
city
will
just
have
the
money.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
A
E
Sure
mayor,
it
is
approval
of
the
master
settlement
agreement
as
updated
on
october
22nd
2021
to
settle
the
city's
legal
disputes
with
opioid
distributors
pension
corporation
cardinal
health
incorporated
an
amerisource
urban
corporation
as
raised
in
city
of
santa
fe
versus
purdue
pharma
d
d,
n
m
number,
one
19
cv,
zero.
A
A
If
not,
madam
clerk,
can
you
call
the
role.
C
A
A
Thank
you.
I
think
madam
city
attorney
or
mr
mccarley
we've
approved.
That
item
is
there
anything
left
to
be
said
before
we
adjourn
other
than
thank
you.
Wherever.