Council Recap (Live-ish blogged)

Warning: I’m leaving after an hour and a half and will not have time in the morning, so if they go long, this may be incomplete.

ROLL CALL – I think everyone was here, but I wasn’t paying attention.

OPENING REMARKS – And “exciting announcement” from Jay Ferm from Planet Bike and Arthur Ross from city staff. Ross says they walk the talk, they give 25% of their profits to bike activities, he is also on the Nation League of Bicyclists and he has an announcement on their behalf. Their goal is to create a bike friendly community for everyone. He is presenting the City with their latest award. Madison has been biking friendly for 40 years, we had some of the first bike paths. Madison and the business community are national leaders – esp Trek with the bike program. He says alot of people ask how they get so much done, its not just the biking activists but the Council support as well. He thanks several people, Mayor Soglin, Mayor Dave, advocates, Susan Schmitz and DMI. He talks about the all age program and education to youth. He gives us the Platinum Bike Communities award. Clapping. Mayor says they are proud to receive the award and he thanks the committee, the staff and the people of Madison who engage in bicycling, there are only 4 cities in 3 states that have received this award. This one really stands out. It’s a recreational activity, a sport, an essential way to commute and an opportunity for families to do something together. He says there is an ongoing commitment to safety. He says they want this to be the safest mode of transportation – because it is most affordable and available to everyone. The signs will be in many places throughout the city.

RULE SUSPENSION DeMarb suspends the rules, she got so excited she forgot.

CONSENT AGENDA
They pass all items as noted on the agenda except
Extra-majority items #19 (health grant for maternal infant home visiting program)
Exclusion list – #5 (rifling through cars), #8 (ban the box), #21 substitute (Judge Doyle Square), #34 (lobbyists on committees), #36 (community policing body cam report)

BODY CAMERAS
Presentation and Testimony
#36 is taken out of order. Jacqueline Boggess is the presenter. There is a powerpoint. Not in legistar, but here is the report on the focus groups. The went to existing organizations that already are groups that are comfortable with each other. They have a list of people they went to speak to (100 Black Men, MUM, Operation Fresh STart, UNIDOS, Urban League, Centro Hispano, etc etc) She says she did them all except the ones in Spanish. They have audio and transcription. She went over the transcripts and written documents and compiled the report. The main question was about cameras worn by officers, but the most important thing they took for it, there was no strong feeling or argument about them wearing them. Mostly they talked about negatives and positives in doing it. There wasn’t much difference between the groups. People were generally in agreement. They all expressed the positives and negatives and every group had the final conclusion, no one said yes or no, the consensus was that the policy would not improve their safety. When she asked the question about people’s relationship with the police, people were concerned for their own safety and didn’t think body worn cameras would make them safer. Direct concerns – the main one was that officers could manipulate the camera by taking it off on turning it on. That was the main concern. They also thought that they need to be mindful of this creating a false sense of security. They also talked with city employees, police officers. IT and police and other city employees felt the same as the groups. The thought this would mean they weren’t worried about safety any more, they were worried people were concerned that having the camera would be the answer to everything. The privacy issue with service providers and city employees, there were concerned about that privacy. The vulnerable communities had the concern too, but it was not the strongest, even though it was the strongest concern with others. It was an issue, not the main concern. She reads quotes from the report. “Body cams are not a panacea” “Privacy is going to be violated” and people will be scared to fight for their rights to get their papers. She says the themes she pulled out was “mistrust” – bottom line. “Fear” and “Frustration with racial profiling and discrimination”. This was true across all focus groups. She reads more quotes in the powerpoint. She says that she talked with people 8 – 76. The quotes she is reading are representative of what she heard, they weren’t the worst, just most representative. Individual concerns came from communities. There are details in the report. In every one of the communities, they were concerned about African American folks. They also supported police and their work. She talked to over 200 people, but it wasn’t totally lop-sided. They understood the dynamic and relationship between police and low income and vulnerable communities in a place like Madison where the inequities are stark and clear. They thought the money should go to police training. Cultural competence and diversity training. They want community members trained about their rights. The YWCA and EFPP had recommendations as well, those are in the report. Some of them you heard before, some are already in effect in Madison. She says the most important finding from the focus groups was that people didn’t have a strong feeling about body cameras, some individuals did. Every focus group started out saying that there should be cameras and as people thought it out, they decided it wouldn’t keep them safe and they could use the money better. This wasn’t against body cameras, or for. It was a call for improved community relations between police and low income vulnerable communities – and they fear for their safety because they think police are afraid of them. THat was the overwhelming feeling, people are afraid to be in interactions with police because the police are afraid of them. She will stick around and answer questions and then “you are going to change the world”.

Veronica Lazos she is from the committee, they met 6 times, they reviewed information, research around the country given to them by Captain Roman from MPD and YWCA. They had the time to review materials and pay attention to recommendations. They recommend that they don’t move forward at this time due to the concerns identified. She says “at this time”, we need to take care of concerns of the community first.

Anthony Cooper was also on the committee, he thinks that body cameras would add to the security, it would be another alternative.

Rachel Krinsky is the CEO of YWCA. She emailed them. She thanks them for taking the time to do this work. Her concern is that following this research and the report, most of the conversation has ignored the voices of the people. They aren’t for or against body cameras, she hopes that they look at the voices of the people and not vote how they think. Keep the voices of the poeple in the room.

Mayor thanks them for the work, we needed someone with credibility and to do it quickly and they did a great job. We have a lot of information to guide us in coming months, not just on body cameras but on other issues.

Questions
Shiva Bidar asks Lazos to explain what happens next. She says they met one last time and are going to let the committee rest until a decision is made, if they agree they will join the other group. 3 members of the group Mr. Brown, Mr. Couper and Lazos will join the group.

Rebbecca Kemble asks about the merging of the committees and she just heard only 3 of the members would join the committee, making it 14 people. They were going to merge, she says the new report says only 3 will join. She says they were supposed to work on policy and procedure and they don’t want to do the same as the other group. Kemble asks the Mayor about if this is within the vision of the committee. Mayor says he never anticipated the recommendation, but he is comfortable with it. Mayor will discuss with both commitees and report back to you. Kemble is worried about 2 big committees with quorum issues. Michael May says they approved the appointments earlier tonight. Agenda item #3. He says the mayor has already done this.

Bidar says Gloria Reyes, Deputy Mayor, is on top of it. Bidar asks Lazos about city staff being on the committee, there were 8 committee members and 4 were city staff. 3 of the 4 community members are on the new committee. There is no staff on the new committee. One of their committee members never showed up.

Mayor has questions for Jackie. Mayor asks about education about what the law is. He has been struck over the past years about the lack of information and knowledge about the law and the best strategy. His example is about the worst thing anyone can do is to interfere with an arrest, that spirals, it can be dealt with later. How big of a problem is this and are there solutions about educating an entire city about key elements. Boggess says people talked about it, and there was a request to learn about it. People felt that moment was dangerous for them, the police and anyone involved, if it doesn’t go well. It’s on thing to know the law, but if they feel fear in the moment, and if you don’t believe your rights will save someone from danger, those things don’t matter in the moment. It would be helpful for everyone to know the law, but people were concerned about the danger of the moment. Mayor asks if Koval knows of agencies that could conduct those session, with police and prosecutors present. Boggess isn’t aware of any. Koval would like to see greater engagement in schools. He is pleased with forums they participate in, they young adults get to ask questions. It is an opportunity for robust discussion, not to be an apologist. He says he hopes to do more work like this due to the new officers that the council supported. Mayor asks what happens post arrest, he says mostly after an arrest the police have nothing to do with the disposition of the case, except maybe to ask about a plea agreement to a lesser charge. He says the judicial system is by other people. Was there discussion about disposition after the arrest. Boggess says no. People don’t know that process or understand it. Fear and mistrust. If mistrust is a real response or feeling, then it is all the way throughout the process. She is not suggesting the police should not be trusted, but people don’t trust. Period. People are afraid for their lives. Teaching people the process will not allay the fears or mistrust. People’s lives have been affected in real ways, she doesn’t think education is the solution to fear and mistrust. Mayor asks them to stay on this subject of education and trust.

Samba Baldeh asked if they met with retired officers. She says they met with city employees, there is a whole section of the report. He wants to know the highlights of the police. They were not for or against. THey were concerned about false sense of security and privacy. The body camera won’t affect me, there might be bad apples and you might find them, but it won’t respond to the issues. Baldeh asks mistrust. Boggess says that everyone thinks there are quotas. Mayor asks the chief. Chief says they are prohibited since 1999. Boggess says we can say there are no quotas, but if there is mistrust, you won’t believe it. Baldeh asks about power of the police, they don’t answer to anyone, did you discuss that with the police. Boggess says they asked the same questions of everyone, police didn’t talk about that, so it didn’t come up. They mostly wanted to say there are no quotas. If you ask a question, they will talk about whatever they want and they didn’t talk about it.

Barbara McKinney says that the Mayor hit on something we need to dig deep on. She says the themes of mistrust, fear, frustration, but then the fear of interaction with police because they fear us. She asks Boggess to talk more about that. She says that was strong in all the community focus groups. Victims of domestic violence were afraid to call the police because they were afraid for the life of the perpetrator, especially in Latino communities. This summer, in the United States, they were living in that moment, and they were feeling afraid that if police show up and they feel uncomfortable, police might react with force, killing force. McKinney asks about the quotes from vulnerable population, but there were none from police. Boggess says there are quotes in the report. McKinney asks about education and building relationships and how they sit. Boggess said education, but of their own rights. When can I say no. They didn’t want to be taught how to respond to police, they didn’t talk about that. They talked alot about mental wellness of officers and their training. One of the interesting things was that two people talked about the police being a part of the community – but if they hang out with one officer and have fund, but when something dangerous happens, we think the officer we like will show up at the dangerous situation, but the one that shows up is the one I am afraid of. The relationship is not real enough, its superficial.

Mayor says as usual, when people do a great job, we ask them to do more.

Shiva Bidar says that she hopes they support the report. She does a mayor history lesson. She says they started with a pilot for body cameras, the council decided that instead of that they wanted a process to engage community members and city staff to talk about where people were at. This is the report, this was great community engagement, it might be the best we have had before us, and we asked them to finalize the report which they are doing now. In the meantime, what happened with the death of Tony Robinson we decided we needed a broader conversation and look into policies and training. They allocated $50,000 for expert help for that. It seems confusing and the timing was different. They finalized the appointments today, they met to understand rules and processes and the first meeting is tomorrow and in the meantime the committee got done with the report. There needs to be more discussion of trust before we can talk about policies and training – body cameras are a part of that – but not a panacea and the work of trust building needs to happen urgently and that is the work the community will be doing. We heard the beginning of that discussion tonight. It made sense to think about the knowledge that that the ad hoc committee started and to continue the work forward. We need more comprehensive recommendations to create trust. The process might not be fast enough, but she hopes we will accept the report and let the committee members participate and continue being engaged. She urges them not to take them where the community didn’t take them.

Paul Skidmore feels like Boggess did a good job, he is frustrated tho, that they are not piloting body cameras. He has serious concerns, its not a panacea, its just a tool, but important tool and it will improve transparency. He says the prevailing sentiment is that officers are not clamoring for it, but they are not opposed and there is no downside to transparency. He hears we are moving forward and body cameras can be part of it. He thinks this is a both/and and a parallel process. He talks about a recent domestic call where a woman called, the officer responded and the person was left with a warning and the officer was called in for racial profiling. He had to defend himself. A body camera would have cleared that up. On third shift there are not a lot of witnesses. He supports cameras but will not oppose the report.

Denise DeMarb urges support. When the resolution was written and approved, it was to gain knowledge, not support body cameras. They wanted to get input. People were all over the board and many were in the middle, but the resounding thing that came out of it was that they don’t trust the police, that is what resignated with the committee members and that is why they want to continue the work. Body cameras isn’t what is before her, we need to trust the police. She trusts the police, but many do not, it is important that they do. What can we do, what can we find, how can we work together to have residents feel like they trust and that they are not in fear. She urges support to do this work.

McKinney says that she supports this and she did a focus groups this morning with young people at MATC, they talked about lack of trust in their community, we need to change the lens through which our vulnerable population looks at the police department, she supports it, not as a panacea. If people can feel a sense of movement in teh right direction, she urges more conversations. The Y did a great job, we need the deep conversations. She supports this.

Shari Carter supports but the most important part is that this was from youth to 76, its doesn’t stop at youth. With everything that happened over the summer, its not just the low income neighborhoods, it is fear in many socio-economic communities.

Motion passes unanimously.

RIFLING THROUGH CARS TICKETS
Ledell Zellers moves reconsideration to prohibit entering a car without the owners consent. Mayor asks if she was on the prevailing side, she says yes it was a consent item. Reconsideration passes unanimously. Zellers moves a substitute. She says that when it came to them in April it was taken off the agenda and referred to EOC and they met with police and city attorney and McKinney wanted to have this not necessarily result in a forfeiture, so the substitute was created to allow a forfeiture of $0. Anyone you mention this ordinance to, people find it odd that it is not illegal to rifle through someone’s car. Since they agreed on the substitute, several issues arose. The lead committee got changed from PSRC to EOC. She misread that. The other issue was that after attending EOC meetings where action wasn’t taken due to quorum, then the 3rd meeting they all missed the meeting (police, attorney and Zellers) due to a miscommunication and it wasn’t referred. She is asking for support. There are staff here to answer questions if people have questions. Chief Michael Koval can talk about police issues regarding restorative justice.

Marsha Rummel asks about the substitute that has a $100 bail deposit, how does that get rid of a forfeiture. Kate Smith says it has be be $1, it can’t be $0. The bail deposit is the amount written on the ticket, it would be $124 when you add costs, when you contest it they could reduce the forfeiture within the penalty range.

Rebecca Kemble says she was at the first (discussed) and second (not discussed) meetings, but missed the 3rd and she wants to hear from staff about that discussion. There was concern about this being another tool to racially profile it. She has a personal experience with this. In one instance a person stole something. In a second instance her bi-racial son was accused by a neighbor for refiling through a truck and they were going to call the police, and it was his own truck. Lucia Nunez says that they also had issues with homeless and African American populations having a greater impact. They didn’t have version 2 at their meeting. They did talk about how expensive this could be for people who don’t have money. They looked at comments on the neighborhood listserve and voted for it not to be recommended.

Samba Baldeh asks about the difference of opening a car, or taking something, is there a law that says that the police can talk to me about it. If that exists, what will this amendment do. Police can already talk to me about this, how is it different than this. Michael May says that they can ask you what you are doing, but they can’t give a ticket. Baldeh says this is just what we were talking about, this creates the mistrust again, if you keep doing these kinds of laws there will be more problems. He says we should not spend time on this, this is about giving access to police who people do not trust. Police can decide if this something people did wrong, they could be accidentally opening a car, and people shouldn’t be punished for this.

McKinney supported it, but pulled if off because is was punitive and targeted the most vulnerable population. She also understands accountability as well. She has gotten a number of calls about a car that was in a driveway and it was open and things were stolen from the cars. The amount could be $1 plus cost or it could be community service. If my car is parked in my driveway and someone goes through it, that is not right. WE need to be careful about mixed messages and she knows this is a thin line, we need to make sure the equity lens is applied to everything we do. She doesn’t want to say it is ok for someone to enter my car and decide if they want to take something and say that is ok, that is the wrong message.

Shiva Bidar is thoroughly confused. Will it never be zero. The minimum is $1 plus costs. It would be $40 or so. Its not zero ever. So now for Koval, what problem are we trying to address. She says in her neighborhood by West High, and this has happened since you were in high school. If you enter a car and you steal, that is theft. If you enter and don’t steal. Nothing. If you enter and throw things away and leave. Koval says if it is locked, that is a crime. If its unlocked it is hard to show intent to steal if no item is taken. People are disturbed people can come on my property and enter my car. He says this might be a gateway to entering into a locked car and we can deal with this by restorative justice as opposed to doing nothing. Bidar says if they steal something that is a crime. The only time this would be a ticket is if the police find someone in a car. She assumes they don’t find people in the act. If there they don’t find them, its hard to prove.

Marsha Rummel says “lock your doors’ Mayor or the Chief grumbles “thank you”. You will never catch the person at the time or it will be a neighbor who doesn’t know their neighbors. She doesn’t know why are doing this, it doesn’t create a real tool for the tool box.

Zellers asks for Koval to explain, the ordinance came from the police, she hears about it alot, will this be a tool. The Chief says they prefer to be proactive, instead of taking the report after the fact. This is a lawful reason to detain people.

Baldeh asks if he opens a car and takes something that is a crime. If you open the car and vandalize then is that a crime? Koval says the first one they have to have the intent to permanently deprive someone of a crime. The second is only if there is damage. Koval says it could be disorderly conduct if you are in the car and the owner is disturbed by it. Baldeh says there are laws for this. Koval says that could be a fallback.

Carter asks what disorderly conduct is. Koval says around $150. Carter asks if they dust the car for fingerprints if they get a call. No.

Clear tries to call the question.

Schmidt says there is a law that exists for this.

Zellers says this would be $1 plus court costs. Otherwise it is about $200, this offers a lower dollar option. Michael May says that they don’t have to prove the element for disorderly conduct with this one.

Those who vote no are: Wood, Ahrens, Baldeh, Bidar, Carter, Eskrich, Kemble, Rummel, and maybe one more (Hall)

Now they have the main motion before them. Ayes have it, it passes on a voice vote no one challenges.

Presentation by Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau
Sorry, gotta go run an errand. So I’m missing this. Maybe I’ll blog it tomorrow while I’m sitting at the hospital waiting for a surgery to be over . . . .

JUDGE DOYLE SQUARE
Alright, I missed a chunk. Mayor is cranky about amendments that have been offered. They were emailed. I see copies floating around, but I don’t know what they are. Mayor says if he can’t get the answers he wants tonight he will have it referred. He’s grilling staff about amendments 1 and 2, c and f? Natalie Erdman is explaining. Mayor is asking about the language and staff team recommendations. I think I’m following, but not enough to blog. As soon as it makes more sense, I will start blogging again. The amendment is from Chris Schmidt and the Mayor (and maybe staff) thinks it might be too limiting, but it seems to have presented some issues that they didn’t think about.

Here is the amendment I got after requesting it. JDSReso_17Nov_CCSedits_v2

Clear is in favor of the amendment, he thinks this provides better direction.

Mayor says that there are registrants. Susan Schmidt starts talking, its on the wrong item, so she sits back down.

Sarah Eskrich asks about TIF exceptions and how they could discuss this at BOE or council. DAve Schmiedicke agrees. She says it is not completely constraining.

Mo Cheeks says he wanted RFPs from anyone who wants to apply, he made that motion that passed. He says that previously it was to accept the three and JDS, Eskrich wanted it to be just the 3, so he opened it up to all. He supports going back to 3, he thinks widening it, we shouldn’t allow a second at-bat, but we should go back to our discussion.

Verveer says he got a sneak peak at the amendment and thanks Schmidt from drafting it, he thinks it is an improvement. He went over it with the negotiating team prior to the meeting and they didn’t have concerns before the meeting tonight. He was frustrated at BOE because it gave the sense that we were changing the rules again, we should stick to the ground rules we set instead of changing the rules of the game. Since we got the letter from Vermillion yesterday he had intended to offer an amendment tonight. He says all they want is a smooth path forward and he thinks that this provides it. He thinks they have some desperately needed certainty to the development teams. He says that there is significant interest from the majority of the respondents and it would provide competition. They will have a good set of proposals early in the year.

Kemble asks about 3d. She asks about the 250 room block, not total number of rooms. Has that changed? Deb Archer says they need 250 room block and that is “essential” they want to complement the block at the Hilton. That is what is important to their client. They are keenly interested in a room block of 250. Kemble asks if it would be friendly to change it to 250 room block.

Chris Schmidt says she would have to make an amendment to the amendment.

Eskrich thanks Schmidt, and supports it.

Schmidt says they don’t need to designate who is on the negotiating team. THe 250 room count is consistent with the RFP. He says he is trying to be consistent and not decide we meant something else, he just wants to drill down, its comfort language because it is all things we said we would do. He says that there may be exceptions to the TIF policy. It might be a delay. He says they can make changes and hopes the mayor’s concerns were addressed and he apologies for it being late.

Marsha Rummel asks what happens if only one responds. Mayor says that if they have a proposal that meets our qualifications we would accept it, if not we reject it and move on. Mayor says if it is acceptable to the council we will approve it, I hope.

Rummel asks David Schmidicke about the TID 25 unapproved expenditures? Should we resolve that on a parallel track or is that an outstanding issue? Schmiedicke says that they will have to do a project plan amendment with Judge Doyle Square. Rummel asks if the other issues should be resolved before that. Schmidicke says one amendment for both past issues and what is contemplated for JDS should go foraward.

The amendment passes unanimously. THe main motion passes.

Sorry, that is fairly useless without the amendment. Hopefully I will have it soon.

#34
Susan Schmidt says this is personal to her, she is a lobbyist because the city law makes her be it. She is an advocate. She doesn’t send an invoice for her hours of work. She advocates for downtown Madison all day. She is proud of her history servicng on city committees. She is on the EOC right now, she enjoys it immensely, she is a citizen member and if there is a conflict of interest she lets it be known. She has been on commmittees for 15 years. We have policies in place to take care of this. Names are submitted to the mayor and if its not a good match, then its not a good match or the mayor would put the name forward and you get to vote on it. You wouldn’t put me on the plan commission. She was proud of the Sustainable Benchmarking committee she chaired. She says it is a solution in search of a problem. This is important to her, you all know the commitment she has for the city.

Mark Clear thanks Verveer and the Ethics Board for defanging the ordinance. He says that they should place it on file, this is a solution in search of a problem.

David Ahrens says that he is the sponsor of the original proposal, he says that this is about influencing the process which is what lobbyists are supposed to do, not making the laws. He was trying to separate them. He says the new version makes lobbyists the same as non-city lobbyists who are specially considered. He says it is then up to the council, he says ALRC chair was a lobbyists, but it has nothing to do with ALRC, but there are other places there are overlaps of law making and lobbying. This was unanimous at Ethics Committee and this is a good start.

Mike Verveer says that we have the legislative history in front of us, this was introduced by Ahrens and three others and it was stricter, Zellers had an alternate (number 2) that made exceptions for someone like the chair of ALRC where his lobbying has nothing to do with alcohol licensing. Verveer says that at Ethics Board he only had the CCOC minutes and the Ethics Board sided with Schmidt the first time. So, the thought of the compromise at the Ethics Board. He says he can’t remember a time when someone wasn’t confirmed by the council with the 2/3 vote. Verveer came up with this other approach and the board felt it was compelling. Brist drafted the ordinance similar to non-city residents. The Ethics Board agreed with the exception of Jim Cobb who felt that Ahrens stricter approach was better. Verveer says that not everyone knows people who are selected by the mayor and this would be a provision that could be useful from time to time. He also says that its unfair to single Susan Schmidt out, because she testified, it is unfair to say that this is a result of Ms. Schmidt’s work. The example he shared was the Urban Design Commission where we had an awkward time with a commissioner who appreared regularly before the UDC. She has resigned. But that is perhaps more of an example of a gray area and a concern about our code not being where it should be. The third alternate is reasonable and encourages support tonight.

Rummel appreciates the evolution, but it raises the bigger question of if anyone follows our law and how are we following up on it. Mary Witzel Behl says she doesn’t know how many lobbyists they have, most of them are ones that have been lobbying for years, but every so often someone is told to register and they help them do that process. Rummel asks how often that happens. She says every few months. How often is the website updated. She says it could be three months that forms pile up during election seaons. Many do the filings on line and their information is live updated, others don’t. Rummel asks if they could encourage that. Clerk says they will make a video to encourage people to sign up on line. Rummel says three months is not the sunshine that we discussed. If we are going to make this a thing we want to know who is registered.

Schmidt doesn’t support either iteration. He has a strong feeling on this,it doesn’t feel rifht the way it was approached and framed. What I heard tonight that people will get treated different because of their occupation, the public is not being served here. He says that we are just saying lobbyists are bad and we have an interest in that. He says the interest is wide beyond those who come talk to us, if that is important, we should look at this. He says we can do a presidential order or by the Mayor. He did a presidential order, that is how she got appointed, it was just easier. It was a deliberate choice. He says that he is trying to think of other examples, beyond Ms. Schmidt. We have enough problem finding expertise and getting people on committees and all this does is perpetuate that the lobbyists are not equal. It makes sense for nonresidents. Its not the same as citizens who can’t do something because of their career.

Mark Clear says the city has a proud tradition of being governed by citizens, this proposal says that some citizens of the city, you have a higher threshold to participate with goverment than others do We shouldn’t target people with a scarlet L. He says the last time a noncity resident was for the ethics board 12 years ago. It was a concern one of my predecessors had. He encourages them not to support it.

Steve King says that you know how a company dress code gets so long, its because one person screws up. He says that we have safeguards. The mayor and us won’t appoint a developer to be on the plan commission. Why are we creating a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. We are bringing this to an art form that doesn’t exist.

Sarah Eskrich also voting against this. She feels comfortable with the compromise, but when Brist looked up the list in August, there were 8 lobbyists on committees, now there are 7. There is ample protections in place.

Larry Palm says that he looked at the registrants and its a good sized list, it could be improved, but he served on some of the committees with the lobbyists, we are thoroughly committed to our ethics, we should look at our code of conduct, they should recuse themselves, instead of banning people or providing hurdles for people. Insert any other word besides lobbyists and you might be offended by this concept.

McKinney thanks Schmidt for sharing your feeling and she sat on committees and has seen committeed citizens who are committeed and ethical. There was one person who stepped way outside the box and to penalize citizens who offer their time and commitment. We have a mechanism in place to deal with issues and she’d had to penalize Ms. Schmidt for one person. She supports this.

Rummel asks May about recusal. Do you have to leave the room, where is that codified. May says in the Ethics code, recusal is for financial interests, otherwise you just disclose. If you recuse you have to be out of the discussion, only if requested by a member of the body do they have to leave the room. May says they should at least step away from the table and go to the back of the room. Rummel says she was on the UDC and saw most people leave the room, maybe that would be another way to distinguish. She also says tha treating occupations differently, on some committees have requirements that some professions are represented, we do call out people for their expertise.

Zach Wood says that quorum is an issue because of vacancies, we shouldn’t turn away qualified, intelligent people.

DeMarb clarifies the vote at McKinney’s request. It would require a 2/3 vote for a lobbyist to be appointed. Aye vote will change the ordinance. Right now there is no restriction of allowing lobbyists on committees.

She says the no’s have it on a voice vote and they don’t do a roll call = but it was really, really close.

I feel sick. Our city is sick. Our government is broken.

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
Mo Cheeks reads the two that are on the blog from earlier today. Verveer points out one of them seems the same as the one on the agenda. Seems to be another mistake.

With confusion, the adjourn.