Charter Review Advisory Commission 08/11/2026

have the restaurant just got torn down so there's obstacles the way for everything that where timing is but yes there needs to be a resource so just wanted to finish that end uh again thanks for the great job that you guys have took upon yourself and it's going to be a great resource for this city for the next four eight seven twelve years or whatever congratulations to you thank you can i ask one question when you say resource like what do you know how to identify better people in certain neighborhoods how come my room hasn't been paid how come this park hasn't been finished how come this right and you can't set a definitive ending on all the project that city takes off but there should be a resource for somebody from all the cities say hey look i thought this was supposed to be done six months ago okay well here are the here are the obstacles that we're having for completion but you can't you can't put a timeline on everything the two things that i'd imagine so it was way over two years three years to complete and there's nobody currently to call and give that answer to but there is there is no way to confirm that ending you can go east of park you can call mobility for roads you can go park for recreation right but there needs to be a better obstacle we're wondering if it's good that came to the right place and or give you the information thank you thank you thank you thank you all right thank you for being here thank you so much for being here you've been here riding it out till nine o'clock with us hey thank you thank your name thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you i want to make sure that everybody who misses their emails thank you as a topic um good evening my name is stephanie pointer um i saved you the link to the debacle that we had in city council yesterday and i have been on the federal committee since 2021 and every single year it takes at least 100 days to get a decent copy of the budget and it's coming this year it's in a two-inch binder and it's printed at about a four and a half or a five point five you can't be probably written it is so small that you cannot scan it um and the budget should be handled to council when the mayor makes her speech there's no give stands or hugs about it there's no reason for this game to be played every single year this year it was oh it has to be ada no it wasn't not to hand it to city council they should be able to hand a binder to them every single year city council has to ask them for a paper copy or did i personally prefer a pdf but i'll take whatever i can get um last year's budget when they handed it to us it was in a six inch binder this year we got a two inch binder that wasn't quite full um the staple copy that you have is about your id um list position um uh i know a friend who put all that together for me it doesn't include the things that never really went to court it never ended in a way that was not black and white it doesn't include the issues that happened with councilman name feller where the city spent 300 thousand dollars investigating and nobody ever approved it on council um it does not include the multiple ethics complaints that i filed four or five years ago where the mayor announced publicly that she had met the developers and they weren't registered while those meetings there were several other um issues that i filed ethics complaints about that nothing was ever followed up one nothing as a matter of fact i went to the to the chair of the ethics commission's house knocked on her front door and said hello may i speak with you she was really nice and she invited me in here i have a random stranger i don't know but then after i'd asked for months and months on end when the ethics commission was going to meet again and nobody and i got crickets i show up this lady's house i get certified mail from the city telling me i can't do that i don't know about y'all but i don't know i can go anywhere in quarantine time home and if that lady didn't want me there she could have told me to leave but she didn't she invited me in and gave me iced tea and talked to me for 45 minutes so please understand that the stuff that went on yesterday if you haven't had a chance to watch it you should anytime the people are putting numbers on four or five or six different pages and reading it out loud you know six eight ten digit numbers some shade is going on these people are countless people who love numbers people who love numbers put them together they don't spread them out and there's something shady going on and you know what the question you have to ask yourself is do you think it's it's ethical or unethical and if you're not going to do anything about it what does that make you thank you thank you thank you oh and by the way mr cedar there's not there's not somebody central to the city who can answer those questions about every fraud rate this is impossible oh i'm probably waving my hands trying to talk in the middle of your meeting to take your eyes blow out my knees help me do it all to miss your member and me as y'all having your conversations especially about the perspective john it is it's challenging sometimes for me to see because i am in the community and i am in public comments all the time and to be able to see the administration be able to use its power to get good people to be scared to run and people who are in the office to have to leave office i mean they use the power of the curse for the administration where you have everyday people running for office so they don't have two three hundred thousand dollars to hire someone you have an example um for the council aid better he had a council aid who got a problem with the council they went to the hr hr council they went to hr and said thank you council me it has been addressed but the administration went to that aid and said no no you've got to pursue this and so they pursued it they went to the ethics commission of town let's see no finding they had a law firm investigated they being administration but then they say when we investigate it turn it over to another firm that we're hiring and they can do the response so two different lawyers under thousand dollars after the young lady on the record to an email to john bennett said thank you this has been handled but if you speak out don't do what the administration says you're going to do and they will make you like hell and that's not just the elected officials because again they have the power of the purse the one thing that bobby has been trying to provide to you is someone who is independent someone who is just they've been told to just do what's right just find the information not we're political not because we're scared because the mayor's going to write my check or we're going to get funding from the city council i'm asking you to like pay attention to what happened uh today today is not the first i have been at cra meetings they have workshops where they've done sixty million dollars worth of workshop projects to do the grants but the cra did not get the information until they walked into the workshop when the public waits their hand they said it'd be ready in five days so the public could not even weigh in on the grants in their community and when you go online it wasn't there but there's nothing to make the administration do their job unless maybe someone files a complaint and we can get some facts and into the record that they're not so i thank you for having the conversation but i ask you to understand this is not just looking at financial contracts and use of money this is also the use of their power to keep the community not listening to any people thank you all so much for your public comments anybody else in public comments okay um thank you so much and so we're going to move forward with to approve the prior unit from july 28th 2026 i don't want to to entertain the entertainer motions to approve the man thank you all right I said, yeah, I need to spell all of that. What page? I want to. You're right. You're right. All right. All right. Thank you so much for the amendment. So we'd like to move to with the adjustment. I think so we're pretty sure this is our last meeting. That's the plan. I think we can do it. Our agenda is pretty standard. I'm a charter review. We're here in two areas. Looking at the final language for the hearing officer for the majority of the time evaluating what can pull together for the IG and then some next steps that we usually talk about that might be the real steps in an outline I promised you for a factual report about the committee. I give you an update about my conversation chair on that. The first one should be fairly lit. We can have if you remember compiled some prescriptive hearing officer language, but in an exchange we just even refined that language or pulled up the actual section. If you aren't probably that would go to the IGP site. If I'm just going to sit here. I afford it. It's a little bit more. Yeah. The only part that changed is going back to your motion when you adopted this section. You asked that the funding process near that of the planning commission. Uh, even pointed out to me. The only difference in the language is that removes then the mayor from the appointing process. So that's the only update that's been that's happened over the last time that you can see green is that saying, uh, that there's a, or a lawyer's hearing officer is appointed by majority city council of renewable terms. So, yeah, we have that as appointed by the mayor and firm of the council. Uh, but. We want to change. Uh, Steven asked me to go back and take a look at the, your vote. Your vote was to amend the prior language to reflect the process that we city presently uses for appointees to the planning. Uh, this is the, this is the process that is used for planning. So I wanted to make sure that was what you intended. So I'm going to put it out there that I did not understand. I thought that, um, I did not understand that city council only had appointment power to the main commission. I love that the mayor did as well. Um, and I'm embarrassed by the fact that I didn't crack that after seven years, but I guess I haven't. Um, the city council is the one who peers. The zonings, I, you know, so I'm not saying I'm necessarily deeply troubled by that, but would we not, um, would this, we, would the city not then need to do a contract with the zoning hearing officer that then would go to. I'm not bugging myself by how a contract has become contracts have to be negotiated by the administration. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to ever complete it in terms of process. If you go this route, uh, it would be an application process. Like is done for other boards and councils. Uh, they pay someone. And then there would have to be now, uh, a contract entered into them for this. Consistent of that. I'm getting my head back in. This was the interim level of the zoning process. Okay. Right. We're not that person works with city council. Wouldn't that be the appropriate body to a community they're working with? Yeah, I, I don't think that it troubles me that city council would be the entity. Right. I'm just then trying to, I feel like then somehow they need to get paid. And then I guess that's the part that I'm still starting to drop my head around. Maybe I'm really complicated. Right. That part of the process is simply before it was appointed by the mayor and confirmed by council. Thanks. Did not match up to your vote. So this was. Well, you said do it like. You said do it like the mayor. Oh. Right. So when this formally didn't, I thought you said a moment ago, this said the mayor appointed. It did. It did. She did, but city council approved it. So city council was involved in the process. They have to approve it. Okay. Right. Now this changed. It eliminates mayor. Does the planning commission get paid? No. Right. So. Very nice. The struggle. Well, I don't think this changes the fact that this person would pay. That's going to have to be worked out. Right. Is that do you want this as the mayor bringing some forward to council? That's that was the prior draft. Or was the intent to be wrote? Uh, that's. Well, documented. I assume that the mayor was involved in the selection of language. I did not know. I did not know. I did hear. Yes. We say planning commission. Am I confusing? This was a total hearing passing. Correct. So that was planning commission. Right. But we said, Bill, they're saying that, that it was inferred that we said, we agreed that it would be done the same way to the planning commission, which some of us assumed that the mayor was involved in that process. It turns out the mayor is not involved in that process. Okay. So the question is, was the mayor involved in this process? Correct. Yeah. I was a little slow at the wheel. I'm going to make sure that we approve the language as written because in my rationale for that is city council has the purview of zoning and the mayor does not. And I feel that this makes a lot of this tracks with that. So I don't have a problem with it. I, I, I agree with that. Um, but also I'm having trouble with the zoning hearing master shall be licensed to practice law with demonstrated experience of land use. But it also says, um, shall not concurrently represent any party before the city of land use matters. How do you balance experience with someone not having any communications or their clients that could come before them? Okay. So you make a choice. Yeah. If you're going to pick yourself up for a zoning hearing master as a land use attorney, um, you know, you're going to get, you're going to get paid to be a zoning hearing master. Not much. Not much. Um, but for example, you can still practice in front of Hillsborough County. And some land use attorneys do a lot of work in both. Some focus mostly in the city. Some focus mostly in the county. Some focus more broadly in other jurisdictions. I think that you would still be able to find qualified people who would be willing to serve as zoning hearing officers and agree not to do business with the city of Tampa. If they, if that was their interest and frankly, a lot of people, um, as, as they're getting on in their practice, you know, look to do hearing officer work rather than, um, rather than strictly representing people. People that retire. You know, I know someone in front of mine retired from Hill Ward, John Brando. I mean, it's not that he's, I'm not suggesting he wants to do this, but he's a, you know, would be a perfect candidate. You know, we'd say, I retired from the active practice. This would be a hook. I'm still going to keep my hands in the game, so to speak. You know, the other side of the desk. So shall not concurrently represent, but that. That person could have represented that applicant for years and years and years. And then all of a sudden is in a position. Right. To approve something with a past client. They might have a multi-decade relationship with. That's. That's what I'm going to have to. Right. It could happen in the county. Yeah. If it's, if it's a. Lawyer with demonstrated experience. Lamin used inevitably. That situation would occur. Right. Okay. You want someone with a level of experience. Sure. That's why we all sat around. Spend a lot of time. Focused on the position. Is let's streamline it. With someone who's got the talents. Just that. Did you want to say anything wrong according to this promotion? So Rebecca had a motion. Bobby seconded it. If the chair could complete the process. What important is effectively to the comments. All of our members. All members say Aye. Aye. Why aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. See second. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Ay. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. nomenclature change over time to use officer. Thank you. Do you want to start with me? Yeah, that would just drive, you know, because we're moving around now to the provisions based on specific feedback two weeks ago from the earth that came along through. I mean, walking through hopefully everyone's had a chance to take a look at this. What I tried to do is take everything that came up during the last minute and pulled this into a draft that seemed to see where a minority folks were heading. Obviously, this is my interpretation of where you were all going, because a little bit, everybody had an opinion. We'll just scroll over the first change here. We took out the word oversight. Uh, there seemed to be a lot of concern about the idea that this person was either to be a fool of the council or otherwise. So I tried to narrow the scope here of what it is they're supposed to be doing. Uh, this was, I think, Bobby, you had this edit as far as strength and count over power is the biggest change right here. Uh, in response to your concerns about how the office would operate. I came up with language here that they shall only initiate a process when something is referred to that. As opposed to they wake up one morning and decide I'm going to go look at this department and that department. Uh, the idea is that anyone that mayor council set staff member or resident can submit a request and they'd have the discretion and decide whether or not to move forward with investigation. Your, uh, number of you had concerns about subpoenas. So I limited that to, uh, subpoena to require the appearance of elected officials, staff members for contractors. Uh, is taking out the general public from that concern. And since there was concerned about loans and records along those lines, I shifted it from a wide subpoena for records to making public records requests. The Florida final compromise as far as that goes. You can see the language that then dropped out as a result. They still have then the power to file ethics complaints where matters out. So, uh, it appeared we settled on eight members, uh, last time. Uh, the change was from the Hilton County Bar Association to the George Edgecombe Bar Association. And then adding in the public defender. And again, it was a group I did speak to the, uh, chief judge and it was honored. We got to myself and the same with the state attorney. It's not very great. Um, those two. That issue. That was. Yeah. It was a great idea. Can you scroll on the left? I've just looked at the other ones. The same point. Yeah. One thing I would point out to you is, um, if the goal is not to make this a political weapon, there are at least three or four people of those eight that are currently, um, Republicans or more Republican. You run a real possibility that you could get somebody who's appointed as the IG for the sole purpose of, um, being aggressive toward the mayor and all the city council. Um, I don't know, um, you know, in the future who the president of Mars and she needs to think they could be the chief judge. Um, like it was appointed by a Republican. So I'm just pointing out that if you, if someone chooses to weaponize this mission as an internal, um, weapon at city, you run the risk that we're appointing someone who's got authority to investigate the city. And majority of people are going to have city people who are making that. But I'm saying that that's a possibility. Right. We're never going to know what their political affiliation is going to be two years from now, four years from now, right? You're never going to know the political affiliation with any of these people. And I think it's absolutely awful to try to guess what that political affiliation, with all respect. I don't think it's all of them because it's, it's what's happening. Or if I could finish. Okay. So right now, I don't, they are already designated. Okay. I'm not sure what her political affiliation is. Chief of city council. You know what his says. Chief of the president. So as you look at this, remember the mayor, right, and city council have to approve the appointment. That's in this proposal. So if there's someone, if there's proof of a, and you can add to the list. You want nine. Someone suggested to me that you put it to the end of the status of law school. I mean, this is something I got in the email. That's a great idea. You can have a form of federal. I mean, there were a lot of different officers there. If you wanted to add a nine. If they have an equal balance, you can have one. But again, I think the check and balance is going to always be. The mayor and the city council have to approve the appointment. The recommendation. You want to kick it back down. So if there's a toxic individual comment. But you know, my two cents. Our staff are confused on how this is legal and the ethics can be done. Are there functions that we're trying to have done that aren't being done by other entities? That we could give them new assignment of responsibilities. These are the exist. I mean, I really don't. Where I had lost this. I looked at this this afternoon again. And I still don't see. This is like, either it's completely redundant to the internal audit. And the ethics or it's parallel systems where you're going to have all these people looking at the same thing and creating lots of duplicate efforts. I mean, I don't think there's clarity of responsibility and a forward. It's not a concern. It's funny to Ron's concerns. We do something. So it builds the panel. As is done at the federal level with the IPC and the other, you know, that we require a number of public servants. How could you possibly do that? They could appoint positions. We would never. In other words, if you were moralizing here, these nine offices. That's what you see, man. And then what are you going to say? What if on the list of 70 members of the rights and one public, you'd have to go out and say, well, we need to find formal will and respect. The offices, it's just, you can't micromanage that. I mean, you may have put up there, we'll have four Republicans, four Democrats, and an independent. And then you have what? You have to just search for the students that come in and can't do it. You could eliminate the eight people and just have the city council and mayor and city businesses. Oh, that would be, respectfully, we're trying. One of the genesis that we spent a lot of time talking about was that this was truly independent. Okay. You just said it's not. You just said it's always going to be subject to the mayor and council, right? They have approval, but again, if they reject someone, the next one up comes, we discussed at great lengths, the next person up has to come from this group of nine. So the risk I say was real when it's not real. It can't be filled. I don't even understand what you just said. What I said is that the risk of, of there being under influence from outsiders from the city is a good deal. Because it's not because the mayor and city council are in trouble. Okay, fully. Thank you. I know you're going to have pretty quick. You brought us on the vote. We made the last thing to be a great party. Because some of this is set in stone. I think what's set in stone is of the positions. Mayor has a designated. Chair has a designated. And the rest of it. The rest of the world agreed upon other than we changed to a chance. That's what we had. And I was asking. You know, we said the attorney. He took a specific vote on who was on that list. So I know. Yeah. Someone could refer. Bobby, I think we're at grants that we just want. Political. Correct. Now, I think that was regarding the first two people. But where are we at on the vote? Because there's, there's some things we could change. And there's something for me. Yeah. Who are you? You're referring to. What is set in stone on that list? We've already made a vote. Maybe we could follow the record. Yeah. We should follow the record. The vote was made for two of those eight positions. So I believe we can just establish that. And then we'll continue to move on about who's going to be on this list. Either in there or I took notes to try to look at what you guys want to see change. Temperatures. Is it relative? No, right. To see where we voted. I probably voted on all of you. You're correct. If voted, we should see exactly what we voted upon my record. No, you know. I don't want to say it will be twice. I don't want to do the same. You know, the same conversations over everything. I don't want to know the scores. I think we'll be losing. Yes. They'll score five. Right. We could put voted on it or just the Georgia movie. You're okay. Yeah. polls i heard the discussion and then they said in the new version to then look at point closely but i think it was specific to the mayor's appointee and we agreed to that last meeting before i think that's correct and i think right we agreed to them there was a debate as to whether a mayor or a representative and a city council representative and that was voted on at least was voted i think by four that was correct they do have representation yes and then we would have the other six nine they ordered you know right yes so we talked about project homes and the reason i remember this it's it's been talked about tonight about the influence of the mayor and that all stronghold rehash yeah okay so we did strongholds last time yeah we did all strongholds it wasn't the uh it's a stronghold we disagree we're trying to get kind of bird down at least to go come out just saying since last time i thought about that issue i didn't think about it at our last meeting and just raising it as an issue for make sure everybody's thinking so whether a republic is majority republican or majority or whatever um because like you know we're probably all different private relations but we're not in here talking about it but you're saying they can influence the selection of this idea these people are not necessarily even citizens of the city and where we um evolves i don't want to say anything in public it's too political but each party has attacked the other party in a variety of ways and there's been a lot of pitch and pull between um local governments and state governments across the city and as i've reflected and read the amendments again it just dawned upon me that this could be a tool that's used against um our elected officials in the city if we're allowing people who are not outside or outside the city to make that i i know many of the people who currently hold these positions that three people are playing us the compass and but we're not doing this for tomorrow we're going to miss right charlie city for a long time does this point the position is yes the mayor is selection so it's a recommendation if you want to go back to ron with what we suggest to counter that because that's where we have to go go ahead yeah a couple things um i it's it's a sad statement on our where we are in our politics if this thought even comes to the table one and we see it all the time and i think your cynicism um could be probably justified which is the atmosphere that we have in our country right now um but for me it comes down in the bottom line that we have to have somebody to pick someone and if it's going to be anybody it has to be people who are in a position um of high credibility in a related field and like who else are you gonna you know just practically like who else could you pick and you see the seat may be there consistently but the people who come in and out change or party might change and you mentioned risk and i think it's the miscalculation of the severity of the risk to say that this poses that much of a threat we have to reconsider what we have here i mean there's a risk everywhere i can walk out into the street and you know and ask for a good ball or something like that but i don't consider that a risk because it's very inconsequential you know the chances that will happen are small i hear what you're saying like i feel where you're coming from but i think we have to be practical too and say like just simply who else are we going to have here you consider the risk that somebody from state we're trying to remove a local elected official first our current mayor had a threat posed against trauma maybe out of the meeting call enter warning his thoughts on it but it's it's not a risk that's as remote as getting and by maybe walking the street i mean just being hyperbolic but and it's a risk of and i mean i'm not in politics it's a risk of somebody that's if they're in meeting and they're having a conversation about this person that they may leave the person's name it's a risk that they may like what they may take money and vote a certain way like what are you saying this risk is the risk is that an inspector general um is is the the only person we have to um serve as inspector general that's proper by the aid of individuals is someone who's being selected target on the state that's the best to help the state so uh yeah very well i sense not group but no offense so they talk they are the ones that are in the city in danger we're talking about the point the inspector general so there's no offense yet there's just a higher evidence but the inspector general only pursues the planes that have come to them if i mean if we take that argument a step further then there would be no function of government government at all like if you say that in in positions like this that or in any committee or you know election process that there is some risk of political tampering and there's i mean you take that to the next step then we can't trust anything that happens in a government if we say that the democrats are going to do this i don't trust the republicans i mean we haven't we kind of just have to have any things to work probably somewhere yeah okay that's very half a second bill what i was going to say is correct me if i'm wrong what we're setting up here is the eventual person who has this position is voted on by of the city council and the mayor correct so the city council and the mayor can't vote whether or not the nominee is fair or private position so the ethics commission so this is what someone said the ethics commission president is the amendment provides the appointment will get now in may is followed by the president of the ken bar association another two appointments from either a former federal judge u.s magistrate or former state court judge or a u.s attorney former assistant u.s attorney former state attorney in the list of attorney out of former assistant county attorney or the city attorney dean of the stetson law school president of the university of south florida and the mayor has an appointment that's the ethics commission i like our list better i want to do a straw poll really quick to see if this says that is anymore pursue it not what is the best that you're talking about this well sir i guess the question is how many people go even if there's a risk how many people feel comfortable that this is a good solution to before nominating putting forward an ig that again goes before i was going to say in the first look right so because i don't know i don't know if the other option that you mentioned this group not be involved but right now this is what we're doing so the question is do we want this or not and the only thing to consider i would suggest if you did want to know what i did like on this list and it's local here and being the steps in law school i'm so happy to know who it is but i think that it could be a group tell me that if that would be not if not this list conceivable what would be alternative to us you would they could suggest that that was yeah i would just let the mayor and city council that's a lot it's similar to all they are answerable to the citizens of the city of tampa and basically they just sit out for being rude i know the intention is to make it less political right instinct is by introducing all these other weapons yeah i'm listening to the motion so i'll move to to include positions so that there's going to be a two-part motion so that i can i can vote against the chair and the council if someone else was just doing with them because i don't want to vote for that so although i'll motion that we include uh seats for three through eight with the addition of stetson for the final position i'll say that motion no i don't want to no then if someone else wants to move to the mayor and the city council because that's what's going to happen okay okay then bobby if that's that would be your entire list then i cannot support your motion i'm going to draw my second somebody else to make a motion to include it i make a motion to include the list one through eight i would add a nine which would be the team of the stetson law school or his or her designate for it bobby no sorry um i was just going to say how do you feel about keeping the list as it is having a mayor and a council or two to get one process so there's no secondary layer of politics added into it or vice versa which i think i suggested that last meeting the same take out because everything that you sort of have done it's approved right right can we follow can we do it get the nine that's seven let's do because we may or may not need to revisit it yeah so we appreciate my motion but i moved that we included our list of the group that will be appointing in some capacity either to the mayor or city council uh the list one through eight i would add a number which would be the date of the status of the most of that person here on the ethics commission that said if they do those not i'm down here a second second okay so move to property segment i'll make a discussion all those that pay to say aye aye i don't say name amen okay that's good so i think i know it's the only one that voted for so we're in here we're appointed by the council and the mayor the mayor and the council aren't sitting in here making this decision so i'm i'm just feeling like this is something that needs to be uh just kind of hands off with politics because if either one is getting investigated or whatever i would just like for there to be no involvement whether it's the council being investigated or the somebody over there by the way i mean that's what what i guess was a strong whether it was just a 5-4 strong because you did lose that vote last week two weeks ago you know that that happened it's okay it's okay it's okay okay i'm glad you're doing it i'm glad you're feeling it's okay i'm just going going back i'd like to understand why that where the days came from so we can move forward i think you know where you're from you're going against basically the same reason to bobby i don't want unnecessary political influence on what is supposed to be a very independent office of inspector justice you're not talking about city council and they are approving and you're just talking about this list all right that's all i'm talking about is this list yeah i'm talking about both but yes included in both is the list yeah okay okay ron i also don't want it to be okay we all agree with that so i still think there's functions that the ig does that could be a sign somewhere in the administration that we're great that's what we've done we don't process i use a lot to intend to be willing to ask that she doesn't have to buy anything else whether we're going to have it back when you get out here okay where it begins same same okay so is the question whether or not we even have an appointment committee is that on the table is that there wasn't a struggle in having one if we have a yes then we can sign this on if we have a no we can strike well if we get a struggle on who wants me to continue for selection but hey what is the problem having a representative of the mayor and the city council upon selection i mean they they they can't you know latterly carry anything but it does give local legislators an executive rent fine um i totally agree and i equate to this board is it operates in a similar way if we all can come together and select someone who could be the inspector general i think we can find a good person my bigger problem is the additional layer of appointment and confirmation politics of the city council and the administration which is why i said earlier i think i'm okay with the list if you remove that appointment process so i need to get a test for the rentals we're just going to hear um so i feel like with the politics there's power and retaliation or black vault that can come into play if you do not go with whoever this person's the mayor or the council's appointee does not move up whatever they want if other people like the person from us that the person that doesn't want that doesn't want this person to be dead i mean that's the that can be seen as an attack and i feel like retaliation could happen against them okay so against that person that didn't vote so i think i think we're sharing everyone i have to say my nervous controls room here guys for a second you're asking me to ask the questions so i think we have two questions on the table right um they are separate or related one is do we do we want a selection committee or not related is do we need another step for that person to occupy that role which sarah is expressed uh concerned with which is the mayor and the city council essentially pointing and confirming so i want to go back to this question do we believe we should have a a selection committee at all show of hands for yes one two three four five and then steven i can't see you i'm sorry yes yeah six so we've agreed we want a selection committee let me ask the second question show again is how many people believe that the selection committee's choice is binding and that there's not another approval by mayor and city council so they select and the job is is appointed does anyone support removing city council the mayor from the process of ultimately ratifying the choice and you want to prove that that's what you would like to do right yeah but yeah just one two and steven new york on that yes so remove remove that so we have three in favor of removing city council the mayor from the approval process completely but we did agree we want to have a selection committee we've gotten that far at least correct anybody missing anything on the space okay so then the next question is since that's the case the top people changing their votes we won't have a selection committee so the next question is i'm sorry what changes need to be made for us to agree the roles of those who will serve on it i just feel like all of us none of the positions should be able to affect any of the other positions as far as those who may not look at the city but there's contracts there's things that you know that move around people get blackballed and retaliation happens every day so i'm just saying that is a super valid point um looking at this list um the only person that i see um that may come before the mayor or city council for something would be usf and the way that the state statute deals with usf local government has very we do have an agreement with them but we have very little authority or power to do anything without agreement so well your point is well taken i think looking at the list that's up there i don't think that any of these people would hesitate to speak their mind and do their things based upon any sort of power or authority that the mayor or city council have that i can think of i completely respect y'all's want to make this escape as political as possible and we all share that goal i have another concern which is having people who don't do two concerns um why i think that the mayor and the chair should be on the committee and why i think that they should be fully appointed first of all when you are coming up with a list of people who have qualifications when you have people who don't understand what local government does and all due respect to these people they are all right and they're all ethical i don't know any of those people who have sat in those divisions over the period of time that i can think of that i would not say those two things out but they don't understand local very few people do and you don't have someone at that table you kind of hate that voice i have concern and then two i don't point to me and i don't agree with a lot of things on the list this person could do so it's hard for me to have this conversation but that being said the things that are on the list for them to do if you're not going to have the mayor and or city council buy into this person at all they don't even get to appoint them then they're literally wavy taxpayer money because they're not going to take their suggestions what do you think about just sending it up to city council with this group saying we want a selection committee put it's up to the city attorney the administration council to have that conversation after we've pushed it off to council meaning we won't be the ones tonight to decide who's on that list but we agree there should be no i think actually no reason to that if that's what it gets down to the other only other thing i want to point out is when it comes again to the federal system inspectors general um they they are done by appointment by the president of the senate confirmation um or appointment by directly by the agency head and frankly i never hear complaints about the work that comes out of the federal system of inspectors general it does not get political maybe with the exception of the current occupancy of the white house that is an aberration um the media he knows there are people who serve as as inspector generals in federal agencies who are there um from administration to administration democrat or republican so uh i i again i you know to re-emphasize the point having participation by the city council and the mayor in terms of the selection process could get their buy-in we're doing a big thing here and um and we need to do our best to address legitimate concerns or or fears in terms of the status quo i had no problem doing that or doing what they're suggesting in terms of making this outline and and um and and asking the the city council and the mayor to participate all right actually and then go so let's say having been five years now the chair is getting sued or the man is getting sued they're sitting on this committee to select this person that's about to investigate them right no i think these people aren't getting the best game no i i think uh i'm going to be wrong and everybody correct me i think what your um scenario you're projecting is that the ig will get picked once there's a complaint i think the way this works is that ig gets paid and hired and they're they're there and then the complaint come up a year later or two year but it's still the state shows and so i don't think um someone through this it would it's not impossible but it would be suddenly who hasn't been fought against them then we're picking an inspector general to investigate that complaint it would be the opposite inspector driver i picked right the abstract and then complaints came up again right so scenario is now i am investigating a person that put me in this position right and so inspector generals can be professional but people are human and i just feel like if you have somebody in a position that's investigating somebody even though that person hired them or brought them on it's it just the perfect the the entities that are being that they're going to be investigating i don't think they should have a hand in picking that person that's all i think there could be a system of recusal i mean if you guys that's at the point and we don't you know you make a hire today we don't know who they're going to be investigating for two or three years if it turns out we get to that that point and there's a conflict there there should be a system okay then i'll do okay with that um so we we took a struggle that we want to keep a list a selecting committee of some sort so i think the pragmatic next step is um if you know we haven't moved this forward somehow there's a lot of other things in here that we have to talk about that are pretty substantial and this is like the least substantial thing that we have to discuss in this um right so we agreed we needed to have the nine that that fell on us it didn't work out that that didn't go to the room so now it's a question of who's on the on the panel so can we just go over and get around and again if you don't agree with the panel at all i'll understand but we're moving the direction of green we should have to screw can we quickly get opinions on who should be on this list so we know where we stand real quick bobby uh everybody who wanted to plus that's that's him gareth okay well i know about it so ashley um anybody wanted to guess this okay caffeine i am a i really don't really think we're creating redundant government but if we're going to have if there's a majority vote to have a group i think it should include the mayor and council so the full and uh and uh and uh that's not particular you should have the number two on these things you should have on the back there um okay so it's all about it as they stand okay bill i think you're full nine um stephen if you if you didn't hear or ask any opinions about who should be on this nominated list of people 30 years ago can you um tell us your preference are you there steven thank you um can you can you clarify the question yes so we're looking at the screen and we're showing eight eight roles positions of people who would serve on this nominated committee and we also added nine uh what's the uh sets of law what was that for all president or the dean of stats of law school and we're asking everyone of the nine um which which ones would you prefer rename or be removed the opposite all minor subset i'm fine with those shown plus plus the addition that was added okay it seems to me like that has the floor so can we do a repeat motion for what we just draw a bowl to move things forward you got it yeah look at the uh requirement list the puts on the board we met with the dean of steps in law school so they would be uh all of the neighbors that invite thank you for a second oh sorry yeah i didn't say yeah i didn't say this before um all of the papers say aye aye all say nay nay steven's vote steven was that a um a yes vote for you based on your earlier point yes thank you okay so steven's a yes can we show our hands for the uh yes it's just so that we can click that steven allan phil darren thing but if there is going to be that's what i would support that's all i know so we do we need a motion even have a nominee committee for you have that you've got six votes so there's six people need to get five votes and move forward that's how the city council said we're supposed to move forward so that's how we should move forward so we're at what four i thought i just counted six we did this should we do it again no no no it's fraud we did it in the straw we have six things for all i didn't have it my original point that i raised there's functions in it does that we should be aware i'm very supportive of that i'm not necessarily supportive of creating an i've given me as a separate entity with an oversight that is almost identical to able submission so i think we're creating a redundant entity so if you go to the core of the of the premise or the corpus or i'm not aware but if you go that i'm against what we're doing but if we were going to vote on this i said if i would support any demand city council should be involved in this yeah and i also exactly what she said and every time i try and take a vote to move something forward even though i don't agree with it and so bill don't get mad at me yeah and i'm like we have seven votes i'm like i mean only under duress because i don't support the whole thing and i was like we've already decided that so and so i'm not going to vote for it because i don't agree with a whole bunch of other things in here and i'm sorry though i'm not ready to leave i don't know why you're a little married fan i'm sorry i'm not trying to do football but i don't care if i do that it started my face that we all supported it yeah yeah yeah i do think we have five of them right back to captain and rod were enough i i think i think the issue rob might be oh it's fine to take a straw vote on something on like what the composition of the community is but it's hard to take a vote vote on it when we haven't figured out the rest of it yet right we're literally voting for the community or something that we haven't agreed against but it might be good to straw vote those things to get us there yeah i guess i was thinking the premises this group definitely said it wanted something in charter cover and i'm just watching so that that had been voted already so i thought it was you know even even though some didn't vote for it now that there's position where this has been voted to people to move forward a function is very different than a person yeah yeah i'm not i'm not thinking that i just right the function right the function of it on a g group said we want that we want something most of us not everyone said that so once we will pay on that and the question is what can we live with again i guess you don't have to vote for anything but if we're going to move forward we have to get to some answer on what it actually is and we'll get to look forward as a recommendation hey kelly's point i don't mean to speak for her is that i think there are some people in the room who are in favor of grading the office of inspector general and there's some people who are in favor of grading inspector general like phone attendance and there are some people who don't want to be there but now i think we did discuss which led to ken going away and doing this based on this group's vote as opposed to the alternatives that you mentioned ron so just following your lead on this um not judging the objection by any stretch just trying to get us to to actual content that can be included what we recommend so we definitely said we want to move forward with an ig function and i guess we're just trying to accommodate what everyone here wanted and what can pull together would it be helpful if he completed the review and then we circle back since we're really talking about broader issues that please i feel like we're stuck right here and maybe if we resolve some of the other issues yeah so let's do that let's do that it's a good a good point because we're in the middle of a bigger sort of issue so uh hopefully everybody likes to see uh the group was concerned that this whatever this committee may be uh was going to be too often so i shifted it for your recommendation from every six months that they follow uh the removal you wanted to have that uh it could be done by either group so it was originally just by the mayor with approval of the council now it's by either the mayor can remove the approval of the council or the city council can do it with the consent of the mayor it's reciprocal as there who could start the process for vacancy uh we didn't like the get hit by a bus to have a temporary replacement uh option so that was taken out here uh should a vacancy occur it triggers then the process uh of the committee meeting and all but there's no one in the spot during that time we get the ordinance piece later i just moved that later on so struck out the language as far as interaction with the audit department uh this was in a part of this prior section i just moved into its own piece that it does not supplant or otherwise replace the audit department that is under the ordinance piece uh was significantly limited it only covers now uh qualifications of the inspector general in the term of the office budget and staffing and was supported protections for report to the office uh dealing with the concern that the city council could be right this whole relation to the ordinance implementation section is the same what is the green senate qualifications required the reason to put this in the ordinance this is the qualifications especially general attorney of office budget and staffing and was for protections because you put the option of farming this out to the outside group uh or having this as a staff person uh that's going to have to be settled later on by council through the ordinance uh the normal process you scroll back up to that 12 part i'm trying to tell this person is retention i think it was this person is in is investigating the city or is in the middle of an investigation right and then they have to get on a call a zoom or a meeting if you will whatever with this mayor and the chair or the appointee about them investigating there like they're going to get to ask them about they're going to be taking a performance review from them like they're not going to like it like i'm like well y'all know all that do y'all understand what i'm saying i do understand like but inspector generals i mean i know this from the state perspective so i was chief of staff we had one inspector general with one of each agency i knew when the inspector general was inspecting because it was all anonymous it's all comes into them they have full authority to do full investigations use any sort of you know resources that they need across the state i mean there are some authorities that come with an inspector general like definition and and i think that protects like the mayor or the city council is not going to know if they're under review until there's a report that's given to whomever um where this you know they reported at that time to um the governor and the legislature so let's say there were music about to come up next month and they've been investigating these people behind the stand and this this report comes out on the news and now you're buying that away me because i just did it in that page so that if it was just those two people um um i think that that's a a more valid concern and it's not that it's not a concern but you're saying that they don't have enough power at that point and if you're under investigation you're like i think they're doing a bad job i'm pretty sure that the state attorney and those other people are going to be like yeah i mean i mean in 200 years of the history of our country only one person in america has fired all these people and sort of doesn't really give a but everybody else would not hire somebody in the course of like their job you know because they're because an inspector general doing their job is really a protected investigation i mean they're supposed to be it's supposed to be anonymous and state right you know and they have authorities under that title i mean that's what i understood at the state level i mean i never knew what the inspector general was doing until they issued the report ever on friday they can be removed by the mayor instead of a whole of that it'd have to be a majority of those lines yeah no yeah it can be removed it can be removed instead of general maybe removed either by the mayor with the hula city council at least five in front of us so the concept of this review by the committee was to keep them engaged in what they were the person they had put forward and provide a public forum i just talked about what they've been doing that time it's not a job evaluation they don't hire a fire they don't have that authority uh but it's it's a way of having a regular session where you can check in on what the inspector general is up to okay so if they're investigating someone on the body on the city council that's already said the vote second vote is personnel right right now it takes both of the mayor and council uh in order to i think they're even a little faster is a good point the removal should have to be in a majority of the nine individual appointment the appointment as you have it drafted right now is simply a recommendation that then goes to mayor who makes the appointment to council who then confirms uh there's not a hiring and firing role it's a recommendation if this group does not like the inspector general they can make all the noise they want about that it's the mayor and council of that they removed the mayor and council removed okay this this group is purely as a vetting and advisory it's probably not totally just similar i don't know what the i think the ethics commission does now they do a similar role at the group plays for that you know i mean the ethics takes it can take orders and motions and things like that this group is even a higher level that it's it's a powerful one okay those people who were concerned about low sizing of this board do you have any concerns about the fact that the um budget and is stopping at the office it's from the city council response to that other cities have come up with it's not partisan ways to fund the novice like this at a municipal level someone would be like point oh two percent of contracts with like a fee my hand they do that partially and i'll be honest with you i was unable to to fully wrap my head around um what the rest of the funding how the rest of the funding it's my understanding that's just fortunate um and that's also an office of um you know some sense of people i think it's a city of my city has a two million dollar budget like 12 people and that's another thing i wanted to talk about that we haven't talked about yet um and not to let it start throwing things but i can't believe that we haven't talked about what the vision is for the size of the office and and you know what this budget is going to be because you have a lot of difference and certainly jacksonville miami i'm the one who always says you can't use the basic tables to do search they're different and i and i stand by that um miami is proportionately in population size just so completely different than the 40 gaffers and the eight million nine million somewhere in there dollars is not relevant um the city of jacksonville um population-wise and also bigger jacksonville people or whatever it is like there um the city of miami is two million dollars they just started there's a couple years ago and they are at like i'm sorry my numbers are going to be 440 and we're like 413 so not directly correlated but somewhat similar um and i think i bring that up because that's an awful lot of money when we already have an audit department and if there's issues with how those audits are going and people keep saying they don't go to city council when the direct language says city council by a super majority vote can answer them pursuant to ordinance to ordinance they could do a lot of things about getting those audits and if you really think that they want to have more direct authority over the audits it seems a much more cost effective way to go back to that section with the team that we are the rp for and having that audit they don't answer to the mayor like they they somewhat answers the mayor the mayor's allowed to correctly ask for them because they're obviously for departments and they can be right it's the longer part of the front so she should know if we're not going to report that's not something to think that's just that um but i don't disagree that city council shouldn't have i'm not saying city councils having audits but they certainly should not and if you know they want audits i'm totally supportive of city council having more ability to ask for those audits i'm not supportive of a two million dollar apartment and one person can't do all the things that we said in one section so it's not going to be alone for small and i just don't understand why we are so set on having this big expense in the charter so it can't be changed when we can make smaller tweaks with what we have i am so i am never going to be against transparency i'm never going to be against you know balance and checks and balance and if there's aren't enough checks that city council has right now um they're they said they're doing an investigation i don't want to get into america but like so they can't do those investigations and if we want to give them more ability to do that i'm all over that before a fully staffed office with benefits for the rest of the time when so much of this is already in there i don't understand i don't understand and i feel so inflicted on this because it sounds to me in my head it's like i'm not for corruption i'm not for you know covering things up i'm not for the transparency i am and i hate not supporting this because it sounds terrible and um and i know it's coming from such a good place we all want this transparency we all want steps and balances i want a strong city council i don't want a city council who rolls over to everything that the mayor does um they don't right now um but maybe they feel that they don't have enough tools and i feel like we talked about this for like six months and everyone said oh yeah they have the tools and now all of a sudden they don't have the tools don't have to spend all this money in perpetuity and i'm just i'm struggling and i don't want to get the business you're just holding up that's three quick points and correct me if i'm wrong but we decided not to micromanage the budget for this and leave it up to the city council to figure out that the the budget uh before this number two asking for an audit is not the same thing as being able to get it you're asking you know i don't know if they're uh city council is is turned down at any points after a um request for an audit and number two i don't want to take resources away from the administration in terms of sharing their auditors um and the type of audits that are done are not necessarily the same kinds of work uh that the uh inspector general uh would do probably i think right back to your uh points are very well articulated and with me at least um well taken i personally feel that it is a it's an unfunded mandate people have that budget um i believe that people are the ultimate arbiter and our city council and mayor elected by other people are answered roles into the people if they're messing up um i think we'd be better we'd be better poised to not create this position and to um clarify as the chair said to us when he was in front of us clarify that the um city council through its investigative authority has the ability to appropriate funds to investigate because that was the issue and i can i spoke to the chair of state as just to suggest that um i think what it does is it allows and look there's we all know city care there's a check and a balance between the matter and council i've never created our city government forms this is a month ago they're going to watch dogs against each other but mayor has some partners already city council has the ability to investigate matters the rub that the chair for us you have was not being able to fund those things i mean yeah i know we're down correction if i'm this whole vote on something so yeah i respect you guys i'll start the decision of the group but i think it would be um i think they have a better chance of getting approved by city council and getting about if we don't create the unfunded mandate position and we just go back to that provision and say not only do they have the ability that it is to investigate if they can appropriate funds from time to time it's necessary to take those investigations or um exercise their authority and recovery so i feel like we come in a whole circle in conversation very much like this when you decided you wanted an ig function any counterpoints to that by other than the majority who wanted to go forward with some ig function that was my and go to the market where we came in here today to try to manifest language in the charter so unless that gets reversed i want to get people who support this concept of an independent idea chance to remind us why we want it so that we can make some progress on this actually um i know what you're saying interesting interesting i just get it fast there is already a department h.r department in what they always say or what we call human resource department yeah there's already a charter department in the same facts people have gone to the h.r department fat retaliation or there's fear you could speak up the public have spoken up and said that that's happened to them yeah it's been said and so we have the ability to do something about it so i just feel like um i'm thinking of that if this is something that can help those people have some reprieve because i'm pretty sure that's a only a fraction of people that have had some type of reflection against them have actually spoken up so i just really feel like there should be some there's a feeling i don't feel like there should be something or somebody that they can vote to and they not fear that their job be in trouble that they cannot support their family and they can endure foolishness whether it's misogyny whether it's sexual uh arachnid whether a whole bunch of other things especially women that have to go through in corporate america like it really is it really is an issue and if you've never experienced it you have had blessed life but if you if you've been in that space with people over you that have no choice you can't go through anybody i think this is really important i don't think you should actually justify that position this board for multiple meetings has already made itself clear and we have voted to establish this on this i think to go back and make us justify our position when we've already justified it multiple meetings we're going to talk about the merits of the language i agree that you right should not have to justify it but can i just respond to ashley just perfect thank you i that is the part that i agree with i i don't agree with the duplication of audits the miami day has audits for the city council auditors for the mayor and auditors for the ig i mean to me that's insane i don't i don't agree with duplicating the audits i agree with duplicating going in and doing a professional review of how everything is operating in general because i believe that that's the job of the mayor and i believe that they do that every time anyone comes in what you're saying i agree i agree that that something could be done better to for that particular event and and i'm going to be narrow it you may get my support but with the broad line you don't and i'm not going to keep trying to i think the question is for those who just in principle um support that language updates for newer input i mean you know if we get that far i'm going to go back it has concerns wants to make you part of what's there and adjust some things kathleen's just talked about um the idea of it being duplicative and also expensive ron has issues every i believe everyone else wants they are saying the same thing right like if we said we wanted that we wanted to request the city council put inspector um general services or um you know the high skill sets within the office of the clerk or something that's somewhat independent independent about the mayor or whatever that gets selected or recommended by these nine people i mean i i'm i'm all for that sort of direction but i just don't i mean there's some of this in here that is where there's duplication i just don't think we're i think you you've expanded an inspector general role right let's go bobby and then you know um and then see where we stand on actually see if we get to language that we can live with just i've heard of so much just like to echo um garrett's statement i think we voted on having this here and you voted on a function or a person so let's talk about that respectfully value everybody's important to what you're discussing it's just i think different perspective and where we're at and now i think it's something in front of us well it didn't have this here now let's talk about it what we have and we wanted it to reflect our preferences and that's what ken has done since last meeting granted something like reservations about the concept of them i recall we voted whether it was five four six three concept of position then what we did is we all raised concerns very good concerns and ken went through if you look at the red line he tried to take him without everyone's concerns he may not have succeeded it sounds like he may not have but i thought of him okay and i looked at it it was a bit of a watered-down version than what we had initially looked at i read it i said okay it still was acceptable to me now if there is some language that would get my fellow i'd rather see this not enough a1 or 72 right and if there's some language we can find here because i think i suspect there's five people sitting in this room that would vote for something along these lines i suspect our chair garrett bobby myself and alan are going to vote for this okay okay and so i i this is good to get there but but i do think it important because bobby said it the things you're saying are very important and so if we can look at the language i'm a big believer and let's you know take a little bit of time and go through that and i would like to give from those the three of you is if you could embrace the concept this is going to happen but what language could be put in here that would make it more palatable and you know yeah what's wrong i mean the audience we're the audit party here this year can i just apologize i apologize i had you get on so we could see the screen you might have had that up for the last 20 minutes i have no idea can you go ahead steven i'll give you the floor thank you and no i um i just i just put it up um a few seconds ago um but i i did just you know want to point out there have been a lot of really great comments and perspectives um i did want to point out that fundamentally this is about functional independence so while there do perhaps appear to be aspects of this that seem seem duplicative i think they're not duplicative because they're not they're not functionally independent um the only aspect i guess of the current state that i view as i guess you could say an unfunded mandate is the fact that there is an internal audit department required by the charter today that's the only aspect that's currently required so um i would be fine with removing that as a required element of the charter provided that this you know this um version or a similar version could move forward to me the functional independence is the most important thing that will ensure that there's continuous faith in good government and and that's that's just my position thanks my instinct is that if you've got five people who want to proceed with it then anybody else is welcome to comment get an hour and a half i would not try to get the other people forward i would just try to get those five people on the group because as far as like kids see we've got five people we still have to get those five people to something but um and i'm happy this is our last issue nobody you know maybe we can work on this i mean this is the last issue we can work on it maybe we got some time is that correct is this the last thing we're doing as a group essentially yes it's the last charter change obviously i want to talk tonight a little bit about your loss of how we package it submit i want to show you an outline for the factual report it was literally the last item and i was going here ready without disrespecting anyone's opinion because i felt like if there are significant and enough objections the rest of the group could get us there but to your point bill which is a good one it'd be better if we could get some of your thoughts embedded but you're right we have a limited window and the train right now is heading to another meeting if we continue which is not a georgia state but it's just a fact so i'm okay doing that but with respect to those are different things but um maybe just to change up the vibe um you're saying sorry i i get told i have the great voice oh wow that was the opposite of the other part um all right lowball lowball def everyone can we get five on that five people think that that's okay def well welcome well about when we see it the last time the original version that is done the mayor with the council uh the group bass in their way okay and that's how it's written in another city oh sorry so i don't know how you guys do that's in the tournament i mean you know so those of you that are supportive of setting this up i think they should have a pointy body and a removal body and then you want to have the mayor and the city council beyond that but that makes it very political and it's not good i'm just going to go ahead and move it i move to accept language in ddf second the moon department then all in favor say aye aye you do hands yeah yeah that would help that too so all right we do answer eyes right yeah okay steven steven steven can you say yes or project it came up okay so we have five yeses to ds six thank you so what i don't see a while many air financials but now because there's actually i don't think this is just putting about three random somewhere another way now we have to get we're stuck we gotta like to start thinking a little bit you know oh no so you probably want to grab gh and i and see if we can do uh uh uh these are these are the last ones right um oh there's one more i'll move d and h are we just gonna do little pieces why did we need we gotta we're working with the subcommittee so we gotta come to the subcommittee like sciences do you want to do all the rest of them then or not did you just start to go to the diet but we gotta go somewhere we gotta move forward we didn't have any discussion about that last one i i didn't say discussion can we have a session yes let's have discussion real quick i feel like we we went from this space that we don't want this to be political every match person the people that can remove that can remove this person oh everybody's in that situation so i don't i don't agree with that because this committee that's one that's actually like monitoring their progress and what they're doing throughout this process they're the ones actually paying attention what they what they're doing i guess and they're monitoring like even the reviews probably been doing and then you have a city council and the mayor voting so some type of reporting have to come back to them i guess the difference is currently the administration has control over a lot of employees in the city all of them really whereas this would be both the council and the administration would both have to decide children some of them the mayor could not unilaterally take this person out but the council can you no no no no it's part of my directional but i feel like they're maybe shooting like if they say let's pull pull the leg back out and they both have to yeah the mayor's office and the city council is that one does it control right that's the check and balance so i mean i don't think the removal is so much of a problem that's the budget because it's the same thing you can give it your budget okay yeah i guess we have that after so about we're letting right we're letting perfect pdm be a good does that change your vote though no no but we are going for it i just need to hear what y'all's reasoning yeah for it um i just i'm really tapping on that so that when we're trying to i'm so done with politicians being in the in the process of this ig at all because they are investigating so i think we're talking about this as a that it's like an inquisition body who's going to be and i mean if you go back to you yeah i don't think five people have approved the scope of what the inspector general's going to do yet but i don't i don't think you guys are talking about the inspector general being like a target for like officials it's uh it's a a function like an auditor who's going to review performance and they can report on that only if again they're not on which funds they are going to receive complaints and if they do then they take it out and they are on the route yeah probably do you want to continue with trying to release some of these pieces forward that we have to do um yeah it's up to you what you wish to do i'm just scrolling i'm sure everyone wants to follow gnh are moved second is your movement properly saying it all over fame say aye answer hi that's stephen phil garrett um and you and david allen you know make a comment about i i think it's a bit restricted um just as an example if if we decide to go with a contract employee and then or a firm and then they're a firm or a contract individual is selected by the committee i feel like there needs to be some language on kind of how that works out and that work it's like it's just it's i'll just be playing it's it's a it's unusual that you would have language in the charter restricting the ordinance by which you would implement that section of the charter someone raised a big concern to the least for instance they didn't want someone for city council to come in and be right if they're supposed to done by this position so that was the concern about i call them yeah yeah any other ideas i mean i would say you strike it strike what we had um we had language in the first draft that was a further regulation by ordinance somebody want to move this here we go and then maybe it's a little bit more to change what what does this mean to you why are you why do you have a problem with it or whatever i think why don't you like why do you like this one over the other one it ties it kind of binds the hands of how this is this is no preventive and just as a broader um observation as it's written now this is this is probably i would say based on what i've looked at one the most restrictive um ig language of anywhere in this in the state it's passed out it's like this it in my opinion it's it's it's barely an ig it's more just like a reporting channel the way it's written right now i'm saying in general or specifics it's just in general the way that the way that all this comes together in this in this form function within the city of tampa's process of governance without an allowance and some budget you have you do away with that how do you function how do you even be affected i'll clarify i think there needs to be ordinances but i think having language in the charter that restricts what those ordinances it's saying um being repetitive but it's it's overly restrictive if you look at any other charter or in this in the state or there's a county or a city that has an ig there's pretty thorough language in ordinance for how that's supposed to work to guard rails processes limitation every you know all those the nitty gritty typically was what you saw what i've seen the target language is pretty short and then it's all flushed out of an ordinance but we've had quite a bit in our charter uh draft here i mean the vast majority of the ones across the state are not strong parents or strong council forms of government who have an ig to watch over the administration who's supposed to be implementing their policy now the big exceptions are obviously my immediate agents but the vast majority of the ones across the state are not are not analogous to the form of government and so it makes sense anyway it makes sense that they would be done by ordinance because they are done or the council to oversee the the manager and all of the manager's people to make sure they're implementing their policies that they say i look back and i have the old language the old language i want to see one judge the appointment reappointment term functions authority and penalty reporting obligations if the agency goes to the other city oversight of inspect regents further staff i work and i think the consensus at that time is that was that created an ability for me right to such a large many of all of this work we've done so can so i mean what i need to say is um i wouldn't i would not now support expanding it back to what it was so does anybody hear you know new issue but i didn't want that's what i'm saying yes i think that's where we're at right maybe they can find out that they're not that's the mission there's not that one two three four folks that's what i'm saying that's i think that's where we're at maybe they can find out yeah i don't know where we're at you want to see if it goes anywhere and we can keep you looking yeah okay i'm looking straight i'm oh no then y'all not standing on the right anybody setting okay nice all right move to include i is drafted by jim so second second right is the movement from the segment um all those in favor say aye we should have to ask did it go with it so they get anybody on the first one yes yes you don't want it you don't want to vote for it unless somebody else votes for us it would still get provided actually moving it still will get to five yeah it gets about it's six something yeah yeah so now there's something in there that you know okay let's continue oh i am to let's do this jerry i think that's saying okay jay's implementation that was there before that was there before i'm with jay exactly so we've got the same group here steven you favor um keeping implementation as written as was before yes go back to the top right now maybe we we uh grease the wheels a little bit pause that i'm done i don't see that at the pool of the creek you see even a straw house i don't know what do you think yes okay is he on the crew yeah isn't you really yes yeah um keep it going i love it that's great okay a little bit a a as amended by ken in the last version i'll let you go second thing all right all right all right all right all right okay same group steven yes a yes okay thank you all right beneath that did some quite a few changes there can made out the last office discussions okay now two suggestions one is to strike that it must be referred to the other first is that the referral clause i think the ig should have referred to be a watchdog and if you're only investigating things that are referred to you it's not really it's more of like the investigative channel it's very well to go to the city bar for you as a senator and bob either it's not like just the mayor and some councils may or a resident yes and you know listen if there's products who percolate up when i read this i kind of liked these i'm thinking wasn't in there someone's got to justify their existence and bugging around i mean i don't know it's just to me i like the concept that the check and balance was listen people got problems once they know this position's here once they notice how independent it is people are going to have a problem fine inspection so i can tell you i'm a telegraphic because i'm going to be here at 12 o'clock tonight it isn't i like this language and i'm not going to support them so i'm one of six other than me feel differently i'm just trying to help you upon count your vote and i agree i think the resident everybody has to say their son apparently but that keeps it open why don't i have both that's my point that's the both worlds it sounds like we're not going to get the power to do something without a referral you said you have two two those for your sex that can't remember anything was um this was frickin and in red shot the power to subpoena witness administer oaths require the production of records that's just standard parlance and essentially every ig position doesn't exist in this draft i mean verbatim from every single other ig lead you say that is common to me where it says where it's stricken shall have the power to subpoena witness and when it's your host and you mean the red that that's that's in every ig language i would like to have that bags it's actually uh it's a teeth there with a question the red language string it was in there that allow the inspector general to to subpoena citizens of the city town that's witnesses if the red language was in that as as it was before correct that's my quote in total yes okay i mean that was my uh i actually brought it up well i generally don't agree a little about that i'm just kidding about that was a joke yes that's one of the ways yes uh you know that that did kind of resonate with me um now i mean i'll talk to you about it i'm not saying that's a hard note but that's that was the better move for me as i go away um they've got a real broad net they can throw here within city so that's why i kind of like that language can i call on someone if i see their hand up i'd like to hear from my friend allison nobody wants to say something can i think you can because you just requested it allison why um it would be my opinion especially how they have used it to be able to politicize and if you have enough scared folks sometimes to subpoena helps people be able to come in and say the truth because then when the people come after them you have to tell them i'm subpoenaed and i had to talk otherwise away because some of the folks here in tampa unless you if you volunteer the information they will put you on the list and they don't go on a list if they want i just don't want to listen we don't want to i'm just i got the money on this yeah i need you don't care about my name it's not funny if y'all don't live there's some people need to make a living in here again again but y'all come here and i'm very good of generation from here and sometimes those of us who are not who do not have a bank account the ability to say i had to say this and i had to testify because they subpoenaed rather than i'm walking in here people say we wouldn't have come before and so now you're on police so you would include the ability to subpoena anyone is what i'm hearing if they if they are doing it fair for investigations they would they would call them in and ask me to testify no i'm asking you questions now to make sure i'm following them so i'm trying to get to the line so your language would be you can subpoena anyone at the city of tampa not arguably it relates to the investigation that's happening not just so so one thing i'm okay you're saying you're saying it's not you're responding to someone making a complaint and not going to do it to go after you now one thing i just said ken on this before i saw i didn't send it to you beforehand is i did have a suggestion that you could subpoena with it as subject to the florida rules of civil procedure florida law something like that that is a protection right because you can speak to me it doesn't mean i have to come and see right i mean it doesn't you can do live subpoena but you just go to court and file it yeah you could have checked it was subpoena you're not i want me to dance when they sit with you know i mean um there's all kind of ways to contest it i mean you got to have legitimate basis to contest it you can't just decide i don't i don't i want to be clear you can't check it out i'm going to be like no point you know it's harassment it's it's my private cell phone i don't have it you can't just yeah there's all kind of you know rules that govern okay if you've got a specific issue you want to see my cell phone you have to give me a search term and what i will give you is any text message that has ashley's name on it and she you want hers at my tech that's all you get things like that it's maybe a way to soften the book okay so my question's for you so on the issues uh the way that it was written before they can subpoena anyone and it's not limited after investigation audit review so they have to do an investigation audit review and then they can subpoena witnesses period like typically like and i'm not an expert in this because i have done litigation but it's been a while typically you're in litigation and it has to be related to your litigation or if like the police are getting a subpoena they have to go to court and it has there there's like a check and balance and my concern with this language and it's my concern with all the subpoena language and we're just you know willy normally around giving them people you know power so it's not limited to this office is the checks and balance what i hear you're saying is somebody has to go to court and fight it means that person then has to you know know how to do that or have a lawyer and so i i would prefer some limiting language and not getting on what i was saying but if you could not support the overall thing that we you also have by the way that the interesting part of this talked about before well if you kept that language in and give the rights of the rights of subpoena who enforces the subpoena i mean i got a subpoena and they're going to say yes you know see the whole thing objection yeah that's just in there and then i guess you could file an injunction or you you and that's even all about it yes it would be yeah i was just wondering i could not that i suggested that was the right way to do it right and so again i mean the limiting language you can subpoena all the people who have business with the city i mean with the same caveats that doesn't seem problematic but whatever you can they can um but they're not expanding it to witnesses and i do understand your point that like sometimes people don't want to appear and it's easier to say i i understand that but sometimes people just have to you know truth to power um i i don't know what else to say to that i i personally am not comfortable with really broad subpoena power because typically when people have a lot of subpoena power they have a built-in checks and balance and this one does that what do you think about to check them out what do you think i like the way that it's drafted because it's red so you can't subpoena here i don't know this you can you can subpoena you can subpoena contractors elected officials staff members people who have business with the city or are of the city but you can't go out and subpoena witnesses who may not want to you know pursue it i mean to the point that was brought up earlier that somebody was like i don't want to go forward and somebody's making you go forward like somebody doesn't want to play they don't want to be involved with this maybe they're like it's done but the department was going to force them to do it but as the allegation was the administration i i missed that i mean when i said i missed it i was focused on the nonsense but they have a stream of power for everyone that's working but they can accept witnesses oh yeah they can accept witnesses they just i don't like the idea of them you know they're making someone who doesn't want to if somebody wants to come forward to the city they can come forward to deal with the city and it's not that i'm discounting allison's point because it's a very valid point that some people don't feel comfortable unless they're forced but at the same time that people don't want to come forward and maybe an office witness with some procedures that can i mean i do a process that can do that i don't know if i don't think we have finalized the the group of recommendation people um but those folks had legal background so maybe any subpoena has to go to that recommendation group that you have enough like you have to have i don't know if you have to go to a judge for a subpoena you don't have to have reason to subpoena that person maybe rather than just recommending um that that group also able to approve any subpoenas that that would be a power of that group that's made up of i don't know if you could have any power on um i i um i support the way uh most of what's what i see in blue um i don't understand why there's a difference between subpoena for records versus subpoena um to appear um but i i do agree that that just anybody that's not connected to the government in some way there's there's no need to for this to touch those individuals um where i think the blue might be missing some people are really just a blanket anyone doing business with or funded by the city government i think that covers anybody else that's not currently written there in in blue that would be relevant to an investigation potentially contractor yeah contracts contract so if we stand in that a little bit stevie you you thinking we're better just anybody doing business with or funded by the city government and the reason why the word con i don't think contractor necessarily captures everyone because the city provides funding to numerous non-profits and other entities that are not considered contractors um necessarily so really it's just anybody that does business with or receives funding from the city i think steve's suggestion that we add that language to those that can be subpoenaed is appropriate but i do agree with rebecca respectful about it i'll keep that uh just to sit and keep that red lines there subpoena witnesses things like that you can subpoena anyone within the umbrella doing business for the city all of these things that gives you a little bit of a blanket i think this would be that's the only question that would be a constant of the expensive language to see but just to suggest that okay and that we otherwise have key epigenish changes is as he's living in breath and the witnesses it's going to be anonymous so a second so then it's been moved to properly segmented all those in favor say aye uh aye there's a statement is that a yes yeah i think that it was five okay so i think we're are we done with it it's a necessity but i'm sorry i just so um allison's point i can see that being an issue if somebody does that forward and there's some retaliation i would like to be able to go pick a button and walk with somebody little phone somebody and let my name not be brought to the i'm going to know like a hotline there are some constitutional due process notions that we're writing to certain circumstances confront your accuser so sometimes investigations maybe can't go forward if there's not if the person's not willing to identify themselves but if you're talking about more it's like a hotline or yeah just to be clear as written right now a person making a complaint would have to provide their name and contact him from it right the person that's making a complaint yes but a witness somebody else that saw whatever there's no uh requirement either way at this point they couldn't you know they want to remain anonymous it may not be they're not going to get any credibility because of that but they can remain anonymous the point that um i believe this is an ordinance that the ethics officer an ordinance in tampa is the official receiver no no sorry i've been to shame i have you at that risk so sorry we're all improving that so i'm just i'm sorry my point is that they're going to have to rewrite the word if we want an id to receive hotline calls we're going to have to rewrite we're not suggesting that they're receiving modeling that that's nothing that's the motion is not on tape they get a point i mean i feel like it's common sense they would have been you need to put the name on the way it straps you got to put your name on that's what you know we said they did referrals right but i don't know that we dictated the method by which was referrals i mean it would not be there's the manager the overseer of the broad hotline repair room there's no provision in here for a broad hotline and unless i'm saying you want to be enough that we can certainly let's add it i'm in favor of adding that right now it's the ethics officer aka hr well the ethics officer can be changed by city council they have it in the ethics code is legislative and city council doesn't want human resources to be developed they can change that closely on those hours is restricted but we can include experiments by the language in this chart if we want to say that the iga is going to respond to the broad hotline we're restricted from doing that because we would have to have something in ordinance and that's not included in it's not permissible in the language of the term that we have here am i reading that right well there's recommendations in here how someone would contact any member any resident we've scrolled well yeah it's just that we know the only thing that isn't included and what i'm understanding you're saying is an anonymous spotline where do we have the city has uh again it's not replacing anything the city has right now it's just the consensus that i took from the group last time was you wanted it restricted in terms of the ability for this individual to just go after individual departments on their own i mean i guess that's just part of my you can say one of the mental issues with this so somebody can report via the anonymous hotline and then that's going to get passed to the ig or network to the hr reporting you can go direct to the ig report go back to b robert so indeed there are things that's b to b okay it's important it's the first sentence so the office that will only initiate the office is a written request when a matter is referred to it by the mayor city council or any city staff member or resident who submits a written request which includes their name and contact information if we restrict what we can put in ordinance are you suggesting we have the word verbal or written because that would have worked around and more anonymous i mean if we're respecting ourselves not just different you can verbally something i'd be the main in the same way you would write it except what you're leaning towards because it's not just a method it would be a verbal method right i think yeah but it causes certain protections which they go on i believe right if you're reporting fraud again of course you don't want to mix and match state law provisions that deal with very specific roles what you're creating here you want to incorporate you can certainly do that here uh obviously you have much more open process than prior draft so that the consensus to group was to narrow that that's the language right here they need help you understand this so under the way that may pardon if i missed the sermon but the way certain now could be reported igb in office i think your name and contact it would it would not be no like in here will allow anonymous complaints to an hygiene or return i made my living of a tip wide for a couple of decades i can tell you that anonymous complaints are most often something you have can't do anything because if you can't track down the specifics of the evidence that or the issue that they're being referred to you you know and uh and uh and the times that tip lines have resulted in stories that i've been able to do is when i had i know who i'm talking to and specifics about um where what they're they're alleging so i i don't i don't know if there is a great um uh utility one but nobody's going to know because it's anonymous like it's like a background situation so when we discussed last time and i know there's a number of you in here that aren't going to support the whole proposal let's focus on just this one issue we have an inspector general we've got really capturing reporting requirement what's the downside and you know yes i understand what is the downside of an anonymous anonymous proposal if i get a package it says i'm scared to death i'm i'm not going to tell you i am but i work in this department here's the issue you should really really take a look at it but i'm just keeping my head what's the downside there's this just talks about how the check and balance on the issue something something an anonymous person sends that package the city council member refers to that they've got to achieve the investigation but okay okay good okay then order any ready to remember over the public or city attorney or whoever i got you so okay so in other words you okay there are so while the initial source may have been anonymous in other words you see if it's actually someone in the city takes it delivers it over to the ig then they go home i can't correct me if i'm wrong i'm just that's the way i read that as long as it's referred to the ig by one of those people who discloses their name because they're writing would that be the same for the m5 yeah the ethics department if they send someone over to the same thing hey i got this anonymous tip and i'm sending it over to the ig this morning whatever any staff member can refer something i mean the way it's written right now so if they had anything out of in public mail they would send it to the ig if it was uh yeah they're going to refer it over so i think you're going to be covered there yeah like a city employee to a member of city council and be like look i have some problems i can't come out there but do you take this things back and get them to have the process yeah that's it's fine i i think it's i think there's just some uh some of my original uh differences are surfacing error and there are certain parts of this that are duplicative if we don't get an ig more authority and power than this here i'm going to let it go it's just it's just a little bit unusual to me that you would have an office that investigates fraud but the fraud hotline doesn't go to them just doesn't make sense so but we move on okay it's really exciting we're back here right but at least we got a lot of this so this is the last of the letters and scientists so they're either part of the group of six yes is that commitment how do we get in five exactly this is right i'll now let me see because i'm not even going to say when it's going to be i think there are two things at the table along with the membership here this is john no selection right i would i would then move to change this article from inspector general to alternative reporting avenue or channel or something like that that's what this is but i'm going to hold on with this one let's do good to get it done all right so we're we're what's the proposal for this you're taking a little home and what it looks like here and it's uh assassin as is we tried it early we didn't want to believe that you know adding a night which was built it up and everyone seemed to to support unless we want to do it where i moved three through eight plus ten minutes do what we get and then i think we need six or five at least okay so who disagrees with three through i don't think anyone does anyone this way it's all about one and two so if we didn't know any and i believe i believe garrett used to pour removing one and two right so originally it was one two three four right there's five four uh one two yeah um once this is passed the council council has the ability to change whatever they want they're also they're also able to say they're not taking right feedback from the administration the public to craft whatever like this so when they go to business rings on the bell is that correct that's correct that's correct anything that council anything would have to go into an ordinance and have a public hearing and all that i think that being said um i could look forward as this agree with one two with really just as it's that's right and i would also accommodate the stats of the i'm just even nine points yeah i agree um i guess someone needs to throw that over oh okay motion being once the weight is drafted and added that's right so i guess we're gonna say yes right steven just confirming all of the polls nay What are your name? We got them all approved. Can't lose a baby. Well, I agree. It's just now that it took a little while. Actually, that's right. They're going to try to screw this up. They are, so. Honestly, they can do anything that this group is forward, but at least we have that done. Okay. Name us the same. Just. Okay. So, four. Okay. Well, so I think that is going to use charge specific dialogue discussion votes, etc. Congratulations. These were a result of actually public comment is what let us down these roads. We brought about what we want to talk about. I wanted to raise this question. I did talk to Ken about it and he advocated for us to discuss as opposed to. Say what we're going to do. So you were talking about two different things. We're mandated to do the first, which is to, you know, submit to council. Basically, all of our suggestive changes, which we threw out the last four or five months have agreed to and are all reflected in the source document. The reference document that Ken has been updating to share. So that's out there. The question is really, I asked Ken for disclosure. I said, what's the process to get this to council? Does Ken let it know? You guys all look at it. Double check. It looks good. It is approved. And then he goes from Ken on. Does it come from the chair? So his recommendation was, let's just get the group's thoughts on the best way to package and submit. And then we'll talk about the second item, the seventh item. So I don't know what the protocol is here. I mean, we have the context as a matter of format and process. Do you have thoughts on how to do it? I mean, could that be right at the home, correct? Sure. With all of us on me. I mean, what are your thoughts on that? It's really, how do you want this to be memorized? Do you want this to come from the group via the chair or group? Do you want this to come from me? How do you want this package that gets then turned over? You could turn it over, but it should come from this committee if not. Do you want this to come from the group via the chair or to all of city council? That it goes to city council. The whole thing will go to all of the world. There were some dispute in the past meetings over what the final document looks like. So that's what I'm looking for guidance. I thought you were asking me to deliver it. Michael, what does this look like? I think it should be in the form of a red line of the charter. Or I think we're not into how, I don't think we're in a position to wrap ballot language, right? It's up to cancel on the city attorney and stuff like that. But I think the most straightforward approach is a red line of the of the charter. It shows very simple two or three sentence covers from the chair. We want us all to keep on it. That's fine, too. It just says. I should know more about how many meetings we had. I mean, there should be some because we came into this. There's nobody here. So not not to get anything else, but just some facts. So the next people that come in can say, OK, because I remember our first meeting. We're all said, oh, you're going to be married. We'll be done in May. We do this. It's now August. So so and it's not to say it's just to say we're Indian experts. I mean, some of the things that we learned in terms of it for the next group that comes. I would say it was an honor to do this. You know, we all learn a lot about the city. We added. You know, who came and spoke to them. Yeah. I mean, we do now. I feel like you can, you know, have it saved to the next people. And it does have to be, again, I'm talking about paragraph. Right. You know, just like you're Indian experts. Get your facts. You know, we met this many times. We, you know, it's so like feel like you can get additional resources beyond just who's in the room, because I think we sort of attended with that at first. And then we were like, OK, when no one said, OK, well, you can get these people going. Oh, OK. Get bringing this work. So I think some of that stuff is like just a summary. And then to thank them for the honor of, I mean, and have all our names on it. And then have the red line. When, when we discussed this last time, I have brought us this broader concept in mind, but you're saying, Kathleen, I think what the group's direction may have. Let's just cite the facts. You also discuss concepts like suggestions for the future. The primary one that was raised is this notion of, so we can either work as a challenge or suggestions, but it was really around the way questions were brought to us, really just for consideration. Build more flesh. Right. So my point, though, is, I think this group said, yeah, we don't, we don't, we don't want to criticize anything that came to us on method reference. Right. We, we can decide, but I have not included here to, to just suggestions that are on the flip side of that. We might say solicit input in a structured way from these parties. I think that may be valuable. But in any case, I, I'd look for a bird draft. The, the, the kinds of topics I think would be of value. I, I did, uh, in, in concept run, run it by the chair only because he's been on my point of contact and there's work to do here and he advocated it on its face. We haven't really gotten into detail. Yeah. So this would be some of the things we could talk about. Background appointees, key dates, logistics, around how we met, where we met, the technology, um, room preparation, even parking. I mean, a lot of these things presumably will help the next group and the next group's facilitator attorney, leading management, public comment. The good news is we can do this in a way that is either all document or linked to sources that we all have access to. So we have a solution. So I guess it, but when we talked about that, I think Ron, you made a point, you know, what are we bound to do? And that's to really cover the charter, recommend the changes. So we, we can either batch it all together. Um, we can keep it extremely simple or we can kind of do a hybrid where we have kind of an introductory page summarizing the key points, the charter changes, red line, and then maybe this is a, a separate deliverable in that case. It's an appendix, you know. Yeah, pick an appendix. I'll, I'll follow through this lead, but we just need to know so that we, we capture it all. I mean, we didn't have anything started. Right. It was like, nobody had any record of anything in terms of that process. And I don't know. I was just going to just do it all. Yeah. I have a concept. So perhaps it's a summary on the front end, expressing, again, a summary of our process and what we went through beyond, depending on the, all the rest of it, but professionally. Details or not. Right. And then we can say, you know, C, Y, Z around the details that can get to the, the issues you care about. But then the next is really the charter changes. Yeah. You have to see it. I think we have time to do this for you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But if that works for everyone, that probably has no balance. I would say. Yeah. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I apologize. Go ahead. Stay away from justifying what it did. I've said that before. Yeah. And we're talking about opinions on what worked and what didn't. I agree. We may not all agree on all that stuff. So what we, what we're agreeing on, if we're going to do this, I would, I would suggest we show the boat too. I don't know if you want to show who boated, but I, I just mean like this past four to six or this past, maybe two kind of thing. Yeah. That, that to me is more important than where we parked driving back. So. Yeah. We can do that. I mean, when we look at this one we did today, that's a lot of little pieces. So I just, I just don't, we just have to think about how that looks and flows. Cause it wasn't always clean. Like we'd have to like, like today we wrote this in a set of eight parts. So it just depends, but, but we have a record of that. I don't know. It's in our minutes for sure as well, but we can, we can tweet after you see a product that we can work for a group and like go along. Steven. Steven. Steven. Steven. Steven. Steven. Thank you. Yeah. I think a lot of the, um, things that we would like to convey are really, are already captured in the meeting minutes. And so I, I, um, I really strongly advocate for us, including all of the meeting minutes. We didn't have that many meetings and the minutes were not that long for each meeting. I think we should include every set in our report. And if there's a question about a vote or a specific topic, they can refer to the agenda where that topic was discussed and review the minutes. But I think as we've already all approved the minutes, I think, again, if we just focus on that, since all of those documents have already been voted on by this body, we shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel by creating new, you know, uh, narrative that describes what happened. We, we've already done a lot of that. Again, I like the outline here, but I just don't want to reinvent the wheel. We don't have enough time for that. Really helpful. I mean, thank you, Steven. When we have all of these pieces, is it our belief we should have a healthy appendix attached to the summary or that they're, they fly separately for your thoughts? Keep it all bundled together. You know? Okay. Either way. In 10 years or eight years. Okay. Now we're going to find where we have that. We can mark our time basis. And then, um. Is that sort of a regular reporting of this group? Or is this, the, is this council asking us, did we really actually have questions or not about this? I'm going to do it. No, that, I mean, okay. Okay. So this is just the right example. And, and, and remember those questions came to us in naming that number of report considerations. So it was just kind of prompters for us. You know, we, we didn't even bother. We. Starts. So we have records to that back in various forms. Yes. I have a specific question. Um, if the clerk is going to keep copies of what was handed out today, I don't want to have to. Yeah. The paper copies. Okay. I just, I don't want to destroy it if I was like the keeper of hefty. But you can always give it to me if you want to. In terms of, so we have some, some direction. Thank you for that of us. In terms of the means by which this group provides their feedback. It is, I guess the question is, do we need to reconvene in person for that process? It can't be done. I think you've heard that before. So that would look like. What? And I don't think we can go virtually. Thank you. You're a typical sunshine group. You don't have to be on that. Okay. So that we're, if you all agree to it, they don't have the meeting, but the odds of that I think are specific. I think we would. I agree. But who knows? I mean, we've been, we really have to have, like, we really have to have a written thing and then something every three hours debating like that is if we just not turn over our work product. It's already voted bank on the work product. That's up to you guys. That's up to you guys. I think that's really important to have something that talks about all that that come in here and debate us all the time. The way to re-approve it. I would seem to be debating the question. In other words, we've got to see. I think we talked about it as the final product, right? The final product at which you pointed out on that is the red line chart. And we all agreed that we wanted to see it at one last time. I think what we're talking about is getting together to see the memo. Well, whatever, I like this. I just asked a question. I would presume that the red line, we've already seen every red line that's going to be in the report, we've already voted on. So it's possible with a title or something that can't correct so many sentences, but I don't think it's awkward. I think what we're talking about is getting, reviewing a memo. Right. If you want to have a memo that we've been talking about here today and want to approve it, then you're going to have to update it. If you want to delegate that to us, working on it, we can do that. It's just you as a group can only act via your meeting. We can't have comments from one of you and then another comment from another group member. That's where we keep running the subject from. So that's why we're looking for direction as to where you want it to go with this kind of report. My personal take is, as long as it has the strikeout language that you said, that's the substance of it. That's the part that we're here for. All the dressing. I trust. I personally trust you to do. I would feel the need to come back just to sit for 10 minutes and flip through and say that we love it. We probably leave on this. I think you're advocating for having a memo that covers such things, but just us not doing it, but it comes from us. I mean, if we had all the value mentioned, trust can drop. Well, no. I'm fine if you're a consultant, you were hired by city council, you can write a memo to them. And we all can. I mean, we all have the right to communicate with council with their own independent thoughts on it. But if it's going to come from the crew, it might be better with you. And unless it's a, they stick attached. Well, I certainly wouldn't want us to be 99% sure it's spot on and then someone spot something they didn't like. That would be a problem. And it would be an unfortunate end to a lot of hard work. Now, where we are, it would only be that round of changes. It would certainly come back again to make sure they were done. But it would also probably, I say probably, hopefully a brief meeting. What part of this would be up to the base? I mean, this is all actual things that can be styled without input. Yeah, it would be styled. It could be styled and changes on detail and that sort of thing. I don't know. I don't know if it's a couple of points, but it depends on how it's memorialized. It's the point that any memo that is produced, if you want it to come from us, we have to be in this room to approve that. So, would it be possible for the memo to be distributed, for us to digest it? You need for, you know, a short period of whatever it takes just to be able to sign off on that. I think. Yeah. Yeah. I think we're balanced with some of them. I mean, we had very few edits with Ken's sort of summary that sort of on the top of the conversation the last two meetings. And so I think these guys have a good sense of the verbiage around which we, you know, were within. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I would use Ken as anything I've drafted on my hand. Yeah. Yeah. Because our value is input and, you know, we've all been in the same rooms that we want to make sure we get it right. Yeah. I mean, just from a matter of, of course, it's, it's not really a good form to put their name on something that you've ever seen. Totally. So we either have a compromise or we don't have, frankly, I think at the very least, I would be comfortable having them send the memo. I also think it's bad form for us not to have the memo that I think it's kind of like talk about which at least a paragraph, but then we're meeting anyway. Yeah. So, very good point that your minutes from today are going to be complex and we would want you to review that as well. Yeah. Yeah. I want to get the votes correct. And if I made a mistake, I want you guys to be able to correct that and let, you know. Sure. You don't make it to me, but I think it hurt. Well, they said it wrong. Yes. Okay. That's just the idea of the dollar. That's super simple. So are we all ready to one more short meeting? Yeah. How about it? How about it? How about it? How about it? How about it? I mean, no, so many today, there's no way of getting out of the dollar. I mean, this would have had been for after after. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I guess the question. It's a question as much as that would give us that would give us two weeks or even less if we send to you what to do. I think the first or the second Tuesday of September, the first time you meet in September, which how does that concept against today? The 8th, and I'm in a trip that I've had for a long time. We can also meet another day. August 25th and two weeks before. When's Labor Day? September 1st. I'm cool with that. That's cool. That would be the one I think. But I think it's three weeks. I think that would probably work for me. Make that work. Is that okay with you? Yeah, I'll send out one at the 8th. Put it on my calendar. Put it on my calendar right now. Does anyone have, besides the normal, objections to the first being when we next convened? Because I don't believe the next date works. It's just too many people would be away. Yeah. Any objections? Jason? Steven, looks like we're shooting for the first FYI. I will not be able to attend. I have a conflict during that time. But it may be difficult with mind. We're going to drive on another date. Well, it's too long. What else can I say? It's flexible. I'm going to put it. We're going to make it. We get an out. I can make it almost 10 minutes after Tuesday. So there's. Thank you. It doesn't. I mean, technically, I think there's an ordinance that says that we have a meeting Tuesday at 6th. Well, I can't. No, I don't think so. I think we picked our own. We just here. No. That's it. It was prescribed. The schedule was prescribed. All I know was when someone asked me, I said the second for Tuesdays. And I, and then we did it. I don't. I can see it's in a such file. I don't remember. I don't remember. But it's happened. I don't know. I don't know. I was trying to think of something that was easy for recording. I'm hurt. That goes to who's in. I think it's Monday too. Yeah. I could do Monday or probably Thursday. I can't do Monday. That would be the 31st, right? Thursday would be the third. Your first day. Me too. Me too. Can you do the Thursday, Stephen? I think you are. She's not going to be on the plane. She's not going to be on the plane. She's not going to be on the plane. No. Virtual participation on the table or not? I'll be on a plane. I'll be on a plane. I'll be back. So with the staff that you've been moving to Thursday, we can use Stephen if we have it on Tuesday. Wednesday. Wednesday. Wednesday. Wednesday. Wednesday. I prefer not to. What about the week that? Because our, when the ABS will be reduced. So you're saying that they have no labor. Yeah, that's why we're trying to do this the month before. We just used the time. Right now it sounds like the first is still the leading contender. I'm sorry. I said no to some employees. It shouldn't matter. Exactly. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. It's fun. We could be at the bar. Yeah. So let's all look at it. So let's all look at it. And if Stephen, if the group is still meeting, could he still provide feedback that someone else in the group could advocate for? If he couldn't attend on that. He could provide written feedback to the entire group. Yeah. And then that way. If no one responds to his feedback. Right. Or he can send it to me and I can send it to the group. Exactly. That would be the best way. So we can collect Stephen's feedback if he can't attend on the first. It's not as I would say. Yes. Conclude. Wouldn't want to exclude. It's just, but. No, he can't make the first. Okay. But he can respond. He can give me the feedback and I can forward it to all of you. And you can opt to incorporate that into whatever feedback you have or advocate for it. Not ideal, obviously. We want Steve from here, but we lose Kathleen and we prefer to take. So it sounds like we're. What about the fourth? Right. It's a Friday. I don't think we want to do the Friday. I know. Okay. Yeah. That's right. So it will be the first at six. We're going to shoot for doing this within an hour. We will have materials to in advance. Precisely, but we'll know sooner, but try to keep you posted on that. We will put an invite, uh, app to you. So it's in calendars through your tailoring. You know, you might need to forward it to your first one. If you use that with calendars, but we'll work on that basis. Okay. Make sure where it is. Yeah. We check that. Presumptment is us here. Honestly, ruin is less important for that meeting than the other ones. Because we're really just left in thoughts and making some tweets. Hopefully. Um, right. So I think we're good with that. I mean, the other business. We're probably allowed there to be honest. Do you want to do? You can get a photo. Yeah. Oh. Boom. Do I have any? I think we can adjourn. All of those things say aye. Aye. Those things say aye. Aye. Okay, thank you all for your time. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. And he has been insured at age 38 p.m. They have been insured at age 38 p.m. I am again, by heart. Good saying. They all were saying that you go off. Wait a minute. I'm talking about you. You're on a campus. The second thing you hear is stairs. You're on the stairs. You're on the stairs. You're on the stairs. You're on the stairs. What are you taking now? The next time. Awesome. I guess you need it for a little more meeting. Meeting.