City Council   2/5/2018

you

So the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Mr. Jones, do you have any responses to the roll?

Galvin?

Do we have announcements?

Anyone else?

Thank you.

to January 16th, Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor Walker.

That's being led by Chip Boyles over at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

So now we open it up to matters by the public.

First on the list is Michael Allenby.

Thank you very much.

I'm James Hingley.

Thank you.

Nancy Carpenter.

Thank you.

Jim Moore,

So we forced protesters to pass through counter protesters in order to get to their... Should I continue?

Page, can you stop the time?

Can we restart?

Thank you.

Vanessa Burganza

This is the goal of the We Are Here Festival, to create a sustained community engagement that transcends the annual event itself.

To you.

Michael Payne

Thank you.

Elaine Poon

We need real affordable housing now in Charlottesville, and we look forward to seeing Seville become a leader in making good policy.

Jeff Vogel.

You have a means to make it progressive.

Thank you.

Marta Kane.

So thank you.

Sharon Sinclair.

Good evening.

We need more affordable homeowner opportunities because there is nothing greater for the morale of the people and the city than proud homeowners.

Dan Murphy,

Thank you.

Angel Turner.

Hello.

Hello.

excuse me, when you create a vision and policy for affordable housing in this city, we need more homeowners in this community that look like me and have stories like mine.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Roy Vandorn.

Thank you.

This is what's in every hotel room.

La Shondra, Moore's Burger,

That is it.

History lives in our house.

All right.

Sorry, ma'am.

So I would ask that the topic of school safety, safety officers both be dealt with in a thoughtful and productive way before there's a problem instead of after there's one.

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

The individuals who have applied are online and what is the Civilian Review Board?

So that's online too and we can talk about it maybe at break.

Mr. Jones, I don't know if you have any updates to offer as to when we may have the facilitated work sessions on site happening.

No, we do not have those dates set just yet, but we are working on getting the facilitator for those discussions.

And thank you everybody for bringing these issues up.

Ms. Rice, could you read the consent agenda?

And item C, an appropriation changing the narrative blackmail achievement Bama Works Fund grant, $10,000, first of two readings.

I'd like to make a motion to accept the consent agenda.

If I may, I'd like to make one comment just about Mayor Walker and that's just about the item A that that $50,000 did come from the standard which was the development on West Main Street and it did make good on its promise to give $50,000 to the city for its workforce development program and $50,000 to the FAR, Public Housing Association of Residents for their workforce training program.

Alright, next is our public hearing for the revised council policy and procedures.

Mayor Walker, there will be a presentation by Ms. Robertson, a brief presentation, any qualifying clarifying questions from council.

A good portion of the first day of the retreat was spent discussing how City Council might revise its meeting procedures to accomplish a certain list of objectives.

So if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them, but I think the procedures that we drafted and that were in your agenda packet were intended to accomplish those things.

I guess it would be after special recognitions and before community matters as it is today.

Is that, I don't quite see that being reflected here.

putting announcements or community meetings and scrolling that on the television screens as you go through the first portions of your meeting.

I mean, a lot of the awards and the recognitions and all that stuff kind of takes a lot of time.

for the other seven meetings, you wouldn't have it.

That's all right.

Because if we're talking about increasing engagement and especially looking at social media platforms to do that, I just think it's important that if, I mean I'm not a big social media person, but if something pops up.

This would say you can't text each other to talk about that item in a way that members of the audience couldn't be privy to.

you know public meeting of a public body and have a one-on-one conversation about something that I mean you've seen that happen many times and most or would I mean the equivalent would be saying that you know two colleagues as long should not be able to do that and is that the intent of this?

Well you all can discuss that I mean I think that the

They're trying to figure out what are the right guidelines.

You know, did Counselor Hill say two or six or if it's a brief conversation and that sort of thing, that's not out of order or unusual.

and then the rules, especially the one about turning off the channel 10, is that on page 27?

We've already gotten rid of that.

It's number 8, it's just not bolded, sorry.

We're on agreement to get rid of it.

That was in the version that we were working from, so it's possible that you decided that but it didn't get revised in the document.

I guess that's something we can discuss, but I just don't think we should.

If an individual gets expelled, then they're just expelled for this meeting, but they can return the next meeting?

Yes.

Okay, I'll second that.

And then on

Are you all making motions as you go through or are you going to come back through later?

Mayor Walker-Maccaldi support in regards to her request for amending that language.

So you're going to come back after the public hearing and make all your final decisions?

But they have to be touted.

So are we kind of just dropping that?

It didn't even have to have a quorum if there was a certain topic that a couple of us wanted to go and really address that we had that flexibility.

We try to make the definition very broad.

So I just wonder if we shouldn't, or if there's a way of writing this, I don't know how you enforce a shall be informal and conversational, and I know because there was discussion about this and I get it, but I just would be curious what colleagues think or when we hear from the public what their opinions about requiring ourselves to be informal and conversational.

I think we have until everyone has spoken we wouldn't jump in but once we got to that it could be like we're doing right now where we're not having a specific order followed and that was just a different document than this and so I just think that was the language I was remembering being kind of agreed upon that we would still start with everyone getting opportunity to speak and that's when we went to that whole discussion around how long do we give each other and we kind of loosen that the same

I mean one way of softening it might be just to take out, it could just say maybe undertake an informal conversational matter and that would itself be a departure and it would be up to the mayor to run the meeting or you know how, but I just want to suggest that as opposed to shell because it's.

But you can certainly have that read however you'd like to.

Or be interested in the discussion.

I would be in support of that so that we can continue the conversation.

Any other?

What Ms. Walker, excuse me, what Mayor Walker means?

Any other comments?

You're fine with that change?

So if that's the three of us, do we have to talk about that at the end?

Well, I think we're going to talk about it all.

Well, if they're motions, then yeah, then you would do.

Yeah.

You have to do formal motions, so it's recorded.

Yeah.

It shall be informal.

So this is the public hearing on the council procedures and policy.

So for that reason,

Any other?

No.

Turn, if you have your time.

You can't skirt it.

So this is the public hearing for the council meeting rules and procedures.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

But we've got to make room and space available for the people who live in the city to voice their opinions to the city councilors, the people that we elect to represent us.

The record should be expunged and you all should pay me back my court costs.

Thanks.

And if you want to codify it in your procedures, I think I support the people who have spoken for that.

Thank you.

And I'd like to say to the lady, if I want to say something out there and say something to somebody that's speaking up there that I don't like, your white privilege do not count with me.

Good evening.

and I have a real problem with that.

What is the letter?

Page 28, section B, number, letter, yeah, section B.

I'm just trying to see where...

So they can do both, limit the number of speakers.

Or we can do neither.

Yeah, well that would be great if you took it out and didn't do either.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

but I think in a way it was a gift to us because we are going to show the world how to deal with this stuff and I think the challenge for you all is to be excellent and to embrace this and let's work together and show how it's done.

Thank you.

And now it's y'all's duty to take up that race.

Closing public hearing.

I don't know how long this is going to go, this item, but it could go for a while.

I would prefer we make the adjustments and get through it and then we can take our break.

So we should start talking about these things?

That is important and it also can be done in a collegial manner.

I can understand not trying to suggest people's motives, but I do think that there is something valuable in advocating for maintaining the respect amongst each other in regards of not attacking our personalities.

I stand.

Could you give me an example then of what you mean by what would you, how would that come across?

I mean, we're adults.

I mean, or me and my husband or our children.

OK, so would you be amicable with leaving shall avoid all references to personalities, but striking and shall never allude to the motives of council members?

I agree.

I do.

But if we have a quality audio recording as a starting point.

So elaborate on that.

I mean that's something I think that we could turn key more quickly with the ultimate goal though being that we are able to provide this through channel 10 and the internet in a video form ongoing.

It's just very vague and hard to follow, and it'll be allowed that, I'd say I don't have page numbers on mine, I just have the

Under Debate.

So just that first sentence, does anybody have any objection to that sentence about shall be undertaken in an informal and conversational matter, just taking it out, and then we go on to what it is about?

We can take it out.

I certainly support eliminating the two-minute restriction in the number of speakers at the end of the meeting.

That's just where I stand.

That's been a part of the conversation.

So if you had extraordinary circumstances and you agree

could do it, but it wouldn't be a routine thing.

We just have the option to be, the right to be able to do so.

That's right.

It should just, I mean I think that council, I think this is more or less stating the obvious because council can almost always by majority vote amend or do kind of mostly what it would like with rules as long as there's a majority vote and it doesn't violate the charter.

But that, it's just something that has been said that I think is worth discussing a little bit.

I mean, staff has to make their preparations later on.

I just think it's clear that for some members of the public, more time to speak is really valuable.

How would be in favor of the, of increasing?

So there was some flexibility, you know, that three minutes that they're speaking and then maybe we are responding and that there were still, I'm also just conscious of the fact that we have kind of expanded every speaker to five minutes is the total and granted there's a three-minute portion and a two-minute portion, but as I just think about

Thank you for reminding me, I forgot about that, that it really is like each person gets a five minute chunk, but two of those minutes are from a counselor.

So if they, if it's important to increase time, if people are seeing that they would like more time to be heard, then I think that's more important than a timeframe if we decide to respond.

I'd be willing to go to four minutes to see just as a inching along and see if that's enough.

We have to be prepared.

And we're going to be reviewing this in two months.

We have to keep that in mind.

OK. We could vote on it.

I think sticking with three minutes would be okay, and then we're going to revisit these in two months anyway to see how it goes, whether people felt more heard.

But the time increase is something that people have been asking for for a while.

I feel like I've heard different perspectives on that.

Yeah, I've heard very different ones.

I want to keep it at three minutes anyway.

We'll get to a starting point for the next several meetings and then I think we see what's working and maybe we'll have to revisit it again.

I have heard that from many different corners of the city.

if a county resident wants to come and then they just say well yeah I moved to the city last week there's no way for us to validate that I mean we're not we don't have a machine or we're gonna run everybody's address I don't understand how we're going to regulate that at all we make these decisions we have to think

There are several members on the list today that, you know, don't live in the city but that, you know, usually come and are very, you know, supportive.

And I think all of them look like they live in the city based on their addresses, or almost all of them.

Where there are two that didn't even, that didn't give.

Gather's not the first to raise it.

You know, that's a very different conversation.

But we open ourselves up for legal ramifications if we treat them differently.

I agree.

So we can revisit that another time.

Any other?

I would like to strike that.

So you're saying that you're okay with someone ceding their time to another individual?

So we're back to the time frame if the three minutes not enough and it's just someone else's three minutes that they're sharing.

So I agree with ceding the time but making sure we enforce people only speak once that night.

But that's what, so if someone wants to share their time and it's with someone who's already had time, then I don't see why that matters.

So that person is having more time to speak and that seems to be unfair to other people that have been signing up.

I mean the question is what's the difference between that and somebody just standing up here for as long as they want to talk.

They're just sharing it with someone that they choose to share it with.

But they wouldn't speak anyway.

The likelihood of that happening though is low.

Of what?

We've never even seen someone come and speak twice.

We've seen them speak twice, or else we wouldn't be having this.

Yes, we have.

So here's the thing.

Don't even get a moment

OK. OK. We can, instead of, so do we, somebody, want to make a motion?

In regards to the seating time?

Yes.

Yeah, I would make a motion that we allow for speakers to be able to seat their time or share their time with those as they see fit.

It's not if they've already spoken.

So if they want to give it up, then.

That's what I was going to say.

If they're the first person to speak, right, and then whoever the number 11th person is say that they cede their time, what is the issue with them ceding their time to the person who already spoke before?

From my perspective it is unfair, and that's just my perspective.

I'm keeping track of the items that you need to take out.

I can add that to the poll.

Mayor Walker?

I don't need to second.

She don't need to second.

You know, people may speak more than once.

Yes.

Wait, why don't we need a second?

All right, any other comments?

Did you have to decide?

OK.

All right, so are we ready to vote?

You want me to review the changes?

Was the last one decided upon by consensus?

The last item was speaking more than once.

So the two that I have up for a vote is three minutes versus four minutes and giving multiple opportunities to speak during each public hearing.

So it would just be striking speakers.

That's different.

As long as we have that portion clear.

So the last one that I need clarification on is make the ability to change the speaker rules by a majority vote applicable to all public comment periods.

And did you, any person expelled from council, did you mention that one?

Yes.

Okay.

But there's still some that we're going to be weighing in on.

And the multiple opportunities to speak during public hearing.

You've done...

That's right.

What they're asking you to consider changing, I think what I'm hearing is to eliminate the rule that no person may speak more than once during any matters by the public, which is in a different section.

Okay, so you want to keep it in place that no person may speak more than once during any public hearing, including seating time.

It's only in the matters from the public because you've done the lottery.

Am I correct?

So I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what council's direction is.

You don't literally open matters by the public at the front of the hearing and then hear everybody until they're finished like you do with a public hearing.

But we're not.

It matters for the public.

As long as we have that part.

Do you want that also to, so the matters by the public, there's one on the front end and one on the back end.

Correct.

Do you want to say that people may not speak more than once on the back end?

No, that one's not it, it's just the first one.

On the front end, it would have to be, you'd have to get time from somebody who has signed up.

Correct.

On the back end, you don't care if one person wants to speak five different times, that's fine.

And as the individual who was, I guess, making that quote unquote motion or amendment, that's my preference, as you just alluded to.

But you can't have people speak multiple times during a public hearing.

Yeah.

No, you cannot.

So do we vote one by one or is it in totality or what?

Yeah, what is the process?

Okay, so you.

So what's the first, are you gonna?

Someone needs to make a motion and a second for three minutes versus four minutes.

I second that.

Or do we need to?

That would just be for the community matters and matters by the public.

Do you want to announce the vote?

That the vote failed.

The vote failed.

Motion for the next one.

I don't know what the next one is.

I thought she was reading around.

Right?

In both places.

What if you, I'm getting confused.

So he's going to make a motion for both the seating time and the speaking more than one.

But if you want to make a motion where you can't see time on the first but you can on the second, that's the other variation.

You don't need to see time on the back end because nobody's restricted.

Speakers are allowed to cede their time to others and speakers can indeed speak more than once.

Point of order.

You just strike that sentence.

From item DB, from section DB.

I second that.

We got like 10 motions going.

That's what we just did.

The seasons, I think we're done.

So now you move to amend the procedures.

So I'd like to make a motion to amend the, in totality, the packet of the council meeting procedures and accept the changes as such.

Second.