[Call to Order]
          [Roll Call]
          [New Business]
          [Legislation assigned to BUDGET COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES]
          [Legislation assigned to EQUITY, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, HOUSING, HEALTH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT/AUDIT AND APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to LABOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE]
          [Legislation assigned to PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE]
          [Pending Legislation]
          [48.
 R-136-24     PENDING:  A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SCHEDULE OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT (“COUNCIL”) FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025.
Action Required By:  May 7, 2024
Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]
          [49.
 R-120-24     PENDING:  A RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT TO CREATE A NEW COUNCIL RULE ON DISCIPLINE AND TO MAKE NECESSARY CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING COUNCIL RULES 8 AND 11.
Action Required By:  April 24, 2024
Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]
          [50.
 R-121-24     PENDING:  A RESOLUTION AMENDING RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT REGARDING METRO COUNCIL VACANCIES.
Action Required By:  April 24, 2024
Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]
          [Adjournment
Note:  Agendas are followed at the discretion of the Chair.  While an item may be listed, it does not mean all items will be heard and/or acted upon by the Committee.]
          [00:44:56]
          OF IN THIS UNLIKELY SCENARIO. RIGHT? I MEAN, ONE WOULD ARGUE IT'S PROBABLY NOT SUPER LIKELY 
          [00:45:01]
THAT THE REMAINING PEOPLE THAT TWO THIRDS WOULD VOTE, BUT EVEN IF THEY DID, I WOULD SAY MAYBE 
          [00:45:07]
THE OTHER 12 ALSO WOULD CHANGE THEIR MIND AND SAY, OKAY. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE SORT OF GETTING TO 
          [00:45:12]
ME, IT'S SORT OF TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN TO AN EXTENT. SO. BUT I DO THINK IT IS DIFFERENT. 
          [00:45:21]
THERE ARE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE. THE SAME LEVEL. JUST MY THOUGHT. YEAH. COUNCILMEMBER. 
          [00:45:35]
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT IF IT'S NOT THE 12 THAT'S BEING IN THE 
          [00:45:41]
DELIBERATION ROOMS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE, THEN WE'RE WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE WE COULD 
          [00:45:45]
SAY THE REMAINING TWO THIRDS. AND THAT'S JUST A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WILL BE 
          [00:45:51]
DECIDING UPON THIS PRESIDENT'S DEMISE OR, OR FUTURE. RIGHT. CORRECT. BUT WITH THE CAVEAT 
          [00:46:01]
THAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE OTHER 12 ARE FUNCTIONALLY ALREADY IN THE. YES CATEGORY, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A MINIMAL NUMBER THAT I MEAN, BECAUSE COUNCILMAN KRAMER'S ARGUMENT IS THOSE 12 ARE ESSENTIALLY ALREADY SAYING. SO THE ONLY THING IN ADDING THEM THAT COULD HAPPEN IS FEWER PEOPLE COULD VOTE YES IS SORT OF THE LOGIC, RIGHT? NOT NOT MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY COUNTING THOSE 12 FUNCTIONALLY AS YESES. OKAY, I DON'T I JUST DON'T SEE THE HARM IN ALLOWING THEM TO BE IN THERE BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT SAID, THAT'S NOT SO MUCH INTRODUCING NEW INFORMATION, BUT SOMETHING COULD COME TO LIGHT. 
          AND IN YOUR SCENARIO, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING. SO YOU KNOW IT, YOU KNOW, I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS AND YOU KNOW, SEEING WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS. BUT THAT'S JUST MY TAKE ON IT. OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THAT ONE. SO WE NEED TO MAKE A I MEAN IT'S WRITTEN WELL RIGHT. IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YES IT DOES. IT IS WRITTEN AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN YOUR RULES AND THE MATH JUST DOESN'T WORK RIGHT. SO THE CHOICES WOULD BE EITHER TO ALLOW THE 12 WHO BRING THE CHARGES TO ALSO VOTE, OR TO SAY TWO THIRDS. OR YOU COULD PICK A DIFFERENT NUMBER. YOU COULD SAY THREE FOURTHS OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS VOTE TO MAKE A DECISION. YOU COULD ALSO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO BRING THE CHARGES. I MEAN, THIS IS YOUR ALL'S RULE AND YOU CAN MAKE IT WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO. 67 SEE, THIS IS JUST OUR RULE. 
          THIS IS JUST YOUR RULE. YOU KNOW, HOLLY, YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT THE NUMBER OF CHARGING MEMBERS SHOULD CHANGE. I THINK IF WE DECREASE THAT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE PALATABLE. WHAT DO YOU THINK, COUNCILMAN KRAMER? SO I I'LL CHIME IN HERE, AND I THINK MY GUESS IS PART OF THE REASON OF IT BEING A FAIRLY HIGH THRESHOLD IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE, LIKE, A ROGUE GROUP THAT ARE SORT OF CONSTANTLY TRYING TO UPEND JUST SORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF COUNCIL. RIGHT. OKAY. I HEAR THAT NOW. SO I FORGET THAT I'M BACK TO THE 12 VOTING. OKAY. SO MAY I MAKE A MOTION? YOU MAY MOVE THAT WE CHANGE THE RULES TO REFLECT THAT THE 12 MEMBERS BRINGING FORTH THE CHARGES ARE ALLOWED TO WHAT AM I TRYING? WHAT WHAT IS IT? OUR VOTE WILL BE VOTING FOR? WE'LL BE VOTING IN THE DECISION FOR REMOVAL. 
          RIGHT. SO BASICALLY IT JUST REMOVES THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE IS ESSENTIALLY THE AMENDMENT. 
          WELL, PART OF THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE. YOU STILL THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL NOT CORRECT. SO OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT. SO EVERYTHING AFTER OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT. SO IT WOULD NOT BE COUNTING THOSE 12 VOTES. IT WOULDN'T BE COUNTING THOSE 12 PEOPLE AS AS YES VOTES TO BEGIN. 
          CORRECT. ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE ON THE DELIBERATION. I STILL HAVE A PROBLEM THAT YES, I COULD SEE CHANGING THE I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IT SHOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY, WHICH WOULD BE 12 PLUS SIX. YEAH. I MEAN, I COULD SEE THAT 12 PLUS SIX AND THEN IT DOESN'T BE TWO THIRDS OF THE REMAINING BECAUSE THE REMAINING IS 14. AND SO 13 BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S OUT. YEAH. RIGHT. SO 
          [00:50:01]
IT STILL IT WOULD TO GET TO TWO THIRDS WOULD BE 613 SIX. YOU NEED MORE BECAUSE SIX IS HALF OF 13 YOU NEED TWO THIRDS OF 13. SO YOU NEED NINE TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. YOU WOULD NEED A SUPERMAJORITY. YOU NEED 14 RIGHT. NO. SO IF SO HERE'S THE. YEAH. SO LET ME YOU ACTUALLY NEED A SUPER DUPER MAJORITY. BECAUSE IF YOU REMOVE IT. SO IF YOU IF YOU DO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, OKAY, IF YOU USE THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE SUGGESTING, WHICH IS BASICALLY KEEP IT LIKE THIS, RIGHT. THAT YOU REMOVE THE 12 AND YOU NEED TWO THIRDS OF THE REMAINING. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING TWO THIRDS OF THE TOTAL COUNCIL, WHICH IS 18. AND IF 12 COUNTS TOWARDS IT, YOU NEED SIX MORE. BUT YEAH, BUT IN THAT SCENARIO YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE THE HEARING, OKAY. THERE'S ONLY 13 PEOPLE VOTING. SEVEN COULD VOTE NOT MOVING FORWARD. SIX COULD VOTE. MOVE FORWARD. THE 12 ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO WEIGH IN. AND IF ANY OF THEM. AND SO YOU COULD REMOVE EVEN THOUGH THE MINORITY OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED BECAUSE THE 12 PEOPLE NOW CAN'T CHANGE THEIR MIND. RIGHT. WELL, AND I THINK YOU'RE STATING IT QUITE, QUITE ACCURATELY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH 12 PEOPLE. IT JUST IT STRIKES ME. BUT I HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT AND I'M, I'M ACTUALLY MOVED MORE BY THAT ARGUMENT. YEAH. IT DOESN'T SEEM WE LIVE IN A POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT. I THINK WE START THERE SOMETIMES A CONTENTIOUS POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, AND I CAN CONCEDE THAT IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IN A HEATED MOMENT MIGHT GIVE IN TO THE DESIRE TO SHAKE THINGS UP A BIT AND REMOVE A PERSON FROM OFFICE. DOES IT REMOVE FROM OFFICE RIGHT. I MEAN, FROM RIGHT FROM THE POSITION I CAN SEE WHERE A PERSON MIGHT IN THE MOMENT BE UPSET ENOUGH AND ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED AND ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE AND SAY, I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. BUT THEN AS THE DAY GETS NEARER, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MUCH MORE SERIOUS DECISION THAN I WAS FRUSTRATED OR DISAPPOINTED IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR THING. AND THEREFORE I MAY WANT TO CHANGE MY MIND. AND IF WE COUNT THOSE 12 AS YES VOTES, THEN WE DON'T ALLOW THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE THEY MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN CAUGHT UP IN THE MOMENT, AND IT MIGHT BE MORE POLITICAL THAN. THAT THAT LOGIC SEEMS SOUND. OKAY, SO I WILL SECOND COUNCILMEMBER CRANEY'S MOTION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO, COUNCILMEMBER MCCRANEY, IF I CAN RESTATE YOUR MOTION, IT'S BASICALLY IN THAT PARENTHETICAL IN 11.06 WHERE IT READS OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT AND THEN AND THE 12 MEMBERS, WE WOULD STRIKE AND THE 12 COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE ISSUED THE CHARGE. OKAY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. OKAY, HOLLY. YOU'RE NEXT. YES. WORKING ON DOWN RULE 11. THE. I THINK THINGS ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE. POINT I WANTED TO BRING TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION IS THE EXPRESS INCLUSION OF THE ABILITY TO IN RULE 11.08 AND 11.09 TO IMPOSE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF DISCIPLINE OTHER THAN REMOVAL. IT IT IS PROVIDED FOR IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, AND YOU ALL AUTHORIZED ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. SO YOU COULD HAVE DONE THIS. WE BELIEV, BEFORE, BUT IT MAKES SENSE TO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR IT. AND THE PROPOSED RULE AFTER CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT WOULD ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE, EITHER IN LIEU OF BRINGING REMOVAL CHARGES OR DURING THE COURSE OF A REMOVAL PROCEEDING OR FOLLOWING A REMOVAL PROCEEDING. IF MEMBERS FELT LIKE THE CONDUCT WARRANTS SOME SORT OF DISCIPLINE. BUT DOES NOT WARRANT REMOVAL FROM COUNCIL, THE ALTERNATIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE PROPOSED IN THE RULE INCLUDE AN ADOPTION OF A FORMAL CENSURE, WHICH IS DONE IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL. THE REQUIREMENT OF A PUBLIC APOLOGY READ INTO THE RECORD. THESE ARE. 
          THESE ARE ALL NOT CONTROVERSIAL TYPES OF THINGS. REMEDIAL TRAINING. IF THE CONDUCT, YOU KNOW, WENT TO SOMETHING THAT THAT WOULD SPEAK TO ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND THE PROPOSAL IS THAT ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE BEING A LESSER MEASURE THAN REMOVAL FROM COUNCIL, WOULD 
          [00:55:01]
REQUIRE A LESSER VOTE, 14 VOTES RATHER THAN 18 VOTES. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCRANIE. THANK YOU. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR REMOVAL. IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO, IF THEY ARE NOT REMOVED, THEN WE COULD DO THESE OTHER THINGS. NO, THIS IS A POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTE. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE I MEAN YOU MIGHT HAVE A MEMBER THAT YOU SAY, GOSH, THEY DID SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE, RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF REMOVAL REALLY. AS HOLLY STATED, UNDER THE RULES, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, WE COULD DO THESE ALREADY. AND IN FACT, THROUGH SOME OF THE SETTLEMENT MEETINGS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE SOME OF THESE THINGS IN IN PREVIOUS CASES, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE CANNOT CONVENE TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM OFFICE. NO, YOU COULD THAT IS SO BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT IS ONE COURSE OF ACTION. BUT IF YOU DON'T THINK IT RISES TO THAT LEVEL, BUT THERE IS SOME THING THAT HAPPENED THAT THE THAT COUNCIL SHOULD POLICE THEMSELVES THAT FALLS SHORT OF THAT BAR, THERE SHOULD BE SOME OTHER ACTION THAT'S WHAT THIS AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT THIS RULE CODIFIES, WHICH IS NOW SORT OF IMPLIED THROUGH THE USE OF ROBERT'S RULES. YEAH. AND I AND I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I WAS UNDERSTANDING. I WAS JUST MAKING CLEAR. COUNCILMAN REED, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THOUGHT WE HAD THIS PRETTY MUCH ALREADY. BUT IF THIS CODIFIES SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN I'M ALL FOR IT. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME OTHER OPTIONS IN OUR TOOLBOX IN THE VERY UNLIKELY EVENT THAT SOMETHING WERE TO COME UP AGAIN. YEAH. AND I THINK THE ANSWER TO WE HAD THIS ALREADY IS SORT OF RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S MORE IT'S MORE ABOUT READING YOUR RULE THAT SAYS YOU FOLLOW ROBERT'S RULES. IF YOUR RULES DON'T SPEAK TO SOMETHING. AND SO YOU GET THERE BY IMPLICATION REALLY. BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE TO REFER TO ROBERT'S RULES. AND THIS JUST PUTS IT EXPRESSLY IN YOUR DISCIPLINE RULE. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OKAY. AND THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION JUST ARE NECESSARY CLEANUP BECAUSE OF CHANGING THE RULE NUMBERS AND SO RULE FORMER RULE OF 11 WAS ABOUT CAUCUSES. THAT'S NOW RULE 12. AND THEN THERE HAD TO BE A SLIGHT CHANGE TO 8.03. WE JUST ADDED TO THE TITLE OF THAT THAT THAT REFERS TO DISCIPLINE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS IN MEETINGS. BECAUSE THIS DISCIPLINE RULE NOW REFERS TO DISCIPLINE OUTSIDE OF MEETINGS. SO OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION HEARING NONE. THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. MADAM CLERK, A READING OF ITEM 50. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RULE TEN OF THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT REGARDING METRO COUNCIL VACANCIES. READ IN FULL. COULD I GET A MOTION IN A SECOND? A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN KRAMER. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WINK. THANK YOU. SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNTY ATTORNEY? YES, SIR. THIS NEW VACANCY RULE AGAIN SEPARATES OUT VACANCIES FROM DISCIPLINE. IS ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE AND MAKES CLEAR HOW VACANCIES ARE FILLED. NOW, IN LIGHT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S CHANGES TO 67 C AND INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTIONS THAT ARE THE PRESIDENT IS REQUIRED TO CALL AFTER VACANCIES OCCUR. THE SPECIFIC TWEAKS WE MADE WERE DEFINING WHEN A VACANCY IS DEEMED TO BE EFFECTIVE AND VACANCIES OCCUR BECAUSE OF A RESIGNATION, BECAUSE OF A DEATH, BECAUSE OF A REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER. AND SO WE PROPOSED IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS SENT TO YOU ALL SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS OF WHEN A VACANCY WOULD BE DEEMED TO OCCUR. AND IT'S BASICALLY THE FIRST BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING THE EVENT. AND SO IF THERE'S A DEATH OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, THEN IT'S THE FIRST BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING 
          [01:00:02]
THE DEATH. AND BECAUSE IT'S THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT, THAT TRIGGERS THE PRESIDENT'S OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A WRIT TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION. SO IT SEEMS IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S CHANG, BUT RECOGNIZING REALITIES IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY, A WEEKEND HOLIDAY SO THAT EVERYBODY'S MARCHING TOWARDS THE SAME GOAL, EVERYBODY KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT TO POINT AT THE ONE THAT'S MORE CHALLENGING TO PINPOINT IS REMOVAL. AND I THINK WE SPOKE TO THAT A LITTLE BIT AND WE TRIED THE RULE AS PROPOSED MAKES A REMOVAL EFFECTIVE FOR PURPOSES OF CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION. TEN DAYS FOLLOWING THE FILING OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AT THE CONCLUSION OF A REMOVAL HEARING. 
          THAT IS WHAT YOUR CURRENT REMOVAL PROCEDURES SAY AS TO WHEN A REMOVAL IS EFFECTIVE, THERE IS MINIMAL CASE LAW ON WHEN A REMOVAL IS EFFECTIVE FOR A CITY OFFICIAL. AND SO AGAIN, THIS SEEMS IN KEEPING WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, YOU DO STILL HAVE TEN DAYS WHERE A MEMBER WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO FUNCTION. BUT THAT COULD BE A GOOD THING BECAUSE YOU IF THEY'RE OUT THE DOOR AT THE PONT A VOTE, THEN WHAT HAPPENS THEN? RIGHT. SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR REMOVAL RULES, PROCEDURES. I SHOULD SAY. AND ALLOWS EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND IF A MEMBER WANTS TO APPEAL FROM A REMOVAL VOTE, THEY'LL HAVE THE GROUNDS TO BE ABLE TO GO TO COURT, SEEK SOME SORT OF INJUNCTION IF THEY'RE SO INCLINED AGAINST THE REMOVAL AND SETS A DATE CERTAIN FOR THE PRESIDENT TO CALL THE SPECIAL ELECTION. THOSE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE VACANCY RULE. I KNOW THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO SHARE THE VERSION THAT HAD ALL THESE COMMENTS IN IT WITH YOU ALL TO TRY TO FACILITATE YOUR REVIEW AND, AND HELP YOU IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING. COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE. THIS IS A RESOLUTION ALLOWING FOR A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE EYES HAVE IT. THIS ITEM WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. OH I APOLOGIZE, YOU HAVE. I'M SORRY. YOU DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, RIGHT? YOU HAVE ONE CORRECTION. THAT'S THE ONE YOU TALKED TO ME ABOUT. I DID. COLLEAGUES, CAN WE CAN I GET A MOTION TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER? SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I, I OKAY, WE HAVE TO. AND I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING TO, AND I APOLOGIZE. THERE'S ONE AMENDMENT, HOLLY. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. WITH RESPECT TO NOW, WE'VE GOT TO FIND MY NOTE WHERE I WROTE THAT. WHEN A VACANCY OCCURS WITH A RESIGNATION OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, YOUR EXISTING RULE HAS LANGUAGE IN IT THAT ALLOWS FOR A DATE TO BECOME A RESIGNATION, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE. AT THE NEXT REGULAR OR SPECIAL MEETING ON OR AFTER THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE LETTE. THAT'S WHAT THE RULE IN FRONT OF YOU SAYS. BUT YOUR EXISTING RULE PROVIDES FOR OR A LATER DATE IF SPECIFIED BY THE MEMBER AND UPON REFLECTION, THAT IS A GOOD ADDITION TO YOUR RULE. THE STATUTE DOESN'T PROHIBIT AN ADDITION LIKE THAT, AND IT SEEMS TO MAKE SOME SENSE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TIME THEIR RESIGNATION FROM COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING ANOTHER POSITION IN GOVERNMENT AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BREAK IN SERVICE, NO ONE IS. NO ONE IS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION DURING DURING THAT PERIOD. RIGHT. AND LET'S USE AS AN EXAMPLE WHAT'S COMING UP. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS WHO WILL BE DEPARTING. THEY MAY WANT TO RETIRE FROM THE SYSTEM WHEN THEY LEAVE. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT RETIREMENTS, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM LIKES YOU TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVE AT THE FIRST OF A MONTH. AND IT WOULD BE JANUARY 6TH BEFORE THE TERM ACTUALLY ENDED. SO IF YOU BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST MONDAY FOLLOWING, IT'S. YES IT'S YEAH. SO THERE WOULD BE A GAP. THERE WOULD BE FIVE DAYS WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A RESIGNATION BECAUSE IF YOU WAITED TO END YOUR TERM BY OPERATION OF LAW, YOU WOULD MISS JANUARY 1ST AND YOU'D HAVE TO WAIT TILL FEBRUARY ONE TO START YOUR RETIREMENT. SO THAT WOULD THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SITUATIONS 
          [01:05:01]
LIKE THAT. AND IN THE EVENT THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S NEW HOW YOU FILL A VACANCY RULE, THE PRESIDENT WOULD APPOINT SOMEBODY TO FILL THOSE FIVE DAYS, AND I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD LIKELY BE THE PERSON WHO WAS JUST ELECTED TO FILL THE SEAT. SO THE LANGUAGE TO ADD, YES, IS WE WOULD NOT BE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE IN YOUR CURRENT RULE. 
          WE WOULD ADD BACK THAT PHRASE OF OR ANOTHER DATE IF SPECIFIED BY THE MEMBER. YES. WHICH IS IN RULE 10.02. CORRECT. I'LL MAKE THESE CHANGES. SO THAT WOULD BE THE LAST. YES. THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY THE LAST STATEMENT. THE LAST PHRASE. YES. OF THAT, OF THAT SENTENCE WHERE IT WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE DATE. CAN I GET THAT AS A MOTION MOVED BY COUNCILMAN KRAMER? I'LL SECOND. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WELL, I JUST THIS SEEMS SO SIMPLE, BUT I'M JUST CONSIDERING. WHAT IF THAT PERSON WANTS TO EXTEND THAT DATE? BECAUSE YOU'RE. WE'RE GIVING THEM AN OPTION BEYOND WHAT THE NEW DATE IS FOR THE PERSON TO COME INTO OFFICE? I DON'T IS THERE NOT A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT THEY CAN EXTEND IT? GO AHEAD. HOLLY. COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY, YOUR CURRENT RULE READS NOT THE ONE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT YOUR CURRENT RULE THAT YOU ALL HAVE OPERATED UNDER FOR SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. ANY SUCH RESIGNATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AT THE NEXT REGULAR OR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL, OR AT A LATER DATE, IF REQUESTED BY THE RESIGNING MEMBER, AND THE OFFICE SHALL BE DEEMED VACANT AS OF THAT DATE. THE MEMBER COULD NOT STAY BEYOND HIS OR HER ELECTED TERM, WHICH WOULD END BY OPERATION OF LAW. WHEN THE NEWLY ELECTED MEMBER TAKES OFFICE, SO THEY COULD NOT EXTEND INTO THE NEWLY ELECTED MEMBERS TERM. OKAY, AS LONG AS THAT'S UNDERSTOOD, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPLICITLY SAY IT. IT'S JUST UNDERSTOOD. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. 
          NOW THE AMENDED RESOLUTION IS BEFORE US. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I, I ANY OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT. NOW THIS AMENDED ORDINANCE WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US. THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE STANDS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.