Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-04 TranscriptionPage 1 Council Present: Staff Present: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner Fruin, Jones, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Havel, Hightshoe, Nagle- Gamm, Sovers Discuss meeting protocol Teague: Well, hello, everyone. We're going to get started this January 4th, 2022. It is just 4:00 PM. And this is the City of Iowa City work session. And the, I wanted to welcome everyone and we do have two new Councilors, so wanted to welcome Megan Alter and Shawn Harmsen welcome to your first, well, maybe second official meeting, and also wanted to congratulate, uh, our new Mayor Pro Tem Megan Alter. So congratulations, and looking forward to working with you in your new role. We are going to move on to the first item, which is to discuss the meeting protocols and I'll invite our City Manager, Geoff. Fruin: Thank you, Mayor, uh, Council, good to be with you tonight. Um, I'm going to be just highlighting the memo that is in your December 30th information packet. That's IP3, starting on page seven of that packet. I'm just going to kind of walk you through, um, that, and then well be able to answer questions. Uh, Eric Goers kinda coauthored this memo with me and is certainly the right one to ask, uh, any legal questions or if you need clarification on legal requirements, uh, I will certainly defer to Eric. But, uh, I will do the overview, so the memo, uh, first, um, uh, talks about public comment, um, at City Council meetings, I think you're all familiar with, uh, Iowa open meeting laws. Um, the, uh, important takeaway there is that the case, the case law, when it comes to open meeting laws, really just, uh, as a minimum requirement, uh, says that the, the, the work of the government must be done in open session, right? So, uh, it's really the right for the public to observe, uh, the, the, the business meetings of the public. Now, there are exceptions to that, uh, namely the public hearings that you see on your agenda. So there are specific items in which you have to allow that public comment, and we note those on your agenda as public hearings. Uh, those, uh, commonly are planning and zoning matters, uh, public improvement projects, uh, you'll be getting into the budget soon that would require public hearing, uh, multiple public hearings as well. So the minimum requirement is you allow public comment, uh, uh, at those public hearings, you conduct those public hearings, but you don't have to for anything else. Now, Iowa City has a long tradition, well before my time, of inviting more public comment than, uh, than is minimally required by the, uh, Iowa open meetings law. Um, historically, at least in recent history, the Council has allowed public comment on any item. You can pub-, allow public comment on consent items This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 2 before you vote, or on any of the regular agenda items, uh, regardless of whether there's a public hearing or not. Um, you've also offered a public comment period, which allows anybody from the public to come and speak on non -agenda items. And that's not a requirement of, um, the state law, but it's something that, uh, Iowa City has historically done. Um, I would say, uh, uh, Iowa City, uh, is, is probably at, or near the top of the list when it comes to the, the most liberal public comment policies. Right? You can, you can pretty much come to the meeting and talk about anything you want within the rules that the, that the Council sets. That's not the norm for government agencies in Iowa. Um, uh, so again, I think historically, uh, Iowa City has been very proud to, um, uh, accept, uh, that level of public comment. Um, you do as a Council, have the right, uh, to, um, set rules, um, and, and quoting, uh, State Code here, "reasonable rules for the conduct of its meetings to assure those are orderly and free from interference or interruption by spectators." Okay. That's directly from, uh, Code. In recent meetings, uh, the Council has tolerated, um, interruptions and disruptions, uh, from, uh, uh, stemming from public comment opportunities. In the end, you have the ability to set the rules when you want that public comment to occur, how you want it to occur, as long as you're setting those reasonable rules and applying them fair and equitably across the board, you have that ability to do that. You do that in limited fashion already, right? You set time limits, uh, um, you have a time cutoff for public comment after seven. You have the ability, so you, you, you have the ability to kind of hone in those rules in a manner that, uh, that you see fit. Um, to be clear, Council, you, you can't, um, cut off speakers because of the content of their speech, right? I mean, if you're going to invite public comments, you have to invite, uh, public comment, regardless of whether you agree with that or not. So that we're not talking about content -based restrictions here, it's more time and procedure and order, uh, that you'd be, uh, focused on. Uh, and really, I think that's the, that's the challenge for, for you and really for all government bodies is you've got to find that appropriate balance between, um, conducting, uh, your meeting. You know, you're all elected to conduct the business of the City. You need to focus on that. You need to decide if you can do that, uh, uh, in the manner that you need to, you know, are you making the best decisions you can at 11 o'clock at night? That's, that's a question you all have to answer. You have to balance that with the benefit of having the public, be able to come before you and speak to agenda items or non -agenda items. Um, uh, we get in the memo to talk about disruptive individuals. Uh, and yes, we can, uh, they can be legally removed from the meeting if they're violating those rules and are, and are disruptive. Um, uh, that includes, uh, individuals who refuse to stop speaking when their allotted time has ended, those that repeatedly speak off -topic, as determined by the Mayor who's running the meeting, or those who interrupt the meeting from speaking from their seat. Um, now again, I think it's important that, you know, you have to make sure those rules are, are well - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 3 publicized, well-known. Um, there's various ways we do that. We put them on the agenda, we can put them on a screen. We can have handouts at the facility, they can be on the website, but as long as those rules are very clear, you do have the ability to, uh, trespass somebody who is being disruptive from your meetings. Uh, and, uh, I know many of you pay attention to government matters throughout the state of Iowa. You probably know that the Des Moines City Council has grappled with this very issue, and they have indeed trespassed individuals, uh, from their Council meetings. Uh, and I understand there has been convictions, um, for those trespassing charges. So whatever you decide to do, uh, we're here to help you craft those rules. I think, again, you need to kind of have that discussion on, on, uh, how you want your Council meetings to run, um, but just know that the rules need to be adopted. They need to be published and they need to be enforced evenly, uh, across the board. Um, I did mention, uh, if, if, uh, you know, pre-COVID, um, there were additional opportunities, uh, that the Council created for, uh, public comment. And that's just something I think I, I want you to consider, especially as, as a new Council, just getting started, um, listening posts were more common where Councils would break up into a pair of twos and take turns going throughout the community to get that public comment period. Um, we've had, um, Councilors do door knocking in the past as part of their regular, um, not just in campaign mode, but, but throughout their tenure, um, attendance at City events, whether it's festivals, Party in the Parks, things like that. So, um, don't just think of Council meetings as your only opportunity to get public comment. Um, just keep in mind that, uh, pre-COVID, we did a lot more of that, and we could return to that including offering those in a hybrid type of format, um, for those that need that. Uh, so that's a good transition into hybrid meetings. That's the other reason that this item is on the agenda. Uh, certainly you've heard some public comment, uh, requesting hybrid meetings. Um, I think Eric shared his opinion that the Attorney's office, uh, does not believe virtual comments is legally required. It is not legally required. Um, uh, but you have the ability to do that. And we've, we've done hybrid meetings during COVID, um, or, um, virtual comments during COVID. We can do that, whether that's in this facility, um, or back in the Council chambers, um, I can say if you wanted to kind of extend that to all 20 of your boards and commissions, that would be pretty taxing on us, and I'd really need to think about the resources we would need to be able to do that, but, uh, to do that for the City Council, um, uh, is, uh, certainly doable if you want to go down, uh, go down that path. Um, and the last item I just wanted to touch on, it's also been brought up several times in recent meetings are the transcripts. Um, I just want to make it clear that, um, the full verbatim transcripts are not required by law. Um, there are very, very few, uh, government entities in Iowa that do verbatim transcripts. It's a, it's a big undertaking. It's just a time-consuming type of effort. We've always done them and well continue to do them. Um, uh, we do that through a part-time This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 4 transcriptionist position. We had somebody, uh, working in the Clerk's office for, uh, 20 plus years doing those, uh, that recently resigned that position, and Kellie's been working to get that filled. I believe that is filled now, and we're getting the new employee up to speed, um, on producing those, those, uh, uh, lengthy verbatim transcripts. You can imagine what a six -hour transcript looks like. Um, those are put out on our web for anybody to see. Um, but we also have audio and video recordings of all our meetings as you're aware. So I wanted to put that out there. That's a summary of the memo that was in, again, your December 30th packet. Uh, any one of us are happy to answer questions. And again, based on your conversation tonight, we can facilitate some draft rules, uh, to bring forward if that's the direction you want to go. Teague: All right. Thank you so much. And I guess I'll kinda just start this conversation. Uh, one, uh, really appreciate both the City Attorney and our City Manager for this memo. As we know, um, meetings have been a little challenging and at least for me, the purpose of public meetings and, uh, is really to allow for the public to be present and to hear the discussions that Council is having. Um, and also to make sure that, um, we give opportunity for the public to come and express themselves. The challenge becomes when we have disruption and that's what we're talking about today. What I would, um, advise Council to do during this time is to, um, reflect on what's happened. I think we have real examples, um, that we can really pinpoint. And then Mayor Pro Tem Salih, her last comments to us at her last meeting, that was pretty profound. So, um, it was unfortunate that she left, um, in that manner. So. As we continue this conversation, I would just ask Council to really prepare, our, the hope is that we prepare, um, the best possible protocols that we can inform the public about ahead of time, give fair warning as to the consequences, because really these meetings are for the good of everybody in our city. Thomas: Well, I'll speak first, I think on the question of the hybrid meetings. Cause I think that was, um, you know, something that had been, we -- we've been hearing from, from the community with regard to the hybrid meetings. And, uh, I, I do find it interesting that, uh, COVID in a way, as, as, um, you know, challenging and, uh, impactful COVID has been, it's also, uh, revealed the fact that there are opportunities for the Council to hear from the community, uh, through that virtual connection, uh, that does have significant advantages over attending the meetings in person and that it may be difficult for certain members of our community to actually access our in-person meetings for a whole variety of reasons. Um, so my observation has been that, um, attendance, so to speak, or participation at our meetings was enhanced by the, the hybrid meetings. So I would be in support of that. I don't feel it's necessary that all the commissions that serve. Uh, I do feel that, um, one, one This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 5 improvement from what I've seen over the years I've been here is that they are now recorded. Uh, we have a video recording, uh, and that's an advantage in that prior to that, when I would, and this would be more when I was, uh, not serving on Council or any commission, uh, be interested in the, you know, the, what actually took place at those meetings, those meetings would be summarized, but they -- you wouldn't have actual access to what was specifically at those meetings. And, and so I think it's, it's, as Geoff mentioned, in a way it's, it's, provides a way in which we can actually hear the verbatim discussion rather than having it filtered through someone's, uh, summary, uh, interpretation. Uh, so I think that's an advantage that we have those recordings. I don't feel it's necessary to provide virtual access. Uh, I think insofar as many of these commissions, um, uh, make recommendations to Council where the Council makes the final decision, uh, there are opportunities now, particularly with the virtual, if we agree to provide it, uh, for public comment at the Council meetings, uh, if, if they should choose to do so. So that's, that's my take on the, um, on the hybrid meetings, uh, I would say. And it is true, we, we've also had a tradition and it is interesting just to hear about all the ways in which Iowa City has provided means of the community to let their voices be heard, um, to the Council. And, um, you know, some of those kind of fell by the wayside during COVID. Once we get back to a more kind of pre-COVID situation, you know, I would hope we would re, restart some of the things that are mentioned in the memo. And I would add to them, uh, the idea of town halls, that's something I've always felt, um, would provide a, a different kind of opportunity for the Council and staff to, to have a conversation, uh, with the community more in, in their location, rather than one, you know, centered on, on City Hall, uh, and that it would allow for a larger gathering. I think the best example that I can think of along these lines where the, um, what was it, the Speak Out events, uh, those I thought were extremely powerful and, um, uh, helpful for me and actually hearing, um, those comments at those events, and also just being there, um, in, in this larger gathering, uh, where also those who were in attendance to hear one another, I think oftentimes there's this sense of, you know, we're, we're trying to create opportunities for the, for the community to, to speak to the Council. I think it's important for the community to have opportunities to speak among themselves and hear what each, each other have to say. Uh, so, so the town halls, I think, are something that we might want to consider, um, based on the experience we had with the Speak Out events. Um, and then of course there's the rules. And, you know, in my time here it -- it is interesting that the disorderliness that we've been seeing is relatively recent. I mean, in my 10 years on commissions and Councils, um, you know, I think everyone understood the rules. We didn't have to explicitly state what the rules are. And I think it's really unfortunate that we may be in a situation where those rules do need to be stated. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 6 [public interjecting and continuing to talk] Thomas: Um, well, please, this is -- Taylor: Please don't interrupt him. Teague: Keep going. Thomas: Yeah. So we, we, I think clearly we need to make it clear what the rules are. Weiner: Well, I mean, I think that we, I think of it, sorry, do you have more to go? Thomas: No, I'll leave it at that. Weiner: I'll start to start from the, from the, the end first, but I, in general, I view it as, as something of a decision tree, you know, if we, uh, I'm, I'm, I'm in favor of doing hybrid, but when I look at the decision tree, the question is, okay, hybrid, then where do we do it? Do we do it here? Do we go back to chambers? If we go back to chambers, which I think most bodies around here are in their chambers, how do we sort of make sure that there aren't too many people in the chambers? Although I suspect that if we're a hybrid, that will be, it will be, um, it will be easier for people to, or more, more people will stay home and comment from, from their home. But I think one reason, an additional reason to sort of have a set of whatever we decide the rules are and to state them clearly at every meeting at the outset of every meeting, in addition to having them printed and, and in whatever ways is we want to draw more people into local government. We want more people to attend. And when, when new people come, who have no experience with it, they're going to be puzzled by some of the things that happen. They, no matter what we say, it may be, it'll seem strange that people comment during public comment when it's on topics that are not on the agenda. And we don't say anything in return because it hasn't been noticed as a, as a topic, um, for a public meeting. So I think what, however, we end up deciding what our rules are, um, I think it, it would be really useful for, to have a little, um, uh, a text that gets read at the beginning of every meeting, essentially to explain in brief, um, the rules and why they exist. Um, and I have more, but I would like, I'd love to hear what other people have to say. Taylor: I think that Councilor Thomas, uh, spoke really well on the, uh, ability of, uh, having the hybrid meetings, and I agree with him. I think it would be important to do that, um, but I don't think it's intended to, um, be offered to all 20 or so commissions, I think, uh, as they see fit, they, they can request it if they think they need it. But as he said that, uh, the Council is one making final decisions and that's when it is important to have, uh, public comment on that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 7 final decision time. Um, I do appreciate, um, Eric and Geoff, um, explaining to us some of the legal considerations for public, um, participation in meetings. Uh, my thoughts are that, uh, it's a new year, a new Council, and we need some new rules that we need to, to strictly follow. We need to, um, structure the public comment, uh, opportunity time. It's, it's really evident that we need to do that and have some structure and have rules and guidelines for comment times, um, posted and followed. And that's a very good idea, Janice, about the beginning of the meetings. That's all. Bergus: I also agree with, um, allowing for the hybrid meetings and appreciate, uh, Councilor Thomas, how you are articulated that. And I think Councilor Taylor you're right. That if other commissions think that they need that, that, that they can request that or try and make arrangements with staff for that, but not, not that we would mandate it. Um, I do think that the parameters for what public comment is for and having those set forth really intentionally is, is critical because what I've experienced in my just now two years on Council is a lot of people come to the meeting purporting to, you know, want, um, a decision from this body on something that's not on the agenda and we cannot do that. Um, but we don't make it very clear in that exact moment. Um, and we also don't respond to public comments. Um, but we have a, um, you know, we have particular items on which we're making determinations, where we have, let's say an applicant who's asking for a specific thing from the City, that applicant engages in conversation with this body with questions and answers and with staff. And it's much more conversational. I can understand how that would be confounding to someone who, you know, maybe doesn't have, uh, experience with the process that we're undertaking or really what the business of the Council meeting is. I really appreciate, um, John, what you said about, you know, other opportunities, it's hard when Iowa City has set a very high bar for public engagement and we're trying to find, you know, more, more ways to do it, but I think helping educate people that this is the time for the business of the Council, as noticed as legally required to be noticed, and that we really are constrained in the actions that we can take at these meetings and those actions are intended to be, and it's structured, uh, you know, through the state Code and through our ordinances, it's structured what we do with these meetings. And when we have so much engagement that is not on the topic of the business of the City that is before us and legally noticed, it's really hard for us to do our work. And I think that's a disservice to our constituents and to the City as a whole, um, when we're kind of drawn, you know, into, into realms that we truly cannot address in that moment. So I just think as far as the parameters establishing the rules, communicating them effectively, providing additional opportunities and just, you know, communicating the heck out of those standing at that podium is probably the, one of the worst ways to actually ask us to do something, you know, um, so often it's, we, aren't the ones who have the expertise to execute on something This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 8 that someone wants. It should go through staffers because they are the ones who do, or if it's a person would engage with an individual Councilor who can then, you know, talk with colleagues, lobby colleagues, uh, talk with staff, see if something can get on the agenda, that's the way sort of the business unfolds. And again, I don't blame anyone for failing to know that because it's not really laid out in one place. As far as the actual rules, I mean, I'm in favor of the continuing with having kind of an end time for the public comment period, uh, and having the three-minute limit. I don't think we should stop having public comment on all items. I think that is a long tradition. Um, I think we should cut the mics at the end of three minutes and do that consistently. Um, I think the technological option for a hybrid meeting makes that maybe even easier than it does here. Um, but yeah, that, that would be kind of what I would suggest for those parameters. Alter: If I may, I want to piggyback on some of what Councilor Bergus said. Um, but from a slightly different tack as I am new sitting in this place looking out, but I've been out there at many meetings and over the past several years, um, have been in the audience or been at the podium to make public comment. And, um, it's only over the course of many years of witnessing and kind of figuring it out organically, um, what the process is. And I would completely concur that actually coming to Council oftentimes is when the decisions are being made about things that have been in conversation for quite some time, or that have become a matter of urgency that needs to be decided upon quickly. Um, and even then there needs to be public input. And for that, I actually very much appreciate the way Iowa City has allowed for that. Um, what I have noticed as someone who has been both pre-COVID and during COVID, throughout zoom meetings, and then now as well in the midst of it, um, is that my deep concern in my observation is that in fact, the passion that I'm seeing, um, coming from public comment where there's a repetitiveness and a real desire to be heard, re-, damn the rules, is unfortunately not having the effect that is desired. I feel that, and what I have seen, is that there are people who are now disallowed from actually talking about items that they wish to. Um, there are people who actually are probably feeling intimidated to be able to speak out. Um, and so I feel that there is a disservice in place at current, at the current moment, because I do agree with, absolutely what Councilor Weiner is saying. We want to draw more people in, we want more people engaged in the process. We want more people engaged and committed to work being done. And I do recognize that that has been very much the impulse of many of the people who have come before Council. However, I feel that it is also very evident that that has gone to a place where it's more disruptive than helpful. And so I think to do anything in terms of saying here, how -- here's, how this works, maybe even something like a quick cheat sheet, a one pager that says here's like, by the time we've gotten to Council, here's how the decisions, you know, here's oftentimes how this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 9 works, right? This is the end of the discussions in some ways, or this is the next process towards getting to a stop. Um, but that things cannot be done with a snap of fingers. Um, and I think that the rules that have been suggested in place already, uh, by other Councilors are good means towards that end. Harmsen: I also want to agree. I think that hybrid just makes sense, uh, I think that's, that's something we, we should do as, as quickly as practically possible, um, and prioritizing the City Council meetings, I think, uh, as other Councilors have mentioned, uh, does also make the most amount of sense, um, and then, you know, possibly building from there, but in terms of resources and priorities, I think starting with the Council meeting. Uh, in terms of location, I know that's been brought up and discussed about a little bit, I don't know if there is any sort of a, uh, logistical or technological reason why the Council chambers, uh, the regular Council chambers would have a greater or lesser ability to do that than here. Um, I -- hopefully if that's an issue, I think we also have to balance, um, the COVID, um, you know, which is, I just read an article today, all 50 states now have un, uncontrolled community spread. Um, and so, you know, we're kind of balancing that this is a bigger space. We are keeping people safer in this space. And I think if we institute hybrid, we may increase that because people will be able to participate without coming. Um, you know, we may be back in a hybrid as a Council at some point in the next, you know, couple of months potentially. Um, so that might be a self -solving problem for at least a little while whether we like it or not. So I guess, you know, we're all kind of waiting to see what happens with that. Um, and I agree, uh, our meetings are to be the business. There are a lot of people who have a lot of important issues to come before the Council, um, and they all deserve to have our time and attention paid to them. Um, and, uh, you know, huge, huge proponent of, of First Amendment stuff, uh, but also recognizing that time, place, and manner are very critical to, um, the, uh, you know, what we can say about when people are making comments. And so that's, that's sort of a Media Law 101, um, when it comes to First Amendment and free speech and, and open, openness and everything else. And so we do have an ability to talk to the issues of time, place and manner. And I, I think in order to have the greatest amount of total public input overall, I think as a, as a goal that we should strive for without trying to be, like, overly heavy-handed or draconic. Weiner: I think that one of the, whatever we decide ultimately are, are, are essentially standing rules for public comment, they need to apply exactly the same to people who were in person as to those who comment virtually. So for example, I mean, I, I'm not sure what the, what the statute says, but I would like to hear a name and a city. I don't care about an address I would just like, and I will listen to people from Davenport and Des Moines or whoever they are. But I think that we as elected officials representing the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 10 City of Iowa City also deserve to know whether the people who are, who are commenting are actually our voters and who actually live here in addition to listening to people who may be commenting, who are not from here. Teague: So I think I hear, um, I think how I want to go about this as maybe just kinda breaking it down a little bit and taking it section by section in a way. Um, so seemed like the easiest one based on the comments is, um, there's full support for hybrid. Um, maybe the question becomes, do we do it in this space? And I don't know if staff is, uh, you know, prepared to maybe talk about, is this, um, if it's happening here or in City Hall, does it, is one more advantaged than the other? Fruin: Well, number one, we can do it in either location. Um, so it's not an issue of, we can't do it here, we have to do it back there. Um, it's more convenient, uh, to do it back in the chambers. We do have the built-in infrastructure and you see kind of the, the setup that we have here. Um, and this, this is kind of bigger than hybrid, hybrid meetings, but you know, this room basically stays like this. So we've taken this room out of service for the Senior Center, which is okay because they don't have a ton of traffic in the building, uh, throughout COVID. Um, but they'd certainly love to have that back Um, and plus you can see just the, the cable operation is, is much more extensive in this particular location. So, um, it's more convenient to be back, but as, as, uh, uh, Councilor Harmsen said there's some COVID trade-offs because it's a tight space, and even pre-COVID, we had a lot of meetings that were over capacity in that, uh, space. It was not an uncommon sight to see people spilled out into the, the City Hall lobby. Teague: Um, I did have a question. I know that COVID is certainly taking its own, um, turn of events here, uh, across the nation and even the world. When -- is, is there a point where, um, we could define when it's impossible or impractical to meet in person, um, or is that something we believe we would just rely on, um, Public Health, kind of the.... Weiner: Yeah, and I, I would think that we should talk to Johnson County Public Health and ask what the, what, what they're essentially what the, what the breakers are, where, um, but if I understand the memo, uh, correctly, um, Eric and Geoff, regardless of what happens, because the Governor's, because of the, uh, because of what the Governor's emergency proclamation currently does not say, at least four of us would need to be in person. Goers: Well, so, to answer the Mayor's question first, as to who kind of makes the determination about whether it would be impossible or practical to have a meeting that that's our call, your call, uh, specifically, it was just much easier when the Governor just said, you know, flat out for everyone, I'm declaring a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 11 state of emergency and so forth, and, and thus, you know, everyone is relieved of the response, you know, of the restrictions of, I think it's 21.8, if I recall, uh, Iowa Code Section 21.8, I think. Um, if the Mayor, I'm sorry, if the Governor, uh, does not return to that kind of proclamation, then each city would have to kind of justify, uh, it's on its own. That is, um, obviously if we have a hybrid meeting, uh, where we have at least four members of Council physically present here, then we're fine, cause that's all that's required. But if the Council wishes to go to a virtual meeting that is not hybrid in the sense that there's no live component, uh, then we would need to justify by "impossible and impractical". And then I would agree with Councilor Weiner, you know, we would want to get all the best information from Johnson County Public Health and, you know, CDC and, and all the other things. And then we would, uh, be able to, uh, at some point make the assertion, we believe it's now impossible or impractical to have in-person meetings. And consequently we're gonna move to, um, uh, entirely virtual meetings. Teague: Okay. Thank you. So certainly I think the hybrid can take place. I think it would probably be worth talking about, um, if we feel that we want to do it in the Senior Center, or if we want to do it at City Hall. Right now, at least in my, when I look at COVID, this, it's spiraling out of control. Um, and so we would certainly want to make sure that the public is, has the safest options to be a part. Um, is there any consideration, will we consider maybe thinking about, um, doing it in Council Chambers, having maybe four Councilors and we rotate in and out, I know that the Mayor would need to be present as well as the Mayor Pro Tem, and then it would be rotation of two Councilors. With staff present. It would be my, unless we want to have staff not present on the dais and, or that can be in the audience as well. Taylor: My concern wasn't necessarily the number of us that were there, but the number of, of persons, members of the community that would want to be there. As you'd said, there, there were times, many times, when it was packed, uh, that was even pre, it was obviously pre-COVID. Uh, so, and here it's so nicely spaced and I think people feel safer, uh, coming here than they would in, in that cramped Harvat Hall. Although I'd love to get back to there, but, uh, that's, that would be my concern is more the public interest. Harmsen: I agree with Councilor Taylor, that, my thought to that it's as much about the size of the audience area as it is about the room at the dais. So, Weiner: I mean, on this, I mean, and Councilor Thomas likes to talk about pilot programs, I mean, that's something we could, we could see how it works once we're, once we're in hybrid. If most of the public ends up being online, then we can reconsider for example. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 12 Harmsen: Yeah. I think that makes sense to me. I personally would like to remain here, especially with the level of, you know, the, the spread, uh, and then yeah, if we go hybrid here and just see what happens, see how that affects things. If, if we see that, um, maybe we won't go over capacity at City Hall, if, uh, if we go hybrid, just, you know, play it by ear. Teague: So I'm seeing nodding of heads, so we'll go hybrid here and, um, we'll just see how that works. And my assumption is our next meeting, um, is that something that City staff can look into and, and, um.... Fruin: We'll do our best to make that happen, yes. Teague: All right. Great. Okay. So standing the rules was, was the other thing that, um, I heard. I did want to go back to something that was stated in the memo, um, and I'm sure it has a citing, um, but it, uh, a part of the discussion that we need to have is, um, rules will be created to really guide, um, the meetings to be free from interference or interruptions by spectators. And that is a Iowa Code, um, that was cited. So a part of what we need to, you know, determine is what would be stated, and then what would be the, um, kinda the next step. We do have the rules currently for the, uh, public comment time. Um, it goes until 7:00 PM, uh, unless we need to do a minimum of 30 minutes and, uh, the Mayor reserves the right to switch from three minutes based on how many individuals desire to speak. So we do have that already present. Um, I know that this was a huge discussion that we had last year when we put this into place. And so, um, at least for me, what I would like to just mention to the Council is it would be very helpful and that, uh, while we're, if we are, you know, gonna, if, if we're going to end at 7, because we've given 30 plus minutes, or if I have to, you know, maybe we didn't finish with our consent agenda until 7:45, or 6:45, that I will make the announcement that we'll go 30 minutes, so at 6:15, that Council would allow me to, um, make that statement. And of course, if there is a need to extend it, um, oftentimes if someone is, um, needing, you know, someone to interpret for them automatically we'll extend, extend it. Um, maybe it's helpful if, you know, I just state, you know, after that, that, you know, I'll extend it, you know, two more minutes or whatever the situation may be. But, um, I think it would be very helpful if Council make sure that we're abiding by this. Um, because there has been times where, you know, a Councilor has wanted to, you know, allow everybody to speak and they all, you know, just say, let everybody speak And I mean, if this is what we're going to do, then this is the charge that I've been given as the Mayor. And I just want to make sure that we're all comfortable with the 30 minutes, the 7:00 PM. I would just want to check in. Weiner: I don't think, I mean, for me personally, that all makes sense. Um, what I would see, I wouldn't see anything that we're stating in terms of giving an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 13 overview of how Council functions of how public comment is going to function, what the rules of the road are. None of that should take away from your prerogatives during the meeting. But I think, uh, but I would, I would still favor and maybe staff can help us craft a statement to be said that, that doesn't even have to be you, you could rotate it among Councilors that, that, that could be read at the beginning of every meeting and sort of explaining the rule, essentially the rules of the road for the meeting, nothing taken away from your prerogatives based on who's here, how long it, how many, how many commenters there are and so forth. Teague: Okay, great. Thomas: I'll just throw out a, uh, a thought here, um, in terms of how we communicate that, uh, Mayor, you've been, you know, very adept and successful at, at, uh, your recordings over certain issues, you know, your public, kind of a public, um, what's the word I'm looking for? You know, just some sort of public announcement. I'm wondering if, if like a prerecording of the rules is something that you could provide, you know, it would, you know, working with City Channel where it would just be shown at our meetings at the beginning of the meeting that, you know, welcome to the Iowa City community, uh, the City Council and you know, you would go through, uh, what the rules are, uh, kind of like when you're on an airplane or something, Weiner: That's what first came to mind. That's actually a great idea, John. Thomas: And here's the, here are the rules, and it would be prerecorded. So it, and it would be visual. It could be something, and recorded, it could be something we put up on YouTube or whatever. Um, but you know, that's, that's a skill you have that I'm thinking maybe worthwhile trying it anyway and see, see if it's successful. Teague: I think it speaks to Councilor Weiner's comment about, we do have new timers that come to Council that really don't know, you know, what's happening. And sometimes they can be intimidated, um, or become fearful and not want to express, you know, their thoughts and their feelings. And so I do see, you know, whether it's a prerecorded or we read something, um, in, in real time, um, I do see the necessity of doing, um, of making sure that the public is aware every meeting. Um, and I think we can, we may not need to determine that now how we do that, but I do think that we need to maybe, um, is there anything specific, a specific rule that I, I do think that we need to talk about what our next steps, when, um, as, and I, I'm trying, I'm going to try to find that Code again. Um, it's right up here. I had it highlighted. So, you know, when disruption includes those who refuse to stop speaking, when their allotted time has ended, those that repeatedly speak off topic as This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 14 determined by the Mayor and those who interrupt the meeting by shouting out and interjecting outside public comment periods. So these are the things that really refer to Iowa Code Section 21.7, um, where it says, you know, the Council has the right, um, to create and enforce, uh, reasonable rules for the conduct of its meetings, uh, to ensure those meetings are orderly and free from interference or interruption by spectators. [public]: So are you going to arrest -- Weiner: So, I mean, I think it's, I think it's really important that we, we highlight the, the, the, the parameters in as positive a way as we can, um, including that, that requiring that people be on topic, you know, so if it's about the intersection of Scott and Rochester, it needs to be a comment directly about the intersection of Scott and Rochester. And that's, um. Taylor: I think basically, we're just talking about asking folks to be courteous, courteous to the Council, courteous to other members of the, uh, audience. Bergus: I think more, more pointedly for those who engage with us with the intention of disruption, rather the intention, rather than the intention of anything substantive relating to the business of the City, you know, they probably want nothing more than to be arrested. Um, and it may surprise no one that I'm, you know, I would not be in favor of forcibly removing someone with, uh, using police from our chambers, unless there was some imminent threat of violence. That's where I am. Um, I think maybe we could, uh, engage other members of the public to, uh, you know, surround the person and boo at them, or shush them or remove them from the (laughing), the meeting room. Um, yeah, it really is a matter of common courtesy and we've lost that. And we, we don't have good ways of engaging civility when it, uh, will not be reciprocated. Weiner: Well, this, as, as someone mentioned on, at least on the, on the hybrid portion of it, um, we will have the ability to cut mics if we need to just assert basically the time limit there. Teague: I do wonder if, if we created rules, and I hear what Councilor Bergus is saying from her perspective, if we created rules, and there was someone that was disruptive, I guess my question, um, and, and it was continuous, my question would be, can we then, um, what will be the, what would be an, uh, an option for the individual to not attend in person or virtually, or I know that it can be taken to, you know, uh, they can be charged outside of the Council meeting for something, um, I just need to know what, what, what options would be there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 15 Goers: Sure. So the options would be first, just removal, no arrest, just, you know, you need to go now and be trespassed for that meeting. You may not return tonight for this meeting, you know, see ya next, you know, meeting if, if they desire. Um, and then beyond that, as you say, if they were to come back in after being trespassed, then you know, they could be charged, or obviously we could have, um, you know, folks at the door to prevent, uh re-entry. Although again, you'll have to make a political decision about if you want to do that, but if there, um, are continued violations, uh, they can be banned in increasing, uh, periods of time. That is, you know, a one -meeting ban, that, that kind of thing, and moving forward, you would certainly never be in a position of saying you can never attend a City Council member, or uh, meeting again, anything like that. Um, and of course it has to be responsive to actual disruptive behavior, not just the anticipation of disruptive behavior, just actual disruptive behavior, uh, that kind of thing. But here's, I guess I'll kind of address the flip side of the coin too, is if you have folks who are violating the rules, um, sometimes blatantly and, um, the Council takes no steps, then it's difficult to tell other members of the public who wished to comment and are doing so out of good faith, uh, that they need to adhere to the rules too. And in theory, there could even be discrimination claims, you know, either based on the content of their speech versus what someone else is saying, or perhaps they're a member of another protected class. I mean, the real key here is you got to swing a level sword, you know, whatever your rules are, you really need to mean it. You need to enforce it, um, against all people, um, equally, because again, I think your intent is that you want to hear maximum public engagement from people who wish to actually, uh, discuss matters of importance or to either them or matters of importance, uh, that are on the City Council agenda, but not, uh, purposely disruptive comments or comments that are purposefully violating your rules. I mean, there is a sweet spot there, I think. And, and just because, you know, you're going to impose rules and mean to enforce them doesn't mean you're not encouraging public comment. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I think you would encourage more members of the public to come out and speak to you, um, if they knew they didn't have to kind of wait through hours and hours of, um, disruptions or the possibility of being shouted down by other members of the public who were present, that kind of thing. So I guess my point is there are a number of kind of intermediate steps that the Council could choose to take instead of just hauling people off in handcuffs, you know, at the first offense or something like that. Weiner: I mean, in some places the Councils have adjourned at least temporarily, you know. Goers: I'm sorry? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 16 Weiner: I, I think there've been not here, but in some circumstances, Councils have adjourned at least temporarily. Goers: Yeah. There have been circumstances in which they've taken a break to restore order. Um, you know, I mean, I think Des Moines, in speaking with the Des Moines City Attorney, they had an occasion where they had, I think, 10 to 15 police officers come in and they had to clear the room and, and so forth. And, and obviously no one wants that. Um, but you know, circumstances were present such that the Council there felt like they needed to do that so that they could engage in the, you know, public business that they were elected to conduct. Alter: What I've been hearing sort of as a pattern emerging is that it is about finding that right balance. And I completely agree with the notion of saying we want the rules in place in order to be able to encourage people to speak, um, and to participate on matters that matter to them, that matter to the City, um, and that we need to figure out the right ways to be able to allow maximum people to be engaged. Um, and that's one part of the sweet spot. The other, and I would agree completely with Councilor Bergus is that I'm very, very wary of arrests. Um, because I, I think that that swings the pendulum too far in terms of saying we want orderly discussion, um, but I think that that could be problematic. I'll just leave it at that, um, for a number of reasons. So I, I like what I'm hearing about, that there needs to be sort of a standard sense of the rules. And I do think that the Mayor's, um, and what Council, previous Council had worked so hard towards, saying, here's what makes sense, but then really we need to abide by it consistently, clearly. Um, and I go back again in a really practical sense of, like, for those who are either new to coming to Council, or haven't been in a while, or just even say, I'm not sure what's going on because of this new space. There could be any reasons, any number of reasons, but to have something that is done, uh, in, in advance of the meeting, every meeting to explain here's how this works and to a certain extent, perhaps here's why this works. Um, so at any rate, I I'm sure that what I'm doing is just simply summarizing what a number of people have already said here. But, um, it, it feels like we just really have to maintain an awareness of how to keep that balance in terms of encouraging people who want to speak, whether, you know, we're not here to just hear praise, nobody comes onto Council to expect that. Um, but there are nuggets of things that we need to hear. Um, and there are details that we need to hear, but we need to be able to allot this time and -- the time for myriad voices to speak on the issues that are on the agenda. Teague: So what I would like to, and I appreciate everyone comments, um, what I would like to know is how are we planning, um, or what would be the proposal since I -- I'm hearing from two right now, no police interference, but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 17 how do we propose that we will, you know, regain order, um, so that we have meetings that are free from interference or interruptions by spectators, as well as, people stop when the Mayor has stated your time is up. Alter: To clarify, at least I had heard Councilor Bergus talking about arrests, and that was what I was referring to. Teague: Arrests. Alter: Yeah. Teague: Okay. Alter: Um, you know, I don't want it to get to.... Teague: None of us want it to get to that point. Alter: -- a police situation, but, um, at all, but it may be that...Well. I'll leave it at that. Teague: Okay. And I think that the question really is what will be the, what is the tool that we have? What is it, if, if, if you don't, if the disorderly conduct continues, what will we do consistently? At least for me, if we're, you know, thinking in the meeting it is happening, um, I can't really, you know, redirect and the behavior, we certainly could do, um, you know, a warning to the individual outside of Council, an official warning, um, the next time it happens, you know, we can go through and really spell out was, you know, some of the things that we're discussing here today, then the next time they, it is performed that we go through the meeting and then we do a suspension. If they attend the meeting, that one meeting and do the same thing, then well have outside of this meeting a trespass order. Taylor: I had a question, as far as, maybe Eric could answer this. If like, if you, as the Mayor, were to do your gavel and just say, you are out of order, you need to leave the podium, or you need to quit speaking. Uh, and also talking about Des Moines and them, um, uh, temporarily adjourning. Uh, we can't do that every time, every meeting that would be ridiculous. I mean, it, it, if, if it's really totally a disruptive meeting at the time, I can see that and we could very easily, uh, adjourn from, from the room for temporary, but it's not a long time action. And I agree also, I would not want a police presence. I, I don't think that's helpful at all. Teague: What I'm sug -- at least from my purview, I'm, I'm suggesting that even though the Mayor will, you know, kind of redirect, give warning, out of order, that it is gonna, you know, I, I wouldn't have to, um, become in a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 18 confrontation. I just state, you know, if you continue, you will be cited for trespass, whatever step we're on. And then it's something that will take place outside of this meeting. So every comment after that, if they keep getting up, at least from my perspective, I just give them their two, three minutes and, and there's hap -- and we'll deal with it after the meeting, because we have the entire public that we're dealing with, that we need to make sure that they have opportunities to get up as well as people that is going to be hybrid. [public interrupting] Weiner: I don't, I don't, I don't have a good answer other than, um, aside from the, um, cutting, mics both here and there, obviously voices carry, and we can, we can, uh, and we can still hear voices at a certain point. Um, I, if people are out of order, then we need to be tell them they're out of order. And, um, and the, the, the, the part of the memo that struck me, that I also think we need to put in our, somehow into our intro is the, the, the notion of what the requirement, the actual requirements of state law are. Um, and that, because we want to hear from people, we are, we are going, we are, we are far exceeding the state law requirements to sort of, that's probably not stated that well, but basically to frame what we're doing, um, for, for the public, in addition to explaining the rules of the road. Taylor: Mayor, could we also clarify, I think Eric had brought this up once, the difference between public comment, time and public hearing time, there seems to be some confusion on that. Goers: Sure. So public hearings are, uh, those, uh, um, opportunities for the public to, uh, comment to you that are statutorily required. Um, the memo mentions a number of circumstances in which that takes place, and that's the occasion in which the Mayor bangs his gavel and says, he, you know, he's opening a public hearing and then bangs his gavel and says, he's closing public hearing. Those are required. We need to do those, um, everything else, uh, we do not need to do. Um, and it's just been, you know, by the grace of this Council that the public can be heard on, for example, every single other item, uh, not on the consent agenda. Um, so that's the biggest difference -- am I answering your question? Taylor: Yes. But, but regarding that particular item that we're on, where it says public hearing, say a rezoning or a sewer line or something of that nature, that topic is what we're required to allow public comment on or the public hearing. Right? Goers: Correct. Yep. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 19 Teague: And at least to date, and I don't think anyone is, um, suggesting that we not allow the opportunities for public comment after each agenda item or during each agenda item or during the open public comment time. Um, I just know that we have all witnessed in real time where the Mayor has stated they're out of order. The Mayor has tried to redirect, asked for compliance, and again, Mayor Pro Tem Salih, her words resonate with me. Um, and if we don't have something in the toolbox where if we think we can just cite these codes, which, um, disruptors know, then we will not be able to conduct the business to the best of our abilities. Having an hour and a half or an hour, 20 minutes so far that I've noted, added to an agenda where there are still people in the community that want to speak on a topic, um, Council also has the ability, we need to be able to focus in on the items that are before us, you know, and these are, these are real, you know, these are huge decisions that we make no matter what it is. So that's where I am. I feel like we have to either, we're just gonna really let things continue the way that they are, or we're going to have to have some consequences. And I propose that we, first time, do the warning and the meeting send a letter afterward, if we can find their address, um, hand them a letter, state it in public comment, second time it happens, note that they, um, would need to leave and they won't leave. They will continue and because they won't leave, I think that's what we give a trespass for at least one meeting, or we say you're not allowed to go to the next meeting or something. And then if you come to the next meeting, you can come to meetings after that, um, but if you come to the next meeting, you'll be considered to be trespassing. And then if they trespass, they trespass, and then that would be a matter for, uh, law enforcement. I just don't know how we can get beyond where we are today. If we do not have some clear consequences created. Thomas: I agree. I mean, there needs to be, it's how we define this boundary or respond to, to incidents, you know, is reminding me a little bit of what we've gone through on our policing matters, where, you know, we've tried to identify, uh, other, other means of community engagement, short of bringing a sworn officer into the picture. And I'm, I'm wondering aloud if, if, um, if a similar approach could be taken here and I don't know what that translates to necessarily, but I'm wondering if, you know, we hired some new staff, new personnel to address issues, which were not criminal behavior, but disruptive behavior, shall we say, um, who are more trained in engaging with individuals in a way which would help deescalate rather than escalate that, that interaction. Um, but this is surely there, there must be ways in which we can try to capture what Councilor Bergus is, is trying to get at, which I, I tend to agree with. I don't, I don't want to, I want this to be done in a way, which is civil, the response is civil and respectful, while at the same time, address your concerns. There clearly need to be, we need to have a clear response to, should the behavior persist. Um, I'm, I'm personally just not clear what, you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 20 know, I hear what you're saying in terms of, well, we're going to issue warnings and so on and so forth, but, um, I guess -- Teague: I just hope that it wouldn't get too punitive or -- Thomas: Right. I know, I understand it's sort of trying to sort of create a, you know, a progressive discipline approach. Um, and I'm, I'm just asking the question. If there might be other ways of, of doing a progressive, uh, approach short of bringing in law enforcement. Bergus: Do we have civil infraction authority for that kind of behavior? Goers: None springs to mind? I can. I mean, I don't, I don't think it would be a nuisance action or anything, but I could certainly explore that. Bergus: So just so it wouldn't be a criminal matter, but it would still be something enforceable as clearly a violation of the City's law, which I think that's what we're talking about. That's why we're citing, uh, Code when we're going through these, these boundaries and these parameters. But, you know, I personally, again, just for myself, draw that line on the criminal and law enforcement engagement, but if there's a, a civil means to still have some consequences, I'd entertain that. Teague: So I guess the, um, I guess at least the question that remains now is do we want to learn, um, from Legal in a future meeting? What that looks like, because I don't think you have the answer right now. Goers: I'm sorry. I don't. Uh, but, uh, I guess I would, as I'm quickly thinking a little bit more about it, uh, I'm not sure why we couldn't create such a thing, which would be an ordinance change of course. Um, but, uh, I suspect that that might be possible. I think that's an aside. I mean, I think the rest of the rules that you've discussed and so forth would need to be implemented. That's just a resolution. Um, so that's a single meeting, um, but I can, you know, concurrently explore, um, uh, Councilor Bergus's idea about, uh, a civil infraction. Bergus: I also think, Mayor, that point that you had of making sure that the Council is, is supporting you when that, you know, sort of, when we get to that line is important. I don't know the best way to kind of, um, codify that for ourselves. Like if there's a, you know, particular script that you have, that's very, very clear to the people who are speaking and to us, like, look, you've hit the line for sure. Um, because my experience in those moments has been, you know, it is kind of flexible and we've, you know, tried to accommodate different ways. And I think it'd be helpful if we had some like, oh, okay, here's the -- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 21 some, some signals so that we understand and can be unified in that, yeah, yeah, yeah, this is the boundary. And maybe that is the gaveling, you know, the most obvious. Teague: Yeah. At least what comes to mind for me is, um, you know, if, if, if one in, if we have someone that is continuously coming up, you know, two, three times that's kind of the, where it is not on topic, that's kind of the trigger, you know, so we can probably identify what is that trigger to be consistent also, you know, sometimes we've had, um, individuals, although I think a lot of individuals, if they know, they'll, they'll, they'll have a presentation that's five minutes and they'll have two people present, sometimes that's not the situation. And so, um, even though I try to, you know, continuously talk at least, you know, at the beginning, um, maybe that could be a part of, you know, they do it that one time is not a, uh, a frequent occurrence. Um, I mean they would just get the, the warning, but, but I do agree that it needs to be, um, very consistent as to what we do. Um, at least for me, just thinking about it on the, on the, in the moment, it would be an individual thing. So if an individual, um, you know, in any two consecutive meetings is going over time, you know, that's where, you know, we can put some of these parameters in place. If an individual is going up to two times or more talking about items, not on the topic, that can be the trigger as well. Taylor: That brings up a question to me and I hesitated to even bring it up. But what about those folks we've had that say, I give my three minutes to this person. So at that person can have six minutes. Is, are we going to allow that, what, what are we going to do about those situations? Teague: At -- at least for me in those situations, I per -- personally, I think someone could give their time up at, at least in my mind. So if someone has comments, said, you know, they gave 30 seconds and they're going to get the remainder of their time to the next person and add time, at least for me, it just seemed like there is going to be a presentation, a presentation by someone that might be more able to, um, articulate, um, in that short amount of time, you know, the needs for those two individuals. Um, and in those moments I have stated, I think, and I, I can only recall one where I've kind of combined the time, you know, but. Taylor: Okay. Thomas: I, you know, there's certainly situations where one can't communicate fully one's, uh, what one wants to say to the Council in three minutes. So I think there it's, it's a judgment call, but it does seem that I certainly can recall P&Z meetings where I might myself have been in the, in the public comment period and, and asking for more than three minutes. I mean, there are just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 22 certain, certain types of issues, which three minutes is just not sufficient. So it's, I think particularly with those things where you're in a public hearing circumstance, you know, some flexibility in terms of what the limits are, um, is important. Teague: You know, I think the challenge there is because -- it becomes where, individuals that typically attend our meetings or, have some knowledge of our meetings. Um, they really do know how to give it to someone else, whereas other individuals, you know, they may just continue on. Um, I don't know if anyone has any, I mean, we can certainly maybe edit the words, cause currently it says the Mayor reserves the right to reduce the three minute period based on the number of individuals desiring to speak Um, I don't really want to get into the area of individually extended time. I think in certain circumstances, like I mentioned, if someone says I'm going to, you know, give my time to them, you know, do we, we're not going to let three people, you know, but I think there could be some, you know, discretion, discretionary language, um, but it needs to, you know, I just want to make sure that Legal would be comfortable with whatever that discretionary extension language will be. Goers: Yeah. I mean, again, kind of going back to the idea of swinging a level sword, I mean, as long as, you know, you can distinguish it in a content -neutral way, then, then I think you're okay. As opposed to, I don't like you, the speaker, I don't like what you're saying to us, you know, that kind of thing and know that those allegations may come, whether they're true or not. And so that's something we would just have to be prepared to identify: I'm giving this person extra time because whatever that is, um, you would probably want articulate it. Teague: Absolutely. Yeah. So I think we can probably deal with that, um, that Councilor Thomas just mentioned, um, to a certain degree. And if we, we can work on language a little bit and propose it outside of this meeting, um, I do want to kind of wrap up this topic, but what are we thinking for -- so we, hybrid meeting, we're going to go, um, hopefully next meeting. Um, standing rules, so, um, maybe we can work off-site if Council also gave, um, if Council was comfortable with that where, um, I would propose, um, at least three of us kind of get work on this. Some language with staff, maybe pull a few things from experience. I think it would be great to have, uh, Mayor Pro Tem. And if I will be so direct, I would, I personally would like to invite Council Weiner if she would accept to be on, on that and that conversation if Council was okay with that. And then we'll kind of work with some stuff, work with staff. And I think at least what will be pointed out is what are some of the, the, the, the, the key things that we want scripted, and then bring it back to a future meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 23 Weiner: That sounds good. I wanted to add one thing on the topic that we haven't really elaborated on and that's other, so much, and that's other interactions with the public, especially in the COVID era there there's we could give con -- I just wanted to throw out there, we could give consideration to doing a few, uh, virtual listening posts, um, and figure out when it would be good to schedule those so that people don't have to come, they can talk to us about anything they want, essentially at those, and get that, give, give, sort of get back to the sense of normalcy, even though we're not in person, Teague: I'm seeing some sh -- uh, nodding of heads. And I know that, uh, Councilor Thomas talked about town hall meetings, um, maybe listening posts, virtual options, or even hybrid, well, I don't know if a hybrid option would be really possible for going into certain commun --, you know, certain places, but because people don't have like the, the fancy TV and cameras and, you know, it becomes a little challenging to hear, but, um, why don't we, uh, if I see some shaking of heads for listening posts, um, maybe we can go ahead and try some, do we want to go virtual first or in person...virtual? Virtual, seeing some virtual, we'll, we'll try it for the first. We'll go quarterly. And then if we need to adjust, we can. And with that being said, we should probably identify who's going to be the first to. Bergus: (laughing) I signed up for one with Mayor Pro Tem Salih that we never got to do because of COVID, so I would love the chance. Teague: All right. Who wants to partner with Councilor Bergus? Harmsen: I -- I would be happy to. Teague: Great. There we have it, unless, all right, we'll, we'll start there. We'll go and collect the next two after we kinda get a report of how that went. All right. Let's move on. Anything else that we need to do with the, um, meeting protocols? Okay. All right. We'll continue the discussion at, at, uh, at our next work session. We're going to go on to info packet discussion, December -- oh, sorry, we're going to go to clarification of agenda items. Clarification of Agenda Items Bergus: I'll just note, I'll be recusing myself from the South District SSMID again, Mayor. Teague: Great. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 24 Alter: And actually, I just got, um, advice from, uh, the City Attorney that I do not need to recuse myself because I'm just a resident there and I have not been involved in anything nor do I have property concerns or anything like that. So I will be a voting member on it, but I just wanted to let people know that I do live in the South District. I, um, campaigned, uh, with, um, as a proponent for the, uh, SSMID. Uh, but it's, uh, there's nothing that's blocking me from ethically voting. Teague: Okay. Anything else from the formal agenda? All right. December 16th info packet. Information Packet Discussion (December 16, December 22, December 30) Bergus: Um, I hope we can spend a few minutes on, uh, the recommendation from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That's in their December 2nd minutes, which is IP5 of the December 16th meeting. Um, I think this ties into the fu--, maybe a future work session topic, hopefully, but I'd like to just get us started on nailing down the parameters for, uh, direct payments to individuals, um, from our emergency allotment of ARPA funds. I think it's been awhile. Uh, last conversation we had about that was when we had our joint meeting with the Supervisors in November, I think. So I think it would be good for us to commit to nailing down what Iowa City is willing to do. So I kind of have, uh, thoughts on that if people are willing to engage in that a little bit now in relation to this recommendation or however you'd like to proceed, Mayor. Teague: Yeah, I think so. At least for me personally, I think we can have a discussion on it. Um, the, um, the, I guess the question that we'll have to consider is the County and where they are, which we don't, I mean, we kinda know what, where they are, but I feel like we would need their official stance so that we're not just interpreting, um, inappropriately where they are. Bergus: Yeah. And I guess, you know, I think we have a few different options in how to approach it. And my, my thinking is that we consider, um, articulating our priorities. Like, let's say -- there's several different things we've talked about. A dollar amount, which needs to be decided as far as an overall allocation. Um, at our joint meeting, we said, we want to work with the County, wanna have, uh, uh, administration of kind of one program, I believe we've decided that. So what is Iowa City's commitment to that program? And then how, what does that mean as far as how the funds are disbursed. I am hesitant, or I would urge us to consider not waiting for the County to fully articulate what their logistical, you know, sort of their parameters, as well as the logistics of how the program will work and that we, um, decide on our priorities, include -- an overall dollar amount, and then our priorities for any things like, uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 25 eligibility or, you know, dollar amount per person, that kind of thing. And communicate that with the total allocation, with the understanding that the County will still be the ones implementing the final, sort of rules for the program. My concern is that if we wait until they decide exactly what it's going to look like, then we're coming back here in February or March and saying, well, we kind of like this, but we didn't like that, and well, it's too bad they didn't take this into account. Whereas if, you know, we could articulate those things now and with an understanding of -- be priorities rather than strict conditions for the allocation of funds. Teague: So if I understand you correctly, it's not that you're wanting to move without the County. Bergus: Right. Teague: It's really to kind of, let's say what we're financially going to do and put our priorities there. At least for me, what would make sense right now since we, um, don't fully know, um, all the parameters of how many individuals we will be talking about. I think, um, we can, at least personally, I think that we can state that the City will, you know, make up the difference for our residents or individuals within, that live in the City of Iowa City up to $2,000. Um, now, that could be $600, that could be a thousand because they haven't made their final plan. And, and, and I think a part of it is we want to make sure that the community knows that we are committed to this. And so we might be taking, where we're moving forward with some unknowns, but also felt like these unknowns are within, um, a financial obligation that we could make. You know, we can say, you know, each individual dollar amount, you know, up to $2000 for Iowa City and we will make up the difference. At least that would be my take if that's what you're wanting to get at. Goers: And I'm sorry to interject, I thought that it was going to be a little bit of a clarification of what was going on in the minutes and so forth. And I think if we're going to start talking about numbers and so forth of what the City's going to agree to do that, that's probably not enough notice, um, on the agenda item here tonight. And so I'm hesitant to allow too much discussion about what individual Council members would allow for dollar amounts. Sorry. Weiner: No, and I understand that. I'm not interested in talking dollar amounts. I just, I just wanted if I, if it's legitimate to say that one of the things that I hear Councilor Bergus saying is essentially in, in the next meeting, what we need to do is articulate the things that we want the County to take, that we suggest the County take into consideration, without mandating it so that we can This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 26 actually influence their discussion when they're putting together their program rather than coming in afterwards. Teague: So then -- go right ahead, please. Harmsen: Oh, I was just gonna say I, uh, um, I very much appreciate, uh, the idea that whatever we can do to get this moving, to get people to help they need. I know from the, the minutes of the TRC meeting, um, you know, they had hoped that we could get something into people's pockets, you know, by Christmas, which would have been great, didn't happen, uh, for lots of reasons. But if we can do something now to help get that process moving, I think that's, that's a laudable goal that we should be working towards. So if that's the mechanism, then I would, I would like to see some, you know, on a future agenda or whatever. Teague: So we have support for this to go on a future -- well, a future work session. And we'll put it on the next work session that does. Is that agreeable? Fruin: Yeah. Yeah. Just, uh, the County has expressed to us at a staff level that they're still working towards the March distribution, uh, goal deadline. So, uh, there's a lot that has to happen on the County side to get a program approved and in place. I think if you don't do it at your next agenda, the window might be closing, or you might just need to do it individually with your elected peers in Johnson County, so. I would suggest the next work session, um, but also want to remind you that you're entering the budget season. And historically a lot of work session time has been taken up by budget matters, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. Okay. Teague: All right. We'll have it on the next one. Any other items from December 16th? Taylor: I'd just like to note, uh, IP, uh, I believe it was number two, the letter from HUD, uh, consolidated annual performance evaluation report, uh, for the year 2020. And I'd like to thank the, our NBS department and I don't see Tracy Hightshoe in the audience today, but, uh, she, and is she there? Oh, there she is. Yes. Thank you, Tracy. You and your department do amazing work and always keeping those marginalized folks in our population in mind when it comes to housing needs. And, and so if anybody had any doubts that we, as a City had been taking strides towards increasing the availability of the housing, uh, for these marginalized individuals, they need to read the, read this report, uh, of course they described at one point our efforts as satisfactory. Uh, so I'd like to see that improve a little bit more, but I, I do think it was, it was a good report. And thank you, Tracy. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 27 Alter: I just, well, I actually read that with, you know, a lot of, um, kudos to you and to the work that has been done. I mean, to look and to see that we over did the target by 270% and helped 1300 people with housing and affordability and eviction prevention is really tremendous. And, um, I know it's more work for staff, but I know also that, you know, there's a Facebook page and like, just to pull out that paragraph about what actually the City accomplished in terms of its work towards affordable housing, I think could be a relatively easy and fantastic way to be able to help inform the public without having to wade through a whole report. But it's right there to say, this is, these are the numbers of what we have been able to accomplish, because I think that that is also something of a black box. Um, so anyway, I just want to say kudos, but it also struck me. I'm like, man, you could just take that and plunk it up on, on social media, um, and it's easily digestible, and, um, so anyway. But man, congratulations, that was a really cool report to read. Weiner: And I agree, but I think the satisfactory was just, like, their bureaucratic speak. I don't think they have any other, I don't think they have any greater, like they can, they can tell you what a great job you did. And that's like, that is satisfactory. That's, that's as far as they go, Fruin: That's that's exactly right. And, and, um, Megan, to your point, that is in the works. Um, we just decided to push that past the holidays because of the, for obvious reasons. Alter: Utterly understandable. I just hesitated to be like here, staff, do more stuff, but I think it could be an easy, cool thing to do. Teague: Anything else? December 22nd info packet. Weiner: Yeah. I just wanted to mention IP2, um, which discusses the grant to the Center for Worker Justice to, to help fund, to fund, uh, an interpreter, to help get some of this money out for a certain time, for a certain period of time. And I'm very happy to see that. Taylor: I was also pleased to see the allocation of funds to provide the temporary bilingual staff. And, and I want to thank, uh, our Mayor Pro Tem is no longer on our Council, so I'll just, I'll speak to it, to thank the CWJ for all they do in our community, uh, to help the marginalized members of our community. And, uh, we, I think speaking for myself, we often take for granted the ease in which we can read things in English, uh, and often forget that there are individuals, uh, who might struggle with being able to even fill out a simple but very important form. And this is going to be very helpful for them. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022. Page 28 Teague: Yes. Awesome. Anything else from December 22nd? And we will go on to, um, December 30th. All right. Hearing nothing. I probably did want to make mention since in, um, IP, um, December 16th and December 22nd, since we're talking about housing, um, that, um, tonight at 5:00 PM, which, it has already happened, that the Shelter is open. So that is very good to know. Anything else on December 30th. Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and commitees Teague: Council -- well, we just did, uh, Council appointments for boards and assignments. Does any of our, uh, uh, previous or continuing Councilors have any updates? All right, great. If none, we're adjourned until 6:00 PM, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of January 4, 2022.