Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-01 TranscriptionPage 1 Council Present: Staff Present: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner Davies, Fleagle, Fruehling, Fruin, Goers, Havel, Jones, Kilburg, Sovers Others: Miglin, Van Heukelom (USG) Continuation of meeting protocol discussion Teague: Welcome to everyone that is here in person, as well as to anyone that is virtual. Um, our first item on the agenda, uh, we're gonna talk about the, uh, continuation of our meeting protocol, uh, discussions. And, um, I might just invite our City Attorney, Eric Goers to start that conversation for us. Goers: Thank you, Mayor. Um, hopefully everyone's had an opportunity to read both the memo and the draft set of rules. I thought I'd provide a little history of how we got to where we are now. Um, there was, uh, uh, a desire on the part of Council to look at the rules and, and perhaps modernize them and, and, uh, put them all in one place. Most cities, um, have a, a single set of rules, uh, to which, uh, uh, members of the public and the council members and staff themselves, uh, can find, uh, most of the rules that pertain to the governance of city council and the, uh, procedures, uh, by which their meetings are run. Uh, Iowa City has traditionally not done it that way. We've had, uh, uh, a large number of separate resolutions, um, covering a broad array of topics. And, uh, they were kind of scattered, uh, hinder and yon, which, uh, I think we have concluded was not the best way of organizing those. And so, um, I want to thank Kellie for doing quite a bit of leg work in kind of rounding up, uh, all those resolutions and putting them in one spot, uh, for me to go through and incorporate into, uh, the drafts set of rules that, uh, you folks have been provided. Um, so I, I took the kind are the resolutions that, uh, constitute the present set of rules, uh, governing City Council and City Council meetings. And then I also, uh, did some research gathering, uh, the single set of rules from a number of different metro, uh, cities, as well as, um, uh, template or examples of rules provided by the Iowa League of Cities. Um, and then compared those to how Iowa City has traditionally run their meanings, understanding that every city is different and has, uh, kind of a different culture for how their meetings are run. Uh, Iowa City has long been known as, uh, being very welcoming of public comment, uh, and providing a lot of opportunity for that, for example. And I wanted to be true to that, uh, history and, uh, so, uh, drafted the rules, uh, in order to reflect that, uh, emphasis within our, uh, our community. Um, those rules were then, uh, reviewed at the staff level and then were provided to, uh, a subset of Council members, including the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and Council member, uh, Weiner, and, uh, they provided their input. And so further refinements were made, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 2 uh, and that has resulted in the rules, uh, that have been presented, uh, to you. Um, obviously there, the rules are aimed at allowing for effective business meetings. This is your business meeting, there's, uh, any number of, uh, ways of course, that all Council members are receiving public input, for example, in all different kinds of settings and so forth. Um, but this is ultimately the, the business meeting at which decisions, uh, are made by, by you, um, and so the rules, like the rules of every other, you know, city are geared toward having an effective and efficient meeting while, uh, particularly in Iowa City's case, allowing for maximum public comment and allowing everyone to, uh, be heard, um, and, and so they have an opportunity to address you, uh, directly, uh, at the time that you folks are considering a vote one way or another on, on a given item. Um, these are your rules, so there's no pride in authorship. If you folks would like to see, uh, changes, please don't be bashful in discussing those. I do have one, uh, suggested amendment after, um, uh, looking at, at it more carefully in comparing it to Robert's Rules, which, who, who knew it was this thick, it's this, this is how thick Robert's Rules is. Um, and that's in Rule 2, the last sentence in, uh, 2, I would recommend that we delete, uh, the reason I suggest that is that Iowa City has long adopted Robert's Rules, um, and this sentence, uh, that is, "except as specifically required by these rules, Council shall not use any formal points of parliamentary order, personal privilege, parliamentary inquiry, or other technical forms," uh, might be construed as undermining the adoption of Robert's Rules. Um, and so I would recommend that we delete that, uh, last sentence, but otherwise, um, I would, uh, turn it back over to the Mayor to, um, and, and invite your discussion and in, and input. Teague: Thank you, Eric. And, um, I was one of the ones that was on the committee, and so was, um, Mayor Pro Tem, as well as Councilor Weiner. So this is open discussion. I think, um, the document is, you know, has been shared not only with Council, also to the public. Um, so now I'll just open it up for discussion. Weiner: I, I, I would just open by saying, I think I really appreciate all the work that, that you put into this, um, Eric, as well as you, as you Kellie. Um, I, I think, and I think there are probably, I think there are some refinements that still need to be made to Section 21 so that we're not impinging on freedom of speech, uh, freedom of speech, and so that we're not essentially encouraging people to take some actions, um, but I think, like, Councilor, I think you have some expertise in, in this area. I mean, I just basically wanna make sure that we're, that we are abiding by, um, that we're, uh, but, allowing people to have their First Amendment rights and not basically encouraging, um, public displays that we're, that we may not be interested in by actually putting some of this language in here. And I'm thinking specifically of the first paragraph, that's that, uh, Rule 21 that, that talks about, um, slanderous or disruptive remark, the, and then in the bullets, the first and second bullets in particular, um, I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 3 just think we need some refinement and maybe a couple of others. I haven't come up with specific language. There might be a couple of others, have some specific suggestions. Otherwise I think that it's a, it's really great to have it all in one place, um, so that, so that people can, can know what the rules of the road are. And that's probably, that's a huge, I think that's a huge service to Council and to the public. Goers: If I may, I wanna make sure that we're all looking at the same version of rules, perhaps I've got the wrong version. Um, you had mentioned Rule 21, my version doesn't have bullet points on that. What's the title of the Rule that you're referring to? Weiner: Sorry. It's um, Rule 21, and then I missed the Rule 22, because it comes at the, at the bottom of the page. So the bullets are under Rule 22. Goers: Ah, okay, got it. All Right. Perfect. Weiner: Apology. Goers: Um, I would follow up in, in this way about the First Amendment rights. You're absolutely right, um, about that. Most of the, um, language, particularly in the second, um, bullet point is aspirational, uh, and obviously is ideal for a, a functioning, um, governmental meeting, um, where we're, you know, we invite constructive criticism, tough criticism and so forth, but, you know, personal attacks and so forth are not particularly productive. That said everyone at this dais is a public figure, um, you know, and as a result, usually the First Amendment response to bad speech regarding, um, uh, a public figure is more speech. Um, that is speech, the contrary to rebut that. Uh, it would be different if it was just clearly an outrageously slanderous, if it was addressing, uh, an employee who, you know, isn't at this dais and isn't a public figure. Um, but you're right. That is, you know, if someone comes and wants to have a personal attack to a Council member, I think they should probably know that's not a particularly productive, uh, exercise, but, uh, I agree with you, the a First Amendment would probably entitle them to do so. Harmsen: Yeah. If I could, could jump in. I, so I dusted off the old, uh, media law and First Amendment law, uh, from, from courses and coursework and things like that, so I could double check this, and yeah, as I was reading through this, like, it seems pretty clear that the things we want to do in terms of holding a meeting, like no disruptions, uh, seem to be pretty allowable. At least when I was going back and looking through some of the, some of the textbooks and through some different court cases. Uh, but anything that shies into the area of addressing content, I feel like that's, that's a landmine. Um, it's a, it's a real thing to, to kind of avoid. So I, I agree, even though we wish people would not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 4 behave in a way that would maybe be slanderous, or personal attacks and things like that, uh, my reading on it, um, and of course I'm not the Attorney, but, um, my reading on it is we really can't legally do that. Like we wouldn't have any legal grounds to stand on, uh, but I think it's also ethical, I mean, that's, you know, if we want to err the side of open discussion. Now that said, that doesn't mean anybody can say it at any point in time in a meeting. So, you know, we do offer, um, you know, I think, uh, you know, watching some of the meetings and some of the problems that sort of brought this about dealt with the fact that meetings were being disrupted, um, and the -- off topic, um, that seems to be something that would be a reasonable, um, and because it is a dedicated forum, um, you know, a public forum, so it's dedicated to a purpose. We do have, I think the, the right to say, you know, open public comments for this time to this time, other speakers, uh, during, you know, we're talking about a zoning issue, um, speakers that speak to that need to be talking about that topic, all seem to be things that we can say yes, that for the, the running of our meeting, that works. Um, but I think we get into stuff like, you know, some of the specifics of what we would, how we would like people to behave, which I agree I'd like them to behave. I don't think we can codify that, uh, and, and make it stick. So, um, so I mean, that's kind of my, my, my thoughts too, is as I go back and look through this. Thomas: I, I appreciate seeing all this material as well. Uh, I kind of wish I had seen it earlier, actually. Um, just to understand what, you know, how, how this, how our meetings are held and what the options and possibilities are in terms of, um, specific comments under Rule 20, the time limit. Um, I, I, based on my experience on the Council, uh, it seems, I would like to distinguish, uh, time limits on, you know, the public comment period and things of that sort. But when it comes to items that have a public hearing, it seems to me those three minutes may not be sufficient. And, uh, you know, I would, I would prefer something along the lines of five minutes on, on those items that require a public hearing. Uh, so that, that would be, that would be, I think my main focus, um. We, we talked about the bullet points. It does, one of them was on organized groups and, um, you know, that can be creative in how they use their time. And, and I just wanted to note that, um, you know, it can either be consolidating under one speaker or one -- another option that we've seen is that, uh, an organized group will coordinate their presentation, so over four or five, uh, individuals will combine their time, and, um, each of them will cover a different aspect of whatever the issue is before them. Uh, and I, I felt that worked very effectively and was very productive as well. Teague: I wanted to point out, um, for Rule number 20 that it does go on to say, um, uh, persons limited to three minutes speaking time, and then, then it, after the comma, it says unless additional or less time is determined by the presiding officer, which will be the, uh, Mayor in this situation, right, well, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 5 right now, today, um, and is based on the number of persons wishing to speak and//or the length of the Council meeting. So it does allow, um, for adjustments to be done, but I, I hear your specific requests, is, time limits for, or public. Um, um, your, your specific request is for what, again? Thomas: Public hearing, anything -- Teague: A public hearing -- Thomas: -- with a public hearing. And, and I, I must say, I'm not quite sure exactly what requires a public hearing, clearly, Planning and Zoning matters typically have public hearings, and it's, it's that type of event or item that I'm most concerned with based on my own experience, that, that oftentimes those are, uh, discussions where the speakers, the public comment, uh, is, is more likely to reasonably go over a three minute limit. Um, and so I think at least going into it, and I, I agree with you, there's a lot of discretion that the presiding officer has in terms of deciding what the time limit should be, but just as a general rule, it seems to me that, um, those items that have a, a public, uh, you know, public hearing aspect to them may require more time than three minutes as a maximum. Taylor: I agree with Councilor Thomas on that, that in some instances, and in our experience in the six years we've been on there, there have been times when, uh, during the, uh, public, uh, hearing, it seemed as though there were folks that might have had a little bit more to say that could have, uh, had five minutes, five, I think five would be the max for them. Uh, if they had some type of session, if they had a visual presentation, we could extend the time limit for them. So I would agree with that in, in that respect for the public hearings. Of course, on your judgment on the, on the presiding officer's judgment too, if there are 20 people that wanna talk five minutes, that'll be, that would be quite a long time. So again, going back to your judgment on that, uh. I wanted a little, I, I, I appreciate all the work that you did, Eric, and, and those that, that worked on this. 'Cause I think it does help to provide some clarification as far as, uh, where we are and that it is a business and that we wanna run it, uh, smoothly and get our business done. Uh, so I, I thank you for that. Um, especially since a recent meeting that we attended, uh, there wasn't anything in there clearly, clearly stating that the, uh, mayor pro tem or presiding officer can, can like temporarily put the meeting in recess. Um, does our group feel that we, we need to have that kind of language in there, that allows the mayor pro tem or presiding officer to, to recess the meeting? Teague: Would Robert's Rules kind of address that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 6 Goers: Yeah, I mean, Robert's Rules do allow for that. Uh, you certainly could add it, but, um, you have the ability now by adopting Robert's Rules. Taylor: Okay. Thank you. And kind of on the lines of that too... Rule 26, let's see here, uh, the call for a vote, is that basically what you're saying is what, what I'm used to, as, uh, calling the question and would that, I mean, should we refer to it as that? Or can it say, can, can one Council member, or would it take more than one to, to actually call the question then? Can, can we clarify that in there? Goers: Uh, yes. That is a different phrasing for calling the question and, uh, yeah, I believe this is consistent with Robert's Rules. What's, uh, spelled out here now that's, you know, as you're already, I'm sure aware if, if, you know, debates tends to drag on and, and become repetitive and circular, then a motion can be made to call the question, the second needs to be made, and then a majority of Council needs to vote to call the question. That's not a vote on the, um, on the merits of the underlying motion. So you would have two votes, you know? Yes, we vote to call the question and now we're gonna vote on the underlying item. Taylor: Okay. Thank you. Harmsen: Uh, one other quick question. Um, is there, oh, I probably should have said this before. Thank you to everybody that worked on this, uh, very much appreciate the time and effort that went into it. Um, and to give us something that then we can, can hash over and have something concrete in front of us. It's an important part of the process. And, and I wanna make sure I acknowledge that, that, that work is appreciated. Um, with the Robert, since the Robert's Rules updates periodically, would we have to, every time it updates, just go back and say, you know, we are adopting the newest version, or would we wanna phrase this to just follow whatever the latest...any thoughts on that? Goers: Uh, yes. Uh, I'd have to look at the ordinance again, but I believe that the ordinance that is codified that, uh, adopts Robert's Rules, I, I believe it says as amended, that would certainly be the magic language that you're looking for because you're right. It, it is, I mean, the book I'm carrying is the 12th edition and -- Harmsen: Mm-hmm. Goers: -- it's, you know, the newly revised there was of course the revised version and now the newly revised and yeah, you're right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 7 Harmsen: Okay. Thank you. Bergus: I wanna echo the, thanks for everyone who worked on this. Um, I do have a few kind of maybe more housekeeping, cler --, clerical kinds of things, and a couple of substantive comments. Um, there are a few places in the resolution where, um, like "council member" is, uh, just inconsistently capitalized. I'm sorry. That's super picky. Um, but it looks to be a term of art in a few places and, and, and then other places it's not, and just of, with the, when it's capitalized, assuming it has this specific meeting, I just wanna be, I want confirmation that the presiding officer, anytime it says "council member" also includes the presiding officer, correct? Yes. Because of course they would be a member of council if it is the mayor or the mayor pro tem. Goers: In -- in Iowa City's set up, yes. Bergus: Right, right. Okay. Um, and then for, uh, Rule 10, which is labeled agenda deadline, um, I liked, I really liked this as a clarification of kind of how things can be added to the agenda. Um, I don't know if we wanna include a deadline, like if things are to be added, it should be the mayor or at least the members of council, or, you know, people can add items to the agenda by requesting them to be included by a certain date. Or if the intent really was just to say kind of who can request inclusion on the agenda? Goers: Right. Some cities do in their rules include a specific agenda. And, and for some cities it's really, I don't wanna use the word draconian, but boy, you really need to be on the ball and, uh, be early. Um, and, um, certainly this Council can do that, obviously setting, um, uh, deadline as it sees fit. Um, although I would want to have some input from Kellie on that before you, before you settle on a particular, uh, date and time. But as you're, as you've said, as it's presently formatted, this just speaks to kind of how someone gets an item on the agenda. Right. Bergus: So I don't know if maybe just titling it something other than agenda deadline. I don't know if that would be more, clearer, um, for that, I think 'cause otherwise we're just, I assume our deadline is the 24 hours' notice as required by state law. Um, then for the, um, conduct of meetings section in Rule 16, it kind of lays out what the agenda is. And maybe this is answered by that, um, agenda deadline section as far as adding things to the agenda, but under council, city council information, back in the day, there used to be new business and old business, sort of, things we've talked about before and may wanna bring up again, and, or things that we may want to discuss in the future. I've always been a little uncertain, what is the appropriate time to bring forward things we may want to add to a work session or a formal agenda and you know, to, to bring it up as a topic, um, if that's appropriate This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 8 under city council information, and if so that's great, but I just, um, or if it needs to be kind of behind the scenes to the clerk with at least three councilors. Teague: What item number Is that? Bergus: So it's in Rule 16, there's kind of the, uh, order of consideration of the agenda. And then it's got what all the items will be on the agenda. And number nine under that list is city council information, which I'm mentioning it there just because I think the way that we've been conducting it in the two years I've been on Council is that's like reporting on, um, items of interest in the community and sort of like that, you know, making remarks about things that we're aware of that were things that we've attended. Um, and so if that's the appropriate time to ask, Hey, do we wanna talk about X, Y, Z, um, in the future, I just am hoping for, for clarification on that. Goers: Well, as you're probably aware, the, of course the, the potential danger is getting into a substantive conversation about a topic that has not been noticed up. Now what you're proposing I think is fine. I, I think you're suggesting, Hey, there's this topic I'd like to talk about it, does, you know, Council as a, about do want to talk about it next time? Bergus: Mm-hmm Goers: --as well. I, I think that's fine. And I think it's appropriate to raise it at that level. If you're looking for, um, you know, a separate number, obviously we can, we can do that if, if that's the will of Council. Bergus: Well, it's just more like if these are our rules for our conduct, I just wanted to be really clear on, you know, for, as, as we've been operating. I wasn't, I wasn't sure if that's, if that was appropriate there or not, but sounds like it would be okay. Yeah. Weiner: I, I like the idea of personally, I like the idea of doing it then, because it also is more transparent than doing it behind the scenes. I mean, you can do it behind the scenes, but if a councilor can say, We'd really like to get topic X, um, on the, on the work session or whatever, and then, and, or on our work session agenda, um, do I have, and if then, and if then you, as the presiding officer, says, are there at least two other councilors who wanna do that, then everybody is put on notice, not just the Council. Fruin: I think historically that has occurred at the work session under the, uh, of the IP of the pending work session topics, um, is when that's typically brought This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 9 up. But as, as Eric said, I don't think there's any harm in doing it here. I don't know that we need to call it out on the agenda. Weiner: Okay. Bergus: I appreciate that. Thank you. Goers: In fact, oh, sorry. Bergus: No, go ahead. Goers: I was just gonna get back to Council member Harmsen about the, um, uh, Robert's Rules we do in fact, in 156, uh, talk about we, uh, uh, the rules of parliamentary practices comprised in the current addition of Robert's Rules orders as amended, so, oh, okay. Harmsen: Thank you. Bergus: Um, Rule 19, uh, differentiates for people who address the Council, I think during public comment versus during a public hearing and the public hearing requires the, a speaker who is a party in interest to, by virtue of their address to provide their address and group affiliation. Is there, um, I just wasn't sure what the basis for that was, or if that's a necessary distinction. Goers: Right, well, because let me make sure I'm looking at the right rule. You said 19? Bergus: 19. Goers: Yeah. There are some matters that, uh, folks can object, um, and be part of a petition, uh, you know, objecting only by virtue of their address. And so if they're identifying themselves, it, you know, and not that any member of the public can't speak to that item, of course, but, uh, I think the Council would probably want to know, um, you know, they're a neighbor, they're one of the ones who can object because, you know, as the state statute pulls out and kind of gives those folks a special privilege to object, uh, obviously you don't, don't have to do it if you don't want to. Bergus: 'Cause I think in the past we'd asked everyone to provide their address. And so we're saying, just provide your city, unless you are someone who's, like, interested in the specific item during a public hearing. Is that a fair way to say it? Goers: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 10 Bergus: Okay. I do think under the, um, under 21 and 22, I agree with what, uh, Councilors Harmsen and Weiner indicated about, you know, being, not, not, um, prohibiting those things that we know we can't really prohibit. I would urge us to be really careful to move anything that is aspirational or an expectation into a section that just states that. That says these are our expectations for how people will conduct themselves at our meeting. Um, because I don't, I think as it's, as it's presented to me, it could be that if you violate any of these things, then, you know, certain sort of corrective action could happen. And I, I just don't, I'm not comfortable saying that well sort of impose some limitation on someone if they violate a rule that we're all in agreement probably is not enforceable. So I think if we can just kind of have a list of expectations that are very clear that we're all adults and, you know, we hope to conduct ourselves civilly and then, uh, those that we would want to actually enforce. Teague: What rule number are you on? Bergus: Uh, 22. I -- I think also, oh, sorry, 21 and 22. So 21 is personal, repetitive, slanderous. I think we can limit, but that's a real tough, it's a real high bar and disruptive, cause that's not content based. I think we can limit. Teague: And, um, you can certainly continue, but I think as we're going through this, if there is something that Councilors wanted to, um, you can have a conversation with your, with our colleague or any colleague as they're stating something. Um, I think specifically if there's something that maybe you have a different thought about, so that, because at this point, like at least I'm writing down stuff and I know our City Attorney is, these are gonna be the changes unless we hear some dis-, some, you know, some further discussion here. Alter: I actually, so I have a point of, I have a question, um, this came up actually when we were discussing rules and it is specifically about First Amendment versus being able to conduct the business of the meeting. Um, and certainly we don't wanna codify things that, um, I see this as a big tension, right. And it's something that we've certainly we're worrying through. And so I guess my, the fulcrum upon which I have curiosity and, and questions about is, um, at what point, how are we, how are we able to define disruption, I guess right. And I go back to the beginning, which is as the City Attorney framed it, which was us being able to carry on the business of the meeting, um, so I feel like we're kind of, there's a tension there between, and understandably so between the First Amendment, um, rights of an individual to express themselves, um, along with then sort of the purpose and function of the meeting. And I'm wondering if there's a way in which we can reconcile it, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 11 because right now it seems that, that reconciliation or that mitigation is, is, um, is not viable? Is what I'm hearing at least from different people. Goers: Well, I mean, it kind of depends on the nature of the disruption. I, I think for example, you know, as Council Bergus indicated, you know, there are some things like, oh, is that really slanderous? Is it really not? And is it, you know, germane? Well, the, these rules as currently written, um, empower the presiding officer to make that determination, whether it's germane or not, and so forth, but some of the other disruptions, hypothetically, and which you've experienced yourself, um, in the past have been, you know, folks shouting out from the audience, for example, when they're not at the podium and, and have not been recognized to speak, that's disruption. I mean, there's no, you know, I have no difficulty in calling that disruptive. Uh, folks who, um, violate the rules that are clear set. You know, if the Mayor indicates there's three minutes or five minutes or whatever you folks decide, you know, and, um, person keeps talking or says, I don't care, I don't care what your rules are, I'm still talking, well, that's clearly disruptive too. So, I mean, there are a number of things that I think would be clear and obvious. Um, and again, it's the presiding officer who makes that determination. Um, I think these rules indicate that, you know, the presiding officer can look to me to, you know, for confirmation or something, but it'll be the presiding officer making that call. And, and I think most of the time it'll be pretty obvious. Alter: Thank you. That, that helps. And actually I give, uh, Councilor Bergus a nod, 'cause it seems really actually the, the way to be able to understand this is process versus content. Bergus: I think that's exactly right. We can prescribe the time, the place and the manner. We say three minutes addressing us from the podium or from Zoom, um, during this prescribed time. But the content, the substance of what they're saying is what we can't prohibit. Harmsen: I think even germane, something being germane to the topic, I think that's pretty solid ground as well. If we're having a hearing about issue X. And I think, you know, if we say we're at a meeting and we re hearing from people who are gonna talk about the rezoning of this piece of property, that the people that speak in that specific part of the meeting need to speak to that specific agenda item. I think that's safe. But I think when we get anything more like into content like this, you know, this is, uh, this is insulting or this is something like that. Uh, you know, when I read it as public of-, officials, we don't have a lot of latitude there. Uh, the presumption is more free speech, uh, in most, in most of what I've read. Um, and even, you know, there are some, some very narrow exceptions where, you know, fighting words. Um, although that, that definition's a little bit hazy, um, you know, clear and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 12 present threats, things like that. So there are a few things where the, the free speech protections don't, um, legally and historically extend. Um, but I think in terms of like just content -neutral, somebody speaking out of turn from the audience, um, somebody going past their time, somebody who is clearly not speaking to the agenda item, that's being there. Like those are content - neutral. Um, in terms of, we're not judging like this offends me, this doesn't offend me because that's when we get into trouble. Um, at least in terms of like what the, you know, freedom of speech kinds of concerns, but the other stuff I think, you know, we have the people's business to do. And when the disruption is happening, we do have a duty to the, the, you know, to do the conduct the business and a le-, as well as a legal right to conduct our business, so. Weiner: Yeah, I mean, I think that Mayor Pro Tem, I think, and my response to that as well as just the very, the, the, the idea of germaneness, which is gonna be up to the presiding officer just to, to decide, is this germane to the topic at hand? Like, are you, are you talking about the corner of Scott and whatever it is, and, or are you talking about something that really has nothing to do with the decision we're making? And then that can, if, if they're not abiding, if, if that's the case, then you, then the presiding officer can move of into the, um, rules that are down below without us having to proscribe content. Harmsen: And I think one other thing that works in our favor is that we provide other avenues. So we do have that open comment section for things not on the agenda. So we are, we are also, we are providing those other avenues, those alternate avenues, um, of, of being heard. Um, additionally, you know, there's other ways of communicating, which of course we're always allowed, um, you know, other sorts of listening posts, uh, now that we're, we're starting those again, um, you know, other kinds of avenues. So I think that also, um, you know, helps us to do our duty, but also gives us the, you know, to say, yeah, you can't, you know, we're talking about the zoning of this particular piece of property, um, but certainly other issues we want to hear from you that are important. And we're gonna give you this opportunity in this open public comment section at the beginning of every meeting. And, and, uh, as you know, noted, I think in, uh, Eric or somebody else, uh, you know, there are, there are cities that are just, they just really, or I don't think are acting in good faith. We'll give five minutes of public comment, total split among the people that are here. That's, you know, that's, that's, uh, to me, that's totally, it might be living up to the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of it. Um, and I think we do, with the way we do it, we have, you know, we're with the spirit of what we should be doing, I think, so. Thomas: I, I think too, one of the struggles we're having is we're, we're in a, a moment where having conversations isn't as easy as it would be normally. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 13 And I think we're all looking for conversations. I mean, I, I see that a, you know, that's been one of the areas of friction at our meetings is, you know, the community or the speaker expecting a response, and that's not the way these meetings are structured, but, you know, I, I certainly would prefer conversations and those can happen in other, other ways, other opportunities for that. And I, I certainly hope that, um, you know, in the coming months well be able to kind of return to the opportunity for having those conversations, which are, are much, you know, an important part of, of our decision making in, in our formal meetings. And it hasn't been able to happen. So I, I, I think if, I hope if that returns the pressure on the, these public formal meetings that we have will be relieved to a certain extent in terms of having that opportunity. Taylor: I agree with that. And I'm, I'm looking forward to the listening post that is coming up, and I'm glad to see that unfortunately, uh, being Zoom, I, the, the in person, uh, provided a much better avenue for that sort of, uh, face to face and, and, uh, Councilperson to community member discussion. But, uh, I'll be curious to see how many people do actually, uh, sign on to the zoom and, and carry on the conversation. And, and I, I encourage, uh, public to do that 'cause as, as John alluded to others, that that's, that's a good, appropriate time to, to bring up those kinds of concerns and issues that, that, uh, you don't have time on the agenda to talk about. Teague: Lots of discussion so far. I, I just wanted to add that, um, at least for me, when I think about, what is the purpose of these rules, what is the underlying goal? And I think it's really to give, um, the public, the Council, staff, everybody some expectations, a baseline. And, and I think it also, um, allows us time to think about maybe some of the things that have happened in the past and how can we create a, a, a, a space where people from the community can come and, you know, share their concerns. The other thing that I'm, um, clearly aware of is that by having these, um, you know, it could encourage some people to, you know, uh, be disruptive or, or do some things. I, I, I am more optimistic that that won't be the situation because I think the, the heart of, the heart of this is really to ensure that everyone has opportunity. And I think that, the, um, the, the overall thing that we'll see from having rules in place is people that come here that have never been here before will feel welcomed, and they won't be intimidated potentially, um, by something that will scare them to come up and voice their own concern before their elected officials. And so I, I, I, I think the, you know, the rules are, um, coming at a, at a time where I think, um, the spirit is not to say, Hey, we want to be mean, we want to, uh, really create this, you know, this, this order; it really is in the spirit to make sure that everyone feels welcome to come and speak, not feel intimidated, um, to get up and express themselves. And so I appreciate the kind conversation so far. I, um, and it can continue. I'm not cutting it off. Um, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 14 I wanted to, um, so I've been making some notes and as, as I see it, um, the committee may need to meet one more time to walk away with some of these notes, to make sure that the intent of Council collaborative, um, voices are expressed, but I wanted to maybe, um, unless our City Attorney has clarification on number 22 and 21, um, about the slanderous, you know, there was, there's some conversations surrounding that. I, at least for me, I'm not exactly clear on what should be, uh, included and what will be removed. Everything else I think is pretty, um, I think has been expressed very clearly. Um, maybe Councilor Thomas did mention about the public hearings. Um, you know, I, I don't know if that is something that, um, we want to, um, uh, if, if you're proposing that we do something different, um, right now it is three minutes. I, unless, you know, I, you know, if someone calle me ahead of time or notified the City ahead of time that they wanted to do a longer presentation, typically, uh, what I've encouraged them at that point is, is there another person within your organization or within your affiliation that has the same concern that can, you know, go back to back Um, and that's actually been well received, um, because it was ahead of time. Now when people come here and they're not aware, which is, you know, oftentimes the situation, then that's where it becomes a little bit, uh, cumbersome. Most times when we have extended, um, you know, um, engagement, um, beyond the three minutes, um, I would say it either, it's from someone that hadn't had that conversation yet, um, they weren't aware, uh, and they're very passionate about what they need to express and share, um, and, and for them, it does us seem abrupt. You know, that, you know, the three minutes has ended. I'm not sure, you know, what the Council consensus is, but at least in my experience, the three minutes has really worked. We used to be five minutes. And when I first got on Council in 2018, our comments were five minutes. We switched it to three minutes, um, maybe 2020, maybe 2019, but it was five minutes when I first came to Council. Um, but I, I, you know, again, I, I don't know how we would determine, um, if someone was to give five minutes, I would just make mention that it, you know, um, surprisingly to a lot of people that come, you know, the three minutes when they, they come and they show up and they learn that it's three minutes and, you know, they have something prepared. Uh, we've seen other people that come and they have a line of like six people that do their presentation. Those are people that are fully aware of the time limits. And they've been, you know, you know, switching and Kellie just switches, you know, they come and introduce themselves and Kellie just restarts the timer. So, you know, I think if the, and oftentimes if it is, you know, a topic, any agenda item, typically that agenda item, um, there are people from the community that, you know, there there's gonna to be two sides, typically one that's for and one that's against. And so, you know, many people will be sharing, you know, similar stories, um, on, on both sides. Now, there are some presentations that I've witnessed that is very entailed, that is beyond, um, you know, maybe the, the feelings related to the, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 15 to the, to the, the topic on the agenda and maybe bringing some more, um, descriptive or some, some type of literature that, uh, identifies, you know, some statistical points that we need to be made aware of or quantitative points. But if, if we're thinking about switching the time limits, at least for me as the current presiding officer, I think it, I, I would love for it to be very clear to the public what, when we will increase. Um, and for me, the presiding officer as well. Thomas: Well, that, that's why I suggested the public hearing as a trigger. Um, and I, I was just, um, as you were talking, I was remembering my first time speaking at a City Council meeting and, uh, on a Planning and Zoning matter. And I went way over, what, I don't even remember there being a limit, but I'm, I'm sure I went over five minutes. Teague: You made them start the limit. Thomas: Yeah, I may have been, yeah, I could have been the trigger of, of the time limit, but, um, I, I think that it, it's, a big part of this is the discretion issue on the part of the presiding officer. Um, but it, it does seem to me, again, based on, on what I've seen, that five minutes for public hearing items is reasonable, but, you know, that can always be adjusted, you know, you know, as, as appropriate by the presiding officer. I, I had kind of arrived at that. And then I just briefly looked at other cities, Cedar Rapids actually landed in that spot. It was five minutes for, um, public hearings. So I thought, oh, well, that's interesting. Um, but, um, yeah, I, and maybe that's part of when the committee gets back together is spending some time looking at other what other comparable jurisdictions or, have structured, how they've structured their meetings. Teague: When it comes to, um, I, I wanna make one comment about, um, public hearings. There are some jurisdictions, um, that require if, if it's a, um, something related to an address you have to be within that you have to be immediately affected. Um, and so no one outside of that address area, I don't know how they determine the, the area that the, they, they cannot comment. And so, I don't know if I'm not, I'm not suggesting we go there, but some of those things do go into play if we look at other jurisdictions. Thomas: Right. No, I was thinking specifically on the time limit aspect, uh, seeing what other cities can, how they've structured their meetings. Teague: And I will add that, um, at least one of the re rationale that I've spoke to someone about while they do that is because these are the people that are immediately impacted. Now, you know, that, that, that could be questioned This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 16 on a lot of levels, but that's why they're the ones that are allowed to speak. And, um, but yeah. Weiner: I mean, I, I guess what, I'm, what I might suggest as a, as a compromise is if in a particular public hearing, it seems like people need more time than then it would be good if the presiding officer could be consistent within that public hearing. So if, like, if somebody needs five minutes, then you would offer five minutes to other people who are in that particular public hearing. Harmsen: Do you think we might be putting the presiding officer in sort of an, an untenable situation though? Um, because the accusations of, well, you gave this person five minutes, but you only let me have the three, or this last issue that was an hour ago, they got five minutes, but now we're only getting three. Um, as opposed, I know we do have a bit of an exception in these for like a person, like the zoning issue. Like if somebody's presenting on something and they're part of the agenda we have essentially allowed or invited them to speak at more at length, because they're an agenda item. Um, so I wonder if, if maybe we might be well intentioned and, uh, to give the presiding officer, whoever that is, um, more like in the moment latitude, but we might also, I wonder if there's not like a, uh, a stumbling block built into that, and I see you, Goers: Well -- I wanna be clear, you, you couldn't, or the presiding officer, couldn't say speaker one gets five minutes, again, assuming they're not a party to the rezoning or something like that, speaker one gets five minutes, speaker two, I don't like you, so you get two minutes or something like that. Harmsen: We wouldn't say that. Goers: Yeah. Harmsen: You couldn't say it or do it. Goers: Uh, you couldn't do either of those things, but I could imagine a circumstance in which there was, let's say a zoning item or something, and you know, you as a Council, sit through 45 minutes worth of presentation, uh, on this item first, and then you see 75 people lined up to speak about it. Oh, you know, you could imagine a presenting officer at that point saying, okay, how many people would like to speak to this, raise your hand. He looks out to a full room and thinks, okay, maybe two minutes, you know, or, or something. So it's that, I think it's that kind of, um, discretion that the rules are intended to grant to the presiding officer. Not you get three, you get five, you know, because I like you and I don't like you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 17 Alter: It seems also like it's worth pointing out that at that point, I know that there have been arguments from audience, or certainly sentiments saying, you know, let them speak more, you're cutting them off. But I think particularly instance that you just described, and I have sat in one, multiple, um, public hearings where there have been a lot of passion and a lot of people have shown up, that this is not about cutting people off. It's allowing as many people as possible to be able to speak albeit with a shorter time. So maybe that's something that along with, not codified, but to a allow the presiding officer to say, because there are so many people and we want to hear from so many of you, we're cutting it down, just, again, to be transparent about why this is happening. Um, I think could help that, again, I'm, I'm very mindful of, uh, what you were talking about, Mayor, um, how these rules are not to disengage or push people away. It's actually to welcome them so that people know how to engage best. Um, in, in a way that's both, um, in an opportunity for them, as well as for us to be able to hear what they're saying and conduct our business, it's a kind of three parter, but to have that, that public speaking component, when there's a lot of people with a lot of passion, to understand that it's not so much an a matter of we're trying to curtail what you're saying as it is, we want to be able to hear from as many people as possible, that might be helpful. Thomas: And, and we've, and I've certainly seen that where, you know, the Mayor will say how many wish to speak to this item. And that, that then determines, has an influence on the amount of time each person is given. Because yeah, if it's a large number of people that can break the flow of the meeting and, and, uh, not allow us to do the work, so. That's a, that's a critical variable. Alter: Sure. And certainly, I don't mean to do that as a, as, as a, the other side of the coin to your comments about allowing for people to, to have the time that they want to speak. I mean, I think that it's a tricky wicket. You think that we've sort of set the something out, but Councilor you're, you're also pointing it out, that to the onus on the presiding officer can be difficult, but if there's maybe some of that transparency and explanatory language in particular circumstances, then at least, um, people understand where these, these decisions are coming from, as opposed to it seeming like it's arbitrary. Taylor: Well, I think it's also important for the audience to know that, kind of relating to what you said, Councilor Harmsen, that the presenters, the architects, the developers, the property owners, they're not held to that three to five minute time limit, they're part of the presentation. And it could be five minutes. It could be 10 minutes, but that's for our understanding of the whole situation. Uh, I think that's been a misunderstanding on the part of some of the audience, while you let them talk for that long. But I think it needs to be clear. Uh, I don't know that we need the language in here, but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 18 that the actual presenters, uh, have whatever time is necessary for them to, uh, provide their topic. And I think that's important. Weiner: I, I think one other thing that we noticed when there, when there are large numbers of speakers is, um, frequently, many of them have a very similar message. Um, and so if, if you, if the, if the time needs to be cut down in order to accommodate more people that, um, that may be that may well be sufficient. Teague: Mm-hmm. Harmsen: Do I think, I, I hear what you, one of the things that's being said here is that a decision on adapting this time would happen, like before the public comments on a particular issue start not once they have begun. So, you know, if they've started at two minutes, uh, there wouldn't be a change like five speakers in, or I think, I think that that's, here's the intention. Teague: Sometimes it happens because we don't have a sign up ahead of time. Harmsen: Sure. Teague: Um, one thing that might be helpful is if we had a, uh, a time limit, I know for our public comment, we have a max time limit of 30 minutes. Um, even if it goes beyond 7:00 PM, the max time is 30 minutes. We don't have, you know, clarify, which I'm not suggesting that we do, I have for the other agenda items so far. Um, you know, I, I think at least for me, and, you know, the presiding officer, have kind of gauged where the crowd is, especially if I know it's a hot topic, I, Zoom was helpful, `cause we would have everyone raise their hand and then I would see how many people and then, you know, I would, you know, pretty much cut it down to two minutes and, and then just say at this point we're gonna stop, um, after you know, this person, but, um, and then other people would jump in, but just wouln't allow that, um, you know. So it, you know, I think I can certainly state from the beginning, you know, we have 20 people in line, you know, that type stuff, but there's only a few items that are, um, that, that there'll be a crowd on. Um, and I think that's kinda, maybe some of those items that, um, you're getting at, where there might be an association that might come forth and have a longer presentation, I think in the, you know, as I, I, I'm hearing all the comments, I think there's a lot that goes into why it should be consistent across the board. Um, I think, um, I, I, I get it and oftentimes some of those individuals, um, will have one -on -ones with us and if they're gonna come, I think that's our opportunity to say if you have a presentation, `cause typically they share that presentation with us beforehand. Um, just let 'em know that it'll be three minutes, although it could be dropped down to two, you know, um, and then This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 19 just make sure you have people to come up and uh, kind of keep the conversation going. We have had, um, I think one, you know, a couple instances where, um, someone wanted to give their time to someone else. I don't know if that's something that we should, you know, entertain it. I know I've sat here once and you know, someone needed to speak on their behalf for whatever reason. Harmsen: I think one of the rules here that they proposed that if you're we get down that route, route is to say like, that could happen one time. Um, 'cause you know, one thing you could see is somebody who wants to take over the entire conversation could have 10 friends. And if we, you know, that's, that's half an hour or 50 minutes, if we go to five minutes, you know, so I mean, so I think there's, there could be some, like, a system that could be gamed if we went too far down that, um, I think if we do that, the limit of like, you know, one person could give their time as opposed to like, having, you know, uh, uh, something that would just again, would derail the whole point of us being here is to get the work done. So while hearing from as many people as possible. Teague: I guess if there is a little, yeah. You know, I, I, I, I think even one time we had maybe an association that was speaking for a, a group of people that's stood, you know, maybe, you know, in that instance, if it's only one person speaking, 10 people, you know, a lot of people here where we're only hearing from one person and not 10, you know, but I, and I guess in that moment, you know, I can look at Council and, and, and, and use my discretion at that point. Goers: Well, just to be clear, under the present draft, they can only as, uh, Councilor, um, Harmsen was suggesting only two people could combine into one for a total of six minutes, or it would be 10 minutes if you went to five. Um, so if, if you wanted to have more discretion than that, we, we would probably wanna make a, an amendment to that part. Bergus: I, what I heard the Mayor saying was that he would look to Council for a majority to agree that it could be changed. Is that right, Mayor? 'Cause I think the rules do provide for that. Goers: Right, 'cause the rules can be amended by a majority, not, you know, they can be set aside for a moment and so forth to allow for something else. If there's, as you say, a majority of Council members agree. Teague: Yep. And I've, I've done that when Council has kind of jumped in before. Bergus: Yeah. And I feel like, Mayor, you've always handled that really well. I mean, I feel like that's been really functional when we've had those few instances This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 20 where it's been kind of a different situation and we've been able to let the public comment proceed in a way that I think better met the, the hope of the people who were appearing. Teague: Sure, sure. All right. So as far as the time and on the public hearing, um, I just wanna make sure that I understand where we are. Are we keeping things the same at the three minutes and with the discretion and if there's something? Harmsen: I kind of like the three minutes, although I take Council member Thomas's, uh, comments, you know, are, are, you know, well, well understood, but I still think three minutes, you know, is, is reasonable. Um, you know, if we have, that is my thought. Teague: Okay. Weiner: If you organize yourself, you can say a lot in three minutes. Bergus: I think there's value in having it be consistent throughout the meeting. Like I appreciate what you're saying, John. Um, but I, I do think it could be confusing for people if during public comment they can, they're limited to three minutes, but then other people, you know, get five minutes. Um, I just think for the expectation setting, it might be helpful to have it be throughout the meeting members of the public can comment for three minutes. Unless there's a big group and it gets limited. Thomas: Well, I, I would also just say that whatever is decided, I think we need to kind of observe how it works and, and see if in fact, uh, we feel that we're hear from the community that, uh, they're being cut off. Um, you know, just see how it works. Teague: Mm-hmm, yep. Sounds good. I, um, because there's a few other things on our, on our work session agenda, um, at least for the 22 and the 21, are you good if we get together and kind of work through those or do you need a little more? Goers: Yes. What I would suggest is that I'll take another crack at, um, revising the rules based on our discussion this evening. And then I'll circulate it to the three members who have been involved in review, uh, previously. And, uh, and then we could meet. Um, and then when you're, the three of you are satisfied with what's, uh, been presented, then we'll bring it back to, um, Council. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 21 Teague: And do we wanna bring it in a work session or do we feel like we're ready to put it on the agenda for a formal vote? There, there isn't a lot of changes, you know, overall. Alter: I would be curious to know what the rest of Council feels. Um, I think it's point, Rule 26, I think? Um, once we get into it, it is kind of the consequences part. Um, it's not a fun thing to think about, but I, I would -- Teague: 23. Alter: 23. Thank you. I would certainly want to get feedback from Council on that before we worked these revisions in and then went to a vote. I would very much like to hear what people have to say on that. So, I mean, whether that's that we carry it over or that we talk about it now, or I don't know, and I apologize for lengthening the conversation, I didn't want it to go on, but it just seems to me that this is sort of an important thing for us to work through. Teague: Sure. And as I see it as progressive. Alter: Mm-hmm. Teague: You know, it, it, it just increases. Um, the hope is that we don't have to get to any of that. Alter: Absolutely. Bergus: I don't -- I guess my feedback would just be on that, that I'm not comfortable with it, including those things that we think are not enforceable. So like as written. So that, the, the next, uh, draft, I think that our City Attorney will bring us to kind of separate out those things that are aspirational versus what would be enforceable, um, you know, I'm, I'm comfortable with this, given that it's, um, if it was only those things that are actually, you know, that, which we can kind of, uh, legally enforce and stand behind, and the fact that it's at a single meeting. Right. So it doesn't that it's, it's sort of you, it's not, um, it's intended to be sort of the, I don't know quite how to say it, but that it's, um.... Harmsen: Cumulative? Bergus: Right. So, yeah, it's on one or more occasions during a Council meeting. Right. And so it's not like if you get a verbal warning at one meeting, then the next meeting you're gonna jump right to step two. Right? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 22 [several voices]: Right. Alter: Right. No, I don't think, that wasn't our.... Bergus: So that makes me more comfortable with it. Teague: I'm not sure that that was my, you know, you can certainly still get a verbal warning at each meeting. Bergus: Right. Teague: You know, but if it, but at some point it may jump quickly to, you know, being directed to leave because you know this individual, you know, it's their second time up, you know, it's gonna be a little more progressive. Alter: You're, are you suggesting within a meeting? Are you -- Teague: Sure, it's still within a meeting. Um, but once you get to being suspended from a, you know, or attending one or more meetings, you know, then that's probably where the other, you know, two can, you know, come into play. Bergus: Yeah. I mean, I, yeah, for me, I'd like to kind of see the separated out list and then, you know, like I said, I'm pretty comfortable with, I think how it's framed up. I still don't ever wanna arrest someone at a meeting. Um, but that's, I know, I think I've made that clear before. I had a couple really small things that I just wanna throw out if we're doing a revision. Teague: Sure. Bergus: Did we wanna say anything about work sessions? So the only place that I saw work, work session mentioned was the limitation to public comment, which is on, um, Rule 18. But I didn't know if it was confusing for members of the public that the framing of meetings in this whole document is really formal meetings. And maybe just some nod to the fact that work sessions exist and they don't run this way. Goers: Sure, I can add something to that. Bergus: And then under Rule 26, um, I just don't know about the word debate. So maybe in Robert's Rules, that's clearer, but, um, I think in my mind, that's Council discussion, as far as when that happens in the meeting at the conclusion of debate, the presiding officer shall call for a vote, or we can call the question. Um, I don't know if maybe for, if we don't ever use the term This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 23 debate, maybe using the term, um, Council discussion is clearer. I might be alone in thinking that, but. Goers: I'm sorry. I missed the beginning of which rule you were referring to. Bergus: Rule 26, the call for vote. Goers: Got it. Bergus: Maybe we need to be debating more. I don't know. I don't feel like we debate. There's certainly me that have much more formal debate format, but that's not us. Those are my only other comments. Thank you. Harmsen: I, I would agree with, uh, Council member Bergus and, and, and Council member Alter. Um, Rule 23, I actually had more misgivings about if we were leaving it to the presiding officer to decide, for instance, you know, what is disrespectful or whatever the verbiage is and some. But if we take that out and we are, we are making that more clear and we're being more content - neutral. Um, I have less, less, uh, problems. And I just wanna point out too, this is, uh, one of the things too, as I read through this and, and, and you'd asked earlier about, should I come back from another work session? I'm inclined to think so, um, just because we're making these rules for, you know, whoever comes next. So it's not just the people that are here. Um, so, you know, we wanna make sure that, you know, what we leave, we're kind of passing forward to the people that might be sitting at these seats, you know, 5, 6, 7, 3, 2, whatever number of years in the future. Um, you know, whereas, so it's, it's any, any hesitation I give about this is no reflection at all on the current mayor, um, or mayor pro tem or anybody else. It's just like, we sort of make these rules for whoever comes next. And so, so I wanna make sure we don't like, you know, accidentally, you know, put something in place that that will regret. Teague: Mm-hmm. All right, Goers: I just wanna say on that point, just to be clear, this will be adopted by a resolution. And so, you know, if either this Council or future council decides they'd like to have a change either significant or insignificant, one, you know, one resolution and that's all it's required for the change. The other point I would wanna make is, you know, kind of, regardless of where, you know, you folks all end up with this, I'm confident that there will be, you know, an educational process, uh, for the public -- Teague: Mm-hmm. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 24 Goers: -- uh, that'll probably involve of kind of projecting of some rules here, maybe some notices, you know, at the sign in sheet over there, we obviously want members of the public to, to fully know and understand what the rules are and the rationale behind them before, you know, they speak, because as you say, I mean, sometimes folks, you know, just inadvertently violate the rules because they just don't know what they are. And so I, I think it's clear that we'll plan to do a better job of, of educating the public about what these rules are. Teague: Any other comments on this? All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 25 Clarification of Agenda Items Teague: We'll move on to info, information packets or, well, actually clarification of agenda items. I do know that Council Bergus will be recusing herself from item number 9A. Bergus: That's correct. Thank you. Teague: Any other things from the formal agenda? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 26 Information Packet Discussion [January 20, January 27] Teague: Moving on to information packet January 20th...moving on to information packet January 27th, and we do have IP7, which is going to be, uh, the, the Council proposed, um, annual, uh, formal meeting and work session schedule. So typically, um, oh, hand it over to our City Clerk. Fruehling: Well, I just went with the first and third Tuesdays, uh, and, and laid it all out there. Um, I did note one, um, holiday in October, which is Yom Kippur. Um, and then I know, you know, in the past, typically there's been some reduced meeting schedule, uh, in the summer and then in December. Uh, and I don't know if the mayor had some suggestions for that. Uh, and then we may have to work backwards, depending on, on that to kind of space out the meetings. Teague: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think, um, if you look at July, if we tackle the summer schedules, um, maybe first, if that's of interest to kinda in, in the, in the December schedule, then we can work on, um, the October 4th. So as I see it, I mean, it, you know, our second meeting would be the 21st in June, and then if we were to go three weeks out, well, that would be the 12th, which would be the second Tuesday in July. And then that would bring us to another three weeks, August 2nd. So it would just put us at the 12th where we would have our meeting and it would only be one in July. So it'd be three weeks between the meetings before. Weiner: It's fine with me. Alter: Me too. Teague: That's okay. Teague: All right. Look like we have a majority there. So, and then, and, and I, I, I actually think we kind of really need everybody on board if we're switching meetings. So if anyone has any challenge, I think they should let us know. Um, so in November we have, if, you know, the 15th is kind of, in, in, in November, um, that's the third, Tuesday, if we go three out, that brings us to the 6th of December, which is our first Tuesday that we would meet, and then it would be four weeks before we meet again. So would people rather meet on the sixth or the third? Do you want the three weeks? You know, I think I would prefer the three, I mean, the three weeks. Alter: Can you repeat that, Mayor? Teague: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 27 Alter: Of the actual dates that you're suggesting. Teague: So the date for December meeting will only be on the sixth -- Alter: Mm-hmm. Teague: -- and I went, uh, back to the November meeting. The last meeting would be the 15th. Alter: Oh, okay. So there would be no changes then. Teague: No changes in November, but there would be three weeks be-- it would be three weeks naturally anyway. Alter: Gotcha. Teague: Um, because our first meeting would be on the sixth, so we wouldn't, we would just cancel the second meeting in December. Again, if there is a need to add any, add a meeting, which we've had to do, we would do that for whatever the need is and find a date, even if it's the original date that we normally meet. Thomas: Cancel December 20th, is that -- Teague: Correct, cancel December 20th. All right. Hearing no conflicts, we'll now discuss October. Weiner: Yep. So if you, uh, what I can tell you is that if, if you maintain the, the October 4th date, I will not be there because Yom Kippur starts at, um, at sundown that day on the 4th. Thomas: Mm-hmm. Weiner: So it's preparation and going into the holiday as opposed to coming out of the holiday. Teague: What I, what I might propose is that we find another day during that week, Monday or Wednesday. Typically, I think if we're thinking that well, information, you know, the public would already be noticed 24 hours. I don't know if there's a preference for staff, if we go Monday or Wednesdays. Weiner: Just so you know, Wednesday doesn't help me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 28 Teague: I'm -- I'm sorry. Weiner: Wednesday doesn't help. Taylor: Right. Teague: Oh. Sure. We'll go, how about Mondays? Weiner: Mondays is fine. And then I, I'm just letting you know -- Teague: Oh, sure -- Weiner: -- what the, what the schedule that holiday is. Teague: So, um, would people agree to Monday? Alter: Absolutely. Bergus: October 3rd. Yeah. Teague: October 3rd? Great. Weiner: Thank you. Teague: Yes. All right. There could be some, um, as we go through our, uh, all that we're doing, we, there could be some desire to have some work, longer work sessions potentially. Um, so we might find that we might, um, collapse a formal meeting, um, and have a longer work session, but as we go along, we're gonna do our strategic, strategic planning. And I think there's, you know, I've been hearing from people that they want to do some work. I know Councilor Thomas wanted, you know, kind of dig into some stuff. And so we may, you know, collapse some of our formal meetings and have longer work sessions, but we'll figure that out as we go along. So there could be some changes coming in the future. Weiner: Yeah. This, this calendar manages to miss Election day in November, which is great. Um, I would just point out that I don't, and I don't know if that matters to the Council, but the Tuesday, the meeting on Tuesday, June 7th is the day of the, the state, of the statewide primary. Um, if you wanna hold it that day, that's fine. I just wanna make sure everybody's aware. Teague: Yeah. I think what we've done in the past is we've held them on Election Day, unless it is a sitting Councilor that is on the ballot...which we would have a sitting Councilor on the ballot. So, I mean, we would have a sitting Council This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 29 on the ballot, so I don't, I, my pre-- my proposal would be that we go Monday the 6th, the day before I know that puts a lot of stress on any candidate the day before. Um... Weiner: If you haven't done your work by, by Monday evening, there's...you're outta luck. Teague: Yeah. So would people be okay with June 6th, Monday? Bergus: Yes. Teague: All right. So there we have it. Any other items that we need to, you know, take into consideration? Again, I think November 1st would be Election ay and, um, well, well cross that later. Weiner: No, it's the, it's the 8th. So basically our current schedule skips election, skips the November election day this year. Teague: Oh, nice. Okay. Taylor: It's the second Tuesday, right. Teague: All right. Problem solved there. Any other item with the calendar? All right. You got all that. Great. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 30 University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates Teague: We are going to move on to the next agenda item, which is, uh, the University of Iowa Student Government, USG. Miglin: Hi, Council. Um, so we've received nearly 300 responses in our homeless week survey sent out to students, um, and, uh, students based on students experiences prior to our upcoming, coming meeting with City officials tomorrow. Um, look at our previous announcements for the link, which I realize I haven't sent out to you all. And we'll be sending out with these announcements, um, after our meeting today. Um, we are hiring a, uh, new director of communications, graphic designer and photographer. Um, those position applications for students are open until Sunday. Um, uh, the university is continuing to provide free at-home testing for students across campus. And these tests can be found at the Welcome Desk at the IMU, uh, Student Health offices and in residential halls. Um, we are also beginning our Governmental Relation Capitol Visits, uh, days. Uh, these will start from February to April for USG members to have a chance to advocate for issues at the Iowa Capitol. Um, and we to bring some USG students to City, um, soon as well. Um, and finally our sustainability -- sustainability director is looking at, uh, on how to potentially recycle masks. Um, let us know if you know anyone, um, uh, if anyone knows about any current efforts that are happening around Iowa City or in other communities related to this. Um, but that is all. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. And you'll see that USG has given comment during our work session. And so we're gonna try this out in the, and see, um, how this plays out. So thank you, always happy that you're here with us. Miglin: Thank you. I'm happy to be here too. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 31 Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Teague: Yes. All right. Council updates on boards, on assigned boards, commissions and committees. Taylor: We had our recent MPO meeting and, and I was, uh, very pleased that our own John Thomas was elected as chair for that entity, uh, very proud. And he ran that meeting and it went very smoothly. So congratulations -- Teague: Congrats. Taylor: -- uh, John, uh, and that meeting, a large portion of it. And I know Laura appreciates this, our Councilor Bergus, 'cause this is near and dear to her. Um, a large portion was discussion, uh, continued on the commuter rail, uh, project. Um, it's been talked about any years now. It was a little disappointing to hear that perhaps CRANDIC might not plan to, um, support it staffing or financially. So that was a little disappointing to hear, uh, but that's not going to stop the project. Um, uh, it's going to continue to be discussed, uh, at next several meetings, but, but that was a good meeting, and congratulations, John. Thomas: Thank you. Bergus: Uh, I was just gonna second that as far as the MPO meeting and John, I really liked that video that you had us watch. I meant to tell you that. So it was a really cool little, three minute video about, uh, um, pedestrian -bicycle modes of transportation and, uh, with all children speaking to their experiences, uh, getting around a city and how empowering and important that is. That was great. I attended my first ECICOG meeting, uh, virtually. So, you know, in a hybrid situation, I really still don't know who most of the members are, but we'll, we'll get there. Weiner: The ECICOG, speaking of ECICOG, the ECICOG visioning process is, is for 2030, I guess, is starting to come to a close that we have a virtual meeting this Thursday, and then the rollout, as far as I know on the afternoon of March 1st, which will start sometime before this Council meeting at the, um, at the Cedar Ridge brewery. Teague: We had the Joint Entities meeting and, um, it was in-person and virtual, uh, hybrid option. Um, the one suggestion that Iowa City put forth was to have childcare, uh, a childcare discussion, that was well received. Thank you, um, Mayor Pro Tem Alter for kind of bringing this, um, to our attention. And so between now and then I think we'll work with some, uh, childcare partners within the community to kind of just come and do a little bit of a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022. Page 32 presentation. I think one of the things that I did here is that, um, um, you know, it's great to keep the conversations going, but there's also a, a point where we need to have some action. And so hopefully it'll be some actionable items that cities can walk away with, whether that's grants, federal, state, or local funds. So it will hope to get something more tangible to people in the updates. Hearing nothing else. We are adjourned until seven, 6:00 PM. . This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of February 1, 2022.