The record · Transcript
Council session — 2026-02-23
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (13,232 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.
All right. Good afternoon. I call the meeting of the governance committee to order. It is Monday, February 23rd at 2:34 p.m. Diego, will you please call the roll?
Good afternoon. Dunphy.
Here.
Pirtle-guiney here. Ryan. Here. Clark, here.
Koyama Lane here. Ashley, will you please read the statement of conduct?
Welcome to the meeting of the governance committee to testify for this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance at the committee agenda at w-w-w. Ed.gov slash agenda. Governance committee or calling 311. Information on engaging with this committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior the meeting in person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard in public. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberation will be not allowed. If you cause disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Any fails to leave leave, once ejected is subject to for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying and state your name. For the record, if you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls their name. Thank you.
Thank you ashley. Thank you diego. Happy lunar new year everyone, and happy year of the fire horse. In today's meeting, the governance committee will approve our minutes from January. Then we will continue our hearing of councilor Pirtle-guiney proposed ordinance to amend city code chapter 3.02 on council organization and procedure. And this is our final set of opening announcements. I'd like to express my gratitude to ashley and diego and all of our staff in council operations and the council clerk's office for their support in this committee, I know how that especially for to get ready for this committee, that a lot of work was done to prepare. Thank you so much. We appreciate all of you. Vice chair Ryan, do you have any announcements? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Diego, will you please read the first item?
Item one January 12th, 2026 governance committee minutes.
The first item is the approval of the committee minutes for the governance committees committee meetings held in January. These minutes are available online as part of the meeting agenda. If there is no objection, the meetings will be approved by unanimous consent hearing. No objection. The minutes are approved. Diego, please read the next item.
Item two amend council organization and procedure code. Amend code chapter 3.02.
Before we go into committee deliberation. Diego, is there any public testimony on this item?
Yes. We have one individual signed up. Would you like me to call them up?
Yes, please call them up.
Redmond. Ray. Gabriel. You're welcome to unmute the mic and begin when you're ready.
Good afternoon. And I just want to this is my first time. So are we one. So one of the bullets on the website talks about resolutions. So in my addressing my opinion as to how we can bring resolutions to the city.
This item is actually around our council organization and code for how our council operates. And it's an ordinance. So if you weren't meaning to testify for that, I think you can come over to the council clerk to make sure you're registered for the right item.
Okay. So so am I. What am I free to talk about?
It's the current item that we have open. I can read it once more. Sorry. One moment. It's amend council organization and procedure code so that item essentially has to do with some restructuring and administrative responsibilities. And so if you're interested in testifying on a different item or a topic of your choosing, I can help you get squared away after the meeting if that works for you.
Okay. So hi, my name is redmond ray. So gabriel is my grandmother's last name. So me testifying is is is because of her. And I pray she's proud of me. Her name is mary and gabriel, so. And I just want to testify that in terms of your administration, the city of Portland is doing an excellent job. And I admire mayor keith wilson for always, for always stressing our for stressing the city's like the city's like passion for having people indoors. And I admire his I admire his like ambition, his vision for the city and for the citizens, for the citizens. And I continue to pray that the city of Oregon will continue to improve like I've been in Oregon for three years and the city has improved tremendously. I remember three years ago I was in north Portland and north Portland. It was. The forest would be filled with tents and litter, and the city has done such an incredible job with cleaning up and and all the news articles like the city has done a great job with raising awareness. And prior to Oregon, I've lived in utah and I remember years ago the COVID and the and the climate combined would take people's lives. And one thing and right now in Oregon, I'm seeing a lot of lives being taken based on shootings. And just my prayer for the city of Oregon. Like the good lord and savior, our higher power will will just bring peace. Just bring peace and jesus christ into the city where random people won't walk up to people. I pray that you would just continue to bring awareness and I can. And also my father, steven Green, he was a former drug addict and it's because of the higher power why he has been inside and has survived. And I just pray, and I pray for those who are struggling with drugs here in Oregon. I pray that you will. Those will will have jobs, not be addicted anymore and be inside. And again, thank you. Thank you for having me. And this is dedicate to my grandmother and this is dedicate to my father in heaven. Thank you so much.
Thank you for being with us today.
We do have one more testifier, councilor Sameer Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Welcome. Welcome, councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Thank you. Members of the committee. Thank you, madam chair. I just wanted to comment on the exhibit for this item and say thank you to all the folks who worked on this, in particular councilor Pirtle-guiney office. I went through the exhibit and in detail here, and I know there's a few things that are still being discussed, but I wanted to specifically highlight two. It's sections 3.0, 2.0 30i2 on amendments and section 3.02.04 0e3, which relates to the structural review of the rules themselves. So I'll start with the amendments piece. And just state the first section of it that explicitly clarifies the authority of councilors and council to propose amendments is good. I think that's helpful. Clarity in there. The idea of pre-filing everything 24 hours in advance creates some challenges related to what we've seen on the dais, with amendments that are crafted to resolve two competing ideas by a third councilor, as well as amendments which are aiming to craft something that can get an additional level of support for the for the particular piece of legislation. Both of those have been used to great effect on the dais by people from the left to the right, in a physical sense here, as well as any other sense, and forcing a 24 hour rule on it would likely lead to amendments to amendments and resorting to other sorts of procedural methods to get done what folks would like to get done. Whereas amendments are actually, ideally, the best way to resolve a dispute by allowing language to be crafted collectively in the light of day at a public meeting, to the second item, which relates to council rules and procedures is that is the header, but it relates to having. There's three subsections, the first two of which are both very helpful. Talking about a structural review timeline for council's internal rules and procedures beyond that which is within the code. The third part, however, creates a challenge by increasing the voting threshold from 7 to 9 councilors. There's two concerns I have with this. One is that we're in the process of solving a problem that does not appear to exist. There have not been a ton of code changes that are systematic, broad, and relate to council rules and procedures that have been that have been cluttering up our agenda. It seems like an unnecessary barrier to create and relatedly, having a higher barrier for changing the non-code rules and procedures than we have for amending the code seems backwards. So I wanted to just flag both of those for your consideration as you work through it. Thanks.
Thank you very much for being here.
That concludes testimony.
Thank you. Before I provide a recap of this item, councilor Pirtle-guiney. As the sponsor of this item, is there anything you want to add? Do you want to provide any remarks?
I you know, I'll just put this out there as a reminder. And for anybody who is watching today that hasn't followed along with this debate previously, this is an item that I previewed for this committee back in the fall to give us an opportunity to begin debate and discussion about how we need to update our rules. After a year of seeing how things work. Much of what's in here codifies things that we have started to do by by procedure. Some are items that councilors have talked about, but we haven't put in rule. Many of those are non-controversial, a few are more controversial, and we had robust debate about it about a month ago. And I am hoping that today we can move this forward so that before we get too far into the year, we can suggest to our colleagues some updates that will hopefully help us continue to run our work smoothly. So thank you to everybody up here for the significant feedback you've provided at all of those steps in the process.
Thank you, counselor. Colleagues. As a quick refresher, we ended our last governance meeting in the middle of discussing Dunphy two, and the last action we had taken was to vote to provide a revision to Dunphy. Two so before we move back to into deliberation, I'd like to read the revised Dunphy two. Dunphy two now reads under section b1a1e after an item has been assigned to a committee and placed on an agenda, if not referred by a committee, to the full council, any four councilors may require in writing that the item be considered by the full council, which has the same effect as a referral to the full council. If a committee. If a committee votes not to refer an item to the full council, it is deemed inactive and will be placed on file councilor. Dunphy, before we restart deliberation, would you like to provide any opening remarks on your amendment?
Yeah. You know, I at the last council, last governance committee meeting, I supported this amendment. And then my team sort of pointed out that the amendment did some things that I hadn't really thought of. I'm not sure that they are bad, but I just wanted to make sure that we are all explicitly aware of. And honestly, I wasn't at the time the specific and this is a nuanced, specific concern and maybe is what you all already understood. And I think my team passed around a graphic to demonstrate this, but.
Do you want that presented?
Actually, yeah. If that is possible.
I'll have access to it.
Okay. While the team is working on that. There are as in my in my belief of how we are operating this council. Almost everything should go to committee. But there are some notable exceptions where something should go directly to the full council. But by my reading of the amendment and the way my team explained it to me. If we want to take advantage of the four member discharge petition that four members send in the letter saying they would like this to go to the full council, it would have to go to a committee first, or be scheduled for a committee hearing before it could be discharged out. For example, the LGBTQ protections plan that we had, we had four, we had five co-sponsors. And so I moved it directly to the full council. And when we get these rules in place, this will help me guide my decisions better. But because that felt like there were there was interest from these councilors. There was a council wide conversation. It could move up to that. But if this amendment were in place, that item would first have to be referred to, say, the arts and economy committee or something. It would have to be scheduled. Then the four councilors could submit their letter, and it could either be heard at the committee, or it could be pulled out of committee before it gets there. And so that was the question. I hadn't really thought of the fact that it would basically. And there is also still a venue for items to go out of or to skip the committee at the beginning, but under this it would require seven votes, which I'm not sure how we get to without serial meetings, law violations. And so I'm not making a proposal right now, and I don't know if we have the the graphic yet, but I just wanted to make sure we had this conversation to make sure that we knew, because I didn't I didn't really think about that, honestly. My brain was a little mush. So. When we can get the graphic up, it is easier to see what I'm talking about.
Thank you for bringing that councilor and this does remind me of a year ago when councilor, pirtle-guiney and I were thinking a lot about these types of things. So I see that your hand is up. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yeah, I'm curious about the way that you just described that council president, because by my reading of the underlying rules, not the ordinance before us, but the rules which that fits into and I'm I'm pulling this up to make sure that I'm reading it specifically under 3.0 21a, one b. So council agenda item submission any councilor a committee of the council, the mayor or the auditor may submit an item procedure. General. If not designated for a particular committee's review by the councilor who proposed an item, or if proposed by the mayor or auditor, the president may designate a committee for review or designate the item for consideration by the full council. So I actually think that on any item, you have the authority to send something to full council. If a councilor Doesn't request a committee. When I was council president, the way that I worked that out with our colleagues is that if somebody wanted something to go to full council, we would have a conversation about whether I was willing to refer it there or not.
Gotcha.
I had thought that the intent of the what you're calling the four letters, the four member draw, was that if a committee chair was holding an item and refusing to allow it to move, that this was essentially a release valve, so that a committee chair could not abuse their power to delay something that a significant number of councilors wanted to see move forward, and that what we're trying to do with the way that we amended Dunphy two last time is ensure that the committee still has the opportunity to act right. I think you and I agree most things should go through committee, a committee chair under the revisions to 3.02 in this code would have 90 days to schedule something. So what we're doing is saying give that committee the 90 days, put it on the agenda, let them do the work. But if that chair then still refuses to let an item move forward, we can use the four member draw at that point to get it to council. But none of that, in any iteration, would affect your ability as council president to work with the carrier to say yes, this should go straight to full council and bypass a committee altogether.
Gotcha.
So you're right. It is. It is, it is a that does make it turns into a decision point with a backstop that could be a more robust backstop if there is a really compelling reason to move something that like, say, for example, the the sponsors of the LGBTQ protections package came to me and said, we would like this to be heard by the full council. And I said, no, in this circumstance, with the as its as as the amended Dunphy to with epg amendment, those five counts. If I say no, those five councilors would have to find two more. It now becomes a seven barrier and that moves it to the full council against the president's wishes. But the the backstop, basically this is just sort of creating a more robust role for the council president's discretion.
And I think what we've had all along is that if that goes to committee and the committee chair of whatever committee it goes to says, I'm not moving this forward, those five councilors in this case. So we actually have one more than are needed, right. Could say, hey, council president, this committee chair is not doing anything here. So we are signing to send this back out of committee to full council. Please schedule it.
So that's Dunphy to write without amendment, the one you were talking about.
With amendment.
Or with amendment. That's a seven. You just I think you were talking about the two.
I was when I said the four. That's after something has been scheduled in committee.
Yeah.
And my recollection is the same as councilor Pirtle-guiney here, which is that the for release valve, the four letters that original purpose was for if something's voted down in committee.
And madam chair, my I'm not being as articulate as my staff had identified. Is it possible? Can I invite them up?
Yes. And we also do have robert taylor. He might be hiding a little bit from us, but he's back there to help us work through some of this.
What I said wrong.
Yeah. Behind the post.
Robert is the is the smartest of us all. So? So maybe the more apt situation here.
Can you just introduce yourself?
Absolutely. I'll cough into the mic. For the record, my name is evan hofer, policy advisor for councilor Jamie Dunphy and responsible for this nightmare you see before you. So maybe the more apt situation here is earlier this year, there was a situation where two Portland housing bureau ordinances were sent to the finance committee. One of those was scheduled by the chair and went through normal process. One was not scheduled by the chair, and four people sent letters to send it to full council. So that's sort of the situation that we're looking at here prior to this whole to this bill coming before us, there was no responsibility for the chair of a committee to schedule an item at all. So had those four councilors not sent the second ordinance to full council, it could have just sat in committee indefinitely. Now, councilor Pirtle-guiney has changed that in the underlying situation here and said we'll put a 90 day limit on how long something could potentially be held. So the question between Dunphy two without amendment and Dunphy two with amendment is if take that exact same situation, one ordinance has been put forward and the other one is being held. Shall you wait 90 days for something to up to 90 days for something to be scheduled before four people can move it to full council? Or shall you retain the capacity for four people to move that to full council before that potential 90 days has elapsed? If we move forward with the amendment, a standard discharge petition, which is 50% of council plus one, would be required to move an item to full council while it is in that sort of 90 day potential waiting period. And if we kept Dunphy to without amendment, the four letters would still be sufficient to move it at that point. In either case, were such an item heard by committee, and no action was taken, for individuals could then move it to council. Hopefully that's clear. And again, I think that the councilor Just wanted to make sure that that's straightforward of what we were deciding on.
May I ask a question? Okay. Go ahead chair. So the only difference between with amendment without Dunphy two and two is just the seven, is that it? That's the only difference.
Yeah.
What what at what point and what how many individual colleagues would it require to bypass the committees for whatever for the various reasons.
Okay. So that's if you're interested in the amendment. That's the only decision point between the two is the seven.
I believe where we were where we landed was at the end of our last meeting. We had voted on councilor Pirtle-guiney amendment to my amendment. And so I think the the underlying now amended amendment is still an open question that we have to vote on.
And that's Dunphy.
Two, that's Dunphy two.
With amendment with amendment. Okay.
I know we're in the weeds on.
This one.
City attorney taylor, is there anything you want to add or clarify? And I was just joking. I know you'd never hide from us.
We'll find you.
For the record, robert taylor, city attorney. What would I like to add to this conversation? First, great that you're having this conversation. At this point, I think it's appropriate always to revisit the council rules. The this this rule that we're talking about now around the four councilors being able to withdraw an item from committee. This was one of the first changes that this council made, and they did it in January. It's one of the first changes to your rules that you made. The typical procedure is to, as my colleague was describing to a discharge petition or a motion to withdraw an item from committee and bring it back in front of the full council. And the previous version of the rules said it took seven votes to do that. So at a council meeting, seven members could vote to take something out of committee and bring it in front of the full council. And there's a similar rule at the legislature, similar rule in congress. And the basic idea behind requiring a majority of the council to take something out of a committee is that is that you are doing the will of the majority of the body. So if the majority of the full body wants to hear something, they can hear it. If they don't want to hear it, they don't have to hear it. And you would let the committee process work. This change to your rules allows for members of the council if if they ask for in writing to bring an item in front of the full council so they can have that hearing once it's in front of the full council, council could vote on it. It could be 8 to 4, right? So that item you would get your vote, but it may not pass because a majority council doesn't like it. Or once it's in front of the council, a motion to refer the item back to a committee could be made. A motion to refer it to another committee could be made, a motion to indefinitely postpone the item could be made, that could be adopted by seven votes. So in my mind, it's important to understand how all those rules relate to each other, because there's a lot of focus on can four people force something out of committee and bring it to the full council? And you've allowed that to happen in your rules. But once it gets to the full council, it's really up to the majority of the body to decide what they want to do with that. And they could table it or refer it or indefinitely postpone it or vote it down at that time. So I think that's just important context for folks to have in mind about this. And then over the past year, my experience under this rule has been a lot of questions about when can those four councilors exercise that right, to pull something out of a committee? Do they need to wait a certain amount of time after it's been in committee and the chair hasn't scheduled a meeting? Do you have to have a hearing first in the committee before that right is exercised? What happens if the committee considers it and votes it down? Does does this right of four members apply at that time? And what I have said in all those instances, the way I read the rule is if once it is at the committee, it can be subject to four people pulling it out of committee as under that rule. And even if the committee votes it down, four people can still say, I want to have that in front of the full council. And that's my interpretation of the rule. Now, I've given that to the various people that have asked me that question. And so if folks want to change that, you absolutely can change that. The how I read the dump fee to amendment. The big change I see in the Dunphy two amendment is if a if the item goes to the committee and the committee votes votes it down votes not to refer it, then it would be inactive and would not be subject to for members asking to to withdraw it and bring it to the full council. That's how I read the dump fee two. And then the last thing I want to just say, it's because it's a good reminder. You also, as council passed a resolution that adopted committee rules, and in those committee rules, I believe it does give the right of a majority of the committee to force the chair to schedule the item. If the chair has been reluctant to do it. So just to get at this question of, well, what if a chair isn't scheduling something and there's no recourse in the rules that you adopted for your committees? You do give a majority of committee the ability to force the chair to schedule something.
Can we have a clarification? Has has this been used yet? The four councilors has not. Or someone attempted it was attempted to be used.
There was conversation about it but it has not actually been done yet.
Hasn't come up yet.
Been used.
As the four letters been used.
Yeah.
On a dead item or an item that has been voted down by a committee?
Not yet, but it was attempted to be used by the. Explain that it was something about housing.
The there were two ordinances that would have what's the word I'm looking for appropriated the 20.7 and so funds. There was one that was sponsored by councilor Zimmerman and one that was brought by councilor Smith. Councilor smith's ordinance was moved from finance to full council by four letters, but that's the only time it's been used.
Okay.
And there was conversation about the foie gras vote that the bill did not get support in committee, and there was question about whether to do a four vote discharge of that and bring it back to life, or whether the action in the committee means that it is a dead item. And my ultimate goal is to to clarify that, yes, that if a committee votes something down, that bill is done and they can refile it and they can do a new bill, but that that action is final.
The action is final. But that's when the four letters or the release valve can be used. It's just it's not. We were talking about it before my team and councilor Ryan's team that instead of it kind of going up like in the freezer to be preserved, it's it's like it's in the it's in the dirt. You dig it. I'm just going to embrace the death.
It's not.
It's not like it's dead. And it's.
Not a zombie.
It's not a zombie. But if you want a new one, you have to. You have to create it. Start over.
Yeah, right.
But then that can go to full council.
In theory.
Yeah.
With the four I mean it would, it wouldn't go back to the same.
If you file. But see that's, that's the thing is that at this point if you say let's use foie gras as an example, foie gras bill died the there was a conversation among councilors that said, could we get four discharge or four people to sign on for a discharge petition on a bill that failed in committee? My amendment says no. If now councilor Green comes back and refiles, he would have to under the Dunphy the amended Dunphy two if he wanted it to go straight. This new bill to go straight to council, he would have to get seven at that point or or he would have to wait until the 90 days Elana saying no. So I want to hear councilor Pirtle-guiney is saying no.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Or I mean, both of those things are true. He could do either of those things, or he could say to the council president, I would like this to be referred to full council. Are you willing to do that? And the council president could decide whether or not to do that.
Yes. Right, right.
That's because it's a new.
It'd be a new bill.
A new bill. Okay.
But if say for example, in this circumstance, I was vehemently opposed to that and said, absolutely not, sir, you shall not have it. Then the, the, the it would be seven. Yeah.
Councilor pirtle-guiney. Thank you. Chair.
This is interesting because in our debate last January, a little over a year ago, I, I think most of our conversation was about when a chair refuses to act and the way that I had heard that, and maybe I heard it differently from the rest of you, was that something goes to committee, it's placed on an agenda. There's debate, and the chair refuses to bring it to a vote, refuses to bring it back, refuses to allow there to be action, that this would be the release valve. And when I brought the amendment to Dunphy two, I actually thought I was working to preserve the status quo, not to change the status quo. For that reason, I think there's a conversation that we are butting up against, but not directly speaking to around the role of committees. Because if we want for most things to be worked on in committee, then committee needs to not be a checkbox where something goes. You check the box, you get your three other people, you pull it out to council, and the bulk of the work comes to council. Anyway, through that whole committee needs to be a place where we truly do attempt to do the work, and this needs to be a stopgap for when we have either a chair that is just trying to block something, or a committee that disagrees with the majority of the council and the carrier, or for other people, see the writing on the wall for that before it comes to a vote. I thought that our intent had been the latter, that this was kind of a stopgap, not a way to easily work most things around committees, which, again, is why I propose that amendment amendment to Dunphy to to keep that that type of structure with this procedure. I think if we moved Dunphy to forward without that amendment, we would be looking at a world where where committees could be that checkbox and where this really was a a tool that could allow you to get this to full council, allow you to get things to full council whenever you wanted, as opposed to that being a last resort where we try to do the working committee first. That's just kind of my read on the the substance of what the effect of the difference is.
All right. I'm.
I think I'm mostly following if I can put myself in the queue. So I, I think I agree with councilor Pirtle-guiney with my hope and intention is that this is a release valve for when something dies in committee. But there are four councilors that still want to hear it in full council, but I, I don't, I'm not sure. And I don't love the idea as like more of a last resort of it being a way to skip committee work. So if that's what I'm feeling, which which chart do I like? The one in the middle?
I think the, the the the the item before us. Then right now you would want to just vote yes on right. Because it's the way we're voting on amended Dunphy to. And that will get us to that outcome. Yeah, I think that's right.
I know that. Yeah. Go ahead, vice chair.
I thought I was there and then I just got more confused. Do you find this to be a friendly amendment to what you offered Elana or councilor? Pirtle-guiney.
What's before us right now is Dunphy two with the amendment that I offered and which we adopted last week.
Right.
I am comfortable with the amended version of Dunphy two as an amendment to the 3.02 changes that I brought. Yes, I intend to vote yes on this amended version of Dunphy two. If we vote on that in the next few minutes here.
Because it's connected to what you were working on, it is. So that's why I asked. Yes. It was a.
Friendly, very comfortable with amended Dunphy two as it sits before us right now.
Tell me why.
What I think.
This is the committee of why and what and how, not who.
What I think councilor Dunphy was trying to solve for in bringing forward Dunphy two. And you're going to correct me if I'm wrong, is the confusion, as I actually I'm going to do this. I'm looking at this chart, and I'm going to divide this chart into three sections. There's what happens. What what can counselors do to pull something from a committee at the top before it's scheduled by the chair? What can counselors do to pull something from committee after it's been scheduled by a chair and before a vote? And what can counselors do to pull something from committee after a vote if it dies in committee? And I believe what counselor Dunphy was trying to effect was just that bottom section. Yeah, frankly, I'm somewhat agnostic there. And I've heard from the attorney and through counselor Dunphy from the attorney that there's an interest in us clarifying that. And I'm happy to support the council president's changes in that bottom section. What I was concerned with, and the reason that I brought an amendment to the amendment, was the top section where I thought our intent was actually slightly different than what the current rules show, based on our conversation last year. And I was trying to ensure that we retained what I thought that intent was, which is actually strengthened by the 90 days number that sits there instead of indefinite, which says that a chair must schedule something no matter what within 90 days. And I was trying to return us to what I thought the intent was, which is different from what's shown on the chart here, which is that we actually attempt to do the work in committee first before it's pulled. So I am comfortable supporting what's before us, because I am willing to accept the concerns that the city attorney and our council president have raised about the bottom section. I'm not opposed to that. I am fine with it. And councilor Dunphy was willing to accept my change to the top section of what he brought forward, where I did think that the language, the new language, could inadvertently move us away from doing the work in committee. I don't know if that was clear as mud or. Just a dirty puddle.
But I created what I needed, which is a conversation between the two of you. And that just happened. Yeah. Perfect.
Councilor Clark.
Olivia Clark: Would it be appropriate to call the question on this amendment now, before I forget what I'm voting on.
Is it possible because I believe.
Councilor pirtle-guiney, you worked on this originally a year ago with councilor Zimmermann and councilor Kanal. I think you guys wrote this. Can we hear where you're at to councilor Kanal are you open to?
Sameer Kanal: Because he'll be chairing this committee. Okay, yeah.
Sorry I missed that. What was that?
Because he'll be chairing this committee.
Okay.
Which is probably one reason you hadn't come up. Yeah.
Happy to. So we're talking about the Dunphy two, as amended. I want to be sure. First, I think councilor Pirtle-guiney amendment to the amendment makes a lot of sense. Is in alignment with the original intent. My concerns are all with the second half of it, which is the if a committee votes not to refer the new text that's being added. And so the original conversation we had was tied together with, with both the flowchart that was drawn up of how the original version of what you're now looking at, three versions of the flowchart of how an item goes through the committee process. But it was also tied up with the questions around how the council president's role interacts with committee memberships. Because the question was, if a council president is the only person that can nominate members of committees, and the council president could make a committee theoretically tilted one way or another, then no item in that committee's wheelhouse that doesn't reflect that viewpoint would ever get to a full council, even if the full council might have a different opinion than the committee. This is particularly, you know, on an issue where the committee, the council, I mean, is split relatively equally, that maybe having all 12 people discuss the item would be helpful. But as we saw both last year and now this year, the committees have odd numbered membership. So it is definitely possible that that could happen where you have the majority view of the council, not necessarily reflected in the membership of each and every committee on each and every issue. So the idea behind it was to use it for when a committee voted no. But there was a conversation that needed to happen at the full council. And after extensive discussion for was the number that was brought up there was, as councilor Dunphy put it, there can't be more than it couldn't be. Seven because of quorum. Most likely was the concern at the time. And something lower than that certainly seemed too easy. That would sort of violate the principle of having committees do the work. So four was the compromise there, and the original intention was for the scenario where something votes, something has voted no on by the committee. And so just that's my recap. My personal opinion would be that it should stay for that purpose, as opposed to forcing a refiling. That just seems like it delays the item even further. And after a potentially 89 day delay by the committee chair and a potential 89 day delay by the council president, you end up with items that may not be timely anymore. And as opposed to being debated in the light of day, they're sort of killed by bureaucratic process. Thanks.
Can I clarify, mr. Taylor, with this amendment to use the foie gras as an example? Someone could try to bring it back and send it to full council with three other councilors. So four total. But the council president could say no and and doesn't have to have it heard if we amend it. Is that correct?
As I understand it, the the the and it might be helpful for the committee. It certainly would be helpful for me if the, the proposed language that you would be voting on for this amendment in, in e if we could just read it into the record as it is currently amended, so everybody can understand the full text of it.
I think we're reading the amended amendment.
Sure. I think I can do that for you.
From what I read earlier. Do you want me to read what Dunphy to now reads? No. Yeah. The after an item has been assigned to a committee and placed on an agenda that's added, if not referred by a committee, to the full council. Any four councilors may require in writing that the item be considered by the full council, which has the same effect as a referral to the full council, and then adding if a committee votes not to refer an item to the full council, it is deemed inactive and will be placed on file.
Great. Thank you for doing that. So the way I would interpret that reading the last sentence, that if a committee votes no, then it is deemed inactive. Clerk places it on file for councilors, could not ask to withdraw it and bring it to the full council. So that last sentence operates to administratively extinguish that item. So four members no longer could ask to bring it to the full council.
Councilor pirtle-guiney. Did you want to say something else or ask a question?
I missed the first word that you said, and I wanted to make sure that what you read into the record is what we think we're voting on right now. The original, the first word was when and in the amended, the first word is after. And I didn't hear. If you read the word when or after.
I read after.
Okay, great, I apologize, I missed that and wanted to clarify. Thank you.
Okay. So well, we can call the roll on this. Let's be really clear what we're voting on.
What you just read.
So what a yes and a no vote means. Okay, so a yes vote is what I just read. And a no vote is to keep it how it is currently or keep the amendment as written. No, no.
Adoption of the amendment.
We've amended the amendment. I would offer that I believe a yes vote puts us on the chart in the final column. Dunphy two with amendment and a no vote puts us on the chart in the first column. Current rules. So for folks who are watching at home and don't have the chart, a no vote says we're not actually changing this part of the rules at all. A yes vote says we are adopting the amended version of Dunphy two as we left it in our debate at the last committee meeting. Does that sound accurate.
And how do we get to the middle option?
We would have to reconsider the amendment to the amendment. So I'm ready to vote.
Okay, let's call the roll.
So we're voting on Dunphy two. Yes. Voting on Dunphy amended.
As amended.
The 90 days isn't the difference between the first and the second. Just the 90 days?
The 90 days, and then the piece at the bottom. Correct.
Okay.
Everyone feels really good about this.
I feel.
I have one more question.
Go for it.
So the last sentence you read seemed to get us all to wake up a little bit more. So I want to make sure that I understand that that is a part of what we're voting on. And it means that if it was voted down in a committee, it it's it's extinguished. Is that the word that you used?
It's extinguished. It would be dead if the committee votes it down. It's dead. And the four members of the council cannot.
Request can't.
Snatch that.
Correct.
To get their own legislation.
They could introduce a brand new item at the very beginning of the process. But if the committee votes it down, it is dead and could not be withdrawn from that committee.
Okay, that's what we're voting on right now.
I believe.
So any yes would approve that. Correct.
All right. Diego, will you please call the roll?
Do I have a motion and a second on Dunphy two, as amended.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Okay.
Let's see.
Sorry. My vote tracker just crashed.
Item was already open.
It was. Oh, yeah.
I believe.
It was. Motioned by you and seconded by me at the last meeting. If I'm looking at the notes correctly.
You are correct. Apologies, chair. See?
Brought us all on the same page on something. Yeah.
Dunphy. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan, I Clark. I Koyama Lane no. With four eyes and one nay. The amendment Dunphy two as amended, is accepted.
All right. And now we are voting on Dunphy two. The amendment as amended.
No, that.
Was that. Was that right? Okay. We're good. Okay. All right, so now we're talking about Dunphy one. Thank you to the amazing council clerk team. Again, we really appreciate taking your. We really appreciate all your hard work and the time and support that you've given us in the last governance meeting to support us on this one. You can see we're showing you it's it's complicated. There's a lot. So we currently also have Dunphy one open. Dunphy one has been divided into Dunphy one, page one, Dunphy one, page two, and Dunphy one, page three. As a summary of our last meeting, we've revised Dunphy one, page one to replace the header of chapter 3.02.020, subsection b1a1b, to replace general with designation to committee and to add including a committee of the whole to subsection b1a1b. We then I don't think we passed it. I don't think we finished it. Right.
I thought we voted on 3 or 4 different things as we sing, either passed or failed or was withdrawn, but that we finished it.
I had I had Dunphy four and five that were still pending for sure, but I thought we, I thought we had done one.
So from what? From my notes, we're actively in discussion on Dunphy one, page three. We revised Dunphy one, page two to remove the proposed amendments on page two. But a lot have has happened. So you can correct me if I'm. If I'm wrong. Diego, I know you and your team spent a lot of time talking about this.
So you left off in dividing the question on Dunphy one. And I believe where we landed was actually Dunphy one was withdrawn. But let me confirm that for you.
So, Dunphy one, page three.
Dunphy one was about committee of the whole, right?
Yeah.
And just changing some language and adding committee of the whole.
If I may chime in. So we had proposed changes shown in Dunphy one page one to subsection 3.0, 2.020, subsection b, one a, one a and one b. Those were proposed changes and that was withdrawn. And then we followed by in a separate motion to amend subsection 3.02.020, subsection b1a1b to include committee the whole. And that was approved.
Okay.
But we didn't actually so we were making amendment. We were amending. Okay. My understanding is that after the committee proposal resolution that we voted on last thursday's, at last thursday's city council meeting, the language and the entirety of Dunphy one is no longer necessary. Councilor Dunphy, is that correct?
That is my understanding.
So, councilor Dunphy, would you be open to withdrawing the motion to divide the question on Dunphy one so we can have discussion on Dunphy one as a whole?
I did. I make the motion to divide. And do I have the authority to.
Do that? I made the motion to divide. That's right. And I divided it by page, and then we further divided it from there. And I don't remember who further divided it.
We have not voted on any of this.
We did vote on some of it.
Okay. And can I just withdraw the remainder of my amendment.
This. Hi.
Hi.
Hi, robert. Thank you. You can tell we need a little help.
Yeah, I believe for this item in the committee, action was taken on February 9th and and posted as part of this agenda. There is a it shows the exhibit a as amended on the ninth. So you can go and look at that document that exhibit a as amended on the ninth to find the the current version of amend of exhibit a that incorporates all the changes that you made on the ninth. So that might be a good starting place to to kind of get caught up to where we are right now. Yeah. And then I'm glad you brought up this question of the committee of the whole and amendments that this body we're talking about and taking action on, and then the full council. Heard a an ordinance last week. You'll be voting on one on Wednesday regarding the committee of the whole. Based on my review, I think the item that is going to council on Wednesday has language in 3.0205 0c1. That is different than the language that the committee has before it in. 302050c1 and so my recommendation is to for for clarity of the record for this committee to amend their c one to match what is going to council this Wednesday.
Should we do that right now?
I think I would consider that a housekeeping amendment. And I would appreciate it so that that we have the same version of the language in both documents.
Okay.
And procedurally, would we need to recombine the divided amendment, withdraw the amendment, bring forth a new amendment saying that it will copy the language that's coming on Wednesday?
I think I think right now you have in front of this committee, you have the exhibit a, as amended, on February 9th. That's the operative exhibit a, coming out of your most recent meeting. You have the amendment that you just voted on. That's now part of exhibit a. And then as far as what other pending motions that were made in the previous meeting are not yet voted on, I don't know if we have a record of those that are pending or have they all been disposed of? They've all been disposed of. So that means right now you have you have exhibit a as amended, you have the amendment that you just voted on regarding bills coming out of committees. And you you don't have anything else right now to no other motion is pending, nothing else to be divided. Okay. So you're.
So I can just withdraw my Dunphy amendment because it hasn't been moved at this point, has it?
It's open right now.
Right. Well, we just vote it down. Is that the.
Already adopted some pieces of it? I'm sorry, chair, we divided it. We adopted some pieces of it. You withdrew others. The adopted pieces are part of the updated exhibit a, I believe. As I look back at the record, there's some parts of Dunphy, one that we didn't actually adopt or dispose of, which is a little awkward because then we moved on from Dunphy one, so I'm not sure how we closed that and what happened with them, but if we have the updated exhibit a that includes pieces of Dunphy one, rather than go back and undo that, and rather than figure out what we didn't adopt, we had moved on from that. I wonder if we let Dunphy one lie in. Its taken apart form in how we left it last time, and just focus on a new amendment to align the language here with what you brought forward to full council last week and and not do that as a part of Dunphy one at all. And I, I don't know, robert taylor. If we can let the rest of Dunphy one lie where it was lying, since there's some that I don't see accounted for in the record from the last time.
Well, a great, great suggestion. I, I wonder what might be clearer for this body is if it's not clear to me right now what motions from last week are still pending right now. And so it might be cleaner if you just withdrew any pending motion to amend, kind of wipe the slate clean. And then you can start fresh from exhibit a as amended. Plus the amendment you just just did.
Okay. Can I ask a question? I just want to clarify on Dunphy one, we divided it, I believe, so that all we changed was b1a1 just to say designation to committee. And we just get rid of the word general. I think that's all we did. Is that right? And the rest of it we just it's just hanging out there.
I think that's correct.
Tracking anybody tracking that.
Desperately trying in real time.
Because I'm fine with leaving the rest of it behind and moving on to the changes in 3.02.0 50c1 and two.
Yeah.
The clerk from what I had heard had asked that we our next steps would be to recombine what's still open from that amendment and then withdraw it.
So councilor Chair, may I make a motion?
Could I move that any open amendments on the table be withdrawn? That's the motion. But I will say that I think gives us the amended exhibit a plus, the amendments that we just adopted into exhibit a to work from. And then we can work this section and work Dunphy four and five that we haven't touched yet without anything hanging over us, and we may not need to recombine. So I would move that we withdraw any open amendments on the table.
Second.
That do what we need it to.
Yeah, diego, I see that we're doing a little bit of communication. We need a motion and a second to withdraw anything that's open, which would be anything left in Dunphy one.
That's correct.
We can do that.
And are you to clarify? It's just Dunphy one currently accepted amendments or just regardless of the amendments accepted. Just Dunphy, one.
Where withdrawing Dunphy one. But anything that's still open.
Yeah.
Correct. Yes.
Anything still open and on the table that has not been adopted, failed or withdrawn.
Thank you.
All those other items we've will keep those that have passed.
Thank you. And it was a motion from pirtle-guiney.
Seconded by Dunphy.
Great. Thank you so much. Dunphy.
Aye, Morillo.
Pirtle-guiney.
I.
Ryan.
Seeing the two of you on the same page, I.
Clark I.
Koyama Lane I.
The amendment to withdraw amendments that are currently open is approved with five eyes.
So, councilors, I believe we now have closed all the open amendments from our last meeting. Councilor Dunphy I see that amendment three has been withdrawn.
Yes.
And would you like to introduce Dunphy? Four.
I would love to introduce Dunphy, four, which has been pre filed colleagues. Specifically. Dunphy four ensures that at the very least for my time as council president, I would like to make sure that a person who is running to be the council president does not oversee that that hearing. I do not intend to run for reelection as council president, so we'll be happy to oversee that hearing when it comes next year. But I'd like I think that. Knowing how hard this job is, I also think that the councilors should be able to defend themselves without having to worry about procedure. I thought that was pretty unfair to you.
And could I get a motion to begin deliberation?
Dunphy and I would move Dunphy four, and Dunphy four specifically amends 3.02.040 sub a sub one adds new sections a, b, and c, and I move and would appreciate a second.
Second it for the case of debate.
Councilor Clark, I see your hand in the queue.
Thank you, madam chair. I, I understand, I think I understand your motivation here. I just don't think this is necessary. I think when the time comes, you can just say, I'm not going to do it. I don't think it needs to be. Codified or put in the rules. I just think I appreciate the intent, but I don't think it's necessary. I'm curious what other people think. With all due respect.
Pirtle-guiney. Thank you chair.
I want to raise some concerns about this, and I, I understand what you're trying to do, and I think that we could do that in other ways. If folks decide that we want to have a goal of having. A different way of presiding over council president elections, everybody is in some way or form going to bring some amount of bias to that election. The people who are running for council president will people who are supporting somebody strongly over somebody else in the race for council president will as well. And I think what we're doing here is we're saying we are concerned about the council president's bias more than we are about anybody else's bias. And I think in some cases that might be rightfully placed concern. I can also foresee cases where you have the council president, if the president and vice president are both running, if council president and vice president are both running for reelection, this would have the council president turn over the gavel to another councilor Who's not running. I could see a case where a council president turns over the gavel to the person who they think will be most beneficial to them. Okay, if we're worried about bias, I don't think this solves that problem. And so I, I'm not inclined to replace a current procedure with another procedure that I think could actually raise as many or more of the same concerns. I think if we want to address concerns there, let's have a broader conversation about how we do that. Thank you. Chair.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan: Yeah.
Thank you chair. I see with this amendment, you're looking at three options for running the meeting in which the council president vice president are elected. My preference is that the council president can and should operate the council elections with neutrality, and therefore preside over the meeting. I will say that I just witnessed that recently, and I want to acknowledge that. And thank you for that. Councilor pirtle-guiney I think some of these options are overengineering and sequencing of designees for presiding officer. And I believe the simple options are best. And I think we have two options. One is to trust the council president to run the council president and vice president elections, believing that they will meet the moment with integrity, which again, I just saw that demonstrated. And because I just witnessed that, that's that's where I'm landing. So I believe that we can keep establishing trust and don't need a third party presiding in this situation. I agree with all the statements that were made by the former speaker council or pirtle-guiney. And so yeah, governance is about the what, the why, the how and not the who. And so I think we can keep moving forward with trust. Thanks.
Diego, will you please call the roll?
Jamie Dunphy: And this is on pardon me, Dunphy for.
Yes. Dunphy for.
Okay. Main motion moved by. Dunphy, seconded by epg. Apologies. Dunphy. I pirtle-guiney no. Ryan. No. Clark, no.
Koyama Lane I.
With two eyes and three names. The motion fails to pass.
Councilor. Dunphy, would you like to introduce Dunphy? Five.
Yes. This is a very small amendment. This specifically changes our filing deadline. Currently, it is 12:00 on tuesdays, which means that it's often in the middle of committees. This moves the deadline to 1:00. This was done specifically as requested by council ops, and has been agreed to by the clerk. And hopefully we'll be a very easy one to fix. And I will move the Dunphy five and would ask for a second.
Second?
Yeah.
Dunphy.
Is there debate on the apologies?
I'm happy with this.
We're all good. All right. Yeah. Don't take a gift horse.
In the mouth.
Without seeing any hands in the queue. Will you please call the roll?
I apologize, Dunphy. I pirtle-guiney.
Generally think that when the clerk and council ops and our council leadership all want us to do something technical, we should do it. Aye, Morillo.
Ryan got it. I clerk I aye, Morillo.
Koyama Lane I.
With five eyes. The motion carries.
All right. So the motion.
To adopt Dunphy five okay.
And we have heard all amendments.
Just.
Is there any discussion on the underlying item? Councilor pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I hate to do this because I like the language in the underlying more than the language in the other item before council, but we never resolved the different language under 3.02050. See membership of a committee. Both allow for a committee of the whole and ensure that our committee membership size does not impede our ability to have a committee of the whole. But we do it differently. We probably ought to align these two things. Again, I say that with hesitation because I like the language in this item a little better, but I do think that's the responsible thing to do is to make them the same.
Can you clarify where you're pointing us?
So on page 17 of exhibit a, 3.02050 council committee's membership, councilor Dunphy brought forward an amendment in order to ensure that we could have a committee of the whole. And under this ordinance, we would pass language that says membership committees other than the committee of the whole, must be composed of less than a quorum of council. A committee generally consists of 4 to 6 councilors. However, the amendment that councilor Kanal brought forward with councilor Dunphy to the item establishing a committee of the whole. That was before council last week, and that I believe we are set to vote on this week reads in the same section. See. Membership committees must be composed of 4 to 6 councilors to be less than a quorum of council, other than a committee of the whole. Essentially the same impact, although the one that will be before council this week limits us to 4 to 6. Instead of saying they generally have 4 to 6, but written with different words because the last item passed is the language that will stand, and the 3.02 code changes before us today will likely be passed after the committee of the whole item before council this week. If we want to respect the work of the full council on that item, we need to change the language on today's item to align.
And councilor. Are you offering a motion to amend exhibit a so that the section council committee committee's membership will mirror the proposal or. You're going to make I could I get it from someone else.
That I voted against.
No, no, no, let me say that again. Colleagues, could I get a motion to move? Okay.
I will. Second I'll let counselor.
Clerk seconded.
I'll making is fun. Okay.
And this is to the underlying exhibit a.
Yes. Attorney taylor, is this in line with what you were advising?
It is, it is. And so if this amendment is adopted by this committee in exhibit a, 3.0 2050c1 would read as follows. Committees must be composed of 4 to 6 councilors to be less than a quorum of council comma, other than a committee of the whole period. And that is the end of that paragraph.
Great. And does the clerk need us to send that language? Okay. We will send that over to you.
This one. Yeah. Okay, I got it. Great.
Can we call the question or.
Just got it? Yeah.
Okay. We're just making sure that they have the correct language. So. Councilor Ryan, did you want to say something?
Yeah, I just wanted to ask a question. So basically, you just did some housekeeping. Okay.
Thank you for that clarification.
Doesn't want to cooperate.
But diego. Diego has it. Yes. So we are ready. Can you please call the roll.
Once again, apologies. What was the motion? And the second. Who was it from?
I v. Clark second.
Great. Thank you.
Dunphy I.
Pirtle-guiney I.
Ryan. I Clark. I Koyama Lane. I with five eyes. The amendment to exhibit a as shown in Kanal one, which will be posted online shortly, is approved.
Is there any further discussion on the underlying councilor?
Dunphy yeah, I just need to take a moment to really thank councilor Pirtle-guiney for all the amount of work that went into this that was obviously hard earned. The every, every amendment, every change in here was a bump that you ran into along the road. That made your job harder, and you are making the path easier for me and for future council presidents. I sincerely thank you for your service over the last year to figure out what is and is not working, and then the effort to come and fix it for the rest of us. So truly thank you, and I apologize for the number of amendments that drowned out the rest of the conversation. So I just wanted to stop here at the end and make sure you got your flowers that this is this is going to make our work as a body better. And it is truly like every one of these is a scar that you have. So thank you.
Councilor pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor Dunphy I actually want to turn around and thank you for bringing all the amendments forward, because you brought fresh eyes to the job and in doing so, to some of the changes I brought forward. And I think that the debate we were able to have over those amendments and the things that we were able to adopt as changes, will make the work even better and even stronger moving forward. So thank you for the partnership on this.
Okay. May I have a motion? Oh, councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan: Yeah.
And you're on there too. I just wanted to acknowledge the harmony between the two of you, because that really helped. Today when the two of you were speaking to each other transparently in the public. And I also really appreciate that, that you cleaned up all of those amendments when we passed the one that just basically did a reset. That was a game changer, because I think we were going to be here in a very tedious fashion for another hour. So I want to acknowledge that. Good work. Are you taking pictures of harmony right now as well? I took one earlier.
Harmony? Yeah, harmony.
That's what harmony looks like. Ketchup press. So anyway, I will be supporting this. I'm glad we got there.
Okay, I don't want to interrupt any of the harmony, because I am really proud of this group and this work, and I think this is in a much better place. And I think a lot of things will be helpful in it. I, I am concerned about the 24 hour rule about amendments. I think this is going to pass. And I also think that's okay. I think that don't have to always agree on everything to still see some good in it. And I think when it comes to full councils, I'm I want to talk about this more. I have some questions about the 24 hour rule and how a councilor Could possibly suspend the rules in order to bring something. Would this code override that? But I'm I'm not concerned and don't feel like I need to try to change anything right now. Yeah, but I just want to say, while I am not going to support this, which I said in the beginning, the underlying, I do appreciate many pieces of it. And thank you so much to both of our council presidents, current and past, for all this, all this work. Councilor Clark.
Olivia Clark: I'm a little lost. We are. We have one more vote. Do we another. Yeah. Okay.
Great.
Underlying underlying. Okay. Can I just say I think there are some other ways to deal with the 24 hour, don't we. Have I lost my notes from the last meeting, but I think there were a couple of outs. Two outs. So it's not the end of the world. So yeah.
I believe you need the majority majority to suspend the rules there. Just.
Another two outs.
Do we want to return to discussing that or.
Do you want to hear more about that? Councilor Clark I think when it comes to full council councilor.
Yeah, on that point, though, I appreciate that you brought it up. Chair. I, I found that if, if, if you if you engage a sponsor of the legislation in advance, then this won't be necessary. And so my experience on both ends of this is that it's on me if I, if I didn't do that. But if I look at the agenda on Friday, even when I'm not in committee, it's on me to have that conversation before Wednesday and hopefully on Monday or Tuesday. And I found that most councilors have done that with me, and I haven't appreciated when you're a sponsor and you don't even hear from anybody at all. And then the last minute it's co-opted. And so I just think that's behavior that I can't support. So I like I like that we got that in there.
Thanks thanks.
Any other discussion. May I have a motion to send this item to the full council with a due pass recommendation.
So moved second.
The motion has been moved by councilor Dunphy and seconded by councilor Clark. Is there any final discussion? Seeing no hands in the queue, will the clerk please call the roll?
Dunphy aye, Morillo.
Pirtle-guiney I.
Ryan I Clark.
Hi Koyama Lane I.
Clark can I please change my vote? I got really excited.
I got into that harmony.
Yeah. No, for now. Gosh. Okay.
With.
Oh sorry. With four eyes and one nay. The motion carries to move ordinance document number 2026 056 be sent to the full council, as amended, with a due pass recommendation.
Thank you. Diego, we're anticipating that this is the final governance meeting that looks like this. Thank you to all of our all of the members of the governance committee and members of the public, especially terry harris, for all your hard work and engagement and governance. I look forward to continuing this work with all of you and the rest of our colleagues in the committee of the whole councilor Pirtle-guiney. Thank you, chair.
I just want to.
Express my gratitude for the work that you have done on governance issues over this past year. We started with a whole lot of questions about where this body even wanted to go, let alone where we could and should go. And this committee has had some really hard conversations, and we have brought in some of our colleagues to take part in those conversations. And while there is still a tail of the work to be completed, I think there always is a tail of governance work. There are always things you have to come back to. A lot was done and throughout the the latter parts of the last year, when some of our colleagues who don't sit on this committee would say, well, we don't even have rules for I always wanted to take a step back and say, actually, I think the council vice president has been leading us down a path to talk about a whole lot of these pieces. So I appreciate you taking on this body of work and leading the five of us through these discussions over the last year. Thank you.
Thank you so much, councilor. Councilor Clark.
Olivia Clark: Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane, thank you so much for all your hard work on what sometimes is really boring stuff, and you've done a great job with the nose to the grind, and I really appreciate that. And I also think that this committee has, I guess what I would think is exemplified the way I would like the full council to operate where we have disagreements, we work through them. We have we change each other's minds. It's really been a great iterative process that you've led and I really appreciate, and the vice chair as well. So I wish that this was the model for the entire council. So thank you so much. It's going to be hard not to be here anymore.
Thank you, councilor Vice chair Ryan.
Dan Ryan: Yes.
Thank you chair. And much of the sentiment has been expressed. I'll synthesize it to say that one chair you included me in agenda planning. So I feel like we came into this with a lot of openness and transparency, and I appreciate that. I'd say two of the four committees I've served on in this first year had that type of dialog the councilor Clark spoke to, and I didn't always find that everything was already baked before I got here. People didn't just come in and read their talking points and then stayed wedded to those, but we actually listened to each other, and I really did appreciate that. And I hope that your to your point, I experienced that on two of the four committees. And it's really different when you are on a committee that where we actually look at each other and speak to one another. And so I just want to say that I will to miss this committee in terms of that style, and I only can hope for the best as we move forward. So thanks. I'll miss this group of people to work with.
Yeah.
Thank you for all of that, vice chair. I feel the same way about working with you and have learned a lot from you. And by working with you over the last year, and I, I do something I've learned is I think it's easier to not collaborate or to just assume things about other people or just kind of stay in other corners. But when you engage, you can oftentimes see that you're maybe not as far apart as you think and can find ways that you overlap, and you've been very open to that. So thank you. Councilor Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Koyama Lane, I just I want to pile on as well. I think that in many ways, this committee assignment was the hardest in year one, because my experience has been that we have been most we've been worst at our job when we don't have bookends and we don't understand where the floor is, when we don't know what we're. And this job, this committee was about driving towards figuring out where were those gaps in what we thought, how things were going to work. You know, the gtac did an amazing amount of work. The administration did a lot of work to get us ready on January 4th or whatever it was last year, but then it was up to this body to try and start mending those gaps. And the way that you approached this committee. And as we were talking about the iterative work, the dialog actually informed much of how I thought about my committee proposal that we passed on Thursday. I'm. Similarly sort of sad that this very nerdy committee is going to go away, but also recognize that the amount of work that has passed through here has set us up for a lot of success in the new year, this new year that we're in now. And I hope that other committee chairs and vice chairs look to your leadership in this committee as a style for how other committees are run, because absolutely. I think that for I mean, just how today was run, it could have gotten very contentious. It could have been people, you know, putting up walls and really doubling down. But it wasn't we're talking about policy and the good of the city, and you have created an environment where that is able to flow. So thank you for your leadership and thank you for continuing your leadership and new form in the new committee structure. And I won't miss being on four committees, but I will say that this is the committee that I tended to enjoy the work the most. So thank you.
Thank you everyone. I wasn't expecting to sit through all those nice things. It's very hard, can feel a little awkward, but I mean, the way that this has ran, the only way it could have ran was by this, the composition that's here. So thank you truly. Before we close, I want to say thank you to ashley, to craig, to dana, to diego, to all of our gtac friends. Special thanks to all the people who have helped shape this first year of governance under our new city charter. Everyone in council operations, council clerk, community. Thank you to my staff. Thank you so much, aubry, for all you do for governance and all you explained to me. And now I will adjourn this meeting of the governance committee.