here. Uh, and we'll call the meeting to order. I'm sorry we were a little late. We are having some technical difficulty. Um, so we'll call the meeting to order at 5:42 p.m. This is the city council ad hoc rules committee. Uh, I'm Allison Kums, the mayor prom and the chair of the committee. Uh, we also have with us Vice Chair, Council Member Ruben Medina, Mayor Mike Kaufman, who's a member of the committee, and council member Ally Jackson, who's a member of the committee, as well as um our city clerk, Kitty Rodriguez, our city attorney, Pete Schulty, and our city manager, Jason Bachelor. So, um, thank you all again for joining us this evening. Um the first item on our agenda, actually I might wait for the agenda. >> Approval of the minutes. Yeah. >> Um okay, while we're waiting for the agenda to get up, we'll go ahead and start with approval of the minutes from April 27th. Any changes from members of the committee? Okay, seeing none, those will stand approved as written. Um our first uh item for initial consideration is just article one which is council meetings generally. Um so that's the first entire section of our rules. I'm going to go ahead and um pull that up so we can talk through and see if there are any items that members um would like to consider revising. Unless um city attorney if you've heard anything from other members of council on items they would like to revise. >> No, I mean actually article one I haven't heard anything. >> Okay, great. So then we'll just go ahead and walk through um first is Oh, looks like someone has messaged. Um, okay. So, the city council adopts the council calendar for the following year at the last meeting of the calendar year unless otherwise determined at a prior meeting. Once defined, changes to the calendar can only occur under the special meetings rules or with a twothirds vote of the city council. Um so basically we want to have a high threshold for changing our calendar um so that folks can plan well throughout the year. Um and then of course at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, city council shall post the agenda of the meeting in the entryway at the east entrance of the municipal center. The posting location shall be redesated annually at the last regular city council meeting each calendar year. Um, so any any questions or changes on the council calendar? the agenda um 24 hours >> that's the legal requirement for public notice >> and I did put in there is in the in the second section on agendas article two I did add under the agenda packet that agenda packet should be published by the city clerk at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting in order to give council staff and the public have opportunity to view the agenda prior to the meeting now not shall just that they will should I we stuff that happens. So I don't want to put it on. >> So the shell is 24 hours. >> Shell is at least 24 hours, >> right? That's the legal requirement. So we that is a shell. >> Um so we'll just kind of run through um and then well I guess on this part we can just take questions because it's not really a formal proposal. Um so yes it says that it's posted in the lobby. Does that include posting online? >> Yes. So, the packet is posted online and this is says it should be published currently. Um, they're typically published by Friday afternoon. So, this is suggesting that packets should be published by Wednesday afternoon and that would be a modification to our rules. Uh >> everything in blue would be something that's changed that would need a vote on by the committee and and all council. >> And then that would also move up by two days the timeline within which council members need to submit items in order for them to go on the agenda. So if someone doesn't submit something as a late item prior to Tuesday before the meeting, so six days before the meeting essentially, then that would just wouldn't be able to be >> Monday. Okay. >> By Monday by the week before, >> right? But even for late submissions, I would think right now I think >> we push up against agenda publications sometimes. And so I guess the question is if that's the goal then do we also want to say like council members must um submit all items according to the schedule. So, it does kind of say that, but then also something about um late items must be submitted >> that may change >> at least a week before the meeting. >> I would say not we don't want to put it that restrictive. Yeah. In the rules, I think I mean we can put out a schedule that Katie has and that would be that would be staff's preference because I don't >> because that could be used, >> right? They could be used against you guys too if something is submitted late. Oops. violation of the rules, you know, by either side. And so that's kind of why I, you know, I'm looking at both sides, right? You know, whether or not we want to make that the rules so it can be used, you're going to have to get a suspension of the rules, all that other stuff. Right. But for late items, like I think we could just say >> all the >> in order to meet this like I guess it says give staff sufficient time but I guess sufficient time has clearly been up for interpretation perhaps more than it should be. >> Yeah. If I could Katie, what do you think would be the sufficient time? um very last minute items that you have to have if you want to get it published by Wednesday I would say Monday. >> Yeah. >> So by end of day Monday essentially and that's for late items if it's >> if it's not done meeting. So before before scheduled posting. >> Yeah. >> Scheduled posting. >> So working 14 days or two days? >> Two days because it'll be this Wednesday before meetings too. Yeah. Two days. >> I have a question. Um >> just kind of two points so I understand. um like last minute you can still submit like a emergency I've seen you know those last minute items have that emergency um form attached to them as well. >> Yeah form >> I see you want this city manager to prepare summary history and physical analysis of all items so I understand if it's submitted last minute that can't happen. Um but there's still that emergency. So the emergency thing, what we've kind of what you've all used that for is why it's not going through committee, why it's not. That's really what emergency means. It's not that we're adding it to the agenda late. It's just that it's giving all your your colleagues an idea, right? That this is an emergency resolution because of an of a of a matter that's got to be addressed now that doesn't have time to go through the regular process. So >> and then the late submission form which we do see is it's been submitted after the deadlines published by Katie for the entire year. >> Okay. >> And what we're saying is that even late items shouldn't be um submitted less than two days before the publication of the agenda. So, it's really saying basically a week before the meeting, you need to have let folks know what's going to be on the agenda. And so, that may mean that sometimes things won't be on the agenda. They have to go to the next meeting. >> That's great. >> And then my second point is, is there a limit that we can set for items on an agenda just because >> it seems some meetings have gone way, you know, we haven't been able to dive as in deep into some subjects and then they never get brought wrapped up and so it could get a little confusing and lost. What's your suggestion on that? >> I mean, Jason and I usually when we do the agenda review meetings with the mayor, we we take that into account. I mean, we I mean, because especially on study session items because that's earlier in the day >> and um I think council items and we try to when we have an idea there's going to be eight public hearings that you know, we'll see if we can push some of those. Yeah, I mean if it's okay with you guys just let let us work, you know, with the mayor on the the general setting and and Jason is the one that decides the start times and with consultation with Dave. So >> So on the emergency issue classification, so if if uh let's say you have a a resolution or ordinance and it it doesn't get the support, it neither gets the support in policy committee nor in study session. But it still goes forward. That's not an emergency, right? >> No. And and you can't have an ordinance being emergency because the posting. >> Okay. >> Because we have the notice requirements for the for the publication. So really, we're talking about an emergency policy resolution. Um you know, like what happened last meeting, you know, >> because it didn't go through this process. >> Yeah. It didn't go through, right? That was why it was an emergency and there was Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't think I don't think we have to be specific. If you want, we can add that in the rule. I just I we can add what an emergency is, but I >> I don't I don't think we need it, but >> I don't think we need that. I'm just saying >> when we say sufficient time, I do want us to specify what sufficient time is because I think that council members clearly have a different understanding of what is sufficient time compared to the staff that have to do the work to make it happen. >> Got it. I will add that. So, I've got that one. That's all the what's an emergency, what's a late notice. None of that I think is what needs to be there. Just that you need to get staff what they need at least two days before. >> I know we skip ahead. You want to go back to article one and go through the section two. >> Right. So, council meeting. Um, so this is setting our current schedule. Regular meetings will meet in regular session in the council chambers of the Aurora Municipal Center on designated Mondays at 6:00 p.m. and on such other days and at such other times as approved in the council calendar. So basically our meetings typically are at six but we might have other things schedu >> I know we had talked about next year maybe switching up the study session and regular meetings is um would that happen here or is that earlier? >> That's a calendar conversation. Um, so yeah, so the conversation was that perhaps we may return to having study sessions and council meetings on alternating weeks. Um, but that's a calendar conversation. >> It does. >> Oh, and I I would I mean I would I would just just knowing your colleagues, I would wait till the end of the year during the calendar discussion. We can always change that or if you guys decide that you want to have sites like what they used to be. Um >> also the evergreen this by just striking it on the same thing as set by the count. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. And that way we don't have to change it at that time. >> That sounds good. Yeah. >> Yes. com is that in this case public comment is in a different section. It doesn't codify the three years um in the way that that's written. acts as a result of the settlement. Um, so that's not a council rules issue. That's a city settlement issue. >> Yeah. Council council tried to say, "Hey, we want to eliminate public comment." I would say, "Nope, can't because of the that that document kind of lives in my office and then I give advice saying we can't do that until X day." So um but yeah it's it says that it's paper and it's separate from um the you know the rule process. It's not a council's rule. It's you know it's an obligation the city you know agreed to. >> Um okay. So anything else on study session? Um so no formal legislative action, no voting. Um, however, we should try to arrive at a consensus position for the purposes of later votes on item. >> Um, yeah. >> Um, the study section, are those public? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and I came to the study sessions allowing black people to come back in after. Um, so I'm just curious how you all manage the public access to study sessions. Um, if I don't have access to cell phone, internet, like how does how does one access the study session if the only option I have? >> It's live in the chamber. Yeah. Okay. And that's all. But like if a council member invites someone from the public, is that allowed? That's what I was told by come back in because I wasn't invited and people that are invited to come in but if you're not invited you can't >> Yeah, we're going to have to fix that. The the the general because we got to be consistent. It is what Katie stated is that there are no guests, no invited guests even if council members ask for that um because of the limitations of this room >> unless they were a presenter on presenter on an item which is the exception. Uh so I'm sorry that happened. I didn't realize that security was telling you that. But generally yeah no non- staff shouldn't be uh in this room during study session because there is because study session the way it's defined no public participates right there's no uh you know public hearings or nothing like that because no decisions are being made. So that's why we we said, "Hey, council chambers are are large. We can uh broadcast it in there and then everybody's who's coming to the council meeting can just stay in there and we go right into the meeting. >> We will address that as well." Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That Yes, we are noted. Yeah. >> Um Okay. >> I figured you get a kick out of that. Yeah. Failure to notify all council members shall not adversely affect the calling of a study session provided that the city council's management analyst has used reasonable efforts to notify all council members at least 24 hours in advance of study session. So that's regarding special study sessions which can be called by the mayor unilaterally or six members of the You want to change it to the city council mayor office? >> Mayor and city council office. Yes. So that's no longer the title basically of the person that was previously in Alia's role. >> And then a special question about this sentence. Yes, maybe the lawyer can break it down for me, but I just it says failure to notify all council members shall not adversely the call study session, but saying that you don't have to notify everybody or that won't disqualify the study session from being held. However, city council should be notified within 24 hours. So basically what it means is that um we yes we have to notify you but we the fact that a council member didn't check their email or didn't text their text what wouldn't prevent the calling okay >> of the study session >> um that's what that means and so um and of course we still have to have a form >> and that is previously was modifying the explanation that the mayor can unilaterally call the meeting or six council members together and that's not here. >> That's uh it special meetings. It's further down. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Great. Understood. I was like I thought it was in there. >> Yeah, it is. It's it's a little further down the special counseling or special study section maybe. >> Okay, great. So, it's in there. Would that section be better or that statement better be moved there instead of up here? The failure to know >> this is because it not that they're approved on the bank that study sessions noted the special study sessions were the one that sort of called off cycle. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So if somehow a council member was not aware of the calendar, we would still have a meeting. Got it. Um >> yeah, sorry. >> Got it. I was like I don't understand what this is referring to in this case. Right. >> Okay, that makes sense. If someone missed missed all the information they would the meeting would go on >> as long as the notification was sent >> correct and we will yeah we always do I mean I think we do email text you know whatever we can >> um >> well plus the calendar is publish >> the executive sessions there really nothing we can change there because that's all stat so we can skip through that um >> and now we get the special meetings >> special meetings >> and so that's what we're already talking about the special study session or special city council meeting may be followed by the mayor alone or six other council members. So, for example, one time we had to cancel because we had a really severe snow all of a sudden and so the mayor then called a special meeting to make up for that meeting so that we could still conduct that business. Um, and then sometimes we want a special study session on a particular topic and that can either be called by a majority of council or the mayor, but we need to change that council management analyst there as well. Katie, I see that there again. Um, and then the rest of it is just the specifics of where meetings are held, how they're held, etc. Then workshops, we have three workshops a year. uh typically February, May, and September, although it's up to us to decide when. Um and then two out of three must be held in city limits. So, we could have a ret like retreat outside a workshop outside of city limits. We >> haven't done that the whole time I've been on council, but >> they've done it before though. Yeah, >> I think I'm part of council. Um, so I don't know if we want to keep that or not. >> Do you know when they um Jason, do you know when they stopped doing? >> I think the last one was probably 10 or 12 years ago. Been a while. >> I think we can maybe rank that like if we feel the need to do something outside of >> city here. Um, maybe that's not a workshop at that point. Maybe that qualifies as something else. Um, for example, we have the water tour, right? Like that's not a workshop. It's a different thing that we do that folks leave city limits to do. Um, so I think we can take that out of workshops >> and then we can take the stuff out by council to other evidence. Well, I guess not because that could still be true in limit. >> I mean, it gives you guys options. I mean, if you take it out, then it's, you know, I don't think we'd ever go out. I guess >> for a workshop again, like we can have other discussions about other things, but >> I don't think we need to take our workshops to >> Breen Ridge or something. >> Um, no offense to Breen Ridge. Um, >> how would you know this? That next sentence, too. Oh, you did. Okay, good. >> Well, no, the part about coordinating timing and location still important because she got it. I was She got it. I just >> Oh, so we respect the other. Yeah. >> Yep. >> What's in Mayor Prom's discretion, right? >> Correct. And that that I can't find in the rules except Oh, maybe it's in under Mayor Pro Tim. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So don't forget that that's >> we also haven't been setting the agenda at >> study session. So maybe we should that seems actually like a reasonable request >> for the workshops. >> Yeah. >> I thought that I don't know prior to you I'm trying to I remember when council member Johnson had it this mayor prom she did it unilaterally. Yeah, I think most mayor proms have mayors prom um have in my time on council, but I don't see why we wouldn't do it other than we haven't been doing it. I guess that's the only question. Since we haven't been doing it, do we change that there or do we say, "Oh, we better start following the rules." >> Is it supposed to I mean for the public meeting is whether Obviously agenda meeting all the public meetings requirements. It's just >> right and it's getting sent to members ahead of time. >> Mayor Portm is is among the duties of America of the workshop after asking input from council. >> Okay, which we already do. Okay, then we can strike that sentence. Uh, okay. And then notice shall mean personal notification of the council member by any two of the following methods. Phone, in person, or transmitting a notice to the council member's city, email address, at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting time, or at the time the decision is made at all meeting, whichever prefers. Think that makes sense. There's two methods required unless there's any comments from staff regarding having two methods of informing folks be required. >> The only thing I'd say is I haven't had any complaints from any council members that they don't have access to their email either on the city provided devices or their phones or if you guys want something else you but again you I think you guys know I mean there'll be some emails coming back serve about I think a special study session special got to be called so you kind of have an idea um but if you want to add something we can I just think >> well no it currently says we have to do two methods >> saying do we want to strike those other methods and just say by email like you will be told by your council email problem you want to Leave the two M. >> I would leave it just cuz wires get crossed and some of those like it's like a notification that you know can get there even. >> Yeah, sure. >> I I think technically be like the team notification and then the outlook notification would qualify, right? >> Sure. >> And already >> Yeah. Because it's added to your calendar >> and since you I because I have been curious like why does the time of like study session shift like by five minutes here, seven minutes there? But it's because you're Yeah, exactly. So, I think he too would help. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll leave it. >> Um Okay. I'm a little concerned about getting through the rest of our business if we continue doing the rest of the section because I do think that Well, I guess it's just attendance and dest seating. Um so, maybe not. We'll be okay. Um, so attendance, council members may appear remotely, including off camera, at city council meetings, special council meetings, study sessions, special study sessions, and executive sessions. Council members appearing remotely for executive sessions shall participate using a secure private phone line or electronic connection in a private area. So, any questions about virtual attendance? >> Katie, does that mean they could participate by cell phone? Yeah. Well, >> I have during Yeah, you can join the meeting like teams teams, but I mean just Okay. Not >> yeah you can dial into >> by changes dialing >> right any language around and I don't know how flexible this is if this is like the hardcore language and then we get a little bit of flexibility of breathing room around it some other area but just um like maybe sensibility or um consideration of like what council members should take into consideration like their attendance in the meeting is important or um there is limited ability to participate fully in a virtual setting >> or a council member should endeavor to attend right >> uh council meetings in person or all meetings in person I don't know if we want to say all or just the council meetings I do think that on the dis engagement is a little more weird um with the virtual >> it is yeah and I think in study session, there's no public hearing, it's fine. But when it's a regular session where your constituents aren't coming in person and um there's some unspoken things that happen that you should be made aware of. Go ahead. But you know, you could still virtual attendance, emergency sickness, family, whatever, that's fine. But just some sort of >> Oh, well, you could um Oh, how about this? Council member should endeavor to appear in person for all scheduled meetings. However, council members, they appear remotely. Right. >> Yeah, >> I think that works. >> Or you can be more aggressive and just uh put it in in Colorado voting. I think quite some time ago, they used to have you have to give a specific reason why you couldn't be at the polls >> to be able to vote absentee >> or at least send an email to >> somebody. We usually ask you send it to Jason, Katie, and I just so we can for the record, but you don't get them. Julie, Jason, I told the mayor. >> Yeah, the mayor seat on those. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I just don't >> I think I think they you can say preference. >> We have public comment. >> Uh yeah, >> school boards have the ability to have a threeus. There's got to be a charter in the charter. We don't have that ability. So because they have and I guess the way I put it on everything that we you know about sanctions and everything else for house members is they the charter literally gives a property right to the elected right. It is their seat and only they can give it up and for whatever reason and so that you know that's kind of where where the charter lands. Um, right. Which is why we can there's other things that aren't, you know, participation in the council meeting that we can use as sanctions, but the council meeting itself. Um, I mean, we could say no virtual attendance. I just think that's probably a little too inflexible because folks sometimes have illness, um, family emergencies, conferences. I will >> people attending a conference that actually >> yeah so I think I think you guys I think you'll get support from your colleagues big house members should never appear in person at all scheduled meetings however may appear remotely and then I'll add something in here uh it says that they're supposed to let Katie know at least 24 hours in advance >> that was taken out >> it was taken out >> so we may add here this like council members requested to send an email to the city manager, city attorney, and the mayor. >> Yeah. >> Instead, we're asking staff. We're have these requirements for two 24-hour notices and we want the agenda up like let's put some accountability on council. >> If somebody has an emergency and it's at the last minute, you know, >> prior to them be a part of the meeting. Yeah, just to the store. >> Um, >> I got it. >> And then of course, reasonable accommodations are made per the ADA. Um, which is this language is based on that. So, I don't think there's really any reasonable accommodation changes. >> That's all that's all legal stuff. So, we got to leave it. >> Okay. And then dis seating unless an exception is made for a reasonable accommodation only the mayor, council members and their family members if needed. City manager shall and the city attorney shall be seated on the dis. Um so limitations on who can be on the dis but not including children >> unless this needed. I also Yeah, I wonder about that because it's not like youth or miners or caretaker or anything. It's just like your family member as it's written right now. I feel like could someone make a claim to be like I want my you know spouse or sibling up here. Um >> no, I I I think you guys would I mean again the working as a majority of the body would say no. >> Okay. Um, and I I said that was so much history this section. I don't want to dive through that. >> What's the presenting authority of the decision? Is it like the majority of council? >> Got. >> So, yeah. But then the mayor rules on whether or not we're >> correct. >> Um, >> following the rules and we could over. So if the mayor was like sure so and so sister can just be at every meeting on the dis. We could be like mayor no >> overruled it before. >> What never I've never been responsible for such a >> we literally had to change the d city where you guys can agree to a switch. >> Okay. >> We didn't have that before. >> We could take that. I I I don't think that I don't think that I I mean it's up to you, but I >> I mean whatever. I guess we can leave it there. I >> I don't think it's happened. Do we have >> It did happen. >> It Well, no. This this this council >> it did happen with Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> previous council. Yep. >> Danielle, >> it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, but it entirely does not make sense. Um, so if we want to leave it, I'm not going to get into a whole thing, but I think that that relief should be stricken. As adults, we should be able to sit next to whomever we're assigned to sit next to. Period. End of story. There's a very logical and simple way that this is laid out. So, actually, it's not who I'm going to die on, but we're going to put a different but >> Oh, yeah. No, the last part. >> Yeah, >> except for the mayor and the mayor. Oh, even the mayor promises seated seniority >> by seniority and alphabetical order. Everyone, the mayor, the city attorney, and the city manager have fixed seats and everyone else moves around on the basis of seniority and alphabetical order. And I really don't see any reason to not do that. Let's just go ahead and strike that last sentence. >> Then I'm like, all parties involved, isn't the person sitting next to them as well? and they get a say. >> Sorry. >> It's basically that whoever the two people are that are switching had to agree. >> Um, >> we're not going to lawyer this. I just think it should be straightforward. So, so let's just strike that and if we need to have a discussion, we can have discussion. >> Um, so >> any comments from members of the public before we close this section? >> Yeah. not about this section. >> Okay. >> So, now we're going to go to page 33 for city council travel budget allocation. >> Yes. So, this is items for open discussion. So, if any individuals would like to speak um feel free to join these four chairs um in turn order. And this is about changes to the city council travel budget allocation. right now rolls over all of it until a member vacates their seat. Um, and so we're changing it so that members would only uh be able to roll over $3,000 per year instead of their full 7,000. >> So the language has been updated. So basically what it says is instead of allowing you know any council member to be able to continue to have their travel and training budget accumulate from year to year as they're on they're on council is $3,000 that can come across um you know from year to year. So um so in essence they a council member who's been on council the next year they could have a maximum of $10,000 in their account at any given beginning of the year. And well, so it doesn't go to the Paris or >> No, it will like this year if you have >> Oh, that's right. It will go10,000 at the end of the year it'll go away. Right. >> 3,000. >> Oh, more than 3,000. Right. Right. Got it. >> So, yeah. So, if you have $50,000, 47,000 I was going back to the general fund, >> which also makes sense because that money is just sitting there. >> Yes. >> Like if you're not using it, you're not using it. Um, so we will have open discussion. So, we're just explaining the other piece is it previously has said that it is impermissible for a council member to transfer funds to other council members. This is saying that um it's permissible for qualified purposes. So, that's the reasons you're allowed to use your travel budget. Um and both members will need to agree in writing um to make that. So what's the value of that purpose of that? >> Um so as we discussed for example council member Medina and I both are a funding folks and you as well that have an excessive amount of money in our travel budgets because we weren't traveling when we first got on council due to co and so our current new members are coming in in a year where they had their budget allocation reduced to 5500. So the agreement we had made is essentially we can transfer to others to let them get back up to that same. >> So what was it? 5500. What was it? >> 7,000. >> I was actually was unlimited. >> Well, right. The amount that Yeah. 7,000. So essentially we can allocate to folks from our we can transfer on mutual agreement the amount that would bring the new folks up to >> equal level with everyone else and then we >> at the end of the year everybody still can't have 3,000 in their account. It just helps our new folks be able to actually attend the same conferences as other people may be attend without, you know, without having to pay for that out of pocket when there are some of us who have this excess traffic. Trying to create a little bit of equality between those of us who've been around for a long time and those who have not. Um maker >> science maker wanted to join the conversation. Uh hey >> is the like if there are transfers between council members is that information publicly visible or does that have to be a corora? >> Um there is an audit of the council travel funds that gets done periodically. So that would be included there. Um otherwise you the core of that. >> Oh sure. Yeah. The core is I don't know if there's a really an ability to to have it you know place on online somewhere. >> But the expenditures would be recorded. >> Expenditures are Yeah. >> But the expenditure then but wouldn't that count as an expenditure from member to member? >> Yeah. It would be included in the audit if we make that. >> Yeah. It would be in the audit. Yeah. Sure. >> As it would be a transaction on that account. So >> correct. and it be in writing. So there will be a >> but it would be assumed right like is it is it like a line item that says transfer to like if I'm looking at an expenditure is it giving me the itemized reason why that exists >> right and then the email or whatever in writing that authorized it would it would have to be for a specific purpose you're just like hey council member so and so I don't have any money can I have four grand of your money and I'll just put it in my account. Oh, we're making it's going to be a specific purpose. >> Oh, she I need to cover my hotel for that conference we're both going to and I'm sure you have an excess. Can you transfer some of your funds to >> Okay. >> help cover that. So, yeah, that staff are developing a procedure since this is a new thing, but it will be audited and recorded appropriately according to the guidelines that the accounting guidelines. So Ellen and we'll come to you. >> So what there are um things like going to a conference or a meal or whatever and the sponsor or whatever says I'm calling you this. Is that I mean isn't there a dollar limit in the state law that is conceived as a gift? >> Yes. So, should that not be in this part also that it's in here? >> It's later. So, we'll >> Yeah. And it's in the city code. So, yeah, it does if you're at a dinner or anything like that, you do have to report that information. Um, that's not between council members. Um, that's yeah, folks that are hosting an event and we're not allowed to use our budgets on anything that's covered in the conference. So if there's a dinner included in the conference, we can't say I would also like a pdeium for dinner on that day. >> So that comes out in the audit. >> Oh, in terms of the expenses, yes, those expenses are reported in the audit. um like how much per DM you requested, what was provided as part of the conference, and then if you were comped, like if there was a conference meal ticket that costs, you know, $150 and the co of the event said, "Actually, I'm hoping your um your meal," then you would report that comp ticket in your Yeah, that that's true for gifts also that there's always >> that I'm sorry. So is that for domestic travel only or there going to be like exceptions? Say a council member, like a new council member wants to go visit like a a sister city or like a possible new sister city for economic revenue. Is there like a guideline that basically them trading their transferring the >> No, it's any transfer. The way this is written could be any transfer as long as it's agreed upon in writing >> and it's qualified expense under section two which has a list of everything that they're allowed to spend the money >> which yeah so that includes the sister cities um missions there's a set you get charged for that so yeah a member could transfer funds to another member okay Um all right. Any other discussion among members on this portion? >> No. Okay. Any aside from the questions, any comments that folks want to come up and sit at the table and make >> on this? >> Yeah, on this. >> Oh, no. Okay. >> Can we see the agenda again? I just want to see if I'm here. >> Oh, wait. And you know what? I just realized we we do need to stop here. Oh, wait. No, because this was on the agenda. Sorry. I'm like, what do we do? >> Um, that would be only change to this section. So, there's no further discussion. >> Okay, >> we're good. We'll make those changes as needed. And now we are on to items for action, which is public participation and decorum at council meetings. Um, >> so >> if we have modifications, um, >> I'm going to actually open this up for question to the folks that are here to comment because we don't want to waste your time of not providing you with all the information. So would you all prefer that we talk about additions that we may have to these changes um before you come up to give your comment or do you want to give your comment and then if it's okay with everyone I think seeing what you all came up with would be great first and then >> okay some of it was published but there's some additional stuff that um we that I've discussed with uh city manager and also with council Jackson um that I think need to be added. So, we'll go through what's here and then also um discuss adding in that information. Okay. All right. So, first let me open this up. Um >> the first change to section. So yeah, there is an addition. Why is what I have in my packet not >> what's in the packet. Got it. >> Okay. I was like >> this is what came out of the first two meetings. >> Okay. >> That that I made a draft. So yeah. >> Okay. So this is the email that we got, not what was in the packet. >> Yep. >> Got it. Okay. So we definitely need to walk through all of that. Um, okay. So, city attorneys shall serve as official parliamentarian and advise the mayor pertaining to parliamentary procedure, but a final ruling shall be made by the mayor. The mayor's ruling shall be final unless overturned by a successful appeal. Um, which is a majority of council. Um, as part of the parliamentarian duties, the city attorney shall read the rules of decorum and proceedings for public invited to be heard at the appropriate time in the meeting as directed by the mayor. Um, so that's just an addition to shift it from the mayor is reading all these things at the beginning of the meeting to the parliamentarian which is the city attorney will read that particular piece of information. Um, any questions on that? And then the guide of procedures which is the O Garfield Jones parliamentary procedures at a glance which um for those interested is essentially an a bridge version of Robert's rules order um that councils in the city have been using for a long time um and that each council member has provided as part of their orientation a copy of the book um and to the extent that our rules differ then our rules govern rather than the Ogarfield Jones. So it's we follow Ogarfield Jones unless we say in this set of rules that we don't. Um all right and then order of business. Um so if anyone wants to make any any amendments to this you certainly can but we have already proposed the amendment for public invited to be heard and what was written was 30 minute limit for students who are 18 or younger and one hour um for all other members of the public. Um that was along with striking the hour limit at the end. So my proposal is that we have an hour limit for people 18 years and younger and then an hour limit of other speakers um so that we're not taking away 30 minutes from the public. >> Up to you guys. I mean we'll do an hour and maybe it'll be a discussion point. So, >> so um so if they just use 30 minutes that that it's not going to be an hour and a half for the other correct it's it's by section. So if they it's up to an hour and they use 20 minutes then we'll move right into public comment for the other speakers for an hour. >> So the youth section doesn't get rolled over to everybody else. >> Correct. This is okay. We had a discussion that it could be one or the other. Um, unless it's a question, we're going to go ahead and hold it until folks. So, is it a question, Miss Ellen? I'm don't know if it's a question, but I'm concerned because there are people that work that don't make the time, can't make, you know, because traffic or whatever. So, that last section which was there before. >> Okay. I'm going to have you hold that for comment after because this is I want to make sure we go through everything and then folks are going to have the opportunity to come up and discuss. Um so noted and you'll have the opportunity to talk more about that um as we move up. So the concern is if we strike the hour at the end then folks who weren't able to make it by 6 p.m. wouldn't be able to speak. Um, we could do maintain 30 minutes at the end and do 30 minutes for young people at the beginning, then an hour for everyone else, then still leave 30 minutes at the end instead of fully striking the one at the end. >> Um, >> so this one we're going to you wanted to strike. Is that what you're saying? >> That was the conversation that was had about adding the young people at the beginning. Um, so I think instead let's well instead of striking let's do 30 minute limit because that was the discussion that was had was remove that and put an hour at the beginning for youth. >> You want you want to make it where it's really people who couldn't make it at the beginning and it's just >> the rules where somebody who hasn't spoke yet gets to speak first. >> Yeah. But I would just say at the end I just say that if they weren't able to make the meeting and sign up at the first public comment, just have it have that that be that time period for them to address council >> or simply didn't speak during the first public. >> I think that's already >> folks. Yeah. >> When we've had young people, how many you see show up? >> Usually they'll show up in groups together. So then I mean I don't think we've ever had more than 30 minutes. So I was going to say I think it's been typically 8 to 10 I think for the tobacco speakers and the same thing all the youth violence I I recollection was 8 to 10 but it's >> okay. So that would accommodate 30 minutes >> for discussion sake and also because it's my personal belief we could also just strike time limits at the beginning and only have a time limit at the end but still give priority to young people at the beginning. But I know I know that's an unpopular >> I have a clarifying question. Um if we allow if do you wanted the students to have up to uh an hour >> that was the original kind of conversation that we had >> and then another hour for um >> for everybody else >> everyone else. So public invite would be two and then it would be held at the start and you're thinking of striking the one at the end. I just wanted to make sure I understood. But now with this discussion, we could do still leave it at 30 minutes at the beginning and then leave 30 at the end for >> students and then maybe again um and again if you guys want to make the end to be for people that have not literally didn't get to speak or they were waiting to get the kids that way >> and do we need a note about like are if they missed their youth slot they can still speak during >> well they can speak to regular comments. Sure. They can speak anytime they want, but the first 30 minutes is reserved for them only. >> So, do you guys want me to write the rule that it's for the last 30 minutes is for those individuals you don't have yet to have opportunity to speak to council >> during um not for the agenda items during public invited. >> That's the second one. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Okay. It used to be unlimited for everything all the time. >> Go back to the games. >> And then um I had a question about the order. >> Yes. are what are thoughts about moving the reports up to after public invite to be heard just because when we are giving our reports like it's really late a lot of folks have left and I think reports are just a great they almost I feel like they would diffuse maybe some of the tension too and it would allow for people if there was tension still um it would give people who are there and it's a reasonable hour at that point to hear what city council's up to in real life in person it could be like a good moment, a community building moment. >> Where would you want to put it? >> Um, after public invites to be heard after the first public >> um something else like reports, you like to talk about what happened in the council meeting in your reports. >> I mean, but that might also help uh avoid some of the speaking back that occurs in the reports and have it be focused on the report and not on >> Yeah. But I'm okay. what I have to say that I didn't get to say earlier, >> but members of council and the mayor should be limited to three minutes a piece. >> Yeah, I agree. I'm for reports >> move reports up. >> Okay. >> Earlier in the meeting and >> got you back on Mayor and members of council meeting. >> Yeah, Anderson. which has been commented by my very no tornado and hurricane all the statement. >> Yeah, because we can see the timer. So, just go right now. >> Yeah. And you can beep us and cut our mics off too, Katie. Okay. the beep. >> I'm okay with cutting the mics, but can we get rid of the beep, >> please? Is that >> It's not really a rules question. That's a >> I mean, if you guys tell us get rid of the beep, we'll get rid of the be. But >> well, now we have what but the rule changes someone would be if they violated it, right? Past 10 seconds, past 3 minutes, then they would be suspended for the next >> and that's later on. I prefer grounded versus >> um I wonder given how long this section is if we should um go ahead and have any comment that we have on up to order of business and then have additional comment after the other items. had a question. >> Uh, so we Yeah, we both hear. Yes. >> I had a question. If council goes over three minutes, can they also get the gables? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I want you to >> It's up to the mayor. I mean, if he wants to g >> That's what Ally was saying. Cut our mics and turn on the beeping. And I I was just saying, can we get rid of the beeping forever? That's all. Um, >> have to gabble over the beeping. I'd rather >> you want to go back to the >> I would rather you use the g than have the beeping. >> Really? >> The beeping is personally >> I used to think >> I have a question that goes back to the 18 year olds. What if you have more than 10 18 year olds that go beyond that 30 minute mark? What is this contingency to not then interfere with those that are over 18 speaking? Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, it just be a motion to allow them to continue and then it wouldn't touch the hour for the regular folks. >> Okay. >> Does it have to be a 2/3 suspension? >> Yeah. Instead of six. >> Uh, >> is that like a rule? >> They could also sign up for the take part of the one hour. >> Yeah. >> Right. They just have to sign up. >> I mean, they could. I mean, if if if council decided not to extend the 18 and under uh by 30 minutes and they would just roll over. They could roll over to the regular public comment. >> Yeah. This is why again my preference would be we just don't put time limits on the public in five at the beginning but still give priority to the young people like they people under 18 get placed at the beginning of the >> everybody list. Yeah. But um I I think there should be time limits on everybody. >> I mean three minutes yes but not a t total time limit of how much speaking time total is permitted for public invited beer. We did it for years. Mayor you did it. I did we did this together. Um Mr. So, I I actually like a lot of these amendments that you have introduced, especially with the with the youth, but when we're talking about 18 year olds and we're in the summer where they've just graduated, they've got a job, so they may not be able to get to the open. So, maybe I'm jumping ahead, but is there a discussion about bringing back the calling line just in case there is something important that they they want to say and actually can participate? Um, and then my other sorry that there was a two-part to that. And when you're talking about like the time limits, um, I know I know Denver um, changed their public comment a couple years ago where I think their public comment last I think either an hour, an hour and a half where >> Denver's 30 minutes. >> Denver has you have to register it way. Oh, never mind. Forget the last part of the comment. >> We looked into the calling line and the problem that we found is is the the propensity for disruption >> and the propensity for hate speech come across in this. So what we we had talked about at one of the previous meetings was having a process that the city would come up with to to make it an accommodation. So basically, if you state that, hey, I can't make the meeting because of this and this is why, then we would set up the procedure to be able to get you to be able to call in, but it's, you know, I I just we don't have the technology today uh to be able to limit that hate speech. We don't want to hear that. >> We also don't want to get sued for limiting hate speech if we wanted to do so. So, it's simpler to make it an accommodation to participate virtually. Um, which folks are still free to request, but it creates a registration process, right? Information about who it is so that we don't just have somebody lying who they are from New York that wants to do it. And then if the 18-year-olds don't get there in time, they can go to the, you know, we have at the end, they can sign up for the end, too. I I just And is it a question? >> Mansen. >> No, he doesn't have a question. >> Oh, he does not. >> Okay, Miss Ellen, >> I just have a what might sound like a silly question. The three minutes is from the person from the start that the person starts speaking not cumulative of say 6:15 to 7:15. >> It's when they start to speak from the moment the person starts to speak that's when the timer starts for the 30 minutes. >> Now I just realized we are starting to get into things that are in the next sections. So I do just want to because the the timing of public participation is actually in that section five. So maybe we review section five and then provide an option for folks to comment on what we've discussed up to that point and then go through the remaining sections to give folks an opportunity to comment on that portion as well. Um, so public participation, persons wishing to address council during public invited to be heard on any items scheduled. Uh, oh wait, this doesn't have any. >> Oh, it's lowered down. Okay, got it. >> To go over section. >> So, um, yeah. So, folks can sign up on a first come, first- serve basis. um except if an individual provides proof that they are an Aurora resident, they can be moved to the earlier in the queue above folks that are not um Aurora residents. Um there is actually a couple things here that I think we should look at. So speaker shall appear in person, speak from the podium. Fine. Once at the podium, the speaker shall state their true name and whether or not they are an original. Um, so I don't like true name feels rather subjective. Um, and it says shall. Um, so I think we should just say she'll state their name. And actually shall like some people get up and they don't introduce themselves. They just get up and they say thanks for hearing me. This is the stuff I have. >> The amendment I did in the next section says council requests that speaker begin with the comments by setting their name whether or not they were a resident if known which board the speaker resides. >> Yeah. So I think we strike that >> I care about whether or not they're >> and I think we can have that later where it's there. But this the shall is concerning to me because what if someone starts just telling us stuff and they don't give that other information? We don't want to cut them off and say you can't keep going and you until you tell us your name and whether you're president. That's disruptive. >> That's my I put requests at the >> second that I I prefer that to >> Joe. I think it should be in the second like the specific public to be heard section where I added it. Not >> you don't want to do agenda items. I mean they can >> I mean they so again let's just take out the shell and say council >> you get something of their address >> there's another there's another section on public comment on agenda item same thing >> what if what if you well okay you get already give the name at least they given you um they've given you the name and and they've they've told you probably whether or not they're an Aurora resident so when you call them when you call their name for him to speak uh say you know Joe Smith from Denver or you know Joe Smith from Aurora and that so that covers >> if that's what council me >> well you already do you already do the name >> I don't love that idea um we're not going to have discussion on this part yet um >> that's a question >> is it is it not implied about a royal residency when one signs up If you prioritize Aurora residents, so if you know that Katie is prioritizing anybody that has followed the utility, government, voter ID, whatever it is, you know that it either a those people do live in Aurora or B Aurora residents didn't sign up and so now you're you have these individuals that are not Aurorans. >> Just to go, hey, the first four speakers are residents. >> Yeah. and then not name where every single other person lives. That I just don't love the idea of >> putting and so and so who lives in Denver, so and so who came here from Lafayette like that that feels like doing too much. >> So the first four Yeah. So when we start is a horizont so be content with just saying not even saying where they're from. enough just to say so and so present >> for each person. >> Well, yeah. >> They do and that's all he's saying. He wants it announced. >> Are you okay with Katie just stating that like the first speaker that way? >> Well, I think that is power. Okay. So, we're gonna strike this whole section about saying if they're res >> I think we need to take out the shall I think we can say council request. >> Okay. on the Aurora and things what I like to see is that um I I'll go with the first four or whatever are Aurora resident but there's a compromise but there should be a shell and there's got to because we have people coming month after month that are not from this city and people ought to know that I live in Dam so I don't >> I have a question. So, it's actually kind of a suggestion. So, instead of because of safety concerns, because I know some of us have gotten direct from old city council members and they still continue today or whatever. Um, instead of saying residents, could we could you look at substituting saying the first four are local residents and then the other people are from outside our jurisdiction just as a a safety measure precaution. I >> mean, you're not required to provide to check the box or provide the information that says you're resident. So then it would just be like not stated. Um so the such and such are Aurora residents would be the people who checked the box and provided some kind of so you could just avoid that by simply not checking that box. >> Okay. And so then people might not know that you're an oral resident, but it sounds like maybe people may not want folks to know that about them um for their own privacy reasons. >> My question is what is the end point of knowing a resident or not? What is the gain point >> like the value? >> I'll let the mayor answer that. I mean it it doesn't matter. >> When I did some um speaking for in hearings number one out of state there were numerous out of state people. They got priority over residents. >> Developers have gotten priority over residents. This is public invited to be heard. It's not Aurora public invite to be heard. >> Miss Ellen, we're getting into discussion, so I'm gonna You can have that during the comments and discussion, but I don't want to get too into discussion, but I think >> Sure, >> mayor, if you want to end at 7:30, like is it mandated that you have to end at 7:30? No, >> we published it as starting at 5:30ish at 7:30. Nonetheless, um >> I'm not trying to keep you, but I'm just pressed making sure because if if it was, I was going to ask everybody to chip. >> Um I mean, I do think we want to >> I just know we have stuff to say. Yeah, >> we've been very fluid about the discussion and definitely open to questions, but we want to keep the dis the comment part to the comment section, which we will get to as soon as we get to the end of this public participation piece. Um so, We're going to say council requests. Mayor, you can always make an amendment um when we get to studies or offer ask our colleagues that there be an amendment, right? We can change that. Um but I think the shall get things a little like it just puts us in a position where what do we do if they don't what do we do if someone doesn't say what their name is and where they're from or gives a random name you don't think is their name. Well, but also I think well >> or says they're >> uh they have a priority so they're going to be at the beginning of the list and so you say the first four the first six are rural restaurants that that will be speaking of public >> and there's no names associated with it just you say state in the beginning and then it's well they're not saying it J saying >> right >> and some people may introduce themselves by habit I just think sometimes people are like, I want my full three minutes for my commentary and I'm not going to say the rest of the stuff to say. >> Um, yep. What if their residency is unknown? Are you going to say their residency is unknown? >> No, no, no. >> So, you're just going to say this is an Aurora resident affirmed. >> I'll say at the beginning, the first six speakers are a resident. >> Okay. And then one, two, three, four, five, six goes. Then everybody else is just either you're not a resident or it's unknown. >> Yeah. And then I will say that. Okay. Still trying to find the value, but okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. In check a box or provide any proof >> and or or or in. Like check a box and or check a box or. >> In order to get the priority, you have to do both. You have to check the box on the form and show that. >> How do you verify it? >> Yeah. >> Give us an ID lease agreement. If you sign up online in advance, um we can check your registration. plan. I use an official post by the mayor. This is >> Oh, stop. No, >> Mr. Anderson. We're not getting into back and forth stuff. These are to be >> I just wanted to see if it worked. >> It will not. >> Well, if we're talking about under 18, they may not have an ID. And if they go to an Aurora school, they may not live in Aurora. So, are you going to move them down the list while maybe some of their schoolmates have already spoken? >> That section is that section, Miss Ellen, is just for all you have to show is that they're 18 or younger and students, >> right? But if we're talking about everybody has the Aurora residence, >> they don't have to. >> Then the youth, they may go to school in Aurora, >> but they may live in Denver. >> Fair enough. What I'm saying is that first section for the 18 and younger, the way the the draft rule is written, we're not asking whether they were resident or not. We're just asking are you a student and are you 18 or younger? >> Yeah. And so we'll get to the rest of those points as we're going through the drafted changes. Um sorry there's a lot of different moving parts. Um but we can yeah we can get to the rules as written. Mr. Can I make a a motion for you guys to make a motion to move to the part of the discussion on the decorum discussion and then we can all leave and then you guys can finish the meeting. >> This is the decor. >> No, you can't make a a motion. Um this is the first part. Then we're going to take some discussion. Then we're going to go through the second part and take some additional discussion. Um so we're really close to the end of this section. Um there is an item here that didn't get addressed that I think we need to address which is the only one person permit permitted at a time um unless it's a parent of a minor child interpreter etc etc like um >> yeah I think >> I think we should strike that we can leave wherever feasible individuals wishing to address the same topic are encouraged etc that's fine but the only one person at the podium at the time I think should be Yeah, go ahead. They'll never do it. >> I mean, that's not the reason. The reason is that it was already implemented under strange pretenses and that it never was there before. And >> yeah, >> um going back before that, um can we add something about um addressing the council? >> Ah, yes. Do we have that here that the members shall address the council and not other members or individuals speaking? Didn't we put that in here that they should be directed to the council? >> Yeah, it's their council. Oh, no, that's council should be engaging in debate. >> Um, I think it's in >> Okay. >> Because if not, it might fit with the once at the podium sentence. state their name. I'll make sure to ask address council. >> Yeah, because I thought we added that in, but we I do want to make sure we do that that folks should be addressing council. Um >> then after the one time only, the last sentence whenever peaceful individual individuals or groups wishing to address the same topic. Um is there a way to strike that? I understand we want to be efficient with the use of time, but I think there's something to say when multiple people come up to to support the same cause. It kind of it gets our attention. I think it's a method. >> Yeah. I mean, it's not a shallow. >> So, I think it's >> I see. Whenever feasible, I think >> are encouraged. So, I think right there whenever it's feasible, they're so it's not >> you must and if you're talking about the same thing as the other person, you have to stop. >> It's more just saying asking questions. >> For example, you could have one person or two people kind of designated to speak, deliver a comment and say, "Everyone, this used to happen a lot, everyone who's also here in support of this, please stand." And you'd have like the whole chamber standing. And that sends its own message. >> Um, and so that's uh that's permitted. >> Um, but yeah, that I'm not attached to it, but I think it's just more of a suggestion. >> And um my last question on this public participation section is at the very end where council may clarify statements related to any speaker comment at the conclusion of public invite to be heard but shall not enter into debate with the speakers. Um um >> I was in favor of me of like a 30 second rebuttal. So I'm glad that that's there um for the clarifying like clarifying questions and points. >> Should that have a time limit or um >> sorry I >> I'm trying to hear it. Um, you talk about council should be getting the opportunity to address staff, exchange contact information, right? >> I I would say that just for consistency sake, there's no back and forth with >> the speakers by rule. >> Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but the rule should be >> that you guys can follow up later or not that it >> because you may get you may get accused of >> council may clarify statements related to comments. Is that like going off on the mic and being like >> conclusion? So if you want to take a personal >> at the end of the entire okay use if you get let's say you get chastised for something you can say hey I just want to state for the record one personal privilege recognized by the mayor >> mayor recognizing you say I just want to make for the record that >> okay that makes more sense >> okay >> otherwise we should >> and does your moving up so council reports helps with that issue because that's right that's right All right. Now, we get into the nitty-gritty of public body to be heard. >> Okay. So, let's pause before we get there um to take comments and then we'll do uh the public invited to be heard, the um public comment on agenda items, the disruption, and the materials submitted to council. those will um we will uh review and then have comment. So folks interested in commenting on the items that have already been discussed regarding the order of meetings and the public uh participation. Um please feel free. Wait, did we go through all the changes to public participation though? >> We have to go through public heard management. Okay. So, I guess those are part of Okay, they're part of the same section. Okay, my bad. Um, okay. So, public invited to be heard. Um, each speaker will be provided up to three minutes. Um, up to 30 minutes for those who are under 18 years of age and are students in school. So that's there's no other evidence required to be submitted, just that you're under 18 and that you're a student in school, not residency. And that's a dedicated period. And then following this period for up to one additional hour, other speakers who have signed up to speak as outlined in this section will have the opportunity to address council. So the other rules that apply to them about residency. Those speakers who provide proof that they are residents of Aurora will be heard in first in the order that they signed up to speak. Um >> on the um we're not down to that yet, but we can go down to the next. Um, so those wishing to address council may sign up online before 1:00 p.m. on the day of the council meeting or may sign up in person with the city clerk no earlier than 5:00 p.m. Those signing up after 5:45 p.m. to the order they signed up regardless of group president. Um, signups will be accepted until the last uh speaker finishes speaking. So, and then the other portion is stricken. back. You guys added the 30 minutes. We'll just change that to staying that for those who did not have the opportunity to address council. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yep. >> I say that. >> We just now we change that today. So, we're going to add 30 minutes back. >> Yeah. And just modify it to say only those who did not speak during the first public hearing session. And then here's where it says council members will will not interact. Speakers may be following their discretion. City clerk or does not facilitate public heard. And that of course allows uh Katie to if she doesn't want to handle it then have somebody else do it. and um kind of like her vote there. Now, here's where we get into the um the the procedure that we talked about last meeting. If a speaker continues past the three minute speaking limit, mayor first ask the speaker to wrap up their comments. The speaker continues to speak for more than 10 seconds after the mayor's initial request. Mayor said, "This is your final warning." The speaker then continues to speak after the mayor's final warning. The speaker will be deemed to have violated the rules regarding public invite to be heard. Uh the speaker will then be stricken to speak in the next scheduled council meeting public invited to be heard and this will be a form described by city manager explaining the speaker of the same speaker. >> Can you also say agenda items? >> It's it's in the agenda items as well. >> We just not there. This is just comment >> but I mean Okay. So they can even though they couldn't speak on public next meeting they can speak on agenda items. >> They could. Yes. >> Oh that's what you're asking. Yeah. because it was a if it's a public hearing, they have to be able to to speak. So, >> yeah. >> Um someone's ability to speak in a public hearing. >> So, if they can come to the meeting, they just can't speak. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Right. Mr. Okay, >> just a question on um how this um for example, if somebody has a disability that prolongs their speech, if somebody, you know, if a motion is invoked and they take 10 seconds to get their, you know, they start crying in the middle of their speech or I mean, even though that you all say council members can't interfere with public comment, we've seen it happen numerous times and so I'm curious on how this 10 seconds of grace um is thinking about the other circumstances that would impact a per a person's ability to to adhere to the three minutes uninterrupted. Um they specifically from my my major concern is when is it possible regardless if you tell them not to do so they still interrupt public commenters. Does that mean Katie has been instructed to stop the timer every time that happens? What does that what does that look like for that specific piece? And then I'm also con wanting to know about like for those who might have a stutter or a speech impediment, >> delayed speech, >> delayed speech. How does that impact their time? >> So obviously there's an accommodation that that this is going to be different. I mean we're but we're going to know that ahead of time, right? So, because we're going to be asking for people to, you know, to submit that information so we can provide them the accommodation that they need, which may be more time, but we'll know that ahead of time. As far as the council, I you know, you have Jason and I sitting next to the mayor, right? finish your conversation in the hall and come back in. But if you are inside the chambers, the focus is the council, not others. of the judgment is not made against one person because we don't have that full information. >> We have two scenarios. One is is that yes, we have a couple people being loud because they're talking loud. They're having an argument, whatever. I think that's one thing that we can get them. Hey, you guys need to step outside both of you to figure out what's going on. Um the second one is kind of what we saw at the last council meeting where it was it was a disruption, right? be um and again and I want to be clear what happened at the last council meeting wasn't because of his initial response to what what was said. I don't I didn't hear what was said, right? We were clear about that. It was was a continuation after several warnings, right? That's I think the second scenario, right? If you have somebody that is um upset that is not, >> you know, right? So, >> okay. So, Mr. Aante has been having his hand up. So, we'll go there, here, here. >> Yeah. >> Do y'all have anybody trained maybe in the city manager's office on restorative justice or like uh I think that it might be in hindsight of Monday's situation. I think it would be different or could be a different resolution if somebody who's not a a roar police officer or security guard is able to, you know, come and quietly kneel next to whoever's having a disagreement. Hey, I'm uh with the city manager's office. I would love to be able to facilitate a conversation with you all. Would you mind please stepping out with me into the lobby? I think that has different impact than what we saw with like police officers and security guards because knowing relationships, etc. I just think that you could have a more you have a different approach if you have somebody in your office that's trained that would maybe even be willing to get the overtime or you know part of their job is like hey we love for you to start coming to city council meetings. we know that you're trained and licensed in restorative practices. This would help a lot in these situations. They don't happen often, but it could be. And then if that fails, then that's when you can pull in other resources, but at least then as a CIA for y'all. So, like if somebody's mad at you all for like you involved the police, but it's all well, we did have our we had our we had a member of our city manager team come in uh that's trained in restorative practices offer their services to both parties. It was not accepted. Therefore, we had to move to our our phase two, which is getting our um getting our partners in law enforcement involved. >> Yeah, I think I think that we can. It's like, of course, as long as it's safe to do so, right? Because >> um but I think we I think I like that idea. I think we can work through that. >> You guys, council members, are you okay with us exploring that? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Y >> absolutely. I mean I again and I I didn't like I said I I again until we found out later when you guys spoke about what said to Mr. um we had talked about I >> repugnant, right? I hate the fact that that was said, but I can't regulate that speech, right? Um we can only regulate the conduct, right? As long as it's consistent. And but I like that idea of having somebody come up and kind of get involved and say, "Hey, this is what really happened." And then I'm just hopeful. I'm hopeful that will work, right? >> I think you also have people that facilitated this last meeting. It looked like they were pretty train well trained in facilitation and maybe even it could be just an extension of if they're willing to do so, an extension of what they currently do. You had two qualified I know black ladies that were in the room that seemed uh that they were I know I know one of them personally who seems like they're very well managed in conflict resolution as well. So it's worth a try. It's a fair point and it's consistent with what we try and do which is trying to involve things at the lowest level obviously and I think to exactly to your point typically we try and not engage with the police officers you know try and engage with security but you're saying hey let's go even a layer above and beyond that and get away that's not uniformed and I think it's a >> but I also think it shuts down any criticism of the city like if anybody is like hey you all did shitty at this and this police officer then you're like Mr. Mr. Anderson, we we again we we followed our protocol. We had a member of our of our city staff that's trained uh in restorative practices attempt to support that was not successful. This is why this escalated and then that it's almost a ca for the city for press and and for people watching in the per in person. >> So and and I want to be perfectly clear of what happened. We had that meeting two weeks ago to talk about how we can cross across the aisle and how we can treat each other better and how we can come together as community. And so I went over there to shake hands and say hello to people. As soon as I walked away, they said something very nasty about me. And he happened to be sitting right there and he heard it and he went off. Okay. So, we had that glistening session two weeks ago. We had those things up on the board about us doing better, being better, and I went over there to extend an oblance to talk to those people and say hello and shake their hands. As soon as I walked away, they said something very nasty about me. He caught on to it. He was upset. He was the only one when I was out front talking about Packball. He came over and talked to me. He filmed it. He talked to me. He hugged me. He was excited. And but I could also do better because I said something about taking down the barriers because I don't like the barriers where the the staff gets to sit there by themselves. I would rather the staff sit in here if they, you know, like it makes me go like, do I stink? Do I smell? They don't want to sit next to me. Um, and I take a shower every time before I come to a city council meeting. So, um I just don't like the way that there's people sitting on the far left, people sitting in the center, people sitting on the left, and then this box stop area where where city council or where city employees get to sit. I just, you know, so but I want to make it perfectly clear that I went over to extended branch to say hello to those people and they were nasty. And then after it went back and forth, they tell him to go back to his country. So, I mean, yes, I think it was handled okay, but we were afraid for his safety. And um but then some people got up and left because they got the hell out of there. And these people are saying that they feel unsafe, but they keep making really racist, derogatory comments, and they keep getting away with it time and time again. I just have I just have a quick comment. Um the the the buzz word for tonight has been consistency and I think what persist precipit precipitated this this event cuz I listened to it on on the way in in my truck and it was disturbing just to listen to it in in my truck and When I talk about consistency, from my understanding, it seemed like the individual, the consistent, the constituent that was told to go back to his country was the one asked to be removed, but yet the person who told him to go back to his country was not asked to be removed. And then it started a firestorm on social media from former council members basically saying this gentleman did nothing wrong even though from the eyewitnesses he definitely did something wrong. So when we talk about consistency that constituent constituent should shouldn't have been the only one removed and then and then I think the situation would have been handled handled correctly. It probably would have been handled a little bit better had a the APD officer who had responded been trained in mental mental health um because I've been around the constituent um at the public safety meetings and he definitely gave off vibes that he had definite issues with my interactions with him. So I I absolutely agree with everything that Aante was saying, but when we talk about consistency, we have to practice it. And that's my two cents. >> Thank you. Anybody else? uh >> so I'm going to put in my two cents too because I'm and I'm agreeing with Aaron about consistency because I've had the privilege of sitting in three council meetings already where there has been hateful speech, there have been hateful remarks, there have been really rude rude and mean and nasty words. And it's the same set of people that have not been called out. >> And I find it very disturbing that that's the pattern that has been set in the chamber. And I'm going to go back to my trauma experience where and I think that set the tone of the whole environment where I had witnesses and I went to after discussing with Aaron who we report this to we decided let's go to the city managers. City manager said no. Go to the city attorney. >> No. >> I was not the city attorney at the time. >> I know. >> I'm not saying >> I just to clarify Jason wasn't city manager. >> He was city manager either. >> Right. Understood. Just >> I'm putting the names to it. But there is that lack of I mean not only the lack of what do we do when this happens but so the train of you know we I went with Aaron they said go to the police I went to the first police officer not me go to the other one it was like hello we have an incident And even afterwards, nothing was done with the council member. Nothing. And in all of that, there was a police report filed, >> but I had to go through who to get the police report. So in all of that there should be something that addresses behavior of council in that manner and there needs to be consistency that we don't just t I'm not going to say target. We don't address the lack of um or accountability when hateful words are said or actions. You know that and we talk about intimidation. We talk about how can we make this a more inviting place for the public. I mean, three council meetings already and I've heard it from that group. >> That's the same group. >> And isn't it considered hate speech? Isn't it considered a hate crime? >> It's No. So, you know, I want to be careful, right? Because you guys are aren't particularly my client, but I will tell you that it's very difficult for anybody in the city to try to legislate speech, right? If we hear it and it doesn't, it has to it has to incite a riot is what it does. It has to be like yelling fire in a movie theater, right? That's that's what we're talking about where it causes a a huge breach of, you know, you know, disruption and whatnot. I understand what happened in this case. Again, we didn't hear it. Um, if that's happening, I there's nothing we can do. We can't even ask them to leave unless they're being disruptive. And what happened in the last meeting because it escalated to Mr. Hanss is once he had his reaction he had calmed down. He wasn't warned. Nothing was done then but then he started it was a disruption part and knowing that it all went back to what had happened but we Jason and I were having a discussion at the dis right trying to figure out what do we do in this scenario right because we hadn't had that happen in a while and so that's what happened is that it was this continuing disruption when he went down and engaged the police department that he had not talked to they were not in uniform right that was when it was he's disrupting the meeting and it wasn't because of his reaction. It was because of the continued disruption. And so that's why we're talking about being consistent, but not on the content of speech. I I'll tell you, you know, as I told you guys, I don't like the cussing, right? But I'll defend your right to do it, right? That's my job, right? You have a right to do it. Maybe we don't have to like it, but I can't say you can't speak at the next meeting because you cussed. Because that is protected speech. That is that is contentbased, not neutral. So, >> and is his trespassing going to be overturned? Because now he's trespassing. >> He didn't get criminal. >> We did not give him a criminal trespass warning. We asked him to leave that meeting. That's going to come later once we get the rules in place where there's notice, the forms are done, Jason's going to have a form that's going to be signed. It's going to be served on the individual. We're hoping that never happens. So to kind of back up what Ellen says, and I can't believe I'm going to say this. I guess I'm channeling my grand my grandmother because I'm really frustrated cuz these last two meetings like I've literally heard when TA's up there speaking and I'm just going to I'm just going to name it because I'm just going to name the evil. I've literally heard Jerry Jerinsky or the woman that's with him yell out [ __ ] to what? >> To Yes. I've I've literally heard that that that has literally got a response from Kada that's got a response that's got a response from from and you know I turned up about her >> just tell you I never that shows >> just I'm just speaking what I've what I've heard because I'm frustrated like I 100% >> I'm 100% for free speech. Anybody that knows me that knows that I will 100% protect free speech. But when I hear the n-word, to me, that is going to period. >> I mean, again, I I agree. I mean, >> hate speech. I mean, isn't that not okay? >> It's not hate speech. It's got to be it's got to be the the content of the speech has to incite and that would like fire as loud fire intended to be insightful like to incite that's not speech that's >> just being said just for freedom of speech it's intended to incite a violent freedom >> and that that's disorderly conduct that's arrestable >> so I guess my frustration is when I when I hear it like I'll see the gallery get up before like Aante can can hear it because yeah it that's over in 3 seconds query but you might as well call these >> forgive sit down but the gallery does it before I can say like there'll be other people that'll drown drown it out so there there other people that'll that'll confront him. I think one thing comment in addition to the disruption protocol and I don't know if it needs to be in the rules but certainly I think administratively we can do it. We'll work with Katie to kind of put in and it's something we could perhaps have on the screens prior to the start of the meeting and just makes folks aware where if an incident occurs during a meeting folks know how to essentially raise an issue, raise a complaint. We have folks that are prepared to take it. they can let us know, hey, we need to take a brief recess so we can investigate and address those things in the moment. I think that's something that kind of came out. Um, >> yeah, because we knew that Yeah, >> Mr. Dinsky was using that language. We need to be able to stop getting it figured out. >> We'll we'll I'll come up with something. Again, I'll talk to Pete. of it needs to be in your roles more as just an administrative procedure have in place that is and again make sure that folks in the audience know how to exercise that whether again whether it's something just up on the screens or we're waiting for the meeting to start hey if there's an incident you need to raise a complaint and we just have that clearly identified so folks can do that >> more security protocol than a council ruling >> are we still in questions or are we in discussion because I have some stuff But I've been holding because I thought we were still in questions. >> Um I think that we can just go ahead and do comment and then we can come back to the remaining portions of the changes. Um so yeah, let's go ahead and folks who would like to make comment come up. Um up to four people can be seated here at the table. Um and then folks can give their comment. We'll ask questions. we'll dialogue and then if there are additional folks in addition to those first four then we'll do the same. >> I'm just curious can we as the audience just commit to getting through it and stop the in like this >> so we can see it because then I would hate for us to miss something. So no more outside let's go through it and then everyone take notes >> I second the motion. >> Okay. All right. So that's really for this disruption protocol. It sounds like what's here remains the case, right? If something if council cannot have a meeting, then council may um instead conduct the meeting virtually. Um the only Yeah, I think that the other pieces right if there's a disruption that's a threat to security then that's a matter for the city management to address um and they'll establish a procedure. We have a question about the expiring of um public invite to be heard or public comment time. Is that are we able to do that? Um because in this section it says any after you know if we call a virtual meeting there's whatever any remaining public comment time will be deemed to have expired. Um how does that work? >> Case by case basis. Yeah I mean we depend on what happens. Um >> well in the last sentence it does say that if they signed up for agenda items they will coordinate with a speed on. Yeah. So >> great. >> That's a case that that and again good good question. It's just maybe getting into into the weeds a little bit. I mean the good thing is is Jason and I are both going to be there right when these happens to be able to make >> you know the right decision. >> Okay. >> Right. You know because it has to be Jason. It can't be the mayor or anybody else that that >> make a decision about Yeah. >> Everything regarding the the Yeah. >> If there was a reason that someone has to be asked, >> which I think you remember when I stated on this like for the city manager Jason Bachelor, you've been asked to leave. So, >> right. Okay. So, we're gonna that's going to stay out of the rules though. um that's going to be an operational procedure. Um so it's not really a council rules situation. >> Okay. >> Um the only thing that I had added for the decorum for council members we had talked about. >> Sorry. So materials submitted to city council. >> Oh god. >> Yeah. Like let's just go through >> that was that wasn't part of the agenda. The next thing is >> gotcha. Yeah. The next one was the course. So on page 40, it's the closing. >> Yeah, deform. >> Yeah, council deform. But let's first do public debate. That's one item and then it's two separate items, right? >> Reform is a separate item. So why don't we let folks speak on this one and then get to the next one and then >> then we'll be hopefully done. Hopefully don't have any miscellaneous matters. So now we have gotten through the entirety of public comment. So for folks four at a time can come up um provide your comment. >> Dramatic. >> Um >> you have to get up. >> Okay. That's what they teach us. >> Does anybody else want to come up and sit in these other seats to also comment or >> Okay. This is what's already >> Yeah, this is on what's already been discussed. >> Who would you like to start with? Start with Kyle. >> Um, sure. Mr. Kyla. >> Oh man. Um I end up passing this simply because I sat up here cuz um came up here because we're I really Well, uh I'm sorry. I don't have anything to say as of right now. I'm still processing this so I'm sorry about that. >> Okay. So I definitely will go next. So for me on what you want to talk about what we don't talked about so far, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So for me how we engage with with city council members. I was as everybody was talking, I was thinking about are city council members really are on and really listening cuz I feel like not I feel like that when I see people heads down or you know when you make a a important comment that's important to yourself, I don't see no heads shaking. up down side and nothing. I see just a a blatant out non response because they so busy looking at their computers, their phone, reading a paper, what have you. So therefore, I think that we need to be more interactive with city council members to show that we we really are listening to even say something that we don't say it so we know that you're listening not pick and choose all that we feel like you're not listening then that's very frustrating irritating for me I can't speak for nobody else only for myself so to me that means if they not listening that means things is not going to get done it's only going to go the way they wanted to go anyway So for me losing a child, especially at the hands of someone in Aurora and then the city council members that's not listening or engaging, then I'm not going to be happy about it. So then when I go on media and display what I have been subjected to, that's not going to be a good look for you guys. nor am I going to feel good about it. And I'm going to just tell my truth. I can't tell nobody else truth but mine. Okay? So that means things are not going to get done on behalf like I feel like it should get done like it properly should get done. And as far as this time thing go, um like like said, sometime 3 minutes is not efficient. Sometimes you need more time because like a said, I know myself, I hardly ever stay within three minutes because I'mma get emotional because I'm dreaming for a lifetime. So therefore there is no time limit especially a three minute time limit to express how I am feeling what I'm going through how we are affected cuz sometimes I got to stop and pause and especially hearing the comments that other people make out in the audience where we are at that's not a good feeling. So, I'm gonna have to talk because the two U city council meetings ago, I had to literally walk out. I had to literally walk out to regroup and regain myself, my sense of thinking because of some of the comments that was being made. And I know we can't say they have freedom of speech, but we still are human. And you have to be careful what you say, especially to grieving families. And so therefore, I'm going to have to stop and pause. I'm going tell you right now, I'm going to have to stop and pause and regain myself because the things and thought that goes through my head is very emotional. every single time. It's not one or two times. I try to meet that three limit mark, a three minute mark. It never happens because you guys until you go through this experience, you don't know and you will never know until you go through experience how that feels. So putting a three minute marker on people I because there's many reason why people will go over a three minute mark and you might not know why and sometimes they won't express it but I will express mine. So I feel that more compassion should be given in that area for ones who you know has lost loved ones who you know have been truly deeply affected by something. I think they should be given more time three minutes. I think the issue we run into is the consistency. I think that the accommodations can be requested and that's one way to ask for the additional time. >> But I think we can't really make a list of these are all the instances within which the extra time >> as long as there are accommodations made for families that does go through that because some families going to break down. I know the last time I broke down when that lady made the comment she made because she have no idea because she have never walked in these shoes that we're walking in ever. So, >> and if I can respond, I'll just also add like I hear I hear what you're saying and I just feel like there there could be some sort of flexibility um whether it's the amount of time people are given um within the two hours or extending the two hours, but because just because there is um sometimes we have a lot of people sign up, sometimes we don't have a lot of people sign up. Sometimes people use their full-time, sometimes people don't. So, I just feel like maybe and we'll work maybe work on the wording, but just some flexibility in there or just like circumstances that arise if there is another, you know, unarmed black man shot and killed by a police department, maybe like us doing our due diligence of understanding like what that public invite's going to look like. And so, just some sort of like human clause, I don't know, empathy clause or just understanding clause of like there is flexibility. Um, but I hear there's like the legal legalities of giving everybody their same time. So I I but I'm curious. I I am very curious what we can do, you know, in our position to to to be more aware of the circumstances, but I I know there's limitations, but I definitely hear it because there's flexibility. >> You know, sometimes people have a lot to say, sometimes people don't. Um so >> so um in formal debate in Congress >> there was there was a time cap that was solid >> but there but if who whoever was in charge of debate on the side within that cap um could say um Mr. speaker with the acting speaker. Um I request an additional 10 seconds, 15 seconds. >> Yeah. I mean I again we just got to be consistent. I mean and that's that's where we get to and I and I miss Laura I get it like you know it's frustrating with some of the council members aren't listening but I we don't have the ability to force them to listen. I wish we could because it would be great that you guys are speaking for everybody to be attentive and listen. I I I just we just don't have that ability and I I it's up to their individual and it it comes down to the ballot box >> and it really is up to the individual because I read you guys uh the rules and regulation policies when you first swear in to that is your job. it is your job and being saying they can't force then if if they can't sit down and listen to the public then why are they sitting up there on the dice because when they're sworn into Oak >> I hear you >> that is their job >> to do that so to say that you can't make them then it should be consequences for the ones who doing that and not listening there definitely should be consequences put in for that because we're going to get your attention one way or the other. That's what you guys got to say to your members to to the people up there. We are going to enforce the oath that you took. Something has to be done in that perspective. And if it's behavior like you know cutting people off, heckling people which we have seen and when we get to the council member decorum piece that's there that we can have sanctions for. We can't really have sanctions for we don't think you're listening. Like would I like it if we could? Yes. But that's right. We also someone for example I write down a lot of notes. Someone might say, "Well, what is she doing over there? Is she even listening?" Right? And then they could sanction me because I'm too busy writing down the notes of what people said and I don't appear to be listening. So that's just hard to create a rule. >> You and them, you always come and reerate what we have said. That's the difference. And see, one thing that I don't think they want us to do is if they keep with that behavior and we start calling them out and we know their terms are coming up again, they might not get them seats again because people are watching. People are listening and every time we call them out, every time you have a meeting, they going to be looking at those specific people that we've been calling out on a regular. And then do you want these people representing you? That's what's going to come next. Do you want these people representing you, the ones who don't appear to be listening, who who don't care, if they don't care about what's going on within their community, why we want them reelected again cuz that's what's going to happen. >> And that's valid, but we we that's not as >> anyway, >> that's already in the works. That's going to be taken care of. >> We've got additional comments. We've got um Mian >> right close. >> Oh, not have the council member to form conversation. We It's on the agenda. >> I would tell you I think Mr. R kind of brought that up already. I mean, one of the things that we listened that a quorum was is expected that council members and the mayor will conduct themselves professionally in their official capacities of the elected representatives of the citizens of the city. Right. That is that is what is on page 40, Katie. Um that is what we're talking about. Council member Deorn that is about the extent that council can do uh on how they act professionally. Um there it is right there. It says you know to limit their discussion to debate the issues before council with acts of personal nature are not permitted is expected that council members of the mayor will conduct themselves professionally in fiscal capacities as elected representatives of the citiz sanctionable thing there that we can do. That's why I wanted to say you know other things like you know violating the the rules that we have in place but professional professionality or being professional >> is such a subjective thing >> right but engaging in personal attacks interrupting people things of that nature >> um can be sanction what the next steps are >> okay >> um so trying to like keep us >> I know I know within the topics that we're on, which right now is the like members of the public. And I know like it's hard to separate the two. Um but um yeah, I >> yeah, >> we can't >> legislate for people to to listen unfortunately and to listen attentively, >> right? We are the people which going to demand that. But we'll come to that bridge as they keep coming up. We'll cross that bridge. >> Yeah. Um my comments relatively brief. Um one I just want to say shout out um for the youth public comment piece. I think that's big. um to hear those young people and carve out specific time and cool can't wait to fully approach the the day and say I support what you all are doing um publicly because I think that that needs to be said that um you all are doing something that other cities and municipalities are not doing um and even I would say even elected school boards aren't doing currently what you're doing is specifically carving out time for young people. So thank you. Uh two, um as you look through language, I would just ask that you look at it with the uh just trying to figure out how you can be um the most human approach to the language that you're putting on there. Like some of the the words shall, require, etc. Um utilize it when necessary. Um however, trying to figure out how you give that air give that for a reader perspective of the the the city wants to hear my input. Um there are rules to engagement. Um but you do want to hear my input and making it less punitive but more of again that restorative mindset. I hope that the the potential third party mediator comes to fruition. I hope that you know you're able to add that to the decorum thing that you'll read or whatever it is is that we have these people to support etc. Whatever that looks like. Um and I still have a still have a really big issue with the 10 seconds. um if it's not enforced in a human if it's if it's enforced of like 10 seconds sanction move on that's I think a big issue versus how do we ensure that before we get to that point we've at least try we've done what we needed to do to be very kind and humane about it hey Mr. And understand, your three minutes is wrapped up. Uh it's um Katie, please call the next uh the next speaker. Um just trying to figure out that more humane piece. Um is going to be key. Uh and then finally I would just say like I think a lot of the in retrospect if we look back two years ago to to today I think a lot of the issues that we are currently talking about here could have been solved is if Mayor Kaufman and you or even if other council members would have been like let's we we heard we heard something has impacted a community. Let's stop um what we are not let's stop but I'm going you know if you if Mayor Coffin if you were like I'm going to dedicate an hour or two hours I want to specifically sit down and understand who Kylin Lewis was outside of what this narrative that has been created and I want to have that time with Miss Lauron I want to talk to your your family I want to talk to with your advocates and if there were members of council that were like look we we may not be we can't make any commitments we will have to have our heat shy in the room because we're likely there's going to if litigation um we but we at least want to at least give a space for you all to be heard that doesn't feel this kind of standoffish um three minutes and go out disruption of the public meeting etc. Like I think a lot of these issues that we're talking about here could have just been solved with after that first council meeting somebody just being like there's some real pain in this room. We need to we need to I want to hey please give me their contact information. I I'm going to I'm going to meet with you all. And that can even be used in a future. If there's any other future, I hope there's not a future where another family grieavves like Miss Lauron and her family do. But if that future ever was a reality, I would just ask that y'all pause and not put somebody through going through two years of coming to talk to you for three minutes, her having to fly across the country because there's no virtual public comment anymore, right? So, like there's just so many barriers that I think we could have eliminated all of this discussion, two years of public meetings with if somebody would have just said, you know what, we're going to pause. We heard you're hurting. We we we we are not going to say, you know, we're not put ourselves liable, but we heard you're hurting and what can I at least want to listen. >> I think that could have went a long way to preventing a lot of what we're even discussing. Now, I'm going to kind of go off of what Aon said, there's a lot of resources that y'all have that y'all do not disclose to the public, right? So, with that being said, as Aante said, there's going to be people that are going through things. And why not go ahead and tap into that? If y'all got to burn burn down this building to stand up for what is right, why not do that? Why not stand for what other people are standing for? Because you know it's right. So I I I love what you just said, Aante. I'm just simply saying that I see a very few people who do do that. >> Yes. >> But it's only a little bit of y'all and there's so many others. So yeah, as as the public comes and makes these comments and y'all are listening, hopefully y'all are actively listening with a plan to provide resources but a plan to stand because at the end of the day, we are the reason why y'all are here. not to sit up here and make y'all look like y'all don't do nothing. And it's not it's not that at all. It's just simply saying that y'all have to be here and and engage more, you know, on a bigger scale. Whether it's providing resources like an say, calling people back, get their contact information, however that I'm just simply addressing that because that will go a lot further as well. So people know and then also calling out officers when you know that things have been wrong and and the new bill that just passed, you get to see the true thing that the the truth when it all comes to fruition. Then therefore you have something to hold your your officers on and stand with the public because also the officers are only in position because of us. So the thing is y'all are that same thing, but we can all make this a better community if y'all just stood for what's the truth. That's all I wanted to say. Um, so I haven't been able to be here in like in person because of the work that we've been doing. Um, so because we're talking about how the public engages with the council, I'm going to start out by formally publicly denouncing the behaviors that we've seen from some members of the community. I do not condone personal attacks. I do not condone using language that young people um should essentially not be exposed to. unless that's the personal parental decision. So, the profanity, I do not condone that. Um, I also want to say that the organization that I lead also does not script or prompt or provoke that kind of behavior. That is not what we do. We show up in spaces to stand with families or injustices or pushing back against injustice. And I think that when you talk about activism work, oftentimes, interestingly enough, everyone puts all of the activists in the same bucket. Activism is something that is also very unique to the individual's leadership style. The people that are a part of my organization have never come to this council to disrespect anyone. If you've seen disrespect through profanity or any other channels, that individual was not a part of my organization or those individuals were not a part of my organization. Nor are we scripting or creating that narrative. They are coming on their own accord. So I just want to make sure that I formally as the leader of my organization publicly denounce what has been done because I don't condone it. I also just want to offer this community or and anyone that's listening a formal apology from my leadership because I should have called it out sooner and I do plan to use my own platform to make sure that I make it clear that I don't condone that behavior. There are other ways to get results and that comes through collaboration and the moment we start name calling that is problematic and it does not offer opportunities for collaboration. I also want to say that I do not condone narrative shaping. I do not condone individuals that will take an opportunity to feel uncomfortable about what they're hearing only to spin that out to their own base to create a narrative because that does the same thing. It closes out room for understanding and opportunity to be collaborative. So, I don't condone either one of those styles of behavior. And again, I plan to use my platform to publicly denounce that. I also want to say that when it comes to pain and hard hardship, you see your family um hurts and a system ignoring that pain. I might condone the behavior, but I also will say that I understand it. I understand having the frustration to the point where all you have left is every cuss word you can think of. I do understand it. I just don't condone it and I don't join in. As it pertains to what we heard tonight, I'm going to first speak into the residency piece. Mayor Kaufman, I challenge you to think deeper. You mentioned that you feel like it's important for the people to know if someone is a resident of Aurora or not. To me, this is a judgment. all and they say that that sounds like we're prioritizing optics versus taking the time to prioritize the pain or the issue or the concern or the celebration. If something is happening in Aurora, that is something that Aurora, the city council, the body of government should know about. If we are only banking on people that have the resources to pull their story out of isolation to come to this body to speak into it, the only benefactor of someone being in isolation with their story is the system that is harming them. So it's not that people don't want to talk about what is happening to them. They just don't want to talk to you all about what's happening to them. They're coming to other organizations. They're coming to people saying, "I'm hurting. I need help." That seemingly is an opportunity for you all to create relationships with those outlets to say, "Tell me what my people need." Organizations don't have to do that work. Those organizations don't have to exist, but they do. Thank God they do because there are people that are in pain that don't know how or don't choose to lean in and publicly display their pain. This family has lived out loud their grief. They have had to screen text messages and Facebook posts that are so disgusting while they are grieving and burying someone they'll never see again. They chose to do that. Imagine how many stories you don't hear because people are assuming if I have to go and I have to be the one in the face of it, that's going to cause more pain or that could cause danger to me or my family. So there are safe havens in this state that are saying we will be that place of refuge and if you need a voice we will help you find your voice. So I challenge you to just think deeper. If that residency piece stays there, believe me, people will still come. They're going to say it or they're not. But the culture that you're creating, I really challenge you to think deeper because what you're asking people to do is essentially stay in isolation. As it pertains to this threeinut rule, I understand that there needs to be a time limit. I get it. I just don't know what it looks like to tell a grieving mother or a grieving child or a grieving father, you've got three minutes and that's all we'll give you. I don't I don't even know how to fathom what it looks like for a grieving parent to get a piece of paper that says you cannot come back next time because you went over this rule that we have. I don't even know what that looks like. But if that's what you all are creating, just understand what c what is cultivated from that. Your community is going to see that. They are going to know that. They are going to understand that that is what you adopted. And try to imagine for a second Jones getting a piece of paper that says you're sanctioned next time you come into this space. So, I challenge you to go deeper. >> A solution that might possibly work. I've seen it happen in the state legislature. Those legislators, legislators will say, I would like to hear what that person had to say. Timer is up, but I as a legislator would like to hear that person finish. That could be an opportunity to say, you know what, whatever that time is left on the back side of the council meeting after someone is done with their time, Miss Jones, if you're still going to be here at the end of the meeting, I would like to call you back up because I want to hear what you had to say. >> That's an opportunity to create a space where now you're asking and inviting someone's story back in. So just think deeper because if you're handing out sanctioned tickets to mothers that buried their son, >> it looks you're going to end up having a bonfire of sanction tickets outside of your council meeting because that's the first thing I envisioned. Let's do a bonfire and burn the tickets because when people are not heard that the result is protest. So I challenge you to think deeper. Additionally, I do agree that there should be more time for hearings because there is a lot of lead time for presentation. So, I do think that there should be more time for hearings as it pertains to the disturbances that happens like we saw what happened with Mr. Hands. The disturbance piece resolution around that is a culture shift. It's not going to happen overnight. It is going to require that you help community understand that hey we are shifting a culture that's waving your hands to say hey everyone we actually have come up with a way for us to do this better. So if you are going to shift your culture in a thoughtful way, wave your hands. Introduce the people that have that skill set in the room community. We'd like to introduce you to XYZ. This individual is trained in this type of skill set. If you feel like there might be some tension among you, please seek out this person because that's what they're here for. And that can come with a lot of different ways that you engage. You can tell people what it means to be grounding before you go into these spaces. We're all here. We are now going to ground ourselves in what it means to do XYZ. So, a culture shift. All I'm saying is don't just throw it at the people. Wave your hands and say, "Hey, we're making a shift and we want you to buy into it." And then have a feedback loop so that way you can learn how this culture shift is coming upon the community. So with that, I will take my seat. >> You all um does anyone have any followup questions for folks here? >> Sorry, I just have one more question. Protected classes, race, gender, creed, religion. Is there sexual? Yes, all the protected classes. Let me not leave anything out. when public is engaging with body of government and freedom of speech etc. Is there is there an opportunity to reference protected classes in some way where you can evade people just being able to freely spew hate speech if they're coming after a protected class >> that is constitutional because then that goes for council as well like speaking to their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, etc. That's just something that maybe you can consider if there if that is falling under protected class. And that also goes with community engagement. If somebody is telling you to go back to the country you came from, that is inciting a riot. It doesn't have to always come through the term [ __ ] You tell me to go back to the country that I I came from, that's what you're calling me, right? I I know the preface of that. So that all on its own is a disturbance because now I'm being under my protected class. I am being targeted through your speech and I'm in a I'm in a government essentially a government building where that class should be protected. So that was the last thing. Sorry I forgot it up I think. And now I've inspired Mr. Talk a lot. >> I just just two two quick points >> and now there's two. Go ahead. Um, number one, um, when this chapter is officially brought to council, I do encourage you all to mention, um, the folks that do come to the, um, that I I encourage you to mention all of the folks that came to the table. Um, because I know I've been to three of these meetings. Um, I know that other folks have been to multiple of these meetings, but I think it it does tell a story about uh even changing the perception for you all as a council and as a city staff to say actually these people that y'all think are, you know, these crazy ass [ __ ] that like they're not they're like they were able Excuse me. Sorry, I just talked about cussing. um these these people that are upending the business of the city of Aurora, we actually were able to sit at the same table with these folks, come up with solutions uh to address a lot of these issues and that deserves to be spoken into the space for those who refuse to hear anything we have to say out of our own mouths. I think it goes a long way for you all to acknowledge that this was definitely co-created by a lot of the regular people that you see. And then secondly, uh I don't know if this is the quorum uh but please get rid of your stu please get rid of the bag rule. You see I caught myself from cussing um because uh I it's creating a lot of issues for a lot of people. I think like again there was nobody here to check a bag to do a metal detector what whatsoever and we're sitting 10 feet apart. I'm sitting across the table from the mayor of the city and multiple council members and high ranking officials in the city government and I didn't need to go through the metal detectors, the bags, etc. I'm happy to do that, but I definitely encourage y'all to get rid of the bag for accessibility purposes. It's it feels definitely uh the response from the the folks that are enforcing that rule um have been very disingenuous. And like for others that are unhoused or utilize public transportation or car share services, there's not really unless they have access to you all, there's not really a avenue for that person to be able to have their belongings. That's a I've not been able to say that in a space. So I just want to make sure I got it. >> That's an ordinance change which we uh have somewhat discuss. Some of it's ordinance, some of its operations. So, thank you all for your comments. The other folks um that wanted to comment, you all would like to come up and we'll go ahead and start uh with uh Miss Jan. Um uh vice chair, I'm sorry, y'all. Can we just briefly recess real quick? We've been meeting for several hours to give everyone an opportunity to take a moment >> to go in the restroom and then we'll come back and do the rest of the public. >> The second part when the public council engages with community and if it's just one sentence we have a lot of works. >> By the way, appreciate everything that you literally said. Can there be another one of these next week? >> This is supposed to be wrapped up so they can do this >> presentation to council by everything. >> Thank you. I may be looking >> hopefully soon enough. What do you guys think? >> I mean, I think this is >> Billy. >> I tried to protect someone from committing a man from male fraud and they basically on the bright side. >> He's he's all he's he's full on >> federal crime. You ask him about pack is positive. >> You just got to get with the civil rights attorney. >> It's real skull growing confirmation that >> he's a part of it. >> He's part of it. He's the ambassador of pack. Nobody's afraid of your boy, where are they? So, >> what do you guys think? Do you think we should continue having >> Was it before they >> If we don't have it here with the city, >> should we continue having these discussions and where are these all these clergy members that came and wanted to change? Everybody's afraid to come to the city council meeting, but yet they show up and they say something and then they riot and then they leave. >> So I mean I I find that these meetings have big help. >> It's pulled us together. >> I have a case. I don't want to see him happy. >> This group of people and then >> you're still going to have the same narrative because unless they're at the table really kind of a point. >> Is Stephanie here? Is she not online? These people are online. >> I thought she didn't hear at the beginning. Not yet. >> Why is why is the >> Why is the female just so >> Yeah, I definitely want to tell you. >> So, thank you for that. >> Walk into the wrong room. Yes, I've walked in before and there's been some like we think you're in the wrong place. >> I mean that got past that they were not going to charge >> those machines regretting it now. Uh, I won't ever do this again. >> I had to give him the chance. >> Oh, you're talking about the old city. >> That's actually Oh, is that what I thought was >> I haven't heard anything. I have a great >> absolutely >> no still have the charge the tampon machine >> you know they have it in other bathrooms too I have wondered and I don't know me I don't I try not to think about this very much >> I yeah I have noticed that and I'm like I guess they maybe still >> maybe still buy >> well but we not to tax, not to tax, but that doesn't mean that it's free. Well, >> I mean, they are provided for free. You know how to play. We haven't done that within. >> So, how much you've been running out? >> That's I have no idea what's going on. >> Sorry. We have it in the staff bathroom. >> It just depends on the days. Um okay. >> Thank you so much for your patience. >> We are going to cover this item >> and then adjourn regarding the next item because it's going to be quite a bit longer than what we were scheduled for. So, we're going to go over the public participation and decorum conversation and then um we're going to have to probably have independent meetings on the council decorum before it comes forward to study session and then there will still be opportunity to comment on what finally comes forward before it gets passed. Um because I just don't think we can stay here for another hour after this section. >> All right. Um, >> so let's go ahead and hear from the remaining folks and we'll identify an opportunity. Basically, if you would like to discuss the council decorum at council meeting session before we bring study session, contact me through my email, phone number or on the website and we'll figure something out um to get additional direct input. But with that said, um we'll go ahead and start with Miss Jen. >> Thank you. Um, and I hope I I I wasn't at the first meetings because I thought they were simply I didn't think there was an opportunity to speak. Um, but I wanted to to second or speak to what Aante said. Um, I've watched for these years, these couple years where you've tried to get a point across, why you've tried to tell people the pain that you have and that you want some avenue to address that. If I'm incorrect in interpreting, let me know. But I watched them and I um I can't imagine can't imagine. But here's what I here's what I saw and that disturbed me greatly. I saw that after a great length of time where it was looked to me like you felt like you weren't being heard that a group of people showed up to a council meeting to talk about decor. That group was talking about that was a group of religious leaders and mental health people who were talking about the quorum like don't talk like that, be nice, be kind, be whatever when all of this time where were they? And so I don't know how they ended up there. I have no idea how that ended up at that period of time. I am wondering if if we couldn't have at the beginning reached out as a council council can say, you know, we can't we can't address this. We know we might be in litigation. There's there's limits. Okay. But how but how reached out to to people and say how can we assist to bring community resources to to give you the support you need. That's what I would like to see. I don't know how you formalize that. I don't know how you make it into a rule. Um, but I'd like to see that and I'd like to see some kind of needs when we know that people don't feel hurt and that there is pain that we don't simply either nod our head or not nod our head or whatever we do. Um, but we absolutely no acknowledgement of that and so it I don't know the answer but I would like to see some work toward I don't know if it's policy I don't know if it's formalized I don't know what it is but to never again get to the point where after 2 and 1/2 years we're telling people who have reached a point of incredible frustration to the point they aren't cussing they are swearing. They are doing all those things because they haven't been heard. And sometimes um I mean I was a pole officer. I know that rollers are going to cuss at me and I'm going to have to say to them, "You're really pissed. You know, you're really pissed." And I'm going to have to listen to them tell me why they're pissed. And I'm going to have to work with them to hear what they're saying. So I know that. And I and I know that we can do that. I know it can be done. So that's that's all. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Kurt. So for me, what concerns me is these instigators that don't like what's happened with the change over the city council and they're mad and they come in and they instigate and they say mean things and then they say what they need to say and then they leave and then they go to social media and they say, "Oh, city council's a mass and everybody feels unsafe coming to city meetings and it's nobody's safe there and people don't get a chance to to share. And what I'd like to see happen is that we start talking positive about Aurora. I'd like to see maybe once a month that because we've been having these decor meetings that maybe once a month instead of you have the two city council meetings, you everyone's invited to come and speak in the city council chamber. anybody, any side that you're on that this is your house. This is the people's house. This is We have 420,000 people that reside in the city of Aurora. Probably another 150,000 animals, pets. You know, we we are a very culturally diverse, wonderful, beautiful community. And we should everybody should have the right to have free speech and to be heard. And so I'm thinking, you know, if if we do it once every 3 months or whatever, you know, you have the two city council meetings, but and and then, you know, we we're we're inviting the youth to come in and speak, too, which I think is great, but I think we need to change this narrative that people aren't welcome inside the chin city council chambers, that it's unsafe, you know, and the people that are reporting that stuff are the people that come in and agitate and say things and then put it out on social media, you know, and it's untrue because we're here. We show up. We we we stay put. I mean, one time we were there what till 3:00 in the morning or what was it 2? >> We ordered pizza. We had chicken. No, >> I didn't get it. I just I think we need to change this. You know, sometimes I go other places in the metropolitan city and they're like, "Oh, where do you live?" And I say, "Our like, oh god." You know, like we got to change this. We're a beautiful city. We are a culturally diverse city and we have to change this. We have to work together. And those people that showed up that talked, where are they? Why aren't they here? Why haven't they been to these meetings? You know, I I love what we've done here. I love that we've all shown up and we've spoke and we spent time together. You guys are my community. I care about each and every one of you and I care about all the 420,000 people that live in Aurora. So, so I originally came up here just to support Kirk. I wasn't going to speak. Um, but then Median actually said some things that I kind of want to uh basically second and third. And we're going to go back to that third letter of the algorithm because we've heard two different words that actually fit tonight. Collaboration and consistency. And when we focus on collaboration and changing the narrative of the story, when Kirk's talking to people that are afraid to come here, they've got this narrative that we're not looking for collaboration. I remember two and a half years ago before Miss Laura Ka lost his brother she lost her son. I was up here speaking about boring the dane traffic stop the the traffic light that need to protect the I believe I believe Jason called it a protected traffic light at Molen in Mississippi. I was up here speaking about that before before all this happened. I wish cancel council can go back to where we're talking about the mundane mundane optics the traffic lights saving the Aurora regard my suggestion that we steal the dragon festival from lake sorry >> sorry but the but the point is Aurora belongs to all of us not just one subset of us and when the narrative is that that has been taken over by activists when it's not necessarily true because we're looking for collaboration. We're looking for council members to listen to us and engage with us. So to get to the heart of the dance like three minutes, they're right. But for a grieving family to only get three minutes to say, "Hey, listen to us." And listen to the whole story. That's to me that's that's insane. And I I get that you're going to make make adjustments and to to to each to each each situation. That's that's great. But it may not be a grieving family. It may be a it may not be a grieving family that APD is has been involved with. It may be a family that loses a child to the unsafe drinking water in the Aurora Aurora Reservoir. Like there could be different situations like a family that may have lost a child in the fire at the apartments yesterday. So 3 minutes for people to address city council and tragedies like that. That's that's kind to me that's inhumane. Um, we've gone over to public decorum. Um, just making sure that we're treating everybody the same way we treat we treat each other. My favorite store out in Denver, it's called be a good person. It's my motto and I think we should be a good we should be just a good community. I love Aurora. I've lived here all my life. My fiance keeps trying to get me to move up to Conifer or Jeff. Yeah. No, it's the other way cuz I love Aurora. I'm trying to convince her to move move to Southland when I can because Aurora is such a beautiful community and when we collaborate and we're consistent in what we do, that is the Aurora that I live in, I love, and I'm going to support and shout from the house. That's kind of my dream. Thanks, Sarah. I don't even know where to start. >> I don't think we've been doing three minutes. >> We want to get my little piece of paper, right? Um, no. Because even I mean even before I was speaking at council and you know that and the whole environment that the culture changed and it's been support that bad culture environment just got worse you know and I you know I I can't even put words to it that if we're really looking for community support and community voices, it is the community and it's not just for people of war. And that's why I do not agree with that residency thing and I do not support the that a war resident should have priority because I as I said I came to hearings and to public be heard staying till 3:00 a.m. and I as an resident was last people from top priority. So, and it doesn't prove anything. Residency does not prove anything. And personally, when I divulge my my residency in the public form, I've been stopped. That sets up another point of privacy. I will say I'm a constituent. That's all you need to know. This is not going to the polling places. This is not voting. This is public invited to be heard. So I think that point needs to be taken out. It has no value. What value does it have to a public being invited to be heard and or a hearing? It has no value. So I mean I you know it's a new council. It's a new set of things there. People have a lot of things to discuss. I mean, yeah, there are town halls, but that time is limited and sometimes those don't fit into the schedule. So there are issues, there are, you know, situations that people want to discuss. This traffic sign, the traffic sign, the signals, the speed bumps, the whatever. But that's what the public to be heard is supposed to be about. issues that affect not only the in not only people but the city and that should be where the community voices matter and it's not just residency it's not a whole place it's not a ballot and I think that I mean when you do that that's going to people are going to become more hesitant. So, I mean, I just I'm hopeful that things will change and I'm hopeful that community voices will be heard and I'm hopeful that what we have said will lead to change. because we need to bring the culture that was there. >> Mr. Schulty. Yes. Thank you, Miss Ellen. Can you add that was weird to say? Um, can we add uh an item on public hearings where we can set it up more in the manner like the legislature does where folks can we can have kind of a panel of commenters that then can be asked questions by council instead of the three minutes. >> I don't know. I let me let's let's talk about that. Okay. a bit logistics and we may not have the I gota we got to figure out the diet you know the council let's we'll talk about that yeah but we can let's have the yeah >> yeah I think yeah I just it's something that we that miss mentioned about the three minutes >> right >> um but also we had previously had the conversation about so >> some of the like back and forth >> opportunities Um >> yeah, we'll look and see because I think some of that's governed by state law it's consistent or sustained. So we'll see. Okay. >> All right. So with that being said, um thank you all for your comments. We are going to have various amendments. So the draft that comes forward to study session will not be identical to what we were doing today. Um, if you would like to have additional conversation about the drafting, please contact me and we'll find some time to just kind of talk through additional modifications. >> Thanks everybody. >> I can't I can't know.