 Para los de ustedes justo, joining the meeting live translation in Spanish is available and members of the public wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in your zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish translation. Charles, can you please restate this in Spanish. Para los de ustedes justo, joining the meeting live translation in Spanish is available and members of the public wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in your zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Yo, ya que se un al canal español recomendamos que apagan el audio principal para poder escuchar la interpretación claramente. Thank you. Charles, I believe we have a forum. Okay. So with that. I'm going to go ahead and call to order tonight's meeting of the Charter Review Committee, and ask for roll call please. Here. Committee Member Walsh. Here. Committee Member Villalobos is going to be absent at this meeting today. Committee Member Pitts. Here. Vice-Chair Oliveris. Here. Committee Member Miner. Here. Committee Member Miller. Committee Member Mazia. Here. Presidente. Committee Member Ling. Committee Member Close. Committee Member Goudinho. Committee Member Diaz. Here. Committee Member Cunningham. Committee Member Condren. Here. Committee Member Bern. Here. Committee Member Bartley. Here. Committee Member Badden-Ford. Committee Member Barber will be absent at today's meeting. Committee Member Arizon. Chair Cisco. I am here. Okay, let me just go circle back. Committee Member Miller, have you joined us? Committee Member Ling, have you joined us? Committee Member Close, have you joined us? Committee Member Goudinho have you joined us? Committee Member Cunningham have you joined us? Committee Member Badden-Ford, have you joined us? Committee Member Arizon, have you joined us? And I see Committee Member Miller has joined us. So I'll let the record show that all committee members are here with the exception of Committee Members Arizon, Barber, Badden-Ford, Cunningham, Goudinho, Close, Ling, and Villalobos. Great. And then Stephanie, do you want to do our housekeeping? Comments. So Committee Members, please remember to keep your audio on mute unless you are speaking. As members of the public join the meeting via Zoom, they will be participating as an attendee. Your microphone and camera will be muted. If you're calling in from a telephone and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda, for privacy concerns, the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to the resident and the last four digits of your phone number. The City of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption. We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions and are well staffed to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed. If necessary, we will also immediately end the meeting. Public comments will be heard after each agenda item is presented. Chair Cisco will ask for Committee Member Comments and then open it up for public comment. If you are participating from Zoom or by telephone and wish to make a live public comment on a specific item, at the time the public comment is open by Chair Cisco for that item, please use the raised hand feature. If you are calling in via telephone, you can dial star nine to raise your hand. Throughout today's agenda, when Chair Cisco calls for public comment, an interpreter will be prepared to assist anyone needing translation services. Those using interpreter support will be afforded additional time for your public comment as required by the Brown Act. We ask those listening on the Spanish channel but wishing to make a public comment to turn off the interpretation channel entirely at the time you hear your name called, so that you can join the main channel to make your public comment heard and translated into English. This icon may now look like a circle with an ES in the middle and the word Spanish underneath. You can then rejoin the Spanish channel at the conclusion of your comment to continue listening to the meeting in Spanish. Thank you. Great, thank you. With that, we'll move on to item number two, which is public comments on non-agenda matters. It's a time for any member of the public wishing to address the committee on items that are not listed on our agenda tonight. If you're participating by Zoom, please use the raised hand feature. If you're calling in by phone, dial star nine and you will be recognized by the host and allow three minutes to speak. We'll check with our host to see if there is anyone waiting in the queue. I see no hands being raised for non-agenda matters. Okay, great. Thanks. So with that, we'll go ahead and close public comments on non-agenda matters and move on to item number three. We have no minutes tonight to approve. So we'll move on to our scheduled items. Item 4.1 is our equity principles. Okay. So we'll move on to item 4. Any comments from the committee members on that? Okay. Not seeing any. We'll go ahead and ask the public if they would like to make a comment on our equity principles. And so same drill. If you're dialing in by phone, just hit star nine. Okay. We'll go ahead and move on to item number 4. So we have no minutes tonight. No, no, no, no. I'll go ahead and use your raised hand feature. And you will be recognized by the host and allowed three minutes to speak. Right. Chiris, we do have one hand raised the first public comment will be from West below. Okay. Hello members of the committee. The 14th amendment to the United States constitution, de la libertad de vida o propiedad sin el proceso de la ley o de la protección igual de las laws. En la Constitución California específicamente, artículo 1, sección 31 de la Constitución California especifica más. El estado no debería discriminar contra o garantizar el tratamiento preferencial a cualquier individuo o grupo en la base de racismo, sexo, color, etnicidad o oración nacional en la operación de la educación o contraactividad pública. Me refiere, entonces, que en el tratamiento 2, hay un lugar de matrimonio que muestra cuáles comunidades llevan prioridad de la equidad sobre otros. No es suficiente que tu habitación es en el top 25% de las personas bajo la pobreza. Las residencias tienen que ser de la correcta manera, también, para obtener la prioridad más alta. Además, el tratamiento 1, que dice claramente, no traerá a todas las comunidades lo mismo. Si no es un desgraciado más flagrante para la Constitución y las causas que he especificado antes, he yet to see it. Nuestros principales en este país han siempre sido para crear una unión más perfecta, establecer la justicia, promover la welfare general, proporcionar la defensa común, apoyar a la welfare general, asegurar la tranquilidad doméstica, y asegurar las blessas de libertad para nosotros en nuestra posibilidad. Todo lo demás sirve como un desgraciado en funcionar para obtener la idea americana. Vote no, por favor. OK, gracias. ¿Quién más? Francisco, no veo ninguna mano que sea creada por los principales de adecuación de 4.1. OK, gracias por eso. OK, con eso, vamos a mover a nuestro agente de adecuación. 4.2 votación de derechos para los ciudadanos. Sue, ¿estás empezando la presentación? ¿Y luego, ¿is diva presentando? ¿O es diva presentando? Sí, voy a comenzar con una presentación brisa para dar una orientación. Y luego vamos a mover a diva para hablar un poco más sobre la logística y algunos detalles. Y si puedo... Si puedo, señor, antes de ir a la pérdida, por favor, vamos a volver a la pantalla. Quiero notar que esta noche va a ser Rob Jackson's last attendance en las reuniones del Comité Charter. Él va a estar retirando a la fin de esta semana. Así que quiero agradecerle a él por todo su trabajo, los problemas que hemos hablado sobre aquí. Él ha sido invaluable y es un miembro maravilloso de nuestra oficina. Así que les deseo el mejor y, probablemente, un reglamento feliz. Así que, aquí está Rob. Gracias, chicos. Sí, sí. Quiero probar eso también. Voy a hacer algo al final de los reportes, pero quiero agradecerles a Rob para que no veamos su face tan mucho. Veamos su nombre todo el tiempo. Y eres un amigo increíble. Es un privilegio para mí para saber a ti y tener la oportunidad de trabajar conmigo. Eres increíble. Así que definitivamente te lo haré. Pero, bien deserido, y espero que te guste. Así que, sí, gracias mucho. Bueno, gracias. Y Jeff ha already threatened a nominarme para el próximo Comité Charter el próximo día, el próximo día. Así que gracias a todos en el Comité. Es un trabajo agradezco. Te lo haré y es... Es una reacción para ver a mucha gente que no importa mucho sobre la ciudad. Así que gracias a todos. Gracias. Gracias. Y luego, para seguir en eso, quiero introducir a la grupa Jeff Burke, quien nos está acompañando hoy. Él lo escuchó la semana anterior también. Él es nuestro señor asistente de la ciudad. Y estará tomando la posición de Rob y ayudando a la Comité y el Comité en trabajar a través de la revisión de la cadera. Así que gracias, Jeff, por llevar esto. Bueno, ahora podemos mover a el punto de poder. Y, César Sisco, estarás probablemente correcto. Estaba probablemente más apropiado por los reportes, pero quería comenzar eso en la reunión. Estoy muy contenta de que lo hicieras. No quería que lo quiera antes de que teníamos una oportunidad de pensar. Exacto, exacto. Estaba señalada muy rápido, así que... Entonces, hoy vamos a comenzar la discusión sobre los derechos votados para los ciudadanos. Como la Comité sabe, esta es una idea que viene de los miembros de la Comité. Así que vamos a comenzar la discusión. Y, como dije, voy a dar un brief, una orientación de backgrounds, y luego vamos a dar la discusión a Diva Proto, nuestro registro de votantes. El siguiente. Entonces, el propósito que fue hecho por varios miembros de la Comité es expandir los derechos votados para los ciudadanos para nuestras elecciones de ciudad. Es para que todos los que vivan en nuestra comunidad participen en nuestras elecciones locales, tanto las measures de bala y las elecciones de miembros de la Comité y otros. Por supuesto, todos los requisitos normales aplicarán a la edad de 18 años y la residencia en la ciudad, pero no deberíamos estar mirando para evaluar si alguien tiene su discusión o no. Como mencioné, el voto de non-citizen estaría limitado a las elecciones locales solo. No podemos, como ciudad, tener la autoridad para expandir los derechos votados a los ciudadanos de ciudad o a las elecciones federales. Y esto es un item que requiere un mandato de la Comité. No podría ser hecho por la resolución de orden y servicio. El siguiente. Y luego, en un poco de detalle, hemos hablado de esto antes. Los ciudadanos no son prohibidos de votar en elecciones federales y nacionales. Es un tema de constituciones federales y nacionales. California, aunque no aunque excluye a los ciudadanos de votar en elecciones de estado, no expresa la votación de non-citizen en elecciones locales. Así que es posible en California. En el país, hay 15 jurisdicciones locales que permiten votar de non-citizen en elecciones locales y vamos a hacer un quick summary de los jurisdicciones debajo. Entre esos 15 jurisdicciones, el criterio para la elegibilidad de votar cambia. Algunos necesitan una residencia legal, así que los individuos indocumentos no podrán votar. Algunos de los jurisdicciones simplemente requieren la residencia de la edad. El siguiente. En este, hemos hablado también un poco de antes, pero creo que es útil verlo en historia. En la historia de los Estados Unidos, hay 40 estados que en diversas veces permiten votar de non-citizen. Pero desde 1926, ningún estado ha permitido votar de non-citizen. En este pasado de diciembre, hay cinco estados que ahora expresan que no han permitido votar de non-citizen también en locales elecciones, así que cinco estados. Y un par de ellos han enactado eso recientemente. La literatura que hemos revisado también sugerió que 14 estados no tienen claridad, no tienen claridad de impedimenta a los jurisdicciones tomando acción para garantizar a non-citizen el derecho a votar en locales elecciones. Creo que hay un montón de eso abierto a la interpretación, pero ese es el sentido general, es que hay 14 estados. Y esa lista de estados se incluyó en algunos materiales que fueron detrás. Entonces, el siguiente slide. ¿Dónde ha permitido votar de non-citizen para votar en locales elecciones? En California, solo uno de estos estados, San Francisco. San Francisco permite a non-citizen padres de niños en la escuela para votar en las elecciones de la escuela. Solo las elecciones de la escuela, no otras elecciones locales. La racional es que, si tienes un niño en la escuela de San Francisco, deberás poder tener, digamos, en el gobierno de la escuela. Y ese amendmento de charter, ese fue el resultado de un amendmento de charter y eso fue aprobado por los votos de San Francisco en 2016. En Maryland, hay 11 ciudades que permiten a non-citizen votar en locales elecciones. Y algunos de ellos han tenido esa permitencia por algún momento. La ciudad de Nueva York, probablemente, todos los de ustedes han escuchado, ha extendido el derecho a votar en locales elecciones en el año 2020, justo el pasado año. Y eso permite para los residentes permanentes y non-citizens que están autorizados a trabajar en la U.S., permiten a los dos grupos votar en locales elecciones. Y eso, esa ley ha sido desafortunada y está ahora en el gobierno. Y luego en Vermont, hay dos ciudades que permiten a non-citizen votar en locales elecciones y esos son los que permiten votar en el año 2021. Así que, muy reciente. El siguiente. Vamos a hablar un poco sobre los argumentos, los argumentos contra los apoyadores en general, argumentan que las personas que trabajan, viven y pagan taxas en la comunidad deberían poder tener una ley sobre cómo la comunidad es governada. El derecho a votar a non-citizen es simplemente fair y justo. Segundo, permiten a non-citizens votar en la comunidad, permiten el engañamiento, el investimiento y el volumen a todos nuestros residentes, a todos nuestros residentes, yo debería decir. Los apoyadores también digan que cuando un segmento de la comunidad es exclusivo cuando los non-citizens están exclusivos de votar, aumentan el riesgo de discriminatoria de las políticas públicas. En additione, según el alto costo entre los periodos de desgraciamiento prohibiendo a non-citizen votar en ese tiempo interés es injusto y innecesario. Y luego, precudiendo a non-citizens votar resultará en la taxación sin representación. Pocos que viven y trabajan en nuestra comunidad también pagan taxas en nuestra comunidad. El siguiente. Y en el otro lado, los apoyadores argumentan que las personas deberían aceptar las actividades de la ciudadanía antes de ser garantizados el derecho a votar. Los apoyadores expresan que las preocupaciones que permiten a non-citizens votar podrían desgraciar a individuos de la cita de la ciudadanía y las obligaciones que atacan a la ciudadanía. Los apoyadores también comentan a los desafíos legísticos significativos de establecer un sistema de votación para votar para las elecciones locales y también comentan a los asociados los costos asociados con ese sistema separado. Vamos a hablar de eso un poco más en divo. También hablamos un poco sobre los desafíos legísticos. Hay también preocupaciones legales. Como dije, las laws de la ciudad de Nueva York están ahora bajo un desafío legal. Algunos que oponen los derechos de votos para non-citizens hacen argumentos constitucionales, argumentos statutory. Así que hay esa posibilidad de los desafíos legales. Hay también algunos riesgos posibles de la emigración de la emigración. Especialmente para individuos indocumentados porque creamos una lista de votos que es separada de la lista de votos de Estado. La lista de votos se identifica a non-citizens porque ICE puede simplemente ver a la ciudad, a la ciudad de votos de votos y a la ciudad de votos ver quién está en nuestras ciudades y no en las ciudades y investigar si esos individuos son indocumentados. Puede también crear un nivel de riesgo incluso para residentes legales. Hay una pregunta, aparentemente, sobre la aplicación para la emigración que se pregunta si has votado en una localización federal o local y no hemos podido determinar cómo el sistema de emigración se desplazará con local, si has votado en una elección local en acuerdo con la ley local. En mirando a algunos de las ciudades que han adoptado los votos de votos a non-citizens, algunos darán documentación a dos individuos que, si este individuo fue autorizado en la ley local para votar en esa elección local. También algunos de las ciudades notan muy prominente de los riesgos para individuos indocumentados. Estos individuos pueden hacer la opción a los mismos, pero hay un par de ciudades que notan que hay ese riesgo para individuos indocumentados. El siguiente. Y esto es para hablar un poco sobre la legislación y las consideraciones de votos, pero voy a referir a Diva a la mayoría de esto. Se requiere de un sitio separado, como mencioné, que requiere de un sitio separado porque no podemos tener en la bala el estado y las elecciones federales. Y se requiere de procedimientos alternativos. Así que creo que con eso el siguiente es para introducir a nuestro guest, Diva Proto, quien es el votador de la ciudad de la ciudad y registrar a votos para Sonoma County y estamos muy felices que se acercaron a participar de nuevo. Se vino y habló sobre votación de votación de votos y fue muy útil. Así que muy muchachamos su tiempo de votación de nuevo esta noche para hablar de nosotros. Gracias por haberme. No tengo una presentación. Solo voy a hablar un poco sobre algunas de las legísticas. He hablado de San Francisco un poco para encontrar cómo han instalado todo sabiendo lo que sé con nuestro sistema del estado. Así que no podemos añadir a nadie que no es un votador de estado. No se qualifica en el estado. Y San Francisco mantiene un database separado específico para este usaje. Tienen sus non-citizens con los niños de la escuela que vivieron en el estado. Pueden aplicar a votar en las elecciones de la escuela. Tienen una registración separada para eso y tienen que aplicar para cada elección. Así que no puede llevarse como nuestra data. Estos individuos han enviado un balance separado con solo esa ración. Es un color diferente que las balas oficiales y no están interminguladas de cualquier manera. Están separados y completamente separados. Nuestro sistema está instalado para que only escaneo balas oficiales. Así que tienen que ser programadas y así. Sonoma County, mientras Santa Rosa es un ciudad de charter, Sonoma County es una ciudad general. Así que no podemos conducir elecciones que no complica con los estados y las laws federales. Así que Santa Rosa habrá que hacer votación non-citizen en su fin. No soy un lawyer. No puedo dar ningún tipo de consejo legal. Me imagino que esto sería. Tienes que venir con procedimientos para quién sería elegible. Cuando les gustaría aplicar tendrán que venir con formaciones de registración. Tengo que hablar de timos, cómo esas balas van a dar los centros de votación que tenemos van a ser conectados a la database estatal. Así que no estoy seguro de cómo y ahora, en el acto de votación de votantes votantes pueden ir a cualquier lugar para votar. No estoy seguro si el voto non-citizen sería sólo por mail. Cómo verificar que alguien no es un votante en el área. Pero puede ser confusión si no pueden ir a cualquier lugar en persona votante. Y luego podríamos certificar nuestros resultados de elección. Santa Rosa tendrá que hacer el talón de las balas separadas para el voto non-citizen y luego aplicar eso a nuestros resultados certificados. Así que creo que eso es. Y luego, su tipo de votación de registración de votantes son público. Y así hay algo para pensar si tenemos listas de personas que son documentados o legalmente pero donde ellos viven y ese tipo de cosas. Y estoy feliz de responder algunas preguntas y me disculpo que fue tan breve. Gracias muy mucho por venir nuevamente a las balas de una especial elección. Así que los miembros de la Comunidad esto sería un buen tiempo para preguntar solo para salvar nuestros puntos de discusión para después que tomo un comentario público. Pero si tienes preguntas ahora de su o diva esto sería el tiempo para preguntar. Así que ¿Quién tiene preguntas? Dani Gracias, señor. Esto es más para su sanidad se declara que es un indivisible ciudad. ¿Cómo protegerse nuestra comunidad nuestra comunidad miembros de la decisión para registrar votar. Eso no proporciona protección que nos incluye de participando activamente en reportar a ICE pero como Ms. Proto indicó el registración de voto nuestra comunidad no podríamos mantener esa confidencia en otras provisiones de la ciudad. Eso es realmente el avenue que ICE podría poder entrar. Ellos podrían hacer un recuerdo para preguntar para registración de votos. Y podrían poder dar registración de votos y comparar los dos. Ahora quizás habrá personas que registrar solo para la local elección pero son residentes pero que dar un avenue para información. Gracias. Chris. Gracias. Creo que tengo tres preguntas. Número 1 ¿Es una definición de lo que una local elección es? ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están ¿Están que el país no está autorizado a conducir la elección, y sé que estamos justificando un poco aquí, pero ¿cómo va a jugar eso? O sea, ¿pueden los resultados de la elección ser certificados? Entonces, vengan a la cuenta, vengan a la cuenta, ¿quién certifica la elección? ¿Cómo es que eso ocurre? Y yo estoy viendo este sistema dual en lugar, y me pregunto cómo puede jugar. Y luego, a la tercera, me pregunté qué las diferentes clasificaciones son de non-citizens. Sabes, hay una referencia a residentes permanentes, autorizados para trabajar. Me pregunto si hay otros tipos de documentación para non-citizens, o luego, ¿puedemos ir completamente indocumentados? Entonces, eso es todo. Gracias. Puedo empezar y, quizás, Siu, puedes entrar. Siu probablemente tiene una mejor respuesta en esta parte. Pero las districciones, creo que sería la ciudad de Santa Rosa, lo local. No creo que la ciudad tenga ninguna jurisdicción sobre cualquier tipo de escuelas, las districciones no son las mismas y tienen sus oficiales electivos. Con respecto a la certificación, tendríamos que mantener los balones separados, así que no podríamos certificar los resultados que no contamos. Tenemos que reconciliar nuestro voto. Hay mucha información que tenemos que hacer. Así que podríamos certificar nuestros resultados. Creo que la ciudad tendría que certificar sus resultados, pero no estoy muy segura de eso. No tengo ninguna información sobre las preguntas non-citizensas. Por supuesto, y voy a seguir. Agree que en términos de las elecciones locales, pero deberíamos decir que es la ciudad de elecciones. We would be governing only city elections and extending voting rights only for city elections. Schools would have to do that their work separately. San Francisco is a little bit different. San Francisco is a city county. So a little different in terms of its structure. en términos de su estructura. Y también, como entiendo, su districto de escuelas se puede determinar con con las fronteras aquí, no es el caso. Con respecto a la certificación de las elecciones, también recuerdo con Ms. Proto que podríamos tener un sistema dual, podríamos tener nuestros resultados. Y entonces, los resultados de la ciudad, y tendríamos que despliegarlos. Y también no soy familiar, y me disculpo con todas las clasificaciones diferentes de los ciudadanos. He estado mirando más simplemente si eres un residente legal de el país, o si eres un documento. Y eso es, a mí, la línea significativa. De nuevo, no estoy satisfacente en los términos de todas las clasificaciones diferentes de los ciudadanos. Si esto move forward, podemos, o no, querer hacer algunas distinctions. Y si el comité quiere hacer algunas distinctions, yo lo voy a ver. Logan. Gracias, señor. Diva, hola. Buenas a ver a vosotros. Gracias por ayudarnos de nuevo. Puedes recordar a mí, porque he estado registrando la votación, siendo vieja, y ¿qué haces cuando registras? ¿Tienes algún tipo de verificación de despliegue? O te estás diciendo, espero que soy esta persona en este lugar. Cómo funciona eso? Te dices su nombre, donde vivas. En general, estamos recibiendo las cuatro digitales de tu social o y o tu número de license de carácter California. Estos números son clasificados contra los recordes de D.M.V. y contra los recordes de Estado. Así que si alguien registra en una cuenta diferente, va a automaticamente cancelar la registración aquí. Así que estamos todos plugados en el sistema de estado, como es D.M.V. y otras cosas. Entonces, también estamos recibiendo tu data de nación. Tenemos que tener una señal de esa tipo de información. Así que, si tenemos una bala de mail, es indelible, marcará que es inactiva, enviará información o solicitar una noticia. También obtenemos información de D.M.V., el Adres Nacional de Changes, U.S.P.S., que nos updates con información de adres. Ok, pero cuando alguien entra en su adres, y con su señal, es básicamente, ¿tú crees en ellos, creo? Entonces, ¿tú actualmente verificar el adres de cualquier manera? Si, en términos de, ¿estás diciendo que enviamos un carácter de registración a ellos, dejando ellos saber si se vuelve indelible, que estarán inactivados, si no tienen un D.M.V. account, y registraron en una formación de papers, o si registraron online, no podríamos, tendrán en nuestro sistema, hasta que podamos obtener una señal. Así que, nos enviamos una letra solicitando eso, y también tenemos un adres valido en el D.M.V. account. Así que, tiene que ser lo que piensamos contra U.S.P.S. y todo eso, para adreses, para asegurar que los adreses themselves son validos. Ok, y generalmente, ¿cuánto trabajo es eso, para un trabajador o cuánto tiempo, creo, llevará para verificar el adres de una persona? Yo creo que depende de volumen. Tenemos tres personas que lo hacen a día. Así que, creo que tendrán un número mucho menor con non-citizens. No sé lo que ese volumen es, y depende de la información que estás viajando, lo que es el proceso de validación. Ahora, porque tenemos todo, y no estamos plagando a otros sistemas, estamos dando esa noticia contra el D.M.V. Recuerdos y U.S.P.S. muy rápido, pero con un manual, como un database, si estás preguntando por la prevención de alguien, siendo un non-citizen, ¿qué tipo de prevención? ¿Cómo será que va a ser validado? No puedo decirle cuánto tiempo eso llevará. Ok, gracias. Sue, algunas preguntas para ti. En las otras juristas que han hecho esto, ¿en algún tipo de verificación de adres? Así que, creo que en San Francisco hay una aplicación. He pensado en New York, quizás hay una requerción de utilidad. ¿Te recuerdas a alguno de esos pasos, que las diferentes clases de votos tienen que tomar? ¿Es eso en tu research? No recuerdo, no sé, en San Francisco hay un sistema de registración, pero no sé exactamente lo que se ve. Y voy a preguntar a Jeff o Rob, ¿hay más información sobre eso? No sé, no sé el sistema de verificación. Ok. Si es una niña de la edad de la escuela, ¿es eso a través de la escuela? Yo me pregunté, ¿cómo se hace eso? Yo entiendo que es... que se están haciendo... Están mezclando con las clases de la edad de la escuela, pero no sé nada más sobre eso. Ok. Gracias, muchas preguntas. Y, de nuevo, si queremos proserirlo, estamos contentos de ver eso y también mirar más cerca a la ley de la Nueva York, sobre las requerencias que tienen, porque ellos tienen algunas requerencias. Así que... Gracias. Karen. Gracias, Patty. Tengo dos preguntas y no sé si son para diva o sueño. Así que, déjame verlo. ¿Tienes alguna idea de la cantidad de dinero o staff que nos llevará en este proceso? No lo sé. Ok. Ni quizás... Pero hay un plazo. We would be starting at the city from scratch. We have none of that. None of those procedures are set up. If we needed to have a ballot counting mechanism, are we going to hand count them? Are we going to try to buy machinery and software to do that? eso, es decir, vamos a tener que tener que realmente researchar lo que será requerido para asegurar que los integridad de ese sistema de votación. Gracias, ser un sistema para que sea completamente paralel a lo que la ciudad tiene. Y si tenemos alguna idea de los números handles to winter in the non citizens. There are over 18. Only silly question, but I'd like to kind of figured out what numbers are we talking about. Yeah, no thats a very good question and I don't unfortunately unfortunately I don't have that. Those numbers. I was wondering if the census anywhere in the census if it provides that information, but I should have asked that earlier. Sorry. No, no, we can we can look at that. Thank you. Danny, you have another question. I do. Thank you, chair. So I was looking back. The DMV issued a driver's license to be to undocumented community members y they have how to verify your your residence. It's an AB 60 driver's license. Wondering if we were to move forward with this, if we can use that model to somewhat verify, because they do ask you for, you know, either of a passport from another country, some sort of documentation. They ask you for either a rental agreement where you live, a utility bill, things like that that could be used. And I think that would be something that we could reflect on to create, you know, validation that it is somebody lives in the city of Santa Rosa. Just a thought. That's great. Thank you. Yvette. So I just want to clarify, because you said you don't have the cost for the system, but it sounds like if Santa Rosa want to undertake all of that, we will be responsible for everything. Y then we would just send you the results and then, but we wouldn't just send the results. Just to clarify, so Santa Rosa already pays for their elections. You contract with us to actually conduct your city elections. We would be able to do that and continue doing it with the current registered voters. We just would not be able to do that with a noncitizen voting. So I think Santa Rosa could choose either to conduct their own elections in whole, with getting our voter information data and then adding other noncitizen voters, or you could continue to contract with us regarding the election and then do your own for the noncitizen voting. We would not take. I was talking about for the noncitizen voting. That is something that you cannot take on, even if we say we want to contract with you. Correct, because we have to operate under state law and this would be separate from state law. OK, got you. OK, thank you. Chris. Yeah, sorry, round two, little slow in the uptake. But listening to this, I'm getting the picture that we have two completely separate tracks that have to be followed, that the county can't get involved in printing, distributing, collecting, counting, storing, whatever the ballots. And I'm just kind of wondering would that itself create any sort of, I don't know, voting rights act or equal protection act problems or other constitutional issues because the two systems won't be identical. And one might be more burdensome than the other. So I'm just kind of wondering, is that itself going to create some problems? That's a that's an interesting question. I had that had not occurred to me. I would think that we would be trying to have our city system equivalent with the county system. I say that understanding fully that we do not have experience in running an election. We don't have the hardware, the software, or the personnel at this point to do that. We would be constructing that system. And I think we would we would be trying to make it as equivalent as we could to the county system. But, you know, these are a possibility that someone challenges us on that. I'm not sure where the challenge would come from. Given that there's not. We would be creating the right for noncitizens to vote in our elections. I'm not sure if noncitizens or an advocacy group would sue because our system wasn't sophisticated enough. Maybe someone who opposes the whole idea of noncitizen voting. Maybe they challenge it, but I'm not sure they would have what's standing they have. It's an interesting question. I really have to kind of think it through. OK, thanks. I was also thinking not just the logistics, but everything from the registration process is different. But anyway, you get a picture. Thanks. Scott. You know, it's most of the questions I haven't been asked. But just that Chris just brought one. It's like so we're developing our own system. And. So regarding the ballot initiative. I would assume we would have to have some description of fiscal impact of this. On the ballot and it sounds like there's an awful lot of we don't know and how much time do you need to develop that? Yeah, would have to really delve into it. And I would be working closely with the city clerk and also with Miss Proto to evaluate what all needs to be done. And then would be researching what the costs of each of those elements are going to be. We would have to get, I think Karen raised a very good point of getting a sense of the numbers that we would be dealing with. So we would have to have that information if the committee decides to move forward. I mean, that's all information that would need to get and need to be present to the council for the council to be able to make a decision whether to move it forward. If if tonight's discussion continues to our next meeting, we'll certainly try to get as much of that information as we can. I don't think we'll have any final numbers, but maybe we can get a ballpark by that time. But there is a lot. There are a lot of pieces that go into that, so. OK, thank you. Sue, I have a question. If this were to go to the ballot and was approved by the voters, what's the promise or timeframe for implementation? So I mean, would it be the next election? Just generally, what do you think about what kind of promise would we be making to the public? I would presume that we would have it be effective for the next city election, which would be in 2024, but it's not required to be effective. You know, the we could cast the ballot measure in such a way that it becomes effective the following election or later. But my assumption is that if the decision is that we want to extend the voting rights, that we would want to do that as quickly as possible. And that would be trying to have that in mind for the 2024 election. Now, maybe as we delve into what all needs to be done, what all needs to be constructed, maybe we find that it's just not going to be feasible to even have that all in place within a year and a half to be able to start that that system. So. OK. Any other questions of Sue or Diva before I move on to public comment? Oh, yeah, Yvette. So I'm listening to all the commentary about it. It doesn't seem like something that's feasible to get done in a in a year and a half or two years. But if it's if it's something that we want to explore, is that still a possibility to explore the options? Look at the cost, because it sounds to me very pricey. But I think this might be something that we may have to face in the near future, where people are going to start, you know, really pushing for this. So I think it might be a good thing for the city to take a look at it and start looking at the cost and what that would look like. And if not in the next two years, maybe in the next five years or something like that. OK. Any other questions before I go to Adriana? Yes, hi, thank you. Yes, sorry, I've been in and out. I apologize. And maybe this was already answered. So I know that this is just a discussion to explore and we might not get to do all the exploration we need to around this topic. My question is even once we explore this area and we decided, OK, this seems feasible or not. The bottom line, this would still be a recommendation to the city council. Correct. Yes, I just wanted to know either way. Is we would be putting either the recommendation to explore it more, to to look into this or not to correct. Yes. OK. Thank you. That's how I verify. Great. And again, any other questions? If I could make a quick comment. OK, I was thinking about Chris's question regarding kind of the equality. And I did want to just point out that San Francisco currently has this in place. They have a separate system that is not the same as their election system, as their certified statewide election system. I believe they have a database for this. They have different ballots that they print in house that they send that are different from the official ballots. They have separate rosters. They have they certify their regular results and then they manually add on the noncitizen votes. So that is already occurring with the statewide or with the San Francisco thing, simply because you can't really intervene all the that too. So OK. OK, I'm not seeing any other hands raised for now. So I'm going to go ahead and open public comment on this item, noncitizen voting. And if you're participating by zoom, please use the raise can feature. If you are using a phone, use star nine, you'll be recognized by our host and given three minutes to speak. Thank you, chair, Cisco. Looks like the first public comment will be from Joe. OK. Joe, go ahead with your public comment. Yes, hello, everybody. This is Joe Liedem. Can you hear me? You can. OK. Well, I think this is a very important topic, and I think you're right to think about it carefully. I think when you give people the right to vote, you really give them a respect that they have a say in things. And if it's important to them, all kinds of good things can happen. So my perspective, just hearing this discussion, I think you need to find out among other things is, is it valued? I would talk to the leaders of those communities and say, hey, we're thinking about doing this, but it might cost a lot of money, might be a big hassle. But if it's important to you, if you think this is important to your group, we're maybe willing to look into it at least and maybe even go to bat for you. We've got to get a read from you, so if you think this is worth it. You know, we talk about inclusiveness, we talk about equity. If it's important to them, this gives them the right to have a say and it gives you respect. And I think it can come back to you in a lot of positive ways. So my I don't know if you can make a decision tonight on this topic. I think you might have to do some homework, talk to some people, evaluate the economics. I think the other comment about maybe looking into it is totally valid, but it could be a really good thing if you handle it the right way. So those are my comments. Great, thank you. Chair Sisco, I don't see any additional hands for item 4.2 voting rights for noncitizens. OK, great. OK, so with that, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period on this item and bring it back to the committee. Now for discussion. So. Let's hear what you think. No one is raising the slogan. I'll kick it off. Good. I, yes. I am supportive of this idea and theory, but I am not ready to make any sort of concrete motion because I think we still have a lot of unanswered questions. And while I think that the staff could come back next meeting and give us a lot of those answers, I think it would take a lot longer than that, honestly. Many meetings and I would suggest that we forward this to the city council with a recommendation that they maybe incorporate this into Charter Reviewers, the very least totally hearing on it, and maybe form a subcommittee. I don't I don't want to tell them everything what to do. That's up to them, but I think it's going to take a lot of work. And so I think that that is too much work for this committee and what we have left. And so I'm ready to make a motion. You know, I'll let everyone else discuss or whatever they want to do. If you don't, if that's out of order, chair. But that would be what I would be supporting, is that we really put this into the city council's hands to do all that hard work. I just don't think we have the time or the resources, even though I'm generally supportive of the idea. So I'd love to hear from the other committee members as well, of course. OK, Logan, let's let's do that and keep in mind that you'll be ready to make a motion at some point, Chris. Actually, I like the idea of folks that are permanent residents or authorized to work having the franchise in the city elections. For a number of reasons, in response to Karen's questions, I took a look in the Pew Research Center. Estimated there were about 30,000 unauthorized residents as of several years ago in Santa Rosa, which sounds pretty high, but that was that was their estimate. So in regard to Logan's comment, I don't know the best way to do it, but to send the city council to get the wheels going as firm as they can, because which comes first. And I think that the city sends the signal to that community that that community is supported and I think that's a good signal to send. So I would support that. Scott. Yeah, I think Logan probably has a valid idea. I'm looking at it. I don't think there physically is enough time to get it sufficient detail. And I'm honestly very concerned when council looks at it, when you start looking, if you look at the Berkeley journal that we were given, when you look at the numbers discounting San Francisco, but the next highest community with 4200 foreign born residents, 33 of them registered, 12 of them voted. If you took the cost of this, which is going to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time it's all done and divided by however many votes, that's a that's a huge cost out of our general fund. I mean, and that's where the money would have come from. And that would be money that won't be filling potholes, won't be, you know, maintaining parks. You know, that's that's a that's a big hurdle to conquer. So but I think the council wants to discuss it. I think that's fine. Mark. First, I want to thank Logan for his valor. I'm going first. The other thing is. I think I'm willing to to deal with logistical nightmare. I can't speak for the city clerk. But thank you, Chris, for speaking to the Pew Research Center data. I looked up the statistical tables. From the Census Bureau, and it looks like 20.9 percent of Santa Rosa residents are foreign born. It doesn't say which percentage are naturalized. It would have been authorized to vote or not. It may be substantial portion of the population. I'm in favor of the concept if for nothing else that it signals inclusion. As far as how to implement it. The two thousand twenty four election may be a bit of a logistical nightmare. But when you're short on time, maybe to periscope, start with school board. And then it's maybe the next meeting. We can hear back from council. From the city attorney, I'm sorry, that does the school board elections that are done in San Francisco. Has that been legally challenged and withheld that and stood up to that challenge. So if we were to de scope it a little bit for now for the first round, could we take on a legal challenge, take something smaller and scope than what we may want the long term and then implement that and then go back and review the charter in less than 10 years, let's say four years from now and get that ready for the election after that. So I see a lot in some of the districts that have looked at the voter data. A lot of the a lot of the citizens aren't voting age yet. And that's heavily heavily in the Latino community. So if those voters age in, I'd like them to have some motivation about what would like some of the parents to have a chance to vote. So I'm in favor of trying to take some actionable item on this. I just like to hear more from the city attorney. If we desculpt this would help survive a legal challenge and then the city clerk, if we did it for 2024, is that impossible? Or if we put it off to say like 2026, we picked a school board watching that's my comment. We can desculpt it to take on the time challenge, the legal challenge, the implementation cost. Thank you. Yvette. Yes, I'm listening to everything. One of my concerns will be people's safety in regards to ICE, but then knowing some of the people I know, I know they would definitely would like to vote if they could possibly vote. So I think if we dive into this a little bit more, send the recommendation to the the city council to really start developing that out. I don't foresee it being possible to get it done in 2024. But I think it's something that we really need to consider. And I don't remember who said it, but going back into the community and having that conversation with the community to find out if this is something that they really would like to have. And then the city getting behind them and supporting them in that capacity. So many times we do things and put things together and then people don't show up. So I think if we get people invested in the process and ensure that they'll be safe to do it, then they might show up and be a part of that process, but I think we do need to really go back to the community, have those conversations to see if they're willing to step up to to be a part of this process. So, yeah, I would totally be for it. I don't foresee it in 24 years in 2024, but definitely in the near future. Karen. Thanks, Patty. I can't support this without having a lot more information. You know, as I mentioned, the number of folks that we were talking about, the actual cost, both in hard and soft costs and how it could be implemented. I think if we send it to the council and say here, take a look at this, it's going to maybe detract from some other work they're doing at the moment. So I think until we get a lot more information and whether that be during the next review or at another time. Anyway, I that's just my thought is I can't support this going any further. OK, Ernesto. Thank you, Madam Chair. This I think it's good that this concept and idea has come out, but I agree with all of our comments so far. I think the timing is going to be very tight, but I think it starts the conversation and it needs to be a very big conversation and a long conversation before we get there. So I do see this continuing to evolve with with council direction to start that conversation, the community. Again, there's a lot of issues that need to be explored, including that that participation by our community members and also ensuring some safeguards for them as well. So I think it's a ways out still, but I think the idea to be floated out there now is right. And we will see where it takes us into the future. So those are my comments. Danny. Well, thank you. I want to start by saying that evolution is never easy and change is as difficult as resistance. But what are we willing to really put? You know, our our D.I. Concept that we keep talking about and really push forward. And this is an opportunity where, one, we give those silent voices a voice to talk about what they want in their community. For so many years, there's a lot of people that have gone through the process and just accept what is given to them. And now we have the opportunity to give me, we have the opportunity to give them a voice and to vote. And to worry about the cost, to give somebody the ability to vote, I think is really it's hard to swallow that that that statement. On this on the same level. I'm concerned about our community willing to to participate in the voting, especially knowing that they're going to be exposed to eyes and the information is going to be out there. But I do believe that we need more information. We need to really reach out to our community and find out what their thoughts are, what their fears are, to even consider me when this forward. But I'm for it. So that we can actually give those people a voice to choose what's happening in their community. I'm going to jump down to Jasmine, because you haven't had an opportunity to speak yet. Hi, thank you, Teresa, so so I am in agreement with Danny. I think that. You know, when we think about diversity and inclusion, this is this is what the work looks like. Non-citizens contribute in so many ways to our community from cultural richness to building the most profitable industries in our county and in our city. And. When we think about how we include them in government and how is government accountable to the needs of this. Large and valuable part of our community, you know, it starts with voting. And while it is a significant investment and maybe the turnout won't be as large in the beginning, this is an investment in the enfranchisement of people that have been underserved, underrepresented, disenfranchised forever, because I don't think they've been allowed to vote in the past and yet contribute to our well-being. Enable the society to function, our city to run in really meaningful ways. Y so I do think that we should forward this onto the council and I do think that this is part of the charter review. So, you know, if they need more information, they will, you know, and if there's more research to be done, it can be done from now until then. If they choose not to move it forward, then at least it comes as a recommendation for reviews that will come after that. Or for consideration, at least since they know that there's a willingness that we look at the issue and that we're supportive, those of us who are. So, I would support this. I think that, yeah, I think it's significant and in terms of the risk, I don't think it's fair for me to speak on whether the risk is something that should be taken or not because because I'm a citizen. So, how am I going to gauge? You know, I think that it's up to each and every person to assess whether voting is a risk that they want to take in terms of their data, is, you know, whether they feel empowered, whether they already, you know, anyway, there's so many things to consider that I think I think you should be up to the non citizen to be making that decision themselves, rather than whether we should think that that's too much or a risk for them or not. OK, Adriana, no, no, she disappeared. Jen. Oh, I'm here. Sorry. Oh, you are. OK. I was I was on mute. I was on mute. I apologize. OK, I said I was saying that. Yes, I'm also agreeing with some of my colleagues right here. Jasmine, Danny, Ivette, Marc, en favor of exploring this. Yes, I'm sure this is going to be a huge undertaking, a huge logistical undertaking. But I also think that it's important. And then that's the reason I asked the initial question. This is a group that will make a recommendation to the board to continue to explore this, not to necessarily make the actual recommendation. So I I am in favor of that until we give a voice to those who don't have a voice, what we're doing with any programs or any supports that we're trying to do or any claims that we are saying that we're doing with the IDV, we're really just doing charity and we're not we're not being respectful. I think also the the concern about the cost. It's also a little bit difficult for me to swallow just because we are talking about taxpayers here, too. And if I'm not mistaken, they they are contributing to making sure that they're supporting the potholes and in the roads or any of those things. So unless the city is not receiving any money from the taxpayers, but I don't know. So I would be in favor to make a recommendation to to explore this further. That's it. OK, Jen. Thanks. I will try to be short. I this is this is super complicated. It's not easy and in complicated in many different ways. But I really fall in line with the last few speakers who say that I think it's something that's complicated but worthwhile to take on. And and I do think that when we talk about equity, we're just talking about equity unless we're really willing to get our hands dirty and do the hard work. It's so I think there's a way to really walk our talk around equity and around valuing all the members of our of our community. So I would recommend or suggest that we do instead of talking about how complicated it is, talk about some solutions to that and say how how could we? What does it look like to further explore this? And and and secondarily, even though it's not really in our purview to make this kind of recommendation for the council, I'd say secondarily to make it a very specific recommendation to the council or request of the council, I guess, would be more appropriate that they form a subcommittee to try to move this forward with some kind of specific timelines associated with that. But if we're really in support of this concept and it sounds like, you know, pretty much most people in the group are supportive of the concept that at minimum, that that's something that we should do. But I'd hope that we could take this on, even if it meant that we have to work a little bit more and move harder. I think it's probably one of the most important things we could do. OK, I'm going to come back to you, Logan, but I just want to get a little clarification here because I'm hearing. Well, concerns, obviously, we can't take this up fully and have all of the information at hand to pass on to council. And one of the things that I was wondering about was kind of a delivery to council of certain parking lot issues where we're making a strong recommendation that they take them up, not necessarily to be placed on this particular ballot, that these are deeper issues. But like many of you said, to be able to do the community outreach, to be able to do that exploration, but to make a recommendation that it be that exploration be begun without the expectation that they could complete that and make a decision to put it on the ballot this round. So just kind of want to throw that out there. And then. Logan, what do you think? Yeah, that's kind of along the lines without thinking Patty emotion that we forward it with a recommendation. I mean, other folks can help me with this wording. A recommendation that the council do some sort of study session, maybe, or something like that, that's a deeper dive. I don't I don't know that that's even our role, though, Sue. Maybe you can jump in here and clarify what our recommendation can or can't say. No, you have great flexibility in terms of how you put your recommendations together. So you would be free to recommend that the council explore this. You're even free to recommend the methods, whether it's through a study session or a subcommittee, that this decision of how they go about it, you know, obviously is up to the council. OK. All right, maybe not ready to make a motion or what what what do you think, Patty, should we have some more discussion? I've got a couple more hands up. And so let's let's keep that going. But I think that the two lanes are going to be whether we make an actual recommendation that it be considered for the ballot at this this go round or that we're making a recommendation that we strongly wanted explored and the method that we'd like council to explore it, not necessarily getting it onto this ballot, if if what I'm hearing is what's going on. Would that be separate motions or together in one? I don't know. You you're my expert, you think about that. And I'm going to ask what else you'd like to say. OK. Jen, I actually just put my hand down, but I'm glad that I did and that you call them and thank you. First, I did want to just speak to the school district thing. The school district, we don't have any control over what the school district does. First of all, we just don't. But also just the school district boundaries and I assume we're talking about the center of schools are totally different. And in some places outside the boundaries, the city of Santa Rosa. So if we want to be leaders on this, it's it's we want to be leaders on this within the city. So although I appreciate the thinking of starting somewhere. Whatever we do, I would hope that that we give this topic the respect it deserves by really talking about a very specific recommendation, whether it is putting it on the ballot or or for the exploration for for doing that later. But that has some timelines that has some specific recommendations that that is that is stronger than just we would like you to consider this. And and and I don't similar to how when. Well, I guess I'll just say that when we talk about council conversation, but but I don't necessarily think I think the data thing can be dealt with by people choosing to opt in. That seems like a relatively simple thing that folks can decide their own risk tolerance around that. But I I I don't feel comfortable with. Putting it on the backs of folks who who may or may not feel comfortable within our system, because right now they are disenfranchised to come forward and say, yes, we want this, like the community outreach that says, would you like to be treated in the same way as the other residents in this city? I think that in itself is putting the burden in the wrong place. So those are my thoughts. Thanks. Karen. Thanks, Patty. If we do forward this to council, I think we do need to be very specific and ask them to find certain information for staff to provide that certain information on, you know, the cost. I know some people don't like to hear that, but the voters vote with their pocketbook in so many ways. And to get this. Past, you're going to have to get the voters to agree to this. So when we look at the cost and also that the numbers of the people that the folks that we're talking about, who could be possible voters, I think those are specific directions that we can't direct council. Those are specific recommendations to council that we should make. And also this might be the perfect opportunity for the council to get out of this 10 year party review cycle and bring this to another charter review committee in a few years to talk about some of the other things that we've not been able to talk about because of the time constraints. So that's where I am. OK. Anybody else before I go back to Logan. So Logan, what are what are you thinking in terms of making a motion? OK, so I think well, here's my motion. Let's recommend to the city council that they examine non-citizen voting and they do that in a study session with the recommendation that they look at cost. I don't know, identity verification or residential verification. I think it'd be helpful for them to see how it's implemented in other cities. So real world examples, maybe of like the ballot. And I'm hesitant to put a timeline on it personally. I don't know how to phrase that. So I don't know what to do for that part of the motion. So that's my motion is to send it to the city council with a recommendation for various items of the study session. OK, so that is a motion that's on the table. Do I have a second? OK, so Logan has made that motion for recommendation and Danny has seconded it. And so I think with that we can begin to take our votes. Can I ask a quick question? Sure. Sorry. No, no worries. So I have a question and sorry. I missed part of the presentation. I had an emergency come up and I did look at the slides, but I do have a question. When we talk about non-citizen voting, are we inclusive? Are we talking about undocumented populations as well? Or are we talking about legal residents? Well, let me let me amend my motion to say that one recommendation is that the council identify, define the different groups of individuals. Because yeah, that did come up, Jasmine, and the questions. Thank you. Yeah. And also, you know, childhood deferred arrivals. Or, you know, DACA recipients, right? That probably should be a population that's considered as well. OK, so Logan is adding in to the topics to be looked at under a study session, a definition of the groups to be considered non-citizens. OK. Um. Yvette, did you have a question before we take the vote on that motion? Well, yeah, and to add on. So this is kind of what I wrote up. The recommendation is to be put on the ballot at a later time. Council is to explore the best fit process, whether it's study sessions, subcommittee, or listening sessions. Look at the data of how many people we have, who will be able to vote in the next few years, exploration of other cities, how it was done, cost clarification of non-resident, a meaning of that and define the groups. OK, so are you requesting a friendly amendment to add those things in? Yes. OK. Did you catch all of those, Logan? I think the only thing that was different was the specific timeline. OK. Can you tell me out or anyone else? I think the other difference I heard was rather than just recommend for them to study it, but actually recommend for them to put it on a ballot on the ballot at a future time when these this information has been flushed out. OK, I would be comfortable with that. Just not a specific time. I mean, they could put it on the 2024 ballot right now or the 2026 ballot, right? So they don't have to all go to this. Can you correct me on that? Do all these charter review provisions have to go on the 2022 ballot? They do not have to go. I mean, assuming that we make that change to the charter that allows for confirms that charter amendments can come forward at any time. We can go ahead and the council could put it on at any time. If. If the direction is that they're going to look to putting it on in 2024, you know, I would suggest that we're not trying to do it all then before August 9th of this year that we're trying that we're giving ourselves additional time. But certainly you could recommend take that additional time, study this, get all the information and then it's your recommendation. You know, to put it on the 2024 ballot, you would be making that recommendation without. No, no, that's not what I just was asking. Generally, do they have the authority to place it on any future ballot? Yeah. OK. So I think that I'm OK with language that directs them to place a charter amendment for voter approval at a future date. Would that satisfy that amendment? I think you have to put their feet there, feet to the fire and and put a specific date. Otherwise, you know, I'm afraid that it could go to the back burner and just sit back there. And again, if we're really going to put our money, you know, down and make D.I. happen, I think we need to have a date. You can't say in a future date with just kind of lingering out there. I think we need to have a specific date and really address it. If that's what we really want to do. I how conceivable is it to to be putting a specific date knowing how city business runs? I mean, I think we're making our recommendation. And again, if we give a specific date, the council doesn't have to take it. But I want to be realistic here and fair to the council as to what we're recommending. And so what what would you say about that? Yes, I mean, I think, you know, it's it's up to the committee, whether you want to state a specific date and, you know, with the understanding that things happen at the city that we don't expect, you know, that can delay a lot of different efforts. So you may want to make it subject, you know, subject to. I don't know. I don't have a proposed wording right now. But if you say, you know, to try to put a ballot measure on the ballot in 2024. You may want to have some subject to availability of resources or subject to. You know, decisions. It is going to be up to the council. This is the committee's recommendation. But the council is going to be the one that's now going to be looking at all these detailed information that the committee doesn't yet have in front of it. So you know, whether. How about OK, let me let me make a suggestion for some language that we have them place it on a ballot after the next regularly scheduled election. Once the study process is complete, what would you call that process? So the research or legislative research. The research and I. Yeah, I'm not willing to accept an amendment that puts a date on it because I think that if they want to call a special election, they should be able to do that, too. Or if they want to put it on this year's ballot. I think that putting a very specific election actually limits their choices to present it to the voters. So that's why I think just saying the next regularly scheduled, we didn't say presidential election if people want to go for that angle more. And I think also we got to remember and I think we also got to remember it's a recommendation of a date. It's not we're telling them they've got to get it done by the 20 by the election of 2024. It's a recommendation so they could review it and they could change it and what not. Is that right, Sue? Yes, that that is that is correct. It does put a frame framework around it. It does put some pressure, but it is up to council. I think you do want to be realistic in what you're in any date that you're recommending to council so that you don't put them in the position of recommending something that's not feasible, but beyond that. Yes, it's up to them. Brian, do you want to weigh in? I just want to add that I'm going to be voting no on the motion. And I think it's because I don't want to put the council in a position where they can't abide by our complete recommendation. And this is clearly a very complicated process to get the outcome that I think we all want. There's definitely consensus and just knowing the process, I'm sure Sue and staff will say there was a strong consensus among our group that this item needs to be investigated in depth quickly, but thoroughly and accurately, regardless of how long it takes. And I'm sure that will report it back to the city council. And I know at least the mayor was on earlier. Anyway, so that's I guess that's my point is I'm going to vote no against the motion, but I'm not completely dismissing that we do have a strong consensus that something needs to be moved forward in a proper manner. OK, so you would be voting no against the motion if we apply a specific date or which we haven't gotten to yet. But that's is that what you're saying? I'm voting no because I trust no matter what staff will be reporting appropriately what our discussion and. To the council and put it in their hands when they feel it's appropriate. OK, Chris. Yes, I'm not comfortable with what appears to be the proposed amendment that we want this put on a ballot. Leaving aside the whole issue of data, I think that undermines from and distracts from our basic message, which is that I think that there is a lot of support for the notion of some type of noncitizen voting. But as we talked about, there's so many details to work out that I think to send that message with and put it on the ballot, whatever it is, is distracting and would be I'm not a positive, but politically divisive. So I would respect the request of the motion be pretty much as it was originally. OK, Karen. We are going to get to a vote sometime. Thanks, Patty. Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with Chris. I would like to go back to the original motion without the phrase putting that it will be put on the ballot because we don't know what information is going to be provided. So anyway, I if as it stands now, I wouldn't be able to support the motion, the original motion I could support. OK. And an option we have here is to. Logan can make his original motion without that language if somebody would like to come in with a secondary motion saying being more specific with Rosenberg's rules, we can have separate motions up to three. We would vote on the last one. So if one of you is very wants very specific language and you want to make a motion to that effect, we can take a vote on that motion and then move if that failed, then we would move up the line to back to Logan's motion. If it succeeded, then Logan's motion becomes moved. So if that's an option, if somebody wants to be taking that step, I think we're all headed in the right in the same direction. Again, there's consensus. It seems to be kind of bogged down about the specifics of putting it on the ballot and when. So if no one's going to Jen, you're on mute, Jen. Yeah, thank you. Sorry. Appreciate all the discussion and sort of as it as unfolds, it sort of has made me sort of more clear in my position. And, you know, to me, this is the issue of social justice and if. I don't know where we would be as a country if we had just made sort of vague statements of support of a certain notion of heading in the direction of social justice, you know, maybe you and I, I wouldn't have the right to vote at this point, but so if that were the case and so I do think that we should be stronger about it. I also am absolutely opposed to the idea of looking at this as a cost issue unless and until we are going to figure out how to exempt non-citizen residents from paying local taxes than cost I don't think should be a determinative criteria. So I'm going to make the motion that we that we are recommending to council that they undertake whatever process they deem is necessary to put non-citizen voting on the ballot on or before 2026. And that the only thing that is not considered is a is a is a cost consideration. I want to I want to second that motion. Was that you, Jasmine? Yes. OK. OK, so Jen has made a secondary motion to under to direct to council that they undertake the process of. Looking at putting non-citizen voting on the ballot for 2024 and not looking specifically at the cost issue. And it was seconded by Jasmine. I think she said 2026. Is that right? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, I had 2024 in my mind 2026. So I want to make it clear. So it was a motion to look at putting it on the ballot or to put it on the ballot. I heard undertake process to put it on the ballot. Put it on the ballot. OK, that's what I heard. Is that correct, Jen? That is correct. Four years to go through that process. OK. Any other discussion on that mark? You want to weigh in on that? Yes, thank you, chair Cisco. I've liked most of the motion so far. And I'm not exactly sure which one we're on. But we can deal with that later. One of the suggestions is the language. So if you know it's logistical nightmare, it's not likely to happen correctly or without a lot of confusion before we have time to vote on to the Charter Amendment. If we have the council. Conduct a study on the scope of what the item would be. The timing and the resource requirements and complete that scope of work by what say said some time certain. And then have have the noncitizen voting item then placed on the ballot. Jen's idea, I think, gave enough breathing room to make it realistic. So I appreciate the idea, even if, you know, maybe people would have preferred 2024. I think that makes it more realistic. But but just some of the language, I think if there's the council conduct a study to prepare for noncitizen voting and that study would show us the scope of what it would be. The timing of what it would happen and the resources that are that need to be in place to make it happen correct. And then they can consider anything, but that's just a language argues. So it's like projects, scope and plan and how to get it done. So they would prepare a plan with the scope of work, the scope of the vote, and then the timing when it would happen and the resources because they can't just throw this out there. They won't have enough information. That's my thought. So, Jen, it sounds like Mark is throwing out a potential friendly amendment of language to your motion. Are you willing to accept that language? I'm not totally clear on. Exactly. I'm asking if it would be helpful to say that. So you're asking council to to get the item on the ballot. I said, Dave, that's fine. I mean, I would go ahead with that item. But they're going to need to do a project that says, here's the scope of what we're going to put on that ballot and have communications with the citizens, right? It's going to be just school board elections, just city elections. Are there any qualifiers, right? Who can and can't vote under what circumstances? So I think, Mark, can I can I just address that? Is that in my motion and language was to undertake whatever whatever process is they deem necessary? Because I think either we could have many, many, many meetings to decide exactly what process they should undertake. And that would be complicated. Or we could just say, let's leave it to council and figure out what they need to do. So I don't think it needs to be an amendment to your item. And that wasn't necessarily my suggestion, but at a minimum, let's say, let's say if people have problems supporting this overall, we need to figure out what the scope is, right? Who can vote under what circumstances on which elections? And then what the timing, right? And so if the scope is huge, the timing is going to take more time on more resources. So just have the council in the city, give some indication, study what they can do. That can be a whole separate item. If the voting issue is not going to hit the ballot till 2026, I think there isn't probably would be enough resource to get it done. So it doesn't require an amendment. It's just a suggestion that no matter what, they're going to have to conduct a study on scope, time and money. And that's the common. I'm not proposing it, but I'm not proposing an amendment to her motion. Oh, OK. So you're just clarifying what you understand her process, undertaking a process to me. Yes, to get anything done. OK, got it. OK. Got to get to the citizen say, what's the scope, time and money look like to get this done? Because all the concerns I've heard so far is we don't know what it looks like. We don't know when it can happen by we don't know what it's going to cost. Right. So they're going to have to figure that out. Recar. Right. Yeah. OK, so. Secondary to Logan's original motion, we would vote on this second motion first. It's a motion that Jen has made to undertake a process to put non-citizen voting on the ballot for 2026 was seconded by Jasmine. Well, I'll have the opportunity to vote on this. If this motion passes, then we don't go back to Logan's motion. If this motion fails, then we go back to Logan's motion and vote on that. So everybody clear on that. OK, I think we're ready to vote, Stephanie. On this second motion. Madam chair, Ernesto, I think one of our members, Lisa Maddenford, is in as a guest. I'm sorry, what? Lisa Maddenford, I think. Oh, is she she? We've been trying to promote her to panelists, but for some reason she's not promoting. I don't know. She can't do it because of the device, but both Dean and I have been trying to promote her. We just, yeah, we just enabled her audio so she can vote. Oh, I'm here. OK, good. Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was just sitting here quietly. Here we go. Join us. There we go. OK, are we ready? Are we ready? All right. Committee member weeks. No. Committee member Walsh. Yes. Committee member Pipps. No. Co-chair Oliver. No. Committee member Minor. Yes. Committee member Miller. Yes. Committee member Mazia. No. Committee member Martinez. Yes. Committee member Leung. No. Committee member Klaus. Yes. Committee member Guidino. Yes. Committee member Diaz. Yes. Committee member Kondren. No. Committee member Bern. Yes. Committee member Bartley. No. Committee member Badenford. No. Committee member Arrezon. Yes. Co-chair Cisco. No. OK. No. I think that's tied. Is that not? Yes. The vote is a tie vote and so the motion fails on a tie vote. OK, so with that we go ahead and move up to Logan's motion, which was to recommend that the city council take up un examen non-citizen voting by study session. That is part of that study session. They define the groups, look at cost, figure out how identification will be verified, how it's implemented in other cities, etc. And so that motion was made by Logan and seconded by Danny. Any thing I missed there, Logan, before we take the vote on that. I took off to place the ballot on at a different time because you are willing to take that amendment. Is that correct? Yeah, I think I'd also add any other information that they deem necessary for the process. OK. OK, so we're going to go ahead and vote on that. Can you can you just repeat the what we're voting on? Again. Yeah, we're voting on Logan's motion that we recommend to council that they examine non-citizen voting by study session. As part of that study session, they would be looking at defining the groups, the cost, how identifications would be verified, how it's implemented in other cities and anything, any other information that they deem of import to this. So. Well, let me just be. I'm saying that I want this into the charter review process, but with a recommendation that they conduct a study session to examine all those issues, does that make sense? OK, so you're thinking they can, they would complete this study session prior to their decision as to what goes on the ballot or not. Well, like I asked, that's up to them when it goes on the ballot. So the carter review process can extend beyond the other items. So we're still putting it into that process. And yeah, OK. OK. I think we've got it. In our votes on this. Committee member week. Yes. Committee member Walsh. Yes. Committee member Pitz. Yes. Co-chair olveras. Yes. Committee member minor. Yes. Committee member Miller. Yes. Committee member Maziya. Yes. Committee member Martinez. Yes. Committee member lean. Yes. Committee member Kloos. Comedie mb, Cojino. Yes. Comedie mb, Diaz. Yeah. Comedie mb, Condren. Yes. Comedie mb, Bern. Yes. Comedie mb, Bartley. Yes. Comedie mb, Baden Ford. Yes. Comedie mb. Arizon. Yes. ¿Una votación? Sí. Ok, ese paso de votación es la votación mayor. Ok, y entonces, quiero recordar a los miembros del comité que, cuando nos damos nuestro final reporte a la Ciudad de la Comunidad, incluirá la información sobre las sentaciones sobre, por ejemplo, ponerlo a un círculo y todo eso. Vamos a cubrir lo que se dice aquí. Así que, eso no va a ser. Casi una pregunta, señor. ¿Tendrá en cuenta que fue una votación unanimosa? Sí. Bien, gracias. Sí. Ok. Creo que hemos completado eso. No creo que tengamos tiempo para empezar la compensación de la Comunidad de la Comunidad de la Comunidad. Pero, vamos a tomar eso la próxima vez. Y así, asegúrate de hacer el recorrido de lo que está disponible ahí y empezar a pensar en cómo quieres crecer eso. Y, de nuevo, quiero realmente agradecer a Diva Proto por venir. Creo que ella quizás ha dejado pero para agradecer a ella por su trabajo aquí hoy. Así que con eso, vamos a ir a... Oh, sí, vamos a la Comunidad, señoras, cittaderas, reportes, nada de la cittadera. No, nada de reporte. Ok. No tengo nada para reportar más que otro buen día a Rob Jackson. Y gracias por tanto. Así que no tenemos ningún subcomité o comunicaciones electrónicas. El item de agenda de la próxima vez está listo. Y así con eso. Wow, we're going to be 10 minutes early. Ok. With that, I'll adjourn our meeting and we'll meet again at our next regularly scheduled meeting in April. And again, thanks for all your hard work and all of your opinions and delving into this. This was this was very great. Thank you. Good night. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, chair, Cisco. Thank you. Good to be a attorney.