 Hi Patty. This is Chris. I'm just testing my microphone. Can you hear me? I can hear you, Chris. Great. Okay. Good. Thanks. Great. I am trying to promote you to panelists and I'm not sure if you're getting that message to promote. I see that you're on as an attendee. Patty Cole just called and she has the date. Hi Paloma. Thank you for joining us today for interpretation services. I'm going to go ahead and enable the interpretation channel for Spanish and put you in the Spanish channel. And if you can commence at the top of the meeting as when chair Cisco calls a meeting to order. Pablo is going to stay on the main channel for a moment or two to introduce how the public can participate on the meeting. And then he will also be moved into the Spanish channel. And then you too can switch on and off roles as you see fit. There may be an opportunity for a Spanish speaking member of our community to make a public comment at that time. I'm going to ask the inactive translator or interpreter to raise their hand and I'll bring you back over to the main channel to help facilitate public comment. Okay, thank you. Mark, can you hear us. I see you're on as an attendee. And I've been trying to promote you but maybe you don't, you can't hear us. I'm present I got in so thanks. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So those of you just joining the meeting. Life's translation in Spanish is available and members of the public or the staff 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. Pablo would you please restate this in Spanish. Thank you Pablo I'm going to go ahead and put you over into the Spanish Channel along with Paloma. I just want to check, it looks to me like it's impossible to understand Spanish. Yeah, we need to break it down to the Spanish translation. I'm going to go over into the Spanish channel along with Paloma. I just want to check it looks to me like we have a quorum. Is it okay to go ahead and call the meeting to order? Or should I wait? No, you do have a quorum and you can call the meeting to order when you're ready, chair. Great. I will call our meeting to order the charter review committee of the city and answer roll call, please. Thank you. Member weeks. Here. Member Walsh. Here. Member Villalobos. Member pits. Here. Member Oliveris. Here. Member minor. Here. Member Miller. Member Mazia. Here. Member Martinez. Member Ling. I'm here. Thank you. Member Klaus. Here. Member Godinio. Here. Member Diaz. Member Cunningham. Here. Member Condren. Here. Here. Member Bartley. Here. Member Badenford. Here. Member Barber. Member Arizon. Chair Cisco. Here. Let me just go back. Member Villalobos, have you joined us? I'm here, but I'm not as a panelist. We will promote you to a panelist and I'll show you present. Thank you. Member Miller, have you joined us? Member Martinez, have you joined us? Member Diaz, have you joined us? Member Barber, have you joined us? Member Arizon, have you joined us? Okay. Let the record show that all committee members are present. With the exception of committee members. Member Barber. Member Martinez. Member Diaz. Member Diaz. Thank you. Okay. So let the record show that committee members are here with the exception of committee members. Arizon, Barber. Martinez and Miller. And then you have some housekeeping notes you want to give us. I'm sorry. So committee members, please keep your audio on mute unless you are speaking. And then as members of the public join the meeting via zoom, they will be participating as attendees. Your microphone and camera will be muted. If you are 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 your 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 our well staff to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed. And 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 members. 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 agenda item. At the time public comment is opened by chair, 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 interpretation services. Those using interpreter support will be afforded additional time for your public comment as required by the brown act. We asked those listening in 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 you can join the main channel to make your public comment heard. And translate it 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. That will move on to. Public comments on non agenda. Matters. Which is the time for any member of the public. That wishes to address the committee on matters of interest to the committee that aren't listed tonight. As an agenda item. And if you are. Participating by zoom. Please raise your hand. And you'll be called on and asked to unmute. If you're dialing in by phone. You start nine. And you will be allowed to speak for three minutes. With that I'll open the public comment on non agenda matters. And ask for Ms. Williams. Let me know if there's anyone wishing to speak. Thank you. Chair. I'll step in for public comment. The first public comment will be from Joe. Okay. Joe, I've enabled your speaking permissions. Please unmute your mic and proceed with your comment. All right. Hello, everyone. This is Joe lead. I'm speaking to you. Thanks for permitting me to be here. Several weeks ago, I sent you all an email. In that email, I suggested that you might want to consider a member of the committee. To reduce the signature requirements for citizens sponsored referendum. And initiative voting. Today I'm here to provide you with an important update. And where things stand on that issue. And to suggest a possible next step. First, here's the update. I was recently able to speak briefly with Sue Gallagher about whether the city in fact has the power. To unilaterally reduce signature requirements. Well, nothing in life is ever completely certain. From what we discussed, it appears that the city does have the power to unilaterally lower those signature requirements. Sue, hopefully I'm stating things correctly. If I'm not, please feel free to correct me when I'm done. Now the question is, should you proceed? Should you, the charter review committee seek to put forth an amendment. That reduces the signature requirements for referendums and initiatives in the city. That is the question on the table. In the very short amount of time that I have right now, let me attempt to make the case for doing so. To make my case, I'll keep things simple and focus on just three reasons. The three reasons are these. Number one, your support for reducing signature requirements. Would make Santa Rosa a member of the city. Number one, your support for reducing signature requirements. Would make Santa Rosa a more democratic city. If inclusivity is your goal. This one action would do a lot to prove your commitment to it. You would be sending a real concrete message to Santa Rosa citizens. That they now have a viable way to become involved in the city's decision making process. Number two, reducing signature requirements would lead to better community wide decision making. Number three, as Santa Rosa became more democratic, your efforts could show the way forward for other cities, counties, the state of California, and maybe even the country itself. The country's in trouble. Santa Rosa could show the way forward. So those are the three reasons for proceeding. As the next step, you might want to hold a special meeting to discuss the issue. Number three, as Santa Rosa became more democratic, your efforts could show the way forward for other cities, counties, the state of California, and the state of California. Number four, as Santa Rosa became more democratic, you might want to hold a special meeting to discuss this topic in more detail. If you were to invite me and the meeting to place in person, I would also treat for pizza and drinks. One final comment. You had in front of you an opportunity to make a really big difference. Your decision on liberalizing signature collection is arguably the most important voting improvement measure that I know of. I hope you take advantage of it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks for your time and attention. Great. Thank you, Mr. And this man with anyone else. I see no additional hands being raised via zoom. Okay. Great. Thanks for that. So with that, go ahead and close the public comment period on non agenda items. Okay. On to approval of our minutes. We do have two sets of minutes tonight. First, our December 15th. Meeting. Any comments on. Not. So then those will stand as printed. Next to our January 5th. 2022 regular meeting. And then we'll go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. So we'll go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. So we'll go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. Corrections comments on those minutes. Not seeing anything on those. So those will stand as printed as well. All right. So with that, we'll go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. Beginning with item 4.1, which is our standing item on equity principles. Sue, I'm not sure what we. To get another presentation on this, or is this just our standing item? So we'll go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. And then we'll call on the committee to see if they want to do any additions. Sure. This is a standing item. The copy of the equity principles that was attached to the agenda. Has not been changed since last meeting other than to remove the draft. Watermark. But this is a time for. You to. We'll move on to our next slide. And then we'll move on to our next slide. And then I'm going to move on to item 4. And Sakura shields is here and. On screen. And I welcome. Any comments that she might like to make as well. And then I hand it over. Okay. So far, do you have any comments you'd like to make now? Before I. Call on. The committee to see if they have anything they want to change. No. No. That was simple committee members any comments, questions on on our equity principles are same item. I'm not seeing any. Do you want to call for public comment on this agenda item. So, with that, I will ask for public comment on this item 4.1 are equity principles. And again, repeat after participating by zoom use your raised hand feature to speak if you're participating by phone hit star nine, and you'll be called on to speak for three minutes. And I will ask Miss me to let me know if anyone's waiting to speak on equity principles. There are no hands being raised via zoom for this comment or for this comment period. Great. So, with that, I'll close that comment public comment period and chairs. Oh, sorry. I was just going to say chair sister so now with, if there are no further questions and if there is support from the members. This will be the final version those are also updated and final definitions, they will be translated PDF shared graphic attention paid to them to make them slightly more visibly pleasing, and then they'll be finalized. If that's the groups desire. Okay. Um, anyone have any opposition to that sounds good to me. Okay, well thanks again for doing that. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your hard efforts. So with that we'll go ahead and move on to our media item tonight I am number 4.2 which is the direct elect at large major item, and I believe, Sue, and Rob will be giving a presentation on that. Thanks, chair Cisco. And so today will begin our discussion of the on the possibility of moving to a direct elect at large mayor. And today will be setting the framework, and we will just begin our discussion. So continuing the item on to our next meeting and in the next meeting we will go a little deeper, and we'll have some speakers to talk about their experiencing experiences. We're hoping to have a couple of mayors or council members from cities with an elected mayor, and we're also hoping to have a city manager with some relevant experience. So with that the framework today begins our discussion and then next week will or next meeting in two weeks will continue and dive a little deeper. Next slide. So I wanted to start with just an outline of how this presentation is going to go. I know that many of you have a lot of experience with the city and with the city government, including a couple of our former mayors. I know others do not have that depth of experience. So we're going to begin with an overview of what our current city structure looks like. How is the city government structured. How is the council structured. What are the mayor's roles and responsibilities. That'll be our first section. Second, we'll talk a little bit about why might we move to an elected mayor. The problem that we're trying to solve what are the issues that we're trying to address. Is there a problem, and if so is an elected mayor, the solution. So kind of that pros and cons of an elected mayor and just at a very general level, I don't go into a lot of detail there. And then finally we'll talk about what are some of the key elements that we should consider if in formulating a proposal. So that will that that's a list of about six or seven items. So let's begin. Next slide. Okay, that. Thank you. You're ahead of me. And we'll begin with our current city structure. As I think most of you know the city council is the legislative body of the city. It is responsible for establishing all the city policies and priorities at a high level. The city council is the body that enact city ordinances. And the city council also is responsible for approving all significant city transactions. That would include establishing a significant new programs. Significant purchases involving large dollar amounts. And of course, approving the annual budget also. This is going to be important as we get further into an at-large mayor and a strong mayor versus a strong city manager structure. It's important to understand what the city council's role currently is and then what the city manager's role is. The council as a whole appoints both the city manager and the city attorney, those are the only two city employees at the council itself appoints. The city manager is generally a professional with experience in public administration or our new city manager has very extensive experience. As did our former city manager. City manager acts as the administrative head of the city government and is responsible for city operations and for implementation of the council's policies and programs. The city manager hires and oversees all city employees. Again, other than city manager herself herself and the city attorney oversees all the programs all the city departments, city manager proposes the budget city act and city manager acts as emergency manager in most situations. A whole host of responsibilities lie with the city manager. Santa Rosa currently operates under a strong city manager form of government and what does that mean. Again that means that the council sets the policies and priorities at a high level, and then leaves implementation of those policies and programs and ordinances to the city manager. Of course the city manager remains subject to full council oversight. But by charter, the city council cannot dive down into the next layers into the departments or into individual employees, other than through the city manager. So that is a strong city manager form of government. So turning now to the city council. It's of course the legislative body of the city, it meets at least twice a month that is by charter charter requires at least two meetings each regular meetings each month. The city council can act only when it has a quorum quorum is the majority that would be four members of the seven member council. The council takes actions as a whole as a single body individual council members don't have power to enact ordinances or adopt resolutions on their own. And the council takes its actions through ordinances resolutions or just by motion, and all of those actions require the affirmative vote of. I have that that bullet is not typed correctly it's affirmative vote of a majority of the total membership of the council, and that is for affirmative votes so even if there are only five council members present at a meeting. Any action still requires for affirmative votes, and then some actions of adoption of urgency ordinance certain real estate transactions and others require super majority vote and that can be a five votes, a five out of seven it can sometimes be six out of seven sometimes a unanimous vote. Next slide. So you may all be familiar with how the city council is composed. But it is under its section four city charter, a seven member council. And prior to 2018, all council members were elected by citywide vote. The top voters were the ones that were placed on to on to the city council. In 2018, under threat of litigation the city did decide to move to a district based election of council members 2018 was the first of those elections. And 2020 completed that process and the city is now divided into seven council districts and each district election council member. Next slide. So we have now seven district representatives. So how are the mayor and the vice mayor selected. Again, most of you or many of you will already know this, but section 15 provides that once the new council is seated. That seven member council selects one of its members to serve as mayor for a two year term. And then the seven member council on next selects another of its members to serve as vice mayor for just a one year term. Next slide. In terms of term limits a charter provides that no council member may serve as mayor for more than one consecutive term. So we do have a new mayor every two years. I remember how we may serve more than one term as mayor provided the terms are not consecutive and we have a couple of examples right here on our committee of folks who did that. In terms of the two year, two year term and the no consecutive term just by way of comparison, board of supervisors that share with similar responsibilities to the mayor rotates every year just a one year rotates around. And it's not an election it's a simple rotation by district number. As to the vice mayor the charter provides there's no limit on the number of consecutive terms of vice mayor may serve. And pursuant to the charter the mayor and the vice mayor both do serve at the pleasure of the council, and they may be removed from their, from their positions at the will of the council. Next slide. Let's talk about how do we get the mayor and vice mayor what are the, now what are the roles and responsibilities first of the man and then we'll talk about the vice mayor. So this is generally the list that's set forth in the charter charter provides the mayor will serve as the executive head of the city. The mayor presides overall council meetings, Mr. Epson. The mayor establishes the agendas agendas for council meetings with in collaboration really with the city manager we have a meeting each week to set the agenda for the following council meetings. The mayor also appoints committees of the council subcommittees of the council, and selects the chair for those committees. And those subcommittees can be very significant. A lot of the initial work takes place in those subcommittees, you know a couple examples. The public safety subcommittee that was created in response to the 2020 protests. We have a climate action subcommittee economic development subcommittee downtown subcommittee and a whole host of others. Next slide. The mayor delivers an annual state of the city address that a mayor also acts as a ceremonial representative of the city and a spokesperson of the city. And you see that particularly critical on important issues that face the city, as well as when the city is facing critical critical moments. For example, in the fires we often heard from the mayor communicating to all city residents. The mayor also appoints makes the city appointments to all county regional and state bodies with the approval of the majority of the council. Also, the mayor is not listed here on also appoints the chair persons of each of the city boards commissions and committees. The mayor access chief negotiator on behalf of the city with counties, regional state federal bodies and agencies. Obviously sometimes delegates that to staff. Next slide. The mayor does sign a lot of documents on behalf of the city and that includes all ordinances that are adopted by the council, all council resolutions. And if authorized by the council, the mayor will sign other legal documents, including real estate acquisitions, certain types of contracts, etc. The mayor provides that in the case of a riot insurrection or extraordinary emergencies, the mayor may assume general control the city's government and all its branches and be responsible for the suppression of disorders and the restoration of normal conditions. But I do have a note here that in fact, for most emergencies, the city code appoints the city manager as a director of emergency services. That's kind of the general world of the mayor. And again, some of the things that I think are most important. Although I invite the former mayors to weigh in they may feel there are others that are more important, but setting a council agendas presiding over the meetings, creating and appointing subcommittee is appointing chairs of the city boards and commissions and really acting as the city person having that that really open. Next slide. What are the roles and responsibility as a vice mayor this is much more simple they simply serve as mayor when the mayor is absent. Next slide. The mayor is selected by their colleagues. And we're now looking at a proposal to instead have the city wide voters elect the mayor. And why, why are we looking at that proposal, what are we seeking to address, what problems are we trying to solve. I just did a few here and I'll walk through them. But you may have other reasons or additional reasons that you are considering moving, having the city move to an elected at large elected mayor. So some of the things that I've heard and talking with people. The main one is that with the council members now elected by district and directly elected mayor at large mayor would enable the mayor to focus on big picture, provide a unified unifying city wide perspective, without having an obligation to any single district. So I've heard suggestions that this would allow the voters to have a direct say and who's the city's spokesperson. Allow the voters to have a direct say and who sets the council's agenda. Again, gender setting this can be very important in terms of where the city is headed. This would also allow voters to have a direct say and who chairs the council meetings that can also be quite important and significant to members of the public members of the community who attend those meetings. Next slide. This would also allow voters to have a direct say and who creates and appoints council subcommittees. And again as I discussed earlier that's often critical and establishing city, new city policies and programs. But this proposal also gives us the opportunity to kind of open things up who could really open things up. Are there potential revisions to the mayor's roles and responsibilities that you'd like to see. And I'll note here that you all received a letter from Peter Stanley, who's a former planning commissioner, a member of the mayor's open government task force, and member of the bicycle and pedestrian advisory board. A lot of experience with the city. I would suggest that we not only shift to an elected mayor but also shift to a strong mayor form of government, and we'll talk a little bit more a little bit later about what that means to be a strong mayor have a strong mayor system. But this is, this would be an opportunity to kind of open that up, what should the mayor's roles and responsibilities be. I have other ideas of why you, you would be interested in at least exploring shifting to an elected mayor. Next slide. So those were some of the issues that we might be trying to address, but there's some other aspects that we should consider as well. In particular, we just talked about our equity principles. So what are the implications for diversity equity inclusion and belonging. Would historically marginalized communities benefit from an at large mayor. Would an at large mayor be able to better engage and support equity priority communities and other historically disenfranchised community members city wide, because they're having they have responsibility for a city wide perspective that give them better ability to do that. Would an at large election facilitate diversity in the mayor position right now. The only individuals that are eligible to be mayor or the seven members of the council this would open that up. But would it instead might it instead burden diversity, due to the cost of a city wide campaign. You can run for a district. And once you're elected, you do have the path to be to become mayor. Next slide. Continuing on issues of diversity equity inclusion and belonging might we face the potential for racially polarized voting racially polarized voting is where one group may consistently outweigh others. When we went to district elections in 2018. It was to counteract that possibility of racially polarized voting. The idea is that, you know, if you have a majority, for example, see Santa Rosa as majority white population might those votes outweigh override or dilute the votes of other communities. So, it's a question what an old directly elected mayor assist and opening opportunities for by pop community and other traditionally disenfranchised population or might it place some hurdles in that in that path. So that last slide, would an open at large election provide more opportunities for a wider range of individuals to participate more powerfully in the city government. Again, the, the mayorship would not be limited to simply the seven members of the council. Next slide. And then are there potential downsides to an at large elected mayor. I'm not weighing in on on this pro or con but I just want to put out some of the things that I hear for for the committee to think about. So the costs of a city wide campaign may limit the candidate pool. A city wide election raises a possibility of a dilution of the votes of historically marginalized community. That's what I was just talking about in terms of potentially either racially or otherwise polarized voting. And I've heard some argue also that the current system of the council selection of the mayor really allows for a stronger council cohesion. It allows to know their colleagues and come together to select someone to lead. And generally they're looking for someone who can build consensus and effectively steer the ship. The current system, as I mentioned also gives all the district based council members potential opportunity to serve as mayor. Since the current system provides for a two year term, those opportunities arise every other year. The current system also allows the council to remove the mayor and the event of misconduct, an elected mayor as we've seen recently in our community broader community might only be subject to removal by recall. So that's kind of some of the pros and cons. And you may have other ideas and you may feel strongly about some and not about others so that is for your discussion. Next slide. So I'm going to turn to the final section of the presentation which is a series of key decision points. This is the list and then we'll talk about each one individually. So what should be the term of office. Second, what should be the scope of the role and responsibilities of the mayor. Should the mayor be full time or part time designated we all know that they are full time at this point but you know, are they formally designated full time. Should they be a voting member of the council or a non voting member of the council. Next slide. Next slide. So start with the term of office mayor currently serves a two year term options. We could keep that to your term. That would mean an election every other year. So if we move to a four year term for the elected mayor that would align with the current terms of the council members, or should we look at some other version three year six years or other. Of course, if we went to an odd number, you'd have the cost of an added election cycle. As we talk about the what term of office think about the cost and burdens of campaigns and elections, the advantages or disadvantages of a shorter or longer term of office. And then there have been a number of suggestions to maybe add a term limit so maybe it's a four year term but you can only serve two terms or any mix of that. Next slide. The scope of responsibilities we've talked a little bit about it should we maintain the current scope of girls and responsibilities expand those roles and responsibilities narrow them. And, or even consider shifting from the strong city manager to a strong mayor system. Again, this is Mr Stanley suggestion and we'll look at a couple of cities that have done this. When we get to the church. Next slide. Do we have other elements. Do we formally do you want to formally designate the mayor is full time or part time, and it'll affect you could affect compensation, and the willingness of the voters to support a higher compensation if it's a designated full time position. So we have to expect expectations both on the part of the community expectations of the community will have this of a full time mayor, and also on the part of the mayor themselves. Another element is whether to keep the mayor as a voting member of the council, turn it to a non voting position, or as one said, done or more but one on the list that's high. So this is really going to be tied to how is the council constituted. And it may affect candidate interest. Is there going to be the same interest if you're no longer a voting member of council. Next slide. We should think about the vice mayor. I don't want to change anything about the selection of the vice mayor. Should that still be should the vice mayor still be selected by the council should the county should the mayor get to select the vice mayor from the other council members. Should the vice mayor still be one term, any term limit any change in the roles. Next slide. This is a big issue. How, what is the resulting composition of the council. I think most often what I'm hearing is folks have in mind well let's reconfigure from a seven district based council to a six district based council members and one at large mayor. The committee decides to go this direction will do a deeper dive to ensure that there are no legal issues in reducing from seven district. Council districts to six council districts. There are issues under the voting rights act that that could be implicated but we'll do we haven't done the deep dive yet but if that's the direction that we're getting from the council, we will do that. Option is to maintain seven district council members and add that large mayor. That does create the potential for tie votes in the event of a tie. There is the council is not simply is simply not able to act so that can. That is why most legislative bodies have an uneven number. Senate is a notable exception. If you don't want to be on that you could expand or contract the council membership overall. So next slide. So those were really the elements that I think we should look at there may be more as we as we engage in the discussion. So kind of the big picture. What are our priorities. Ensure a citywide perspective is on the is on the council. And that is the most important thing. And that is the right to be aware of the amount of responsiveness and strong ability to move forward on community priorities. Preserve the benefits of district based represented representation. You know, give the historic particularly give the historically disadvantaged communities, a strong voice, and allow a greater, greater allowance for diversity. Is there any inclusion in belonging does at large mayor help to support that commitment, or does it not. And I will also note in terms of citywide perspective, what's been our experience thus far with the district council members. Do we have a concern that district council members have been too focused on their districts or has the council been able to maintain amongst itself. That view of what is best for the city as a citywide perspective. And next slide this is just kind of the, the Me encouraging you to, you know, think about what's your perspective, how would you like the mayor ship to look, what are your goals doesn't at large mayor, further those goals. And I'll just quickly look at, we have three slides, three charts now, just to give you a sense of what some of the other cities are doing. This chart is too small to read on the screen, but it has been attached so is available thank you, maybe that does help. And just to summarize this is the North Bay city so includes city and Napa, a couple of cities in the county and then the Sonoma County cities, as well as the county of Sonoma. Of those, we have for 12 cities listed for have elected mayors. The remaining eight, all have mayors that are selected by the council. All of them, I'm sorry, none of the cities have a full time mayor, and all of them and all of the cases, the mayor is a voting member of the council. Next slide. I'm going to our comparable cities again this is the list of cities that the city itself uses for salary comparisons so we've kept that list to look at what what what these cities do in terms of a mayor. We have 11 cities listed eight have an elected mayor, and three have the mayor is selected by the council. All, all of the cities, the mayor is voting, it's a voting mayor, and none of the cities have a full time designated mayor. Two of the cities, Berkeley and Richmond have a strong mayor, but form of government rather than the strong city manager. Next slide. So just a few select Northern California cities I took this from the prior list that we had, but I took out the cities that were already listed on either the northern the north face cities or on the comparable cities chart. So it just has the others and I did add Santa's a just just to try to get some of these larger cities with see the larger cities, having a little more different structures. So there's six cities listed all of them have an elected mayor. For in four of the cities, the mayor is a voting member of council. One, and I'll talk about Fresno and Oakland and how they're structured. Two of the cities have a full time designated mayor and the rest do not. Two, I'll talk just briefly about Fresno and Oakland interesting structures in Fresno, the mayor has no vote, but has veto power over all legislative and budgetary items so tremendous amount of power there. There is a system to override that veto but that veto power is there. The city's executive power is vested in the office of the mayor, the mayor alone appoints and has control over the city manager. And then the council selects one of its members to be president of the council. The Oakland, the mayor is the chief elective officers the way they ordered the mayor appoints and has control over the city administrator. The mayor is the one that submits the annual budget, and the mayor in Oakland votes only in the event of a tie. And those are just to give you some ideas of flexibility in terms of how to structure an at-large mayor if we decide to go there. So next slide. Happy to answer any questions. So committee members, let's go ahead and stick to questions right now. We'll save our discussion points for after we hear the public weigh in. At the time we get to our discussion points on everybody to remember that this won't have to be your final answer. Because we have information coming but to try to get a sense of what you're making of all this information and kind of what your meanings are. So, but let's start with questions only right now and anybody have a question of Sue Logan. Thank you Patty. Sue, thank you for that comprehensive presentation. I appreciated the data at the end, especially on the on the other cities nearby. My question is, is actually about how it would appear on the ballot. I'm trying to wrap my head around and so you said that we that we're likely going to have a ballot measure to make district elections part of the city charter. So I'm wondering if when we do that, would we be able in the same measure to do this sort of reformulation? Like you laid out, would we be able to restructure the council with six districts and an outlarge mayor? Or would the type of mayor like if we did a totally strong mayor, would that not be able to be in that same item? And I know that's kind of a complicated legal question, but I've just been wondering about how that would actually appear on the ballot. And I appreciate that that question. It would be my very strong recommendation that they be separate. My concern is that if it were, if it were not successful that ballot measure to create the elected mayor was not successful. That would give us without correction to our city charter. And I do feel that it's very important that we at a minimum that we correct the current city charter to reflect our new reality of district based elections. And I think that word both ballot measures in a way that identifies which one prevails, both passive pass, and generally the way that is done. It's not uncommon for that to happen with ballot measures. The most common is that the measure with the most number of votes will prevail over the other. Okay, and if we did that, and we had two measures one making an independent mayor and one making a six member council, six member council item succeeds mayor one fails what would happen then. We would then have a six member council, which got it. Okay. Yeah, and I guess it would retain the original mayor structure in the character. Okay. Um, thank you. I think those are my questions for now. If I may, I'll also note that I do understand the difficulty of having those two measures on the ballot at the same time. Potential for voter confusion potential for some tension between those those two ballot measures but we would have to think about how we work through that issue. Appreciate your advice. Thanks. Yes, um, one of the concerns I have, you know, I've been in a district that didn't have representation. I can see both sides of the picture in regards to this. But one of the concerns I have is that we're going to be doing redistricting that's coming up in the next couple of months. So, how are we going to make a decision and they elected mayor and do the redistricting and try to make a parent equitable for the community as a whole. So I'm a little concerned that all of this is happening at the same time. And so how are we going to be able to do all of that is still make it making sure that the community is heard, and things are being fair. As far as you know, people that haven't had the proper representation in the community. Um, the, the timing is awkward, given that we're going through redistricting right now. And what will come out of that is a new configuration of the seven council districts. If the measure for an at large mayor passes. And if the new configuration is going to be six districts rather than seven. We'll have to come back and do another redistricting process in order to implement that new, new ballot provision, the new. Will that allow us to, will that allow us to do the redistricting this year, or will we have to wait another couple of years to do the redistricting. No, we have to do the redistricting this year under state and federal law we have to do the redistricting now. We would once that measure is passed. If the at large mayor measure passed we would then start a new redistricting process we would provide in the measure as to when the effective date is. Maybe we would make the effective date the earliest we could make the effective date would be 2024. We would then make it 2026 in order to give us more time to do redistricting to give a little bit of a breather between redistricting efforts, but we could move quickly and I know there are folks that would be interested in having it move quickly and having it as the new districts established for the 2024 election. The last question is in relation to this process. I know we're going to be taking it to a vote and all of that but will there be community input in particular to this subject matter because we're representing, you know, our area but then I feel like we need to hear more from the public in regards to this matter, because, again, we have not been at the table, and when in the past and I've tried to connect with the mayor in previous years before we had district it was a little difficult, and I always felt like our area didn't exist in it as well. And so I know I feel that way and many people that live in our area and district one and district seven sometimes feel that way because most of the past mayors were coming from other areas in the town. And so I feel like they may be a disadvantage or in this process and I and it doesn't really sit well. In terms of getting community hearing community voices. I am working with a golly tight to us who is our in charge of community outreach community engagement division to get word out about these meetings, encourage people to attend and participate in these meetings and speak up. Also, when once all of these elements go to the council there will be a couple of public hearings at that time as well public meetings at that time as well. But yes, get word out to your to your communities that this meeting is the best avenue for weighing in on these issues. Chris. Yes. Thanks to, and I know you haven't had a chance to take a deep dive into these thorny legal issues but I'm wondering if you'd be comfortable making any kind of general comments in terms of from your perspective. There are different alternatives that would probably give rise to the least likelihood of a substantial legal challenge on the voting rights act issues, you know, because I'm concerned that the more we dilute the power of the different districts the more we're raising potential legal challenge. We're raising to six making the mayor the tie breaker with voting. So I'm wondering if you're comfortable making any framing the issue for us or making any comments. I think that you've just framed it well is the issue is are we diluting votes by either either having you know reducing the number of number of districts from seven to six, and then also in the event of having as you identified having the mayor be the tie breaker. There could be challenges in any of that I don't I'm not ready tonight to kind of lay out what the legal issues are. But once I hear a little bit more from the committee this evening. At our next meeting I'll be able to give a little bit deeper dive into what what you know some of the pitfalls might be. And I would say there's no easy, there's no easy answer because either we're reducing the number of districts. We're adding another vote, either tie breaker or another vote that's non district. If we're adding more members to make it nine instead of seven so that we still have an uneven number. We've divided the districts even even further so. I think I have direction I'll come back. Just one other question is there a concern that a strong mayor, even if non voting raises voting rights act issues or that kind of the safer territory. That's a that's a very interesting question. I at this point I don't think so but that's a very preliminary analysis. It's just shifting some of the responsibilities that the city manager currently holds to being the mayor. The difference is that with a strong city manager that is the city manager selected by the entirety of the council, whereas a strong mayor, it's the one individual who's selecting that in general, you could structure it differently, you could structure it so that city manager still had to be selected by the full council but the mayor have control over that person. Well, thanks to Chris he just asked the question I wanted to ask and I appreciate if you come back at the next meeting with a little more detail on that because I think we run down a rabbit hole potentially on it. So my, my, my easier questions which I already know the answer to, and when Council, did they give any direction at all as to why they wanted this on. One of us to study this, or did it just come out as a random thought hey what about a direct elected mayor. And then the second question is, and I didn't go back and look who exactly brought up the discussion. Why, why the suggestion was made was because out of the, the concern that we don't have a single city wide perspective on the council now and to bring that city wide at large perspective. That's what I have heard most, most often concern that district represented representatives might. I don't think there's any allegation that they have thus far but might get embedded in their district and the priorities of their district without that broader city, city wide view. Okay. Okay. Yes. So I had a question about for like voters. If we were going to go, we were to go with the elected mayor option. So would we be, since it's like the whole community of Santa Rosa, would we be able to open it up for undocumented immigrants, as well to vote for the mayor as I know many in my district, and there are a lot of undocumented undocumented immigrants and they don't really have like a voice and like, mostly in the, in the Santa Rosa city. So I was wondering if we could, if there is a possibility that we could open up voting for undocumented immigrants here in the districts and Santa Rosa. Unfortunately, no, the state law, state federal law. Anything else. No, that was it. I was just had a question about that. Jen. Thank you for the presentation. I have three quick questions. First, with respect to the equity concerns of an outlarge mayor, wondering about the possibility of additional campaign contribution limits and publicly finance elections. And then with respect to the misconduct issue, can an elected mayor be removed by a super majority or unanimous council can we provide for that. And that's it. In terms of campaign contributions and public financing. Definitely both of those are possibilities. So that could be included and could help really minimize that impact of the cost of running citywide in terms of removal of an elected mayor. There is, there is a path by which we could do a recall is the most obvious path to removing an elected mayor. There is a path to have the council have the power to initiate hearings, providing due process to the mayor. The end of which the mayor could be removed if certain findings were made. I understand that San Francisco has that provision and we can look at that and I can bring that back at our next meeting as a possibility. I did not include San Francisco in the charts, simply because it's a city county jurisdiction so. But we can look at that so there, there is a path I understand that it is not. It's not simple but it is a path with a with a hearing and and due process. Thank you. So as a whole for the voters for the city generals that you know what the brown is for voter turnout per district. Thinking of what that was saying earlier about, you know, a district that hasn't had representation before was wondering what that looks like per district as far as a voter turnout for mayor at large, also considering that for equity and equality for those can potential candidates from districts that didn't have a voice before. Thinking that through. That is that is the very good question and I do have those those statistics at least prior. I can probably get the statistics even for the more recent elections I did have those for the elections prior to 2018 because when we went to district elections one of the things we looked at was voter turnout in terms of how we decided to the sequencing of districts, where were the first district, you know, which districts were going to go first and which districts can go second. We tried to ensure that the, we happen to be in it in an not a presidential election in 2018 and of course a presidential election in 2020 turnout overall is always better in a presidential election year. So we, we determined to have the districts that had the traditionally lower voter turnout on those presidential election years so that try to encourage, you know, try to get a higher voter turnout in those districts. But I'll sure we can sure get the that information I don't think it'll be terribly difficult and we'll bring that back also. Thank you chair Cisco, I want to appreciate Jocelyn for asking the question and hopefully at some point we can have a conversation to examine how we enable the participation of undocumented residents here in our community even if it's not through the elections but you know engaging in committees and boards. My question on this issue was, is it possible. I think I'll let her to receive like articles or just like research on this topic ahead of our meetings as like as appendices to the presentations maybe to be able to educate ourselves more on like how these proposals impact like efficiency of government equity and representation for minorities in our community. If there has been any research I tried looking at myself and there has there wasn't really anything like recent that I found so you know the lot like they were like articles from like the 80s and you know a lot has changed in 40 years. 40 years and say he's so that was also alarming but anyway I was hoping if it's out there, it'd be great to have it accessible. And then, yeah my other question was, if we could also receive more information on not only the legal implications of an at management, Mayor in terms of what is potentially could be challenged in law but also like, what was the legal rationale for the judge ordered like district elections like why you know because the legal rationale I think is important to be able to just like know what's good for our community in terms of representation because even if something falls within the legal realm even if it's legal doesn't mean it's equitable or that it's going to actually, you know, be reflective of our community and so you know, just, hopefully we can get more information on that and I think those are my questions for now thank you. And we will bring back also both the legal rationale for district elections and sort of that in that realm of what might be issues. If we if we change the structure of the seven districts, and also will will try to bring some more information on undocumented the role of undocumented individuals in in local government. And we have tried to find some general articles to be helpful. And if we find some good ones will will will distribute them. One of our issues to is that whenever we send now that the council now that the committee is constituted an act and active under the Brown Act once we provide. We have to provide any information that provide to you we need to provide to the public at the same time. And so then we get constrained by when the when are the publication dates and so forth but I know it's a little beginning to get the materials just so you know just a week before the meeting so but we'll we'll we'll do our best. Thank you so much. Hi good evening everyone. Okay, so this question is for our city attorney so I remember reading on the press democrat this that this will be the first year that we will have a translation of ballots in Spanish I just wanted to get a confirm of a yes or no from the city mayor. Thank you. Yes, all of the, the ballot materials will be will be translated. Okay perfect thank you. Sure. Ernesto. Thank you Madam chair. Quick question on sites 17 we have our list of key decision points is, is that an appropriate place to also include the fundamental question of whether we should propose moving towards a directly like the man. Yes, exactly. Thank you. And Mark. So thank you for the comprehensive presentation. This is a follow up to the to the question that's asked by Jocelyn. Is there a chance that undocumented residents can vote in a referendum on a referendum item. I don't believe I'll do, I'll do more research as to whether there's any avenue for undocumented individuals to vote. But it is my understanding at this point and again I could prove myself wrong with with some more research. But that you do need to be a citizen in order to vote in any, in any election and that's under state and federal law that we don't, don't have control over, but I can certainly do some additional research as to whether there's an avenue, and in order to make it harder city we would we might be able to, to expand our voter base. And like as a, just a parking lot item if we wanted representation, but the league league was getting the way, maybe get out of polling, right. It's just just parked light on, but thank you very much. Thanks. Logan you have another question. Okay, perfect. They're actually that was actually passed by New York City, the New York City Council allowing non citizens to vote in local elections, and it is probably going to have a legal challenge but anyways folks are interested in that it just took effect, January 1. Thank you very much and that gives me a good starting place. So, any other questions from the committee before I open it up to the public. I don't know if it's a question or a comment but I just really want to make sure that as we're looking at the elected mayor that there's something that is pretty in place that it will ensure that the mayor is connected to each of the districts. Because, you know, like I said before I experienced you know various things when we had, when we didn't have districts and so I have some, a lot of thoughts on that, and how that could be achieved moving forward. And I think it's important that we have to make sure we put that in writing if we do go to a system like that, that the mayor has to stay connected to each of the districts. Mark, do you have another question or you're just your hands still up. I'm sorry I will lower. Thank you very much. I'll leave you out here. Okay. So, okay, so with that, I think what I'll do is go ahead and open this item to public comment. If there are any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, if you're participating by zoom, raise your hand feature, please, and you'll be called on to speak for three minutes. If you're dialing in by phone through the star nine feature and likewise you'll be called on to speak. And I'll ask Miss Vance if we have any public. Sure sister I'm not seeing any hands be raised for item 4.2 the direct elect at large mayor topic. Okay, great. Thanks. So, with that I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment on that and bring it back to the committee again for kind of beginning our discussion looking at the questions. I think that Sue outline for us obviously utilizing our lens. And, and again this doesn't have to be your final answer at all, but putting out what your concerns are what your meanings are, you know, will help us definitely help to figure out where we're heading potentially, and we will have more speakers next time so. So with that, would somebody like to start the discussion. Annie how about you. I really feel like it. It will be detrimental to different demographics if we have a, an elected mayor I think that will be more financially straining on people who, and I would love to hear from previous mayors on this because I know we have some. So that concerns me that that will be going in the wrong direction for equality. So I just kind of want to put that out there and see if anybody has a response to that. Scott you're up next and you're also a former mayor, so maybe you can help Annie with. I share that concern, having run citywide or council and Ernesto going to chime in a citywide and I ran a modest campaign and it costs $40,000. And I know Mayor Bob Blanchard his second run came in at $100,000, which I think potentially is is will do it is kind of the opposite of where we're headed in terms of, of trying to get diversity and inclusion. My question is the, what problem is this solving and Ernesto can chime in on it too. I didn't, my term as mayor, and all the time on council, I thought the system worked fairly well. And the mayor does have the ability to reach out, you know, and set an agenda and form committees I was able to form the open government task force, you know, and do those things. So I'm not sure, and yet, and yet we have the controls of council, which is a good thing so it's not like the mayor is going to run road and do something like that. I think in Stanley's comment. I really do think going, going the road to a strong mayor, changing the whole system from that to a to a strong mayor where he, he or she basically appoints everybody I think is, is a big chunk for us to try and buy it off as a community. I'm not sure. I'm not sure council is ready to go there. So, my comments begin with. Ernesto do you have anything to add. Just like Annie has been bringing up. I agree with what Scott has said, even though the mayor has the responsibilities for example of appointing chairs and others making committee appointments. It's not just a random process that they use kind of in a chamber. There are conversations with the council members kind of looking to see what council members are interested in serving on. It's not an easy decision because something is more than one council member or more than two or three council members that want a certain position, but trying to make things equitable, but also I think in that process is also looking to the time that we have again we go back to people that have full 10 jobs that may not be on the table take on a committee that spent that has a lot of time commitments to. So there is a lot of work to make sure that things are equitable and I agree there is there is a system in place for, if you will remove you know a road mayor we had such a thing in Santa Rosa. I do have comments on that aspect of I do believe that it would make it more difficult to achieve what we're trying to do with diversity and inclusion within the city council. I think you know we just started the, the district elections of 2018 we haven't really seen them really fully implemented and used to their full potential I look forward to that. And the other thing I wanted to comment on saying now is, it's great to have the information that you shared about what other cities are doing around California and more specific northern California in the Bay Area. That's good to know. But at the end it's also we talked about this a lot on the city council in the city. It's a local, local control is what do we want her community because we're unique. And I really got into all the little nuances and details about how we're different from these other cities too. It's good to see that. But again it comes back to reflect on who are we as a community and what are we trying to achieve. What is the best method of doing that, using some of the other cities that has a guide or examples along the way. Thank you guys. Brian. So I think the definition is status quo system we have now I think works as good as any. But kind of like has been referenced. I think there's a strong legal argument in favor of district elections. And why really we went to district elections it seems like going to an out large mayor is in direct conflict with with that legal interpretation so I look forward to the answer to the question that's been asked by others. That's me. Thank you. I also share some of the concerns regarding equity and and large mayor election I think that even with, you know, setting campaign finance limits and public funds for campaigns I think those are good starts but we do have to take into account that independent campaigns can still happen and those limits are different. I'm really not sure whether we can limit those on a local basis or not. So I think that'd be something to explore if we're going to go in that direction. I do see the benefits of having a network mayor in terms of being able to kind of unify the vision of the council but I think it's really important that if we go there, that we need to balance the responsibilities or the power balance of power in terms of like. Yeah, so like, do we make them a non voting member. The other benefit I guess I see in a stronger mayor versus a manager is that the mayor responds directly to the public, whereas the city manager to the whole council and I think there's pros and cons on both. So I think if for me, going at large would would have to pair with a balancing of power, so that the districts are able to. Like, have stronger say on the council. Karen. Thank you, excuse me, thank you Patty. For me, as I will echo what Scott said I'm not sure what problem we're trying to solve. I think the mayors that we have had, you know, have been good and have. The other, I trust the council to know who to bring forward as mayor, because they will work with that person they have been working with that person. And I just am concerned that, you know, it is so expensive to run a citywide campaign that it be going against the equity principles and in a lot of respect. And if we are finding that council members are not looking at if we're finding that a mayor who has selected from the council members is not looking at the city as a whole. We have a voice. And we can say that we can in a variety of ways. You know, I think, as was mentioned, we haven't had districts for that long. It seems like that it's working well with. Council members from, you know, district this district looking out for, you know, constituents in that district so I would say to keep it as it is unless there's some glaring problem that we're trying to solve that hasn't been articulated. Thank you. Dan, how about you? Many of the comments that I was going to make have already been made, but I'd like to briefly just reiterate them and support in support of the people that made them. The first issue is the district election or the districts that we've just gone to that I don't think we've given our district elections a chance. And so I'd like to try to have more experience there before we start making a major change, like the directly elected mayor that I'm not sure how that would affect districts and I think it could affect them in a negative way. The second point is that the mayor currently has an awful lot to do as our two former mayors here could agree to. And the issue of giving any one person more to do than like Chris Rogers is doing now or Tom Schwedhelm was doing previously or Scott and Ernesto were doing. It just seems counterproductive. And so I'm concerned about that. The, well, no one's mentioned kind of the elephant in the room is that we do have some experience in other cities recently with directly elected mayors that have just turned out to be a disaster. And I don't need to mention the one city that's close to us that we've all are thinking about, but I mean there's a lot of downside. I do want to compliment staff. So I want to compliment you and the rest of your staff for your presentation. And I think your pros and cons were very good. And as I went through them, I found that I was personally agreeing with the cons much more strongly than the pros. And so I want to thank you for that. And this I think has been mentioned already and that is that allowing the more council members to be mayor on kind of a rotational basis as it is now. I think provides for a lot of personal growth and team building that I think we is really very, very good. So those are just a few of my comments. Most of them have already been mentioned. Thank you. And, and Logan, do you have another comment you want to make? Sure. I'll, I'll voice my support for this idea. And it's for a few reasons. And I want to be respectful to the previous council members. I do appreciate hearing your thoughts on this but I do want to point out the job has changed a little bit since then. And we do have district elections. And so part of this is anticipating future problems, right, because we only do this every 10 years. And I think if you look at cities with districts, there is a parochial spirit among the district members among the council members by design. And they're supposed to be hyper focused. And I think that when you look at the mayor's schedule that we saw some of that was his focus on his district. And I think that that actually can take away from that person's ability to look at the big picture. And as much as those issues might have a citywide impact, but I remember specific items from that that were that were related to their to the mayor's district. And so, I actually think the workload would shift, I guess it would probably increase, but it also would decrease in areas and I think that's the positive of it is that they'll have that citywide focus. And I also think what's changed is a series of crises that we've had in the last few years. Whether that wildfires which will continue to happen on a regular basis, whether that's a long running crisis like a pandemic, or something that's more acute. It's a long running like the racial justice protests we saw. I think all three of those needed someone who could be more of the face of the city, and I'm not faulting any of the individual mayors performance there. But I think that they had the potential to be better if they had the ability to focus solely on that. And I think also when you go beyond our community. When mayors are directly elected they tend to be taken more seriously, whether that's fair or not. They have the will of thousands of people behind them that cover their whole jurisdiction so when they're speaking to a member of Congress, or testifying at a hearing, they can legitimately say I'm speaking for every single person, every voter every resident of the city. And I think that as we look at where Santa Rosa is going to be 10 years from now, where it's been in the past few years, I really think we need that overarching voice and vision. And I think that on the politics of equity. That's definitely an important point, but I think you also could sort of game out a scenario where you can actually have multiple candidates from the higher turnout areas where candidates traditionally came from. And maybe only one candidate from those more traditionally lower turnout areas and you can imagine a scenario where that person could win based on that, or at any other there's a lot of other scenarios where they could win. And so I think I see that that it would be more costly, although that would just be the cost of the previous at large elections to which are significant like, like Scott said, they're not small numbers. But I just, I, again, I think that we need to look at some of those recent issues, look forward, and what it, we need someone who's accountable to every resident of the city. And right now with districts, I just think that's not the structure we have. Yeah, I'm looking forward to hearing more people's thoughts on this. I have more thoughts. Yeah, I just wanted to, as we can discuss with Logan on, I have a different view. Yeah, but Yasmine made a comment earlier on, and I think it's important it really wasn't clear in the presentation, no false suit. Because we're kind of implying that the mayor has some grand ability to do to control way more than he does. And I think it's important for everybody to realize the council sets council goals. The mayor is the implementer along with city manager of those goals but it's not like unilaterally or she unilaterally just decides I want to do this today I want to do that tomorrow. I want to hear the council sets goals and prioritize them. And the mayor and city manager, everybody's answerable to the council as a whole, as a body. Ernesto. Thank you, Scott's comment for some of the ones that I was going to make as well. It kind of went to setting the agenda. And it's not that we're setting the agenda for the entire community that the community does that based on the issues that we're facing, whether it's affordable housing homelessness social justice environmental issues or so many. And you're right they together together with input from the community to set their goals and I think that's very important from that and of course it's how do you set the agenda moving forward throughout your year and how you prioritize. We have dealt with crisis over the years. I had occupied. We all have our crisis that we deal with the job has changed a little bit it will probably continue to change a little bit as we continue to grow. But I think at the end we have to be the ones that come together to be able to make a strong argument to the voters to why this is so important that we need to do it today. I think we are going to evolve like Dan said, the district election process has not really settled in yet. It may be in 978 years 10 years it will be time to make that change in that next group will be having that tough discussion about how to make that happen at the time. But again for me it's still come back to what are we trying to fix today, because I don't believe that we really given our current system a chance. And again my biggest worry my biggest worry is the issue that it to equity and inclusion in our city council. So let's go. Yes, who is that. That mark. Yes, it is. In radical. Thank you very much. I. I've been agreement with the concerns raised by former mayor Bartley member, Condren. All of ours. Thank you. Do you know that this has a has a high risk of watering down impacted district elections. That impact has been very favorable. I don't think political gaming would be in favor at all of people in the unrepresented districts. I'm highly skeptical of that. And right now, somebody in a smaller district can actually run for that district with a lot less money. I'm concerned somewhat about independent expenditures we're not going to be able to limit those at all. So, in the underrepresented districts historically, we're going to have new voters coming in. We'll have more more info more informed voters. So they will be able to identify the issues present them. They're younger people coming up so if you look at the underrepresented districts they tend to be younger. And so they're coming up getting involved in politics for the first time. I'm looking down the road 10 years now I think I'll know more about other people's needs. And that's my, my hope of my goal. And I'm not in favor of the elected mayor. I'm not sure if we didn't even have we didn't fully address the question of who's pushing for this and where it came from and why the push is and I'm curious about that. We're going to have a lot of weight on this issue on the agenda of other mayors coming in from elected positions, maybe consultants and such and that just gives such a huge bureaucratic weight that I'm concerned that will overweigh the decision making of this panel as to why it's in scope and how long we want to deal with this comparison other issues. Thank you. Did you just say me. I said Danny because I want to give him an opportunity and then I'll get back to you with that. Thank you. Thank you, Patty. So my concern is this you know I think I agree with everybody where we're trying I'm trying to figure out what the what the problem is that we're trying to solve I hear that clear. So my concern is reverting back to the way it was previously before district elections, where it was at large districts and and certain parts of Santa Rosa were neglected until we went to district elections and we had a loud voice that that voice concerns for those communities. And now I see that there's resources and support coming to those areas. Now I'm wondering if we do go to mayor at large is that going to add another layer to get things done. Where now it seems like everyone comes to the table representing each district there they bring the concerns and they come up with a solution with the outlet at large mayor does that mean that now we have another layer that we've got to go through to get something resolved. And also the other concern is with this at large, I believe that the, that the mayor will primarily come out of the other side of the name, the railroad tracks if I may say, and stay there in the focus will continue to stay on that side of San Rosa, versus where it's really because obviously we know that money pays for the attention that community gets. And if we were the mayor at large, I think that it would be unfair to those communities that have been historically neglected and having gotten the resources that they needed. And with an at large mayor with the cost to run the election, it's going to stay on the nicer part of Santa Rosa and that's where the candidates will primarily come out of. It wouldn't give the, the potential for other candidates or council members that the way we're doing it now to be able to step up and become the mayor. And, you know, I think currently the way it's working. Chris Rogers is doing a phenomenal job. I think he keeps an eye and it's very fair and he looks out through all the districts. So again, going back, trying to figure out what is the problem that we're trying to solve. And I think that that's unclear. And if we could find more info as far as where it's coming from or this request is coming from. I think you'll clarify and give us more clarity on what we're trying to resolve. Either. Okay. I just had a question and some comments and so the first question in the scope of equity and all that. I wanted to find out. I know our meetings are recorded. And so when it's placed out for the public to see are they being translated is it in a different language because the population that I tend to work with they speak Spanish. So if somebody is coming in regards to equity, I want to make sure that piece is there so if somebody can answer that. And then the other question I had was, how difficult has it been in the past to pass someone step up and say they want to be mayor or how often did they decline. Was it something that they was like no nobody wanted to do it. So we need a little backstory a little history in regards to that from from past mayors or for past counsel to find out was that something difficult for them to do, or people didn't want to step up. And the other thing I really been thinking about this a lot is the question, do we have to do charter review every 10 years, because for me when things are set in stone for 10 years, we're bound by that for 10 years. And listening to everything that we're talking about, is it possible for the charter review to be maybe shifted to five years or seven years so that that gives us time to see the process and then if we don't like what's going on then we have the ability to come back to the board, the charter review and start making those implementations are the changes we need to make. So where did that 10 year thing come from, you know, I've been sitting on a lot of different boards and commissions and I'm hearing this 10 year large span. When there's so many things that happens in the community as far as fires and emergencies, and then we're bound by these these ordinances and these laws for 10 years. So my question is, where does that come from is that something that we as a group can change and say we want to lessen the time frame and make it five years so that we can come back and, and we'll have a moving live in document that we can make adjustments to it in a shorter timeframe versus 10 years. So do you want to respond to that. Sure, thank you for giving me that opportunity and yes that is certainly it is currently in the charter and it's certainly something that can be adjusted and in fact I, I think that the current language is a little bit unclear. But yes, this committee would be free to recommend a change to that 10 year period either to a date, you know, to some other timeframe or to make it even more flexible. Dan. And what about that translation, sorry, what about the translation. I don't know either. I would ask the city clerk, whether the tapes are translated or whether the, I know that they're translated live I don't know if that's recorded as well. It is not the videos are currently not translated into Spanish and uploaded right now. I'm going to. Can we work on that because that is something that's being worked on but it does take some equipment. And what is that are being looked currently being looked at. I'm working with it to see how that can be done. That will be very helpful to me to get it out to the community in my district. Thank you. Okay, then. One issue that I don't think has been brought up yet tonight that I wanted to bring up and that's the issue of the city manager. And I think we've had some wonderful city managers in the past and several that I can certainly think of, and like we just have a brand new city manager now and I just met her the other day and I think she seems terrific. And so my, my issue is our ability to recruit these these very high quality city managers and I would think that the topic we're discussing right now will impact the quality of person that we would be able to recruit in the future and so that that relationship between the mayor and the city manager is so crucial, whether we have a directly elected mayor or, or, or the system that we have now, we need to think of how it will impact our ability to recruit strong city managers in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on my comments earlier about the powers of the mayor and as I think we are considering at large mayoral elections for the current structure that we have now without really, of course, because it was broken out into meetings without deeply examining how structures, you know, a manager city versus a strong mayor city, what that would look like and what that would imply for our operations and our elections as well. And I think those benefits and consequences are important to analyze if we're really I think set in stone, obviously we're doing that now but I think that I do think that it is possible to be able to garner the elements of different structures to be able to make something that works for us here in Santa Rosa, because we are a unique city and I think I do think that there are benefits from an at large mayor in a different structure, different than what we have now, perhaps with different responsibilities as it relates to city mayor and, of course, that's also related to Dan's comments. Karen, you were there. Do you left? Are you done? Did you have something else you wanted to add? Okay. One other kind of one other comment, Patty. Okay. Sorry, just quick, you know what Jasmine said I think is a really good point and that we're just talking about the first line we'd have to cross, you know, a yes or no but I think it could be worth us exploring more of those duties that were laid out. Maybe we would just want to change some of that. Maybe it's not called a strong mayor or maybe it's called that but it has different powers than what other strong mayors have but I do think it's worth at least looking through some of that. I guess we just aren't ready to go that far the directly elected mayor maybe at least examining some of their duties. That might be a whole nother meeting. I don't know if we have time for that but I think there does seem to be a desire here at least to kind of look more at that role. Okay. Thank you, Logan. So we're getting close to our seven o'clock time and we have a couple of other things to get through before we close but I want to really thank the committee for your thoughtfulness here again it's not our final decision we'll have an opportunity to get some of this information from Sue and hear from other individuals while we we try to parse this out. I will just say for myself. Having heard this is an issue on our list of things to take up I don't know that there's a push for it I think the council just listed things and gave us the responsibility of doing the deep dive as to whether it made any sense. I kind of came into this. Well 10 years ago I was on the, the, the charter review committee at that time and we took up directly elected mayor and the entire committee determined it was Santa Rosa did not need that it wasn't time for that. I kind of came into this thinking, maybe it is time and was thinking along the lines of what I started to think was an equity lens of having somebody that represented all of Santa Rosa as opposed to, you know, just the districts. And some of the reading I did and I agree there's not a lot out there but I was just kind of looking up what are some of the discussions pro and con for a directly elected mayor and what I started to see was that actually if what we want is equity and inclusion and diversity we're on the right right path more cities from the discussion points I was catching, we're moving in that direction versus a solidly elected mayor. I definitely want to hear more from, you know, our next meeting but it's sort of changed my thinking in terms of, well, and when I hear like, would there be a challenge by the voting rights act. I'm concerned that the way that I was thinking that this would provide equity might be actually the opposite is true and I and I hear Logan and just mean there's arguments on both sides so I definitely want to hear more about it but certainly the response that I'm hearing from a lot of the committee members here makes me think like that as well. You know we've gotten districts we have the cab we have the council that manages the city manager and we have a lot of things in place that are furthering our desire for diversity equity and inclusion and so I guess when I hear what I'm trying to solve I'm hearing that question differently than I thought I would hear it coming in tonight so. Okay, Karen you have one more thing you want to add before we move on. Yeah, and I don't know if now is the right time or not and it's a procedural question. At the beginning Sue indicated that next meeting or Patty you indicated that we're going to be hearing from a number of mayors and city managers and I wonder if that's really necessary. And I so that's what that's the procedural question or maybe just hear from a few you know one person one or two, instead of taking a whole meeting to not enough that was the intent was to take the whole meeting I mean I'm hearing from the major. It seems like the majority of people who are talking tonight are in favor of the status quo with some tweaks. So, I mean I just want to throw that out Patty. Sorry. So you want to answer that. I mean we can agenda differently. We're really here to provide information helpful information to the committee. So, you know I don't want to drive what what the presentations are if the feeling is that having speakers from jurisdictions with direct elect mayor would be helpful. We can continue on that direction if you think it isn't needed, you know, maybe we focus in on again trying to find more literature, trying to kind of answer certainly I've been writing down the questions and I know Rob has as well for us to come back. Next week. It was not my intent to have the entire meeting next week be speakers. So maybe we limit it to one or two speakers. I think it would be helpful if we have speakers I think it'd be helpful to have at least one elected whether mayor or council member and if we find a city manager who has worked under both systems that might be interesting to hear that perspective as well. But up to totally up to the committee. Ernesto what do you think. It sounds like we do have a lot on our plate early, and we are going to be having other discussions related to responsibilities, role, etc. That may influence this mean my point is maybe it does it does make sense to table this in case we want to bring it back to have that especially if we see that this is the way to address some of these other ratios. I'm hearing it seems to me that there's been senses that we don't want to really start moving in that direction. But it's not an absolute close the door on it because there's so more to discuss. So maybe we'd be better sure by spending our energy on something different next meeting. But again recognize that we may have to bring this back if that's the new solution to some of the things we've come up with later on. I think of the interest of time. And all the other things we have to tackle probably should go there. Maybe table this piece of it. And what do you think. I agree with what Ernesto was saying I think that since we're going to be picking and choosing from this list of things that are being presented to us that it would make more sense to narrow down the ones that we actually want to pursue before we do an even deeper dive. I'm still interested in hearing from those folks personally I think that would be valuable for our deliberations and valuable to the public, who we have already told will be happening in two weeks. I would hope we stick with that plan. I really do think hearing from them will be helpful. Maybe if there are time constraints it could be half the meeting or something. I was looking forward to that. Jen. Yeah, thanks. I was, I was not going to comment because I'm in the unique position of agreeing with everybody here tonight because this is a really complicated issue. And I really appreciate the comments and input and experience and questions that have been raised and so I was looking like Logan I was looking forward to hearing more next week I definitely appreciate Karen's point and that's this point about the issue of time and I think there's, but I think a lot of questions were raised today that might be able to be answered just in materials provided to us in the agenda packet and then keep the speakers to a minimum. We can all do reading, you know, on our own time. So if we could make that efficient. That could be a win win. And I'll tell you, I don't know. I'll give you my answer in terms of what's the problem to solve. And I don't know if it's a problem. We have a new city manager and every kind of city manager council combination is unique. But what, and I think Peter Stanley expresses in his letter a little bit but I think having a stronger connection between the voters and the council's goals and values and implementation of those councils goals and values is important. And so it, I would love to see a way to strengthen that even if that's a different thing than a strong mayor or directly elected mayor and I think that just mean and Logan both actually mentioned that too like is there a third option I always hate to look at create me. So, but that's the thing that I would like to do is, is create a stronger, a stronger connection there between. I've seen, I have seen council goal setting meetings that were really just not council goal setting things they were council. I think it's important that the council's goals and our values are implemented. So that's, those are my thoughts that I was keeping myself but you pushed me on this. Thank you. Does me. Yeah, I think that if we're going to have a second meeting on this, or just talk about it a second time I do think that it might be helpful to do it at our next meeting because this will be fresher in our minds. As opposed to doing something else and then coming back to it. I think that, you know, the second half of the discussion about how different structures mean different things is huge. And I think it's important to talk about it and you know if our decision as collectively is still not to do a large mayor then we'll be more secure in that decision I think, having had the full conversation. I was looking forward to our next meeting as well and hearing from, you know, some speakers, just because I'm, I'm still sort of wondering where I'm going to land on this but I do think that we could plan to have our speakers, you know have a time that there's a lot of questions that were put forth here that that can be done in materials reading materials that we can look at. And I want to remind the committee that we also have to finish. We kind of needed to finish this or come up with a plan for this and then finish up council compensation so you know we can't just jump to the other list we have council compensation that we all agreed. You know, we were taking those three things that absolutely had to be changed by charter and so that one was tied to this and so that's again another deep complicated conversation I think we're going to need that full meeting. Even if we come to a quick conclusion on the mayor part, we're going to need the rest of that meeting to start that conversation and hopefully complete it. So, and then we'll move on to the other one was the right choice voting is the other one that we decided so. So you want to add anything. No, so just to clarify what I'm hearing is will will come back at the next meeting will have the first part of the meeting a further discussion on that large mayor with maybe maybe just two speakers. And with answers to some of the questions that the committee has raised and give the committee ample time to discuss and talk about maybe some other options somewhere in between status quo and an elected mayor. I will also put together some materials to start back on the discussion of compensation, try to draft up, if not a formal proposal at least some elements that we would be looking at doing for that and some options that will present to you. And I'm quite certain that between those two topics, that would fill the fill the two hours easily. And then the following meeting will will will move on to rank choice voting and Diva Provo from the county register our voters will be here to give that presentation. Lisa, you have something you want to add. Yes, thank you chair Cisco I just wanted to just a couple of thoughts one I I support continuing on our next meeting and kind of finishing up with this. I feel like in our conversation. It kind of got conflated a bit between a directly elected mayor is about how the mayor is chosen. And then there's a conversation around what is the authority of that mayor, which then relates ultimately to council pay. I feel like we would do well to kind of tease those two things out. I hear a lot about. And I share some of that concerns about concentration of power and decision making and all of those things, but that's not necessarily automatically included in how the, how the mayor is chosen. And so I would just encourage us to kind of keep that in mind and I hope that we can have the opportunity to kind of tease that out a little bit more because I do think that the role we're going to have a mayor either way. So I think it's important to to take a look at that role, especially as we look at council pay but also as we consider how we select that mayor. So thank you very much. Lisa Karen. I do. Sorry, Patty, I have just one more thing and it was triggered when Sue talked about the next meeting talking about council pay. Could you come back with the number that if the council had been giving themselves the increases every year that they were allowed, what their pay would be right now. Yes, definitely bring that forward and and if I may just respond to Lisa I agree we need to kind of parse out how the mayor is selected what are the implications of how the mayor selected and then what are the roles and responsibilities and do we want to change any of that do we want to leave that piece status quo, and that those are two related but separate discussions so we'll try to tease that out a little bit more at the next meeting. Okay, again thanks for all your input and let's go ahead and move on to item number five which the chair city attorneys report anything you want to report soon. I was going to report out on kind of what the schedule is but we've already talked about that so I think we're good. Okay, and I don't have anything right now either. We have those many reports, no written and or electric electronic communications, and we've discussed future agenda items. I'll go ahead and ask the for the public to weigh in if they choose take public comment on future agenda items. And so, we'll go ahead and open that opportunity. Raise your hand if you're on zoom down star nine if you're phoning in. And I will ask Nina to let me know if anyone is there. And I'll hand being raised for item eight future agenda items. Okay, but we are going to end right on time. Okay, with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn our meeting and we'll reconvene on February 2. And again, thank you all. Okay, good night.