 Recession and let's go around and take a roll. I'm Joe Peckman, Susie Lama-Fairing, Marcia Martin, City Council. Eric O'Hayes, City Council. Tim Warner, City Council. Beryl McGinnis, City Manager. E.D. May, City Attorney. Sean McCoy, City Council. Dr. Kessler, hey, great. I'm going to apologize for the last pre-session. I've let the airport conversation go on way too long, so we didn't have time for Erin to talk about bonus, but before we turn it over to him, Carol would like to ask the question of us. Yeah, so as we're preparing for the meeting on the 27th, when we talked to the council, we thought we were going to be short one council member, and that looks like we're going to be short two council members on the 27th and the two items that we had placed on that agenda were guns and housing reports. And one council member, we can deal with two, I think that's going to be oriented towards a getting direction. And so under our rules, City Manager can cancel the city session, and then we would just have to take those two items and move them. One probably in, one probably out, but we can work on that. But for those two items, I really mean. Traction. I know that Lee's six, probably seven on that, so I wanted to see if there were any thoughts. Well, when it's topics like that, it might be beneficial to also have it. Is it always best to have it in the middle of the very end of the summer of June, going into July, when people start to say, try to take some maybe longer breaks and associated with the 4th of July, maybe family time. So that's not the worst case scenario. So they were seeing if they can move that to the 20th, so I can move the slide to gun discussion in. And then the housing needs assessment, I will move it out, which may help us a little bit as we get into the LAJ meeting. What you will see is we've now been privy to market assessments as part of the housing projects that we're building. And we're seeing a weird disconnect between the housing needs assessment and the market assessment that we're getting that the leaders have to use. So we're kind of scramps, you know, driving hard to figure that out by the 27th. So if we could slide that out, that could potentially help us. It's hard for us to slide anything in just because of what everything else is saying on the queue. So, so we're in here until the 27th, and we're not wrapping up the 4th of July. Correct. And I'm going to be gone to the 11th. Okay, so we probably moved the housing to the 18th. You don't schedule around me just like, yeah, I'm going to be going to the 11th. I'm going to be going to the 11th too, because I'm having knee surgery with that. I'm going to schedule around you. Yeah, sorry. So if we can slide the gun, if we can slide the gun to the, you know, that's the legislative backup from Eugene, or now that's the legal backup from Eugene, the legislative backup from Sandy, and the police agreeing with the issues. And I guess they asked in last Thursday when we saw this started occurring, can we move it to the 20th, I guess the answer to yes or no. So that's the 20th of June. 20th of July. And then it's the housing slide to the 18th, which is something we're not sure is going to do some don't look up. I don't know, but you know, I don't know, I'm standing right, but we don't do enough study sessions all the time. We can just do it like we fancy them. On the 18th, we have July 18th. Is the study session followed by an allergy? Yeah, I think what hit June was normally when we added the second public forum that killed the study session. And then in June, it's even more complicated to see. Yeah, it fell later. So that's part of it. If we were to list all the big issues we need to address between now and September 1st, the ballot questions would be on that list. Do you have some sense, housing? I mean, it's probably comfortable. These are pretty significant issues. Right. And we have got to get before September 1, whatever the ballot questions you get, so roughly by the end of July, right? Yeah, I was kind of looking at July 11th for the ballot questions. You and I talked and again, meeting everyone for the ballot questions. I started working on signing that for the 18th, so I can make sure especially now that the needs are great. So, you know, I would look at ballot questions on the 18th, depending that agenda didn't look too bad right now. So I would think ballot questions and housing on the 18th generally is good. If we needed to, we could look at doing a pre-session on the housing before the meeting and still accomplish the same thing so we can work on the scandals to do it. It's just, yeah, the 27th. Just those two items are so significant that I think maybe you best answer at least six, preferably seven, actually. The ballot questions are pretty significant too, and we have seen you have created a situation where the arts entertainment people have are gagged, but the librarians people are helping on the town, and that should really be fixed. So, I mean, you know, there were some different options that had shown up that were evaluating, and so we're getting different numbers on some of the other options, and until we get some of the numbers, it's kind of hard to talk through some of those things. So I'm hoping that I'm meeting this Friday, hopefully to see where we are on some of that, and then I'll meet them, the board, after that. So Friday is really the day for me to kind of understand some of those. So we have a consensus here that we want to not have the 27th that we cancel that. Yes. What is the short mean? I do have a question about the gun safety. I know that we had asked for it to come back in June, but then when I think about our council priorities, where would this fall, you know, considering that we are having to cut meetings because of, you know, unforeseen, you know, Fourth of July just happened on the 4th, on the Tuesday, so then that impacted. So, you know, is there a possibility that we could move that further down? I think the only thing was what Marcia had said along here was about trying to get something on the legislative agenda and stuff like that, so where we stood on some of these things, whether it be the gun issue or that, and so, you know, of course, we want to respect that in the sense of, to your point, that's a very important part of where we are as a community. We're kind of tired of the guns and everything. Well, that's not where all of us are. It was a motion and a duration that we would look at it in June. So, it's, the whole idea of that motion was to see how much light there was between what happened on the legislature and I think that the legislature did everything that Eugene and Kyle and Bess dared to do, so it doesn't need to be very long. I think it's more going to be based on what you think they come back and really, I think most of it's going to be exact, in the public safety connections. So, just, this is kind of tangential, but you mentioned the legislative agenda, at some point, I still think this group might have a conversation about legislators before they start drafting legislation in some way. But what our priorities are, rather than, you know, we are in the legislative session and it's too late. So, if there is other legislation or whatever we decide to do with firearms, if any part of it has a legislative implication, we have a chance to talk about that. But there are other things that we need, in my opinion, we need to be talking about legislators. So, to that point, I'm glad you brought it up that I did talk to the immobilian after she, when was this, send it up, and after she would be willing and her and Karen McCormick and be willing to meet with us and she said yes anytime. So, I was going to talk to her about that. Awesome. So, as we talked about scheduling, getting that on the calendar, for me, would be... Yeah, I think what we wanted to do is have this conversation, you know, what you wanted to do on that and then schedule something. Your direction was to schedule a meeting with the legislature, legislate towards ahead of our normal schedule in January, because it was part of that drafting. I think that was part of that conversation. No, it's just like us in budget, you know, we're talking about, I don't want to forget the drafting legislation is now. Right. So, I think, yeah, we can definitely get that but you just said, let's say, but you know, let's know which which legislators you would like to be in, maybe not just the ones we're always talking to, if there are others, the ones that kill the assault So, anyway, is that it now? Yeah, that was a big thing for me. At least I think Jennifer, Prenti, Karen, Sonia, and if you need to be willing to do that, she is. She drafted some of these bills but that's why I asked her. So, I'm turning over to Erin in FYI, Shakita is back here. She, and I, you know, I felt that for her, she said part of all her emotion last Tuesday was that she had found out that her aunt had become very ill and had gone to the hospital. So, it was a generosity of counsel and the emotion of her favorite aunt that she just broke down and then later in the week, her aunt passed away. So, today is her funeral. So, she called last night and said, I'm leaving tonight for the funeral. Today will be Beth's wedding day. So, that's why she's here. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if her youngest daughter scratched my nose. Oh, yeah. Is that all that happened? Yeah, that's true. You guys are on Saturday, right? Yes. She's very emotional, I guess. Taking back, yes. But it was great. So, anyway, Erin, what did you talk to us about? Almost the same, he was a winner. Sure, I think there's a miscommunication that Shakira and I wanted to speak about because this was a conversation that happened between Shakira and I while we were in D.C. for NLC. It was not because of what we heard at NLC. It was just a conversation that happened between us. So, it has nothing to do with anything that was present in NLC. It was the idea that the City Council has generally built consensus either through retreat or through similar meetings like this on issues such as housing and, you know, childhood education, transportation, as our roadmap, the house that we're building, our framework. But as I think we all know, one of the biggest issues that comes up for all of us is the analysis of what we're doing or not doing about it. And I don't feel that we necessarily all sat down with each other and truly had the conversation outside of the confines of a real council meeting with the rules of procedure that we had. And so that was the conversation which we didn't really have, was that we thought that it would be a great idea for us to sit down and because there's some preparation we got because of that last month where Eleanor just sent us all the funding that we sent and all the different outreach sources and things like that, that we're prepared to have a conversation in that sense, is that as a council are we happy with that this? Or is there something else, you know, I know Lawrence just talked about kind of like a resource center or whatever it is. It's not necessarily a shelter, but it's, I don't know if we should call it a resource center. Something like that, right? Yeah, something like that. And, you know, Jennifer Leibniz is in New Zealand, but the moment we're starting to work on the next she's on the feet forward and she had some remarks about the recent presentation that was given to the faith leaders because she's got two big things. One is temporary shelter, you know, isolated temporary shelter is a good shelter. The increase is the opportunity for addiction and so she's not sure she likes that model. And the other one is, and people are telling what Denver has built foundation, but Denver is a city and county so they control all the different resources. And I can talk about replicating the Denver road. Her idea is you're never going to have, you're going to miss all the epiphanies that make people turn their polar and excitability where we have or go into, you know, a work housing or housing first program or something if you don't have some base time. And so all of the service deniers, they forget that unless they are detaining. But the only detention we have now isn't working because it's jail. And jail does two things. It turns people away right now and if it doesn't turn the people away it's treated as punishment, which is the wrong thing. Yeah, they're not resource providers. They're not necessary. And so, you know, I know that you've had some ideas you can talk about Jennifer's ideas. I know the mayor has a working group or has an Adelaide's group. So that was really the impetus being united by asking for this is that if we can come to at least an answer that we can give people, that we can give them, these are what we would like to happen if we don't already have them the list of resources that we're already providing. And not having heard every voice on council. I can't give them an answer personally. So I was like, what's the council for the federal? You know, there's some different approaches. This is what the city is doing currently. I can't give them an answer. We're happy with what we're doing. We're really happy with what we're doing. Always examining what we're doing. And I have been working on this under the radar to be quite honest about this staff. And my working group, because of the pushback that we've had since I've been on council since 2016 about the convention, anything. It's Indianism or, you know, the paper was Jones going to have shelters all over the city. You know, you just think people still. So we actually can't, you know, examine the pallet structures and the, what is it, the Roya? Roya Village. Yeah, Delores Project, which we were all invited to tour. And just exploring ideas. And with the church meeting, now we have churches that are coming out and saying we're interested in this and this and this and this. So I asked Ella Berthel. One of the things, a lot of churches want to go in. So we're trying to figure out where they should donate. And how, and Ella Berthel and Harold had listed several options. So we're going to have a meeting this week or next. I said, where's that list of options on numbers that have a pallet people come out and talk to the the churches and communities that are interested in pallet structures. It's education. And we're asking for help because we as a city cannot do this alone. And it's also addressing what our public safety department has said that what they need to help them with the unhoused problem. But also, Harold, perhaps sometime on your schedule, we need to talk about the Roya Village and what is that because it encompasses some of what Marsha has been saying. I think Ron kind of saying the same thing, but I think it's time, you know, to Aaron's point that we have a big discussion about it. But I personally want to put out, I'm going to have another meeting of the same churches and saying thank you for responding. Here's what we have found that you're interested in. So we're going to bring up the pallet structure people are going to bring up. But the operation is because it's not easy. You have to be really committed. And where our resources are, how can we get all the resources in the same place? Who's going to operate it? It's a huge undertaking. It isn't easy. And to be honest, it's something I'm very interested in. But it's something you just have to work really hard at and come out with ideas rather than put what you're working on out there and have the pushback come before you have time to discuss it. Well, I think one of the things that needs to be discussed is whether it is in fact a solution to the problems that we have or not. And what is not happening is that some of the people who control moving parts that are necessary to the solution aren't in any of the conversations that you've described. So you've got to look at things like the county courts, our municipal judge, because I frankly don't know exactly how the years mesh to end up with all the people that get booked by our police force end up back out on the street. But I think we need to look at that. And other places have implemented drug courts and drug detention that allow people a week or two of detention to be processed into rehab or housing first program or something that uses the fact that they were apprehended in that committing a crime, even if it is only some people who are not allowed to sleep, to make an excuse for an engagement that cannot be refused. And I would not become comfortable going forward with anything until we have that conversation because it's a piece of the solution that we can't implement by ourselves. And we need to get the buy-in of the county and we need to understand how it works. Maybe everybody else understands how it works when I work. Well, to be honest, getting the buy-in of the county has been a two-year project. And we're closer than we ever have been to be honest. And I agree with you. I heard an incredible speech from Curtis Johnson, the county. And they shared. Yeah. About, what is your last name, Shibin? The name of Shibin. Yeah, the name of Shibin's first application program. Which is great. I think it's amazing. The problem is, you have to be arrested to begin it. And because it's, but it would be wonderful if we had that, if we had them come and speak to us and explain it to us. So I agree. And maybe we should schedule a meeting about homelessness only. Yes. As I'm listening, I'm just thinking about a series of conversations that just fixed up because we came in. I read a couple of meetings in the Blasius Street station. Yes. We had providers. We had public safety. Yeah. For me, the moment where we were headed, what was most meaningful or productive for me was the clarity we began to achieve on the segments of our homeless population. So as I'm listening, whether it's what Mursh is talking about now, somebody's got a substance abuse issue, I think it's great. Or a man or woman who's looking for a safe house or a family living in a car. The value of that for me was segmenting a population each segment, meeting something, but meeting something different. And then that segment of the population that simply refuses anything. And now you're talking about those who refuse to go to a shelter or whatever. Our options were quite different. The resource commitment was going to be different. The policy implications. The strategy implications was different. So as I'm listening, if we're going to do that, I'd rather, I'd rather rather resurrect or reinvigorate that conversation and get us to a place where there is clarity about which segment we're talking about and what's the strategy and how do you resource and how are there policy implications for us for those segments. For me, otherwise, it's like, yeah. Honestly, I think if we kept following that through the pandemic, well, we don't have perfect solutions for every segment, but we have some solution for every segment except the bottom tier, like, I guess I shouldn't be judging all, the refusing to the service-resistant. The resistance to refusing tears. We have nothing to do with it. Rasha, you could, you could be researching. I have been. Great. Because that is the I agree with you in that there are different segments and that is the challenge. It's a challenge for our local community or county to address all of those and that some of those are what we put out to the faith community. All different tiers of support. Where can you help us in this and are you interested in? There is interest. And to be honest, where we butted heads with the county is that they are a housing first one. And when I talked to the, and toward the Boulder Shelter, we have a different idea of what housing first is. They, Michael who runs that Boulder Shelter. This idea is that anybody that's on the street, regardless of what the problem is, you take them and convince them to be in a house. It doesn't matter if they're using meth, alcoholics, alcoholism, unemployed, etc. Put them in a house first. You know, a human. I have butted heads with him on that. Mainly because of working with hope, working with the hour center. Some people are so far gone that they cannot stand the pain. And Ellis, you know, from hopes gave us a good example and they've been working for years with one person, this one man, he finally allowed to be put in an apartment and I think it was a free room apartment. Better with that than a kitchen. When they went to visit him, he had put a tent in a living room. He could not take being confined. And that's where I butted heads with Michael. Is that you're creating a situation that we can always live up to. But they wouldn't help us with funding or anything. It wasn't housing first. But there are no statistics when we say when the statistics come out and they say we house so many people this year. My question is, how long did they stay in that unit? Are they still housed? Because those statistics don't come out. And that bothers me. So my, my reasoning is, like with the pellet structures, these are not overwhelming units. That would overwhelm the community. But it's a lot of operation. It's a lot of, I've been researching that and I met with them. So I can't send this, share this. This was my own account. Yeah. So through them. But it has several data points, statistics, as well as background information on the pellet structures and how different communities have tapped into various resources with their own police records and how they brought it all together. As well as tapping into people who have recovered, moved on, and then come back to support the project. So, you know, so that's what I've been researching on this. And it sounds like there are some churches who are interested in knowing more. And I definitely agree that we should have Elizabeth come out and share. You know, I'd be happy to participate and share what I, what I've learned as well. And, but we do, we have to have different things to be different needs. You know, I have family who struggled with drug addiction. And it is impossible. And it gets to the point, I've talked to friends too, who've also had situations where they're calling the police. I need them in jail. Because I know that they're not out there. Lundras, committing crime, that, that they are confined. Right. And so, but they, you know, bolder jail, I don't know, well, the best bet is that they call well police. And bolder, yeah, they can't. It's like they let them out on PR bond. And it's, and all it does is just cost already a traumatized family and individual, even more money, because of court fees and going through this stuff. So there's, there's that component. So just real quick, from what I've been hearing so far, just listening is that we are well resourced in a lot of ways. We've tightened up a lot of our ordinances from the public safety standpoint to, I think, a high point before we start really getting into possible litigation from ACLU against Boulder, as an example. So we're writing that line pretty closely. So I think from those points of view, what I've been hearing is that the biggest hole is dealing with the service-resistant portion of the UNS population. That's what I'm kind of hearing, you know, in different ways. And that's the most difficult, obviously, to deal with in a lot of ways. And so it seems like we have some different ideas about how to deal with them as far as not going too far, as far as bending over backwards for services-resistant folks, but having those resources available, and then also dealing with some of the public safety issues that occurred. So that seems to me, as counsel, to be where we need to focus. That's where we feel the hole is, maybe. And because we have to take it for a resource of an ability concept, too, is that I'd love to specifically make a shelter for women that are going through domestic violence issues and things like that. But that doesn't seem to be the biggest hole that we're seeing in our spectrum of resources as well as ordinances is what I'm hearing. I have a question for Eugene. Can I ask? Well, yeah, that's just a good step in direction. Okay. Well, it was just about the Boise case. So if we, if an individual, according to that case, my understanding, right from wrong, is that if we have available shelter or available space, we can legally remove them from a park or a public space. Generally, yes. Boise is the 9th circuit where this 10th circuit, so it's not finding precedent here. We have breaks that follow the Boise guidelines. Okay. So I mean, and that was one of the response to ACLU. Yeah, and we're working on space, but for our staff's time, I think that you're all right because it would be a great discussion of all council and to bring in, as we did some of those community meetings, the resource people who let hope tell us what they're facing, what they see every day, and hope would house people at the land fighter who need to say no more. And the cannolite, which is having problems right now. So it isn't easy to take a person and say housing first. Right. Yeah, because the... Good question. I know they do point in time. And I would like that point in time to be in the middle of the summer. And also to kind of separate out if possible how many could be caused by the service resistance. So that would help, I think, figure out how much resources at a time that we should allocate towards that specific subgroup. I think that would be very helpful. So let's think of a time when we could actually... Why don't we do it at a point in time? Usually. Yeah, so we're getting better data sets now because of L there and the work we're doing. And then we recently had a conversation with the county about sharing data sets because that was a big part of the problem is what we were just spending, we didn't have access. So we kind of overcame that problem about a month and a half ago. And so the data's going to start to kind of work better to us. You know, we know we had 1,900 interactions of which it was 348 unique individuals. Average number of contacts per individual is 5. You know, 85 or vital documents that we received, 28 coordinated entries, screens completely complete, 18 housing assessments, 302 referrals, 14 benefit applications, and 13 completed referrals verified. So you're starting to see how it's moving through. Yeah. The issue that we're now starting to see with the, you know, service-resistant is that, and we actually didn't talk about this in the housing, we talked about housing advisory board this meeting, is addiction to fentanyl fluid. And then, you know, Sarah talked about for now kind of fentanyl with another drug. Zilazine. Zilazine, which is absolutely, it's Narcan issues. Well, it's also, Zilazine apparently calls, Zilazine also causes major infections. And so what you're exciting is we're dealing with people that won't even go to the hospital, and they have massive infections that are going to be in there. But it's all because they don't want to stop taking fentanyl. And so, you know, the challenges we're moving through here, the thing I would say is we're having this conversation is resources are going to be an issue. Financial resources are going to be an issue. And, you know, there will have to be a decision-making process. If we're going to do this, then we're going to have to stop doing this, just because of the limitation on the money. Other than, you know, that we've used service-resistant, service-defiant, which are the, like the guy with the abscesses, or also like the guy that was pitching his tent out there, who really doesn't have any problems, except he thinks this is right to be out in the Odin River, camped on public property and using their math to this. Those are service-defiant people. I think that what was presented to the faith community is making the upper half or third of service-resistant because it's people whose resistance is based on a barrier, right? Either they have a glorophobia for being homeless for such a long time, or they have an attachment to a pet, or an attachment to a person, because a couple can't, regardless of the nature of the couple, they can't sleep together at home. And, you know, so all of those were those barriers. I agree with that completely, but if we can separate and offer to people who want to learn, who want help, who want that would limit the interaction of the severely housed who do not want to be announced, interacting with people who really would like to be housed. And that would help all of us. So, we have two more things that we need to do. So, can we think about if anybody wants to make a motion at some time, maybe, I don't know when the time will be, it would be up to staff to have this discussion and make it only this discussion, with motions and no, I'm talking about at some point. But maybe like designating a study session specifically. I like who we would like to come. Yes, that's an important part of the discussion, because I think that that we will suspects are moving out. Well, I think Jennifer Little-Bitch is a great resource if she's willing to have it. Brian Forbes. Brian Forbes, okay. Because of his experience. No, because of justice before, you could speak to the idea of drug courts and drug jails. Well, I agree, we have less like jail and jail to be arrested. Well, that's that, the versification. Yes. Let's just say you had to go with the top third of the service was a certified, it's kind of below any group. Obviously, that's the first thing you start, usually. Is it because of the beds? I mean, they're not the ones that get the residents of their arms. They could be still. Yes. So let's get the the effort like you suggested. I think it's a great idea. And whoever wants to make that motion, you want to look at the calendar yourself to see what's going to decide what study session. Well, next week, the motion to be made an actual speaker. And then, at that time, we can maybe, you know, put it, figure out for most ourselves a list of speakers. And then when the motion is made, we can ask for, you know, to send that list to the Senate. And I think we got to be very specific to the speakers that we're not asking them to give an overview of what they're doing. We're asking them to give us their opinion of where the goal is. Yeah, the behavioral issues that we're talking about. Yeah. And then we want to know what they're seeing and what their data is telling them in regards to what that we were referring to the whole. Because I don't think we have the time to have them kind of give a real overview of what they do, but more assume that most people watching have a clue about what their goal is if they want to do a mission statement and go into that. Short presentations and then availability for back and forth in the council. So, um... Are you going to have the sheriff in the county there? Yes. Yeah. Or something. Maybe somebody in PA, maybe somebody in the sheriff's department. They're not just over shelter because Jones Wright, they have wanders on. Yeah. They've got their mission. Right. But we're breaking that barrier. And to the point about bringing the churches back in to Harold's point, they want to donate. So we're trying to figure out what kind of a process or mechanism do we need to let them do that so that it's not specific for one specific detail in the process, but for whatever we need to be driving on those sites. So it's a lot of examination. I'm going to move on because they do have two things here that I need to bring up. The first one is... No, we're not going to do that. Okay. So I have personal email from the resident about a post on social media by a council person that they were very, very unhappy about. I sent it to Eugene and Harold for consultation. And so I have to address... But we are a self-policing body. It is not up to me to address this, so I'm bringing it to you. I'm going to hand you the... I made a copy of the post. So I want you to read it and then we're going to go around the table for comments. But there are some questions I want you to answer while you're reading it. First of all, is this the type of behavior we respect with our counselors? What actions should we take if any? The possibilities are do nothing, reprimand, censure, remove as liaison from boards and commissions. That those are options that we have any comments at all. So I do want to talk to you also after this about the pumpkin body to be heard comment that I made. So let's make our comments on this thing and then your action is in there. So the email I got said is this what the employee... basically what the employees of the city is this subject. We are not employees of the city. We're employees of the residents. So much of a start with you. I think you should. First of all, this is taken up extremely out of context. Second, it's on my personal Facebook page and the thing that it sells on my personal Facebook page is this is my first personal Facebook page. Nothing I say here is speaking for the city of Longmont or the city of or the city council of Longmont. What was happening was these were posts in about the incursion of homeless people into Dickenshorn Park. We might go to the memorial day and everybody was upset because they were scared of homeless people and they wanted to go too big. And the discussion was about constitutional rights. They would say, why are these people there? Why don't you just run them out of town? And I said, they have constitutional rights. They can't be moved along until they've been ticketed. I went back and forth with the rangers and police and Harold all about what could be done or could not be done. And it was essentially trying to say, you have to treat homeless people like people. And I don't remember what the previous thing was, but yeah, the like that you don't want our systems to work. That was the acquisition that the acquisition that Pinsker had made to me. And I mean, this guy has a thing for me. So for example, I was involved with an anti-Valentine's Day pinata event at Longmont Public Media. And anti-Valentine's Day is a joke, right? I mean, it's a thing for singles who are not partnered and are not going to be partnered and nobody's buying them dinner. And so, you know, it's to make fun of them. Well, this guy thinks that a woman is getting out of her place as she makes from a Valentine's Day because she's threatening the male supremacist version of the male-female bond. And he said as much to me. And in fact, this thread has a perhaps a reference all the way back to that. So I think that first of all, I was acting properly. Second, this guy is out to discredit me. And third of all, it's a free speech on my Facebook, on my personal Facebook page. This isn't really about what the other person did. This is really about your post. I guess I have a question. So, um, Erin? Well, no, it's giving me more thoughts. Oh, no, they're not here for this. Are you here for the L.A. J. meeting? Yes, we are. Okay, then we haven't started yet. That's at 70. Oh, you're fine. Yeah, I guess my question is that if one of us had said all the stuff that you had said and posted all of that saying that this was your private Facebook page and everything like that, but the table's returned and it was one of your colleagues here, how would you feel? I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just, I, uh, so maybe, you know, you're a commanding teacher and an advisor to students with student groups, you know, I often talk to them about, you know, your outward face on social media and nobody wants to take away anybody's civil rights or anything like that. It's just, you know, part of the thing that we do as adults is try to model them what is the best way to do things. And probably when the internet was kind of young and Twitter was kind of young and 15 years ago and everybody was kind of shooting from the hip front, this sort of thing was more common because people didn't really know how long it would stay out there and perpetuate the society, but at this point we know that everything we ever put out in the internet at any point was there, you know, for forever. Yeah. So, um, Tim, Erin, and Cece, do you hear anything else? Well, yeah, I was, I wasn't going to weigh anything. I'm sorry, Erin. No, no, no, I was, you know, I totally raised my hand for a different reason, which was addressed. I will say personally that unless it's a leading counsel, say this, I believe it is a freedom of speech issue personally. It's stylistically not me. I don't, I don't engage on Facebook. I find it personally at least in my time, but more powerful. I should have a lot of times. I'll be honest with you. I, you know, I raised my little defiant resistance fist. You tell them, you know. And so I can't condemn it because to me it doesn't break any rules. It's not, again, not stylistically what I would do, but I don't, I don't, I think, you know, I'm capable of teachers that you're trying to set a good example. And I wish politicians at large would actually try to set that example. Maybe that's simply not the truth and not technically their jobs either. But, and so therefore I don't think it's March's job to teach a teenager how to be civil on social media. And so having seen many interactions, someone similar to this, I think that March knows a good job of separating the counsel's position and her position. And I therefore don't take issue with how she uses Facebook. Okay. So thank you for bringing that up. Because we do teach digital responsibility. Citizenship. Yeah, citizenship. So it's under digital literacy, but a portion of it is on our citizenship and conducting ourselves. One of the frustrations that I have since being on council, and this is not in relation to the particular, but I think I've had a conversation with you. I know I've had conversations with Sandy is, you know, and why my desire to see our rules of procedure updated that includes a social media component. You know, and I don't see any reference to her, you know, on this particular one, looking at that as a, you know, her identifying as a counsel or, you know, to what parents point that we are a counsel, that we use a counsel to believe this. So, but, you know, again, it's like our rules of procedure are very big. And it doesn't like what particular, you know, I think about when, as in my union capacity, we're dealing with members who are being recommended for whatever issue, you know, we go, we comb through the master agreement, which violation occurred here. We swole through our, our board policy, what, what component was violated here. And because I'm kind of scrolling up and down our own rules of procedure, what violation specifically can we pinpoint here, you know, because then it becomes our, our own personal assumption of, okay, well, this person said this, and then therefore that's a violation. It becomes very subjective. Okay. So, yeah, you know, my, my opinion is you need to update this, though, including some kind of social media component and how do we address that? Yeah, and again, like, this is not how I would, I don't know. So you're, you're okay with the, um, of the pre-speak. I think, you know, there is a fine line between that is, that it was free speech. Okay. Yeah. Jim? Well, it's not a fine line for me. It's, I don't care. Honestly, with any of you, put it in Facebook pages, unless you were representing me or city council, you're doing so, then I would care about it. Marsha can, whatever Marsha wants to deal with her Facebook pages, have a Marsha. Personally, I'm spending a lot of time in, in social media space. And if I was going to, here's just the honest truth, Jim, if I was going to make a list of things that I think to be egregious, that are far more, for me, a much bigger issue than this, are things that happen in the council chamber that, that, that we do in public. Honestly, if I was going to pick off things to, to, to, to take on, it wouldn't be this. Well, I just have to answer this, right? Yeah, I'm not going to do the one way, so I wanted your opinion. My response would be to say, if somebody wrote me an email complaining about any, well, any of the council members Facebook pages, I'd say social media is, is not the purview. We don't have policies that govern social media. That is you, it's the wild west. I'm spending a lot of time in there. Communicate, you can communicate directly to Marsha, this is Marsha Martin, write your letter to the editor, do whatever you think you need to do, go run for office, go support a candidate, but you've got to have an address, not a peel box to do that. No support a candidate, said tongue-in-cheek messages. First person, I just don't think, and I, and I think if we start down that path, then if I get emails about you, about other council members, do I bring that here? Somebody's complaining about something that happened or didn't happen? Well, you know, we brought this up in a retreat about social media. So for me, this is a good place to start as we look at real procedure and we look at decorum. We now have an opinion out there of the majority of council, and that's what I want. This isn't me either, right, in terms of my... No, I would never say those things to anybody or anybody, except me. For me? No, your language. Well, this is... I haven't given up the floor yet, have I? No, no, say it is me. In the retreat when we talked about social media, now, I took my cues from Sandy earlier. If you, you know, if you do this, actually, I've seen air postings from, from Erin, right, with information about the city, which she does a really good job of. I envy what Erin does on social media and on Facebook, bringing to attention, to attention about public things that are going on in the city. It's like, why does she look at it? They didn't keep sitting in front of it. So I appreciate it. Thinking I might do the same thing, but the caution from Sandy was be careful, right, on social media, because of what you can and can't do, who do you have to allow? I said, screw that. I am, I'll let him do it. Right, I'm just going to leave Jim. Right, and I'm going to spend much time with social media. Yeah, I think I just... Today, there was, there was a case that brought, that said that public officials can now block people. That's my recommendation to you, and I wasn't trying to be critical in this sense there, in regards to, I probably wouldn't use all this cultural language that's, that's your business, to tennis point two and Erin's, but, but I, you know, I would probably block this guy and give him out of your life, because he's clearly irritant. Yeah, so, okay, I have a really quick, I have a couple of questions. A lot of you guys recognizing that, was this on your personal page or voice-up online? Okay, so that's my personal account. That's your personal account. So that's, you know, that, that is also a factor. The other, and I was going to ask a question, and I, I totally would skip my mind. Oh, I guess, no, it was the impacts to staff. That was the only thing that makes me cautious about ever posting anything, even if it's something very benign or informational, is if it is not totally, I get worried that if it could get taken out of context or escalating the impacts, get the impacts that it has on, it calls it staff receipt. That would be my, my only concern as a word of caution. Okay, Marcia, Q, oh, we're almost there, hurry. Yeah, so I guess the thing that I would like, so we're, we're looking at, I said, this is a stupid way of posting at this world, and do I have to be a freedom-gaming authority or a hothead to do my job? And, and it's almost as if those are the only things in the post. But really, what the post is about, Marcia, I, I'm going to cut you off there, because you do that. Yeah, a lot. I do. And the reason is, I want, what I wanted from this group, and I got it, was not what the other person said, that's irrelevant. No, I wanted to talk about what I said, Joan. Okay. All right. What I wanted to talk about was, you don't have the right to run homeless people out on the rail. That was the statement that preceded this, and it resulted in me getting, getting, I don't know, it's going to take longer than more often that I'm interrupted. That me getting called someone who wanted chaos and wanted the system to break down. Thank you. So that, so you think, because I defend the rights of people, people believe that I don't want our systems to work. I want our systems to work. The truth is that everybody with the city works as hard as they can to make this a good place. Heart of keeping you all safe is helping you understand everyone's rights and responsibilities. Do you know that nobody called to complain about the campers? And that's the citizens' rights and responsibilities. If I had not responded to the Facebook Dickens reports, because nobody bothered to call, they just went posted it on Facebook, then other things going on elsewhere in the city by the testimony of the city manager would have been prioritized above this, which now these people would have continued to be unhappy. So even though I'm doing it as myself an engaged but fairly relevant citizen, I am in fact doing my best to get people to act right by educating them. And if you look at that dialogue, that's the spring under that post, go count the likes and see who the public in general agrees with. Count them. That's all I want you to say. All right, so I will just answer this gentleman as you directed to tell him it's free speech and that she has the right to say whatever she wants and that that's what social media is basically. I'm sorry, I wanted to talk to you about the, which is why I kept trying to move this on, about the public right to be heard, but it is seven o'clock and we have the LHG. So thank you all. Should we adjourn? Yes.