 in time this evening. So we'll, I mean, this afternoon, sorry I'm used to these evening meetings. So we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order at 12 of civil authority to order at 1205. The first item on the agenda is the agenda. May I please have a motion on the agenda? I would move to approve the agenda. Second. Seconded by motion by Councillor Stromberg. Seconded by Councillor Paul. Any discussion? Okay, not seen any. So we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of approving the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. That carries unanimously. Brings us to our second item, which is the public forum. Folks are interested in commenting for the public forum. I do see one person signed up who is in attendance, but others are interested. You can go to burlingtonbt.gov slash public slash city council slash public forum. That's burlingtonbt.gov slash city council slash public forum. If you'd like to sign up and speak at the public forum, I will go to our first speaker, Robert Bristow-Johnson, and enable your microphone. Robert, you should be enabled and go ahead. All right, so this'll be very quick. And I know that this isn't about today's agenda. It's going to be about a decision you're gonna make, I believe, on February 7th, because it's not going to be evidently on January 31st. However, in the consent agenda of January 31st for the regular city council meeting, I have placed a communications there that I am inviting you to look at. It's for the Board of Civil Authority. It's about the house redistricting. And what is going to happen, what should happen, is you should already have a communication from the state legislature about the alternative, the alternate LAB map, which is a map that has a mixture of two-member and single-member districts. And it's much better than the single-member district map for all the reasons that I spelled out before. But I have, and there's some legislators looking at this, I am submitting a map for your consideration that is five two-member districts. And it really cleans up the map. And I'm hoping that you can pay some close attention to it because there are some legislators that are. And on February 7th, you actually have a heavy responsibility that the 13 of you will literally decide what map we're gonna be looking at for the next 10 years because there is no conflict with neighboring cities. And the House Government Operations Committee will likely take whatever recommendation you guys have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. We will have that issue on a future agenda. Don't see anybody else is having signed up for this particular public forum. So we will close that public forum and move right into the next item, which is the reason why we're here today. Regarding the requirement that the home address be on the ballot. So I just wanted to put that out there. And first, let's go to item 3.01. So I'll go to city attorney Richardson first for just an explanation of the situation and some of the legal issues that are intersecting with it. So city attorney Richardson, are you just able to clarify what the issue is and what we're gonna be discussing or what we're being asked to do today? Absolutely. So what this is is that Burlington currently requires the home addresses of candidates to be printed beneath their name on the ballot. And this was a decision that the best estimates my office can find occurred sometime, probably in the 1980s, that the board of civil authority elected to do this. Although I cannot find in this research which board of civil authority, the nature of the decision and subsequent boards of civil authority have not raised this discussion. So why this came to our attention in particular this year was there is a candidate who has requested not to have the address printed beneath their name in part because of safety concerns and they appear to be legitimate and certainly grounded in reality. And when we went to look at this issue, we realized that the statute under title 17, section 2681A allows the board of civil authority to change this and there are essentially three options for the city council. I mean, sorry, the board of civil authority to do. One is to have addresses which is sort of the status quo in current situation. The other is to just simply require the town of residence for the candidate. And the third is to not have anything. Beneath the candidate's names. And I can say as I can offer this additional background in some of the legal issues which are, I would say memorialized in the public memo that I attached to this particular item. One is, I think Burlington's a bit of an outlier in requiring home addresses to be put onto the ballot and a number of towns do require the town of residence to be put beneath the candidate's names. And some don't require anything at all, but I know I cannot identify any other town or city of municipality that requires actual home addresses. But by no means was my research seeking to find out whether that was definitive. I can just simply say it's just not common. The two, I think legal questions, one that comes up, well, will this cause a loss of ability to essentially check a candidate's residence and know what happens when a petitioner files is that they do include their home residence that's essentially checked when they petition as well as being a registered voter, they will have an address on file that is available to the town. So there is a sort of safeguard in that respect. And the other issue is whether or not the requirement of having someone put their home address essentially is an unconstitutional impediment to standing as a candidate. And I raised this, I don't have anywhere near a definitive answer, but I think there's an argument that could be made that if a candidate had a legitimate reason not to put a home address on, and they were otherwise qualified, but were effectively disqualified for refusing to put their home address on, they may have a cause of action seeking essentially a violation of their rights under the Vermont Constitution, which does guarantee qualified voters the right to run as a candidate for office. I'm not saying a challenge would be successful in any way, shape, or means because clearly the statute and there are policy reasons to have the address requirement, but it is not without insubstantial consideration. And I think it's important underlining and emphasizing what the Vermont Constitution intends, which is that anyone who is qualified as a voter should have the opportunity to be a candidate. That these, we're not intending to create election terms as barriers to running for office. So those are the considerations, what the Port of Civil Authority can do, I would suggest is one of three things. And I've laid these out as potential motions. They could take a very sort of piecemeal approach and say, well, we've got this one particular issue, let's grant this person a waiver and make sure that that person doesn't have to put their address on there, but everybody else continues to do so and we'll take this on an ad hoc basis. The other is to just simply refuse a request and say, no, this is an important thing. This is a strong tradition and this is something the voters expect. So we're gonna keep it on and everybody has to follow the same rules. And the third option is for the Port of Civil Authority to say, this doesn't seem like a sensible way to go forward, let's just remove this and either replace it with a requirement that everyone puts their town of residence and or simply no identifier of this sort as is allowed under the statute. And so those are the options before you for this particular issue and some of the thinking and reasoning behind and if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to ask for those. Okay, great. Thank you for that. And I just note that a Councilor Mason has joined us on the phone and is I'm gonna be participating that way. So I have Councilor Hightower to be followed by Councilor Hansen. Councilor Hightower. If folks aren't opposed to it, I would just be ready to make a motion. That sounds good. Go ahead. Great. I move that we end the address requirements as committed by section 2681AB2 and either and eliminate any such requirement. Okay, so we have a motion from Councilor Hightower. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councilor Stromberg. Did you want the floor back, Councilor Hightower? Yeah, which is just to say that I think that, especially given the last two years and some of the actions that have been taken against Councilors, I think it's been, I didn't even know that we didn't have a requirement for Councilors and for any elected official to have their address on the city website. And I wanna move towards eliminating that. And I think this is the first step in not having candidates have their exact address on the ballot. And I think it's just a better move, especially again, given some of the actions that have been taken against folks. Great, thank you for that, Councilor Hightower. Councilor Hanson, were you looking to get in still or? Sure, yeah, I agree, I support that. And my only question is, and I agree too, with the I don't see a benefit of putting Burlington as the town of residence because that's already a given. But my only question, does this specifically apply to local races only? Or is this decision impacting other races? Unless this decision would impact all ballot items, unless you'd specify it. And I guess what I would recommend not doing it one way for one set of candidates and another for another set of candidates for a different office. So, oh, sorry. Oh, I was just gonna say, I mean, so, having, for example, statewide candidates have to put their home address. I don't think you want that as what we're local candidates don't or, and it may seem redundant to sort of put local candidates as Burlington, Vermont, but I think it's having one rule is allows us to be simplified and avoids the issue from a technical point of view of having people trying to remember as they're assembling the ballots, whether this is a race that requires someone to put their town of residence or not. That's the only thing that I would recommend is just make sure that you don't end up with two different rules that creates the potential for mix ups. Interesting, okay. Well, yeah, if this is for all Burlington ballots, then I actually would support the town of residence aspect because I think for statewide races, state Senate, all of that, I do think it's relevant where someone lives to a voters decision-making. So I'll let councilor Barlow go first, but I might just make that amendment. Thanks. Okay, great. Thanks, councilor Hanson. Go ahead, councilor Barlow to be followed by councilor Stromberg. Thank you. I'm willing to echo councilor Hanson's sentiments. I think that, especially for statewide races, I'm thinking of senatorial races and even some other statewide races, it is important to know the town of residence for the candidate. So I would be supportive of that amendment. Okay, great. Councilor Stromberg. Hi, thanks. Yeah, very supportive of all of this and that makes sense. I just have one question. For the current listing of councilor and just kind of generally public people, their addresses on the website, would this also include that being taken down because if we're changing that and new councilors come on, it would then not be listed. Is that correct? So that's actually the next item of business and that doesn't have to be, that's actually even a lower threshold. That's just simply directing the town clerk. It doesn't require, and frankly, if that was the only concern that was active, we wouldn't have to do a board of civil authority meeting. We would just have essentially tried to get, but given that we had the board of civil authority, I added it, I recommended that be added just simply so that there could be a public discussion in case there was some objection from some corner, but that doesn't require as formal of an action. Okay, thanks so much. Thank you. All right, councilor Hanson. Yes, I'll move to amend the motion to insert a town of residents requirement. Okay, moved by councilor Hanson, seconded by councilor Hightower. Any, did you want the floor back, councilor Hanson? Okay, any discussion? Councilor Paul. I'm assuming that councilor Hanson means a town requirement for races that are not in Burlington, meaning if it's for city council, you live in Burlington. If it's for school board, you live in Burlington. If it's for house rep, you live in Burlington. If it's for state Senate, you may or may not live in Burlington, at least for now, as long as we have the current six Chittenden County senators or for statewide races. So I just wanted to clarify, it wouldn't appear that we need to put Burlington if it's a Burlington race. Councilor Hanson, are you able to clarify? Yeah, well, I would look to the city attorney because I thought what I had heard was that from the city attorney, there was, this is something that applies across that spectrum, which was why I made the amendment. So maybe the city attorney can clarify. It may seem redundant on Burlington centric races where the basic qualification is that the person be from resident of Burlington, but my recommendation is that it's just simply one rule rather than creating sort of two tiers so that if it's a school board race, we don't have to add the town, but if it's a Senate race where the person may not necessarily reside in Burlington, they would have to. And so that way, even though it may seem silly that the Burlington City Council race for a particular ward, they all list their residence as Burlington, that way it's just sort of a no-brainer for the people putting the ballots together that they put the town beneath it and they don't have to guess whether this is a Burlington specific race or not as the rules allow. And that way it's just across the board. Okay, that answers my question. Thank you very much. Okay, any further discussion on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, let's go to a vote on the amendment to add in the town of residence piece. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously and we are back to the original motion as amended. Any further discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of adopting the motion as amended to remove residential addresses but to still list a town of residence on the ballot. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that carries unanimously. Appreciate that and it brings us to item 3.02 which is consideration of removal of elected officers home addresses from the city website. Is there a motion on this one? Councilor Hightower. I'll, I think, I don't know if Councilor Powell had a question or a discussion. Okay, then I'll move to direct the city clerk and or the CEO staff to remove the home addresses of elected officials keeping just email addresses and or telephone numbers. Okay, is that a second Councilor McGee? Yes. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Councilor Hightower, did you want the floor back? No. So, okay, I see Councilor Powell to be followed by Councilor Barlow enhancing. Go ahead, Councilor Powell. Thanks. I just can't let the opportunity go by without saying that I feel badly that we're doing this in the sense not that we're doing it for not good reasons. I think we are doing it and I'm actually in some ways, I'm glad that this has come forward because as Councilor Hightower said, I think to some degree, perhaps this is a reflection on so much of what has gone on in the last couple of years. I just think it's really unfortunate. It's sort of like, for those of us who are old enough to remember when you, when Burlington, nobody locked their doors, now we're in a situation where we have to go one step further in being able to protect not only our own some level of privacy, but also for that of our families. And I think that's really unfortunate, but I'm supportive of this and hope that that will be, that that will remove an impediment if there has ever been an impediment for people running who feel that that's just too much, and they wanna be, and they wanna have a little bit more ability to separate the office from where they live which is a legitimate rate. I hope that this will be one less impediment to people running. Thanks very much, President Tracy. Thank you, Councilor Powell. I have Councilor Barlow to be followed by Hanson and McGee. Thank you, President Tracy. I just two comments on this. One is that I think we shouldn't kid ourselves and believe that by removing our home addresses that people won't know where we live. I think that technology is such that that information is readily available from a lot of different sources, but I am supportive of this and I do recognize how the level of discourse has sort of eroded over the last few years. And I agree with Councilor Powell that it's really unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we're worried about our safety as elected officials. The other thing though I wanted to say is I have constituents who actually send me postal mail. Many of them are older, but I do get occasional mail from folks. And I'm wondering if we've anticipated how we'll continue to do that if we remove our street addresses from the ballot. So I guess I would suggest that one potential way to handle that is to have some direction on the city website that postal mail for city councilors go to an address at the city and then gets forwarded from the city clerk's office. I don't know if the city attorney had any recommendations on that. Attorney Richardson or CAO Schad? Sure, I'll step up. CAO Schad may have different, but that's certainly, that's what a lot of municipalities do is that postal mail for city councilors comes in to the town office and it's set aside and usually the administrative assistant will, for either the clerk's office or in another office will scan and forward it to city councilors. In fact, I just received a piece of mail that was addressed to me in my former position as a city councilor in my failure that happened to be postally mailed. And so I think that that's a system that works. It's a central place and I don't think it's a big burden on the city resources. And we would, we would, we could certainly say, if you wish to contact a councilor by mail, this is the address and use the city hall address. Okay, CAO Schad, do you concur with that? I concur with that. And I do think we have the resources to move forward with that, especially with the new administrative assistant you just approved this past Monday. So thanks and yes, happy to do that. Great. Okay, councilor Barlow. Yes, I am. Thank you. Councilor Hanson to be followed by councilor McGee. Great, yeah, no, I agree with all that. That's what I was going to raise. I think just making it really clear how folks can get mailed to us. And yeah, I've received mail that's been forwarded from I think the city clerk's office or definitely from city hall. So we clearly are capable and I think just making it clear for people. But I support this, thanks. Great, councilor McGee, were you still interested in getting in? Is there a hand go down? Raise the same point, so. Okay, great. Anything else, folks? Okay, not seeing any. Let's go to a vote on the motion to take councilor residential addresses off of the city website, but to keep the phone numbers and emails on the website. All those in favor of that motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. So that passes. CAO Schatt, are you able to? I'm sorry, just one point of information. Sure. Because you said city councilors, but I think we just specified for generally elected officials in the motion. Oh, right. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that. Do I need to take a revoke, councilor city attorney on that? Okay. All right. CAO Schatt, are you able to work with your team to make that happen? Yes, absolutely. I think that can happen fairly quickly and we'll send out an email confirming when that's done. Wonderful. Really appreciate your assistance on this. Thanks so much. All right. That concludes our agenda for this evening. Well, we have new businesses or any new business other than that. Okay. Hearing any will move motion to adjourn as an order. So moved. Moved by councilor Stromberg, seconded by councilor Hightower. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. We are adjourned at 12.30. Thanks all. See y'all on Monday. Good day. Yep. Have a good weekend.