Good. All right. Uh, with time being 5:30 on Tuesday, February 10th, I'd like to go ahead and call the appointments committee meeting to order. If the clerk would please call the role. >> Councelor Keith, >> present. >> Councelor Hegler,
>> present. >> Councelor Kazinskis, >> present. All right. Um, announcement of open meeting recordings. Uh, it's posted on the wall. Um, anyone here recording besides staff? There is none
reading of minutes of prior meetings October 14th, 2025. >> Mr. Chair, I recommend I move that we wave the reading of the minutes acceptance presented. >> Second. >> All right. Uh the readings of the minutes
have been you want to wave them. Sorry. All right. Reading of minutes be wave by councelor Kazinskus, seconded by councelor Heglin. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. All right. Interview
of the following appointees. There are none. Resignations. There are none. With that being said, if there's no objection, I would like to go ahead and bring item 11784 of communications
um up and I have President Tyrros here to go ahead and uh explain it. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate uh you having me and the committee entertaining my letter uh that I had sent in. Uh this item is related to uh during the auditor search committee
meeting it was brought to the council's attention that job descriptions were reviewed and some may have been modified uh by department heads during uh 2025. I printed out uh for everyone here and could pass that to clerk for a copy.
Chapter three of our city code personnel appointments and employment uh section six job descriptions. A all positions in the city shall have a job description outlining the duties of the position on file in the city's human resources department that has been
approved by both majority vote of the city council and the mayor. B. any changes made to the job description of a position of a department head must be first approved by a majority vote of the city council before becoming effective. Uh it's specifically um section B that
caught my attention when I had reviewed the remaining minutes uh and heard that job descriptions were modified. Uh it flagged to me that this was a change that was done from the administrative legislation that the mayor proposed uh in 2024. >> Yes. >> So 2024. So, this is something uh net
new for the council and the mayor to coordinate on. Uh previously, job descriptions were codified in our city ordinance. Uh now we there's a new process that needs to be followed. I think it would be good uh for this committee especially with its position
reviewing appointments um to review the job descriptions for department heads that are on file. Uh and we should start with the department heads in my opinion. Um basically start fresh. go through um each department head in sections, maybe five, six at a time. I would leave it to
the committee to to um group them and review with the mayor and HR um the job descriptions. Uh if any changes are made, formally review them and approve them and present them to the council for uh
formal incompliance vote to approve them. That way we can start uh fresh uh and be in compliance with this ordinance. >> Um any questions, any comments? >> Um thank you for for bringing this up. I
appreciate it. I um I remember those those kind of comments that you know when things were being reviewed for the salary proposal that maybe there were some changes and people were proposing, well, I don't do this so much anymore. I do this now. Um, and I truly I sort of forgotten about it. Um, but I do it's a
good catch and I think a good flag that we probably haven't done this in a while. We probably need to. I don't know in my time that we've ever done part A. Um, approving job descriptions L. And that's could be because there was no changes. It could be because, but it's it's something in my few years that I don't think we've ever had the
opportunity to kind of complete that or do a review like this. Uh, and I'm sure some things have got to have changed over the years. Um, so I really appreciate the flagging us and bringing this to our attention. I think the appropriates committee is a great place to start with this. Um, thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, uh, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think it's important to do it. I don't recall doing it. I know, you know, things have changed obviously with the um um with the
process that we we're going to be doing this under anyways. Um and I think that if we go through the department heads, like you said, just to be clear, Mr. President, to go through the department heads review with the mayor and HR, we make
changes in committee presented to the council. That is the process, right? We haven't done that before. um when we did the updates to the administrative legislation um which was a lengthy process because we did a lot all at once
um I think that's this is a product of that so this is kind of like the next step to do so she put it into practice and uh that was you know something that we took our time on because there was so much detail to it and these have a lot
of detail to them as well and there was a lot of updating that went along with that if anything on the job descriptions, which I think council health kind of just alluded to. If anything, there's there's just updating to do. There's things that may have just changed. And in the end, the quality of those job descriptions affects the quality of the people that we hire and
the people that we attract to apply for those positions. Um, and now we have an appointments committee that we've had now for a couple of years. It's evolving as we've gone and this is sounds like it makes sense to put it under um the jurisdiction of this committee right now. So, I'm really glad that you brought this forward because it seems
like it's like a natural evolution of this process and kind of what we've been doing over the last couple of years. So, thank you for bringing it forward. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a great idea. Um, when I saw the council president uh brought this up, I thought it was a honestly a
next logical step for us to do. uh because when this section of the ordinance code didn't exist before we did the administrative legislation update uh because some department heads had their as the council president said earlier job descriptions codified in ordinance and others didn't um just like one of the things that I think I
mentioned before is some departments have their department codified in ordinance and others don't which is something that we're looking at doing right now so I view that in the same main uh vein of we're just cleaning things up and getting things the way they should be doing and starting everyone out on the same slate um
whatever the committee needs uh to get this process done. We're happy to give you all the information that we can give you uh to make it happen. >> I think the streamline piece of it is what you just hit on. And I think that was well that was part of the administrative legislation for this piece. That was the point of doing it. That was the cleanup piece. So, um I
think now we have we have work to do because we did that. So, I appreciate that. And also just maybe this is maybe a technical question but however we decide to do this and you know at the discretion of the chair the you know having HR director here at these
meetings or whether you two meet and then we all then she also joins us at this meeting so you've had a chance to discuss it first with you know >> I don't know if there's a preference on any of that or we need to get into that now but that's just kind of what I'm thinking because um it will require her presence here but maybe you two should
sit down and look at them first I don't know. Just thinking too because >> it's coming from her department too. >> Um and that it just might make things more efficient in these meetings. Just my suggestion. >> Yeah. Um, first of all, thank you for bringing
this to her attention. And I I I really um going off for what council member consensus just said, being on the um being on the special committee for the um auditor search, you know, those descriptions or titles or um
responsibilities that were just finalized back last January, we kind of had to go ahead and go change in what November, I think it was. you know, um just the wording and everything else just to be able to go ahead and put it out there for a hire to go ahead and go
see. So, I think um looking into a little bit deeper like you have here, we'll definitely go ahead and like you said, put everybody on a clean slate, let everyone know exactly what the responsibilities are, make sure everyone's on the same page. So, I I I think this is great.
>> So, >> um is there a motion to keep this on file? more discussion on measurements. >> I if if appropriate, I I'd recommend to place this on file because uh the way I envision is there to be some coordination with the mayor and the
chair and obviously director Morse uh to just propose a start. I think it just be matter of starting picking a handful of department head job descriptions and bringing them to the committee and reviewing them. Um so I'd move the places I move that. >> All right. Um
Presidentos makes a motion to put I'll make sure I say it correctly. Uh, item 11784, Department head department head job description review on file, seconded by councelor Heglin. All those in favor? >> Do we have discussion?
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Is there any discussion? >> Yep. So, just just for so for clarification, we'll place this on file and then the next time um because we are doing a review like of the way our committee works. So, the way we would do this next is um
the chair and and the mayor and the director would coordinate, but to get on the our agenda, the the recommendation is to like make a new item for the agenda or should we place it under something we have already? I mean, I don't know. >> That's a great mind. >> Actually, thank you, council, because I
think it's good to be clear. So the way I envision this moving forward is that a new item would be created that lists out the departments that job descriptions are to be reviewed and then uh the committee just keeps you know a new item gets once those x number of job descriptions are reviewed and dispensed
of um move on to the next create an item. >> So like Roman numeral job descriptions to be reviewed underneath it um a fivedigit numbered item kind of like we did do under discussions on appointees or whatever we listed specific ones. Okay. Exactly. And then at the council level, we can put an item under
appointments to um for that same item number with the jobs descriptions for the department heads. That way, it's just transparent the whole way through. The committees discussing these departments uh job descriptions, council's voting on these ones. >> So, the clerk takes the item number off
of this, takes exact item and they can just put it right on to the council. >> Exactly. All consistent. >> Thank you. >> So, it would be the same item number with under it, right? 1784. >> Yeah. Cory on ABCD, how would the chairs handle it?
>> So, um again, motion to put this on file um by C um President Tyrus. Um department head job description review that was seconded by councelor Heglin. All those in favor? >> I I
>> All those against motion pass to put this on file. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having me. No problem. >> Drive safe. >> Okay. So, we go back right to the beginning of discussion of appointees.
Um item 11628, a measure confirming the mayor's appointment of Greg Pumis to the position of conservation commission member. Um for term expiring August 21st, 2028. Before we go ahead, we this is the new process that we are starting
where we interviewed all of these um that are on the discussion list this week. We interviewed them at the last meeting. So this is basically how we'll be going forward. Um so again this is item 11628 a measure confirming the mayor's appointment of
breakd position of conservation commission member for a term expiring August 21st 2028. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Um move to recommend to the full council the measure be confirmed. >> Second. >> All right. Um
I'm sorry. Um um councelor Heglin, you want to go ahead and you said to >> recommend >> recommend. Sorry. Okay. Recommendation coming from councelor Hegman, seconded by councelor Kazinskis. Um a motion confirming the mayor's appointment with
Greg Dumis to be confirmed. Um is there any any discussion? >> I just Mr. Dumis did send a letter after the last appointments committee meeting that I did forward off to the committee. So I just to just put that out there in the meeting itself. >> That should I would also that's a um
good point. I would put that in the meeting minutes. >> Yes. So we have that in the meeting minutes have that for this meeting minutes. Right. Would be this >> would be in this meeting's minutes because he submitted after the last meeting. So this would be the first meeting would have it. So that letter
should be the Do you have Do you know if you have that letter? You said that. Yeah, T has it. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> So that So T So the first office has it. You just have to get it for the minute. So >> it was a great letter. >> It was a great letter. It was very
professional and I was glad that he wanted us to consider it. So that was great. >> It was. And I'm going to be honest with you. That right there is >> great with this process that that came in between and everything else. Um Oh, I'm sorry again. Um all those in favor say I. >> I.
>> All those against say no. All right. Motion passed to recommend the uh recommend. Um item 11646, a measure confirming the mayor's appointment of David Orwig to the position of conservation commission
member for term expiring August 21st, 2028. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. I recommend that we confirm the mayor's appointment to council. >> All right. Uh recommendation to recommend the appointee to the full
council um by councelor Kiscus, seconded by councelor heglin. Is there any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those against say no. Motion pass. Item 11680, measure confirming the
mayor's appointment of John Bilau to the position of zoning boards of appeal member for term expiring August 22nd, 2028. >> Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion to recommend the mayor's um to recommend confirmation of the mayor's appointment
of Jim Bilson to the full council. >> Second. recommendation to confirm to the full council by councelor Kazinskus, seconded by councelor Aglin. Is there any discussion? >> I I think I would just note that just
for the public watching that we are doing this new process and so this the last meeting we had interviewed the candidates, we had discussed it and now this is the second meeting that completes the process. um just to be clear for anyone watching today and that their information is in our council packet but we have interviewed them and
um the mayor has given his recommendation. >> Thank you. >> And um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those oppose say no. Motion pass. discussion of appointee appointments
committee rules. Um so the last meeting we went ahead we gave out the rules to everyone reviewed uh reviewed them we discussed them um things and such. Is there any discussion on them?
>> Thank you. Um there was a few amendments I was going to propose today. Some of it was just things we talked about in our meeting. Um, so it's minor just order changes and and things that come up in the course of discussion. Uh, and then I do have one new rule I wanted to propose to the group to see uh how everyone
would feel about it. So I'll take a moment just to hand these to you all. >> Uh, so looking down and I I just matched sort of the Roman numerals and the titles to our original proposed rules. Um, so if you happen to have the old sheet as well, it should match up pretty
nicely. Uh, but on, you know, that first section, Roman number one, annual organizing review, I was propo, I'm proposing we just add one more number that just says every year we discuss and approve the standing committee rules. My thought being in the event, you know,
the council president decided, as he put, um, he that he wanted to change a committee, that might give a new member the opportunity midway through a session. It is just a chance to weigh in on any conversation around the rules. So, we just annually just revisit the rules and say any new changes, any new
thoughts or, you know, we could keep them as is. So, that was one proposal I was going to put forward. Um, Mr. Do you want to go one by one or do you want to just go through them all and then >> um well no we can go one by one. Was there any questions on or any feelings
on that right there? >> I support it. >> You support it? >> All right. >> I think we can do one motion at the end on the amendment or did you want to do each like >> in this? This to me is one amendment but it's amendments. It's like it's it's one big amendment to Yeah. Right. So, I'd be
fine as we go along looking at them individually like you said, Mr. Chair, but I think in the end maybe we could just like take them out. >> Unless it gets complicated, then we'll individually. >> Yeah. >> So, what I like about that right there is it's actually in line with exactly
what um council president came in as far as looking at the reviews and everything else. It's just more of an annual thing and everything else. See if things change, get everyone on the same page. Um, great job. >> Thank you. appreciate that. Uh and then looking down to section or row number
two, documentation and requirements. Um on four, which is information disclosures, the mayor I think had pointed out well that the other language is experience or any specific skills required. So I think just to be in line
with that, I thought it was a well point made. So I just proposed. It didn't seem like there was any issue that we just tweet that one word. I'm glad you brought that up too because after our last meeting, I had called you and I wanted clarification and I thought it was on the appointment detail form and so I asked you and I'm like I'm like
it's not anywhere on here and I was then I went back and I found this and I'm like oh it was on the rules and we're doing it the next meeting. So I have nothing to change which is why I sent it to you today. But >> I'm glad that because I remembered that from the last meeting and then I watched the I reviewed this meeting and I was like that's what that was. So, I was
just confused the next day when I called you about that um for clarification, but I think we should make keep it consistent and I we kind of talked about this at the last meeting anyways, but that's a good catch for sure. Uh and then for number six, which is um
appointment consideration procedure that has a subsection 1 through five. Number four is the clerk shell, the original language, right? The sh clerk shall contact all appointees regarding meeting attendance which shall notify the chair uh as soon as possible but no fewer than
five business days prior to um a scheduled meeting of those appointees attending in person or those submitting letters on and on it goes. I thought we had a good discussion and the clerk had just asked for clarification. Is it before the scheduled meeting? Is it before the posting deadline? Um and so
my suggestion is thinking about that conversation and looking at sort of the wording throughout and even number five that all we do is strike um a scheduled meeting and insert in its place the 48 hour posting requirement so that
everything else will stay the same. Um, and the clerk would not contact all appointees regarding meeting attendance and shall notify the chair as soon as possible, but no fewer than five business days prior to the 48 hour posting requirement. That way, the
intent being that we know who's going to be on that agenda before she posts it. The clerk in this case, right, has contacted those people, notified you these people can or can't make it, and then that way the agenda gets posted accurately reflecting that. Um whereas if the agenda is posted and she tells
you before a meeting the way it's currently worded, so and so can't make it. Now we have to remove them from our agenda and it just might create an extra step or headache. >> Yeah, that that clears it up because we had talked about that briefly at the last meeting and actually the clerk t had brought that up um
>> at the meeting and this makes it very clear. It also makes sense because the way that it had been I think the I think the intent was there the way that it had been written but >> it's basically like if it's five days before a scheduled meeting that it's really
only 3 days because you need that information before the 48 hour rule happens you know so I think it was the intent was there but it clears it up and that to me makes it very clear so thank you. >> Yeah I originally read it that way then the clerk asked that question. Oh, okay. I hadn't thought of that. So,
>> to me, it it worked. So, again, that was just a quick change based on our conversation. And then the new um rule that I'm proposing is uh number seven, appointment finalization procedure that this would be added under Roman numeral
section 2 document and requirements. Uh the clerk shall provide the standing committee with a fully completed appointment certificates for review and to be placed on file. My thinking with this one just to help close the loop. Um obviously if we
recommend confirmation it goes the mayor's already signed it comes to us. We recommend confirmation kick it up to the full council at that meeting the clerk you know would sign off on it and if the person's present they take the oath sign it right away. If they're not
there the clerk has signed it. But then if that person's not contacted, we could end up with a situation where if it's not really a new, it's now with the clerk's office. We want to make sure that person is contacted is sworn in in a timely manner. So just as help close that loop once those have all been done,
everything's been signed, checked, sworn in, we just get that certificate as part of like our agenda separate than our minutes, but sort of just to say, "Yep, great. These appointments are actually done." Um, >> so it's a new item on >> just to help close that loop and then we know there's not a stack maybe sitting
waiting. We're kind of maintaining just an extra check on the whole process. >> If I could add to that too, Mr. Chairman, I I personally think it's a really good idea to add that level to it. Now that in the administration legislation ordinance that we talked about earlier, we also added a brand new section to the code that said if someone
fails to take their oath of office within 60 days, it's considered a vacating of the position that reopens it up for an appointment. And this adds that extra level of check I think to that process that's there and actually formalizes what we codified in the ordinance with that. So I think this is
a very good idea to I know I'm not a I'm here as a guest of the committees and thank you for allowing me to say that with the the discussion of the rules. Um but I think even on our end just making sure that the appointees are coming in to get sworn in because that does impact the legality of the vote that they take. if it's a 54 vote and someone who was on
the five side didn't take the oath of office and it does question whether or not that's a legal vote or not because they're not sworn into that office. Additionally, for our police officers too, um why their appointments are considered so timely is if they make an arrest and appear before court, one of the first things the court asks for is a appointment certificate that verifies
that they're appointed in that community that they're operating as a police officer for. So the oaths of office that they sign on those forms are actually very like legally important and I think this adds just that extra level of protection for the city of M. No, that's that's a great point because I think like the mayor's office has your
role, the clerk's office has their role and it kind of it starts with the mayor's office, it gets to um the clerk's office and then it's with the city council and then when it's done it's back in the clerk's office and then that way when it's provided it's a way for you it's your check and balance too
to see that it was done. But also I know that there's um just administratively there's that like that sheet of appointments that spreadsheet that um that you've your office has provided now that the chair has and and we've seen and it's I mean just to organize it but
I think in the end too maybe I'm going to suggest that the clerk's office gets access to that because then they like add another column that says um you know oath of office and then literally they just find the person's name and put the date next to
And that's the date that's on the certificate. I just think that would and that way the clerk's office is like, "We're done. We're good. We did this. It's in here." Now, the chair can see it for the council side, the mayor can see it in this sheet. Like, you all have access to it. I just think that would be important because then then it's it's just a place to keep it
all together. But also on that sheet is that person's next expiration date. You know what I mean? Like the expiration date then gets updated because now they've officially been they're in, you know? Um, so that's just kind of another administrative piece of it, but I I agree with you. It's like it kind of
goes through this process and kind of ends. And I I I love this. I think this is great. Um, and that way it's on obviously at that point the clerk's office to get the oath and everything signed and the certificate all done, but then it's we we then check that, you
then check that, you know, then we know that it's all done. So it's like they did it and no one can say they didn't, you know, kind of a thing. Um, so I I love this. I think it's fantastic. >> And if I just the last quick thing I'd say is that the in every community is different in this realm, but the only
person in the only people in gardener who are eligible to administer those oaths of office to those employees are the employees of the city clerk's office. That was done by special actual special act of the legislature in 2011. Um that designated the clerk's office as the sole employees that are able to do
the appointment uh oaths. It is different depending on what community you look at. So if you people are looking at comparable communities, there are some locations where it's the if it's a town, it might be the town manager. It might be the mayor in some communities. It might be the department head for that employee. Um some cases it's the council president, but the the
special act of the legislature that was done in 2011 by home rule petition did set the clerk's office for that one, too. >> Just so that the full picture is painted out there of how you go from start to finish since we went through the whole procedure. Listen, um
I I I love this. Um thank you. Um I appreciate the fact that that last minute um last meeting you were like um Yeah. Well, I I'll temporary you know. >> Yes. Yes. And and you know again this is
a this is a how do you say a validation of the tool meeting things and such. Obviously, that wasn't a two-way rule, but you used it in a way of temporary adopting it so you can get some time to go ahead and go look at it, think about
it, and then come back with these changes because these are um um much needed and helps with a lot of clearance. So, thank you. Um is there a motion? >> I I do have um just another thing, too. So, just kind of jot some stuff down too
um that I wanted to add to it. So um but just along the lines of of this so the procedure is the certificate goes into the committee's packet as it's submitted by the mayor then the certificate goes to um like we do our procedure then then
this is assuming that the appointee is recommended and confirmed but recommended to be confirmed. it goes to the full council. Then the certificate after that gets signed um by the clerk if it is confirmed. Then it
goes um then then the in this case the certificate would go back into the committee's packet. This is just for procedural things. So after it's confirmed by the council, it's signed, it goes back in the committee packet and it stays there until the oath of office
is given because at that point then the clerk has to sign it again like um at the bottom of the certificate like they they sign it after right like so >> there's there's two signatures for the cliff office. One is >> um well one signature is first it's the
mayor we get it with the mayor's signature and then >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. And then the first one it gets signed after the council does their procedure. Then after that it gets signed again after the person has taken the roles of office. So yes, there we
go. So, um um so again, I'm just doing this for like procedural purpose because I think it's important to do it now while we're sitting here to understand it and we have the clerk's office and the mayor present too is that once it goes um to the council, so from here it
comes here with us. Once we recommend it, it goes into the council packet. Once the council confirms it, the clerk signs it, it would come back into this packet. Or if the oath is done in between the time the meeting is done, you know what I'm saying? It might get that second signature already and it goes in our packet and we're good to go.
But either way, it should be in our packet after the council makes their action on it, assuming that they confirm it. Um, and it stays in our packet until that person takes their oath and then we need to see it in our packet signed and completed, too. So, it might be kind of
a double scan of your office because it's going to get signed after the council takes their action and it's going to go on our packet just because it has to sit there because that action's been taken in for this committee um to see it, but it has to stay there until the person actually takes their oath to. Do you know what I'm saying? >> So, do
>> you don't want it to get lost along the way, I guess, is what I'm So, if we're going to be adding them to packets, do you think we should add sections to the agenda just kind of specifying like a section titled confirming council and then maybe a section like oaths administered or something along those
lines or just break it up. >> I'm thinking yeah, like a waiting room area, you know, I don't want to make it like this lengthy obnoxious process, but I still want to be efficient where cuz the point is so none of this gets lost. The point is so it gets >> you know where sitting next process. >> Yeah. like kind of where to dock it. And
I feel like that's kind of the process with the way that the committees work now since their new rules have been passed and since um you know as a chair you you go in and you have your thing to see what's in your you know so that's what I'm trying to think of right now because that's the first place I went was like what's the organ organizational
structure um I think it's a good a good point. I and I'm glad we're talking about this. Initially I wasn't sure if we'd want to add those two steps. I like that or if we'd want to just do it once at the end. But I do like that because then as an extra check just to make sure
>> it does get done >> as well. Um >> cuz my my thought was >> the two-step was nice because two verification we know it's been confirmed. We know it's been >> like in a perfect world every single person comes to the council meeting. They're here. They sign it. You you scan
it once. It goes into our packet. We check it off the list. We're done. But we know that doesn't happen. People can't come to meetings all the time. So they get they get sworn in later, totally fine. But those are the certificates that I don't I'm sorry, the appointments that I I don't want to see go somewhere, you know, when we're
trying to do this thing to make them not. So I feel like those are the ones where it's like as soon as the council has an action the ne before the next time this committee meets, no matter what, those certificates all find their way into our packet under either oath taken, there they are, or um confirmed
by council, >> oath pending or whatever. Yeah. Um because and they'll sit there until they move into the next category and then once they're under oath taken and we've seen them, we place them all on file or whatever we do and we're done, those other ones sit until it's
done. So it is an extra step, but I just think the check and balance is worth it so that we're doing all this other work anyways, you know, you know, and but if if we get to do that or if your office finds a more efficient way, you know, to work with the chair and the committee to do it, that's fine, too. That's just it's we got to start with something.
It's me. That's my initial thought. >> Okay. Definitely. Okay. >> So, and with that being said, I would need a a file for those that are in the waiting room as they're going through. So, I can just be able to refer and see while they're >> I was going to say in the shared folder
we have too, I can make folders specifically under like those headings and then we can keep them going through >> as they go through the process. So, >> thank you, Council. That's this is I I support all of these. I'm okay if you
take one motion or whatever. >> All right. So, is there a motion? >> Yeah. I will move to amend the standing committee supplemental rules as presented. >> Second. All right. >> Motion by motion made by councelor Heg
to adopt the >> amended rules. >> Excuse me. I'm sorry. I have something else on this item. I apologize. >> I'm sorry. Before we do that, I have something else for discussion because I did have one other thing that I was thinking of >> um for the for the rules. Sorry. I'm
sorry. So, let's pause. Um so my thing was um we had talked about at the last meeting um and it came up like previous meetings ago too about the um the appointment certificate date versus the
appointment expiration date and how where that person falls. So, in our packet, it was page 15 of this packet. Um, it was an email uh response from Mayor Nicholson to me from like October or something, but what it did include
was uh we had we had touched on at a meeting, but I know I remember it was director Cormier had specifically asked us during the meeting and then um it's clarifi it's clarified here. Mayor Nicholson had said the administration
has received legal opinions from both from late solicitor Flick and current of course I highlighted this now I can't see it and current solicitor that confirm that an appointee continues in their role until either replaced or
reappointed and that it falls within the mayor's executive authority to submit a reappointment of an official early of an official earlier than the stated expiration the the doing of which simply updates the appointes new term from the date of the most recent appointment filing um
filing upon confirmation. So basically it says my example I wrote for myself to understand this is if the expiration date is December 30th 2026 the certificate is filed September 15th 2026 then the new expiration date for a
three-year appointment as an example is September 15th 2029. Yes. >> Right. So, I think I'm kind of I like to add it and the rules document is the only place I can think to put it in there because it is like our document. It is our our policies, procedures, and
everything because I want to be able to point to something, the mayor, us, whoever, and go, "Nope, we got clarification from this from the law department in 2025 and this is what it says." I would like to add that here because then there's
like no question. Um because I thought it was a really good question by a fair and good question by director Corner because now we have in the um rules the 60 and 90 days. Um we know like the everyone will be reappointed at some
point there. Even though it's not it shouldn't be later than their expiration date and it shouldn't be a year before their expiration date. It's still close enough where they might be like well what's my new it might come up again you know. So, I think it's I like that we have the clarification and I would like to add some form of that to this
document um as you know something like as um I don't know it's not like a rule but it's just um it could be under >> of the Yeah, like it could be under um
>> it could be under documentation requirements somewhere could be under um >> I mean it could be a reappointment And why don't this go right under the sub bullet >> under reappointment notice or we could just add it as another sentence too or whatever. But yeah, reappointment notice
is probably a good spot for it. So we could add um this kind of verbiage there and I just think it would be it's good to just have it in the document is my point. Um so that that would be my amendment I guess as well. Um,
that's my >> So, I like it because, you know, at the end of the day, we we there's no promise that we'll all be here for the next go around and go around and at least, you know, for those that may be sitting in our seats can go ahead and have a
reference to go to rather than >> find this email somewhere and everything else. So, that right there is um I think that's golden. I think that's a great idea. >> Thank you. And I think also for like HR purposes and everything else, it's it's just a level of professionalism. Like these appointments are important to
these people. The, you know, your department head, it's it's your job. It's, you know, to me, it's it's just a it shows that we we know what we're doing, what we're talking about. There is a rhyme to a reason to what we're doing. Um, and it just provides clarification. That's a really fair question. So, >> yeah. And
>> I think it's a good place. To be honest with you, I love it because, you know, people do ask me like, "Hey, you know, you voted me, you know, I got sworn on this day. Why am I at that?" They I don't I can tell them, >> refer to number four and then everyone has a clear Okay.
>> Um, so I would Sorry, >> the only thing we I did do some additional research on that as I said I would at the last meeting. >> Um, the way to change that if you wanted it to be a stagnant date would be either by ordinance or charter provision. Um so that's up to the you know the bud council if either of those are processes that want to get followed. Something
simply stating that uh if someone is subsequently reappointed it shall be at the you know length of time listed beginning on the expiration date of the previous filed appointment or something along those lines. That's an option for us to do. Uh it's just not something where we don't have that currently
codified. That's why it takes effect on the filing date. >> Okay. But that's the way to change it if we wanted to be consistent with like the expiration date is always that no matter when it's filed that's where it goes to. That's how the >> I wouldn't think we would back date anything because we have this process
now but like you know what I mean if it was for whatever reason but if you it was before nope you're getting before but you're you're you're serving your full term until you get to that >> think about. >> It definitely is. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Because if and if that does get changed
then we just change this. You know what I mean? just amend the rules like if it's >> to remove that one. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Or and and to put it what it is basically >> just update it >> cuz that doesn't honestly that is much more streamlined to do it that way. >> Um so >> think yeah the two areas in which
appointments can be added to ordinance or charter provisions that we don't have here. So we fall to whatever the general law and common law uh areas are are for that item that's there in terms of an expiration date or the um court determination. So the common law
statement that if someone is not renewed on a timely manner, they continue to serve until either replaced or reappointed. Um there are charter provisions for those that also allow this. Say if you know someone isn't reappointed and their term expires and it's considered a vacating of the position, that's an open position at
that point, not something that continues to be served by that original appointee until replaced or reappointed. That's more on charter side than it is in ordinance side. the expiration date and effective date is more on ordinance side than it is on charter side and the other communities that we've had. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. That's great clarity. Um >> so I interrupted everything to say maybe with with the motion like we could adopt both of these at the same time because they're all you know what I mean like adopt all amendments on the same motion kind of a thing so we don't have two votes. That's all. So, with that being
said, with the new amended amendment that um you suggested, is there a motion? >> I would move to amend the supplemental standing committee rules to include all changes
for section one and two, including adding language to reappoint notice. Second. >> All right. So, um, uh, amendment for supplemental rules,
um, the standard committee made by councelor Heglin. Second by councelor Kinskis. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those in favor? Oppose say no.
>> I move past it. And I'll get you that that language or that change I just said so you can reach out to him or whatever. I will give that to you. >> I really like um that information >> cuz you know
>> it was fun to do the research. >> Yeah, I've been asking things up. It feels good like it's organization. >> Well, I I spent a while scratching my head. Um, I probably gave myself. All right. Um, discussion on appointment
detail form. Um, this is a form that we gave at the last meeting that we all have had some time to go ahead and go look at. Um, and we kept it on the agenda for this meeting. So, is there any discussion on the appointment detail? >> Um,
Mr. chair. I just wanted to, as we said, we um from the last meeting, we um had discussed it and I I sent the form to the mayor today. He's received it. I acknowledge that. Um, and so obviously
we can bring it back on the table if we find that we want to make other changes to it or there's there's more things we need to um consider, but I think from the last meeting and from him receiving it and because he's the one who has to use it, we're all on the same page that
um it's good to go for now. And just to acknowledge too that um the mayor I think you had said this at the last meeting too that he's he's done um the appointment detailed forms for a bunch of the appointees that are coming up but used had used our previous format because it was before the last meeting.
So moving forward he's going to use the new form but we should expect the old form for like the next like 30 appointments because he he had already done all of them and we're all okay with that. Uh just to put it on the record and acknowledge that. Um, so >> with that, I am going to uh just to
officially uh suggest that we remove the item from the calendar from the agenda. >> I second that because I don't think there's anything to really place on file because I could do that at the last meeting with the with the so I think I would motion to remove it from the agenda for that reason.
>> Second. Motion made by councelor Kazinskis um to remove the discussion of appointment detail form that was seconded by councelor heglin. Is there any discussion?
Um I do have one thing to say about it. Um it's not attached to our minutes. So we had a little >> minutes. Okay. >> So that's um you know obviously we had tea at the last meeting. So, we got to go ahead and go get So, do you have any
extra copies? >> I sent it today. So, you will have it. >> I did see the emails. >> You can add it to >> Yeah. I hadn't She She wouldn't have had an electronic copy of it. So, that was my bad. I didn't think of that before to like sending it. So now that you have
it, I would say we could should we take a vote to add it to the minutes or >> Well, so the only reason why I noticed it is cuz I was looking for it while you're speaking in case I need it as a as a reference point and I was looking and I couldn't find it. >> Well, those minutes are from October. It
wasn't the last meeting that's on there. >> Um, >> yeah. So, okay. Well, then they can be added to the >> Yeah. Okay. >> I was going to say we don't have the minutes yet from our last meeting. And I wasn't even thinking that those minutes were from the last meeting. So why I said that, but either way,
>> we have it now. >> Yes, I'll be adding. >> Yeah. Okay. Awesome. >> Thank you. So again, um motion made by councelor Kazinskus to um remove >> the uh appointment detail form from the
calendar. >> Seconded by council Hegman. All uh is there any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Those are post sign say. Motion pass. Next item is discussion on the current
status of appointments. Um again, this was left on the calendar or on the agenda from the last meeting um in which the mayor gave us a lengthy um report >> and he was way ahead of the game as far
as getting us everything that we needed for the uh appointments. Um there was one confusion on reading of it. I didn't I couldn't tell when the um expiration date. So, I was under the impression that some were we didn't have any we
weren't gonna have another appointment meeting for the whole year. Just to let you know. So, and then um once you go ahead and you look into it deeper, you go ahead and go see the fact that it shows um I don't have it here in front of me, but it showed the
it showed the expiration date on the the pending expiration date on if approved and things and such that was not. So if you go ahead and you go to look right here, all these right here, we would have to go ahead. You'd have to
minus the 3 years off of >> Yeah. So that's the one that that's when you would that's the one we're talking about earlier. That's like the the Okay. So I noticed that too. I'm sorry. I wanted to interrupt. >> Oh no. I was just going to say um you know going off of it initially I was
like oh we only have like three meetings this three appointees this year. uh going off of the date, but I'm like, you know, I know this person has been here for a while. And then um doing a little bit of research and everything else. And then we noticed that right there and we put two and two together and came up
with the four, which was basically um what was this going? >> Yeah. So I I saw that too and I saw then I saw the pending column and I was like, "Oh, that's why that's why these are all like say 2028 or 29 cuz I was like same thing." thing. I'm like, what where are
where are the rest of the employments for 2026? Like it was >> but I then I saw the next column and so I do think I would suggest that get cleaned up a little bit and maybe just say like status or you know because you're going to say pending under there, whatever. Um but I got I got it. I I just don't think my suggestion is that
the expiration date is not changed. Even if it's in pending status, I wouldn't change that expiration date until it's confirmed because the expiration date isn't changed yet. So, just just because I thought that was confusing, too. But then I figured out I was like, "Oh, whatever." But now know that you were also confused by it. I'm like maybe
because the thing is when it's pending, it's still only pending. And that expiration date is yes, it's what's on the certificate that you filled out. So, I get why that's there. Maybe we add another column. I don't know. But I just wouldn't want it like maybe now that we have the explanation the explanation
it's okay. But I just I don't know. That's kind of my like thought. >> Yeah. Yeah, if the chair and I did talk about this after the meeting, too. Up until last meeting, this was an internal document. So, that's why that was set up that way. Um, and conversations that, you know, chair Heath and I have had talked adding the columns that we've talked about even today at the meeting
of a, you know, pending expir you know, form current expiration date, pending expiration date, um, and then adding the, uh, confirmed by council, oath administered, things of that to the spreadsheet there, too. And really making it just a living document rather than a static internal document. uh
that's actually you know reflects what's going on in a greater shared collaborative manner. That that's would be my suggestion too because having these all in one place like this is the one place that they are I think is great because the paperwork will all be organized the way we talked about but
also in the end one of the reasons that we made this committee was because we had all of those pending you had like two or 300 appointments to do in 2022 that you brought to me at the time and I was like okay so we had made this committee to do this process and I just feel like it makes sense that this
document has evolved because I mean even HR dark refer to it. You know what I mean? Like it's to me it's like this is like the master copy. Um and if anyone from the public calls and has a question about, you know what I mean? Like you can just go look at it really quickly. So like I just feel like that's one of
the reasons to do it. Um and there's no question this person expires on this date, they start currently, they started on this, whatever it is, because it doesn't matter how long they've been doing it. It's whatever their current term is. Um but I do think I thought that was confusing too. So yeah, you
know you two chat and get that together. >> Yes. So when I found it was if you don't mind in case you have the paper copy. What I was doing is is as we spoke with the 60 to 90 days I was looking to go ahead and go set up the next meetings and I was going looking and looking and looking. I'm like I don't see any on
2026. I'm like I don't see any. And so like um you know now I know how to read it. So I go ahead and I go set up the next meeting and I can set up the whole calendar based off of, you know, looking at, you know, looking at it now through a different set of eyes. That day I was
a little tired to be honest with you and I was trying to set everything up. Um, but now that I know how to go ahead and go do it, we can go ahead and go set up the whole year and everything else as such. However, anyone else that's going to look at it may be confused. >> Um, because again, first look, I was
like, "What?" Second look I was like, "What?" A couple different looks. And like right now when you look at it, you look at one the pending one, it's like, okay, I know that's one of the ones I have to schedule. But when you look at the expiration date and it's already three years out, you have to go, okay, three months before, when is that? You know, it should be within 60 to 90 days.
Like they cuz they wouldn't be done otherwise, but it still is like it's just a visual thing, I guess. Like you said, you have to do math and like it's not hard, but it would just be easier if it was there. >> So, um, I'll just I thought of this. I meant to mention it and it's really just
for the mayor and the chair um council cuz you were talking about sort of like tracking the oaths and maybe adding something like that to this. So I do know the city clerk does track that so maybe she could just help you merge her spreadsheets. I was I requested some information recently on like
appointments and so she has a spreadsheet of who administered the oath, when it was administered. Um, so that might just in case that's helpful for your view as well as we close the loop with that new item and new rule and as we look at your doc that's living and changing the two of you, she might be
able to help weigh in on that too. >> Y >> I was so you talked about the remaining like other meetings. I one my comment I was going to say on this was um I think we should schedule the remainder of the meetings for the year and like you just
like issue out schedule to us um because I know we do that at other committees anyways but for this one in particular because we now have this like organizational chart um I think we should just go out schedule the meetings for the year even if you
don't apply the appointments to them yet that's fine but like then we just know we will have a meeting this date and we'll we cancel it if we don't, you know, if there's something that doesn't come up or whatever, but um that way you can do your scheduling and it's honestly just more convenient for us to be able
to do it and the appointees and things. So, you had already you just brought it up, but I was going to bring up that point as well for that reason, I think. >> Yes. Um >> it doesn't have to be every single appointee is not what I'm suggesting on every following one. It just needs to be a schedule of meetings, I think. >> Yes. So the plan is is um that's why
like I said I found the issue uh not the issue but the confusion um the plan is to go ahead and schedule an appointment and then the plan is is to just as a reminder not maybe under it might not say discussion of current you know
employees but upcoming you know appointments. So at every meeting the next three or four whatever that next meeting will be we'll have that on the agenda for the upcoming meeting and maybe the date and everything else as such. So I was working on it to go do it
that way. I do have some other chairs who have made really nice meetings. Um so I do have to go ahead and go make sure that my doesn't come as basic because they've shown me up at the last meeting. So, I got to make sure that
when I go do it, I get a woman's touch to go ahead. So, I'm going to go ahead and go do it. And then I might have to ask the wife to help me out color code it and all that good stuff. So, >> I don't I mean, I wasn't acting like I just thought of the idea.
>> So, um but yes, that that is the plan and that will be out within the next probably by the weekend. >> All right. So, um I do I have a couple dates that I won't be available. I know there's a date that the mayor won't be available. Um so, we'll work everything
out. All right. Um >> so, as far as discussion of the uh current status of appointments, is there a motion? >> We don't need to make >> I didn't think so. >> All right. Um Um German.
>> So, moved. Oh, I was going to I'm sorry. I was just reading off my not right language. Okay. All right. So, I'll go the I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So, move >> second. >> Um motion made by
Is it me? I'm just confused now. >> Motion made by councelor Hegland, second by councelor Conensus. Um all those in favor say I. I. >> I. All those against say no. You stand the jury.