A bill for an ordinance amending the local open meetings laws to authorize electronic participation and electronic meeting methods during emergencies and making other conforming amendments. Modernizes open meeting laws to allow for use of emerging technology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-18-21.
Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer, and your leadership in this regard as well. And I'm glad we got through this first process. And so. All right, thank you. The next item we have up is Council Bill 572. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 20 1-0572 on the floor for publication? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1-057 to be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved. And we've got the second by Councilmember Herndon Councilmember Sayed Abarca. Your motion to amend. Thank you. I move that council bill 21, dash 570 to be amended in the following particulars on page five, straight lines five through eight and remember sections two through five accordingly. And on this one. Yep. We're going to go ahead and if we could get a second on this amendment. Okay. Okay. I think I got Councilmember Torres on the second questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. This amendment is specifically designed to remove the exception for collective bargaining conferences. I think it's important we heard throughout our collective bargaining sessions throughout this last year that people wanted some more transparency, and this amendment is designed to achieve that. All right. Thank you. Council members say. Next up, we have council member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. It's my understanding that Councilwoman CdeBaca is offering two amendments to the ordinance this evening, and I won't be supporting either of them. The mayor's office, the city attorney's office, a number of agencies and I collaborated extensively in order to draft the changes to this ordinance. There was also a significant external stakeholder process so that residents of the community can share their feedback as well. That process included two meetings with every council member to gather feedback on the changes that were made. Neither of these two amendments were discussed until the final draft of the ordinance was brought to committee. The proposed amendments haven't been subjected to the same level of scrutiny by Denver residents or the members of boards and commissions that they would affect. This is an ordinance. It can be changed by a vote of council at any time. So if these changes are something Councilwoman CdeBaca would like to pursue, I'd be happy to help her with the stakeholder in process at that time. But as of today, I don't feel that that work has been done. So I ask my colleagues to vote no on both amendments and vote yes to publish the ordinance as written. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I don't believe that it is good public policy to allow our conferences on collective bargaining strategy to be open to the people with whom or negotiating. I don't want to sit in the PAs weidner room with the mayor and the council and have the police union sitting there hearing us discuss how we're going to approach their negotiations. I think that's bad public policy and I urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Looks like I double checked the hands raised. Council member Pro-Tem Torrence. Thank you so much. I'm hoping to get a legal response on a question that I have. Okay. We can go ahead and make sure that we have John Griffin or Kirsten Crawford here in the queue. Okay. We've got John Griffin. Go ahead, Councilmember, with your question. Thank you. Jonathan or Kirsten. Does removing this clause from the exempted areas mandate that it be open or just give the option for it to be open? And what would then be that process for opening it? Who would it be up to? Alex Pearson. Take this. And she. Okay. We'll have Kirsten Crawford. Go ahead and respond. That evening. Council members. I am actually going to pull. The draft so it it carves out the five through eight carves out from open means requirements collective bargaining. My guess although I'm playing up the change is we we would maybe need to make some other. Changes if we wanted to mandate that it occur in open session. But I am looking at that. I wonder if you might want to table that question for a minute and let me come back to it just to make sure. And just to be clear, Kirsten, I'm not advocating that they be open, just wanting to make sure I'm understanding that what removing that exemption, what it does and it sounds like in that you can come back in a little bit with an answer, but I don't see any other questions in the queue. If I if it's removed without any other language, it doesn't automatically mandate that they're open without additional work put into the ordinance. Okay. So I'm looking at the language now. Any collective bargaining conference is not considered a meeting subject to these requirements, but I guess in order to get very granular about who's in the room and when it constitutes a meeting, I suppose we probably do need more clarity. Your your question is a very good one. And, and one I'm not totally comfortable just answering on the fly right now. I just need a little bit more time to think about that. But I think that you're right. My hunch after playing up the language is that it wouldn't mandate because we don't know exactly who would be the body, the public bodies, so to speak, that would need to be convened with respect to. And I'm backing my way into that, into the answer, because when we look at this code provision, we list the public bodies . So for one, we don't list. What the definition of the body is for collective bargaining. So I suspect we might need a little bit more of definition if we wanted to mandate that. So just eliminating the that section. About collective bargaining doesn't mandate that it's open, but put it leaving it in mandates that it be exempted. It makes it very clear that it's not subject to our opinions without action. Yes. Okay. Got it. Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Pro-Tem Torres, council member Abarca. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify that that Councilwoman Torres is the goal of the amendment. It's to not necessarily create the mandate at this point, but to remove that exception will allow us to decide later if we choose to mandate it or choose to outline a process of how that should work. But this is to make sure that we don't close the door on that option for later. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Council members say to Barca and now we have others back into the queue here. And so Council Member Torres, did you have a follow up or is that okay since you've been up to to move on? Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. New in the queue, then we have Councilmember Herndon. Madam President, I just want to echo what Councilwoman Sawyer said. I mean, she did a deliberate, thoughtful engagement process with stakeholders, and this amendment is anything but. So I will be voting no, and it is an ordinance so we can bring it back later if. We actually have a transparent process to. See how these changes would actually impact it. But to do this at the 11th and a half hour, I think is bad policy. So I'll be running. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Next up, we have Councilmembers Sawyer and Flynn in the Q and I haven't heard from Councilmember Hines yet. And so I'd like to allow him to go. Go ahead, Councilmember. Thank you. Council President. I, I, I kept putting my hand up and down and it was probably because people kept asking the same question that I was intending to ask. So, you know, pro tempore, is this question about whether this is a mandate, I think is an important distinction. I know that I am not a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers, but I attended a bargaining session where you have S.W. did bargain with some with their employer. I also did attend bargaining for the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. And and so there are there are labor unions that do have a public process. And and and it seemed like that was more transparent. I do absolutely hear what Councilmember Sawyer said about how this we could have added this to the stakeholder process and and councilmember heard into but we did not and and so I just wanted to just throw out my my thought process. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Next up, we have council member Sawyer. Things about a president. I just wanted to quickly pop into weigh in again on this, that frankly, whether this is a good idea or or not a. Good idea. Isn't. What's up for discussion here? You know, what is up for discussion here is that we don't know what the consequences are. We haven't been out to the community to have a discussion about this. We haven't been in conversations with the the organizations that we bargained with to get their feedback on it. And so that's why we think it's irresponsible for us to make this change right now. Like I said, it's an ordinance that can easily be changed moving forward, and I'm happy to help engage the stakeholders to do that. If that's something Councilwoman CdeBaca wants to do. But I don't think it's appropriate to do that at this stage. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, madam. I just want to clarify and partially in response to Councilman Hines, that this amendment has literally nothing to do with opening up the actual bargaining sessions, with the with the unit, with the police, with the firefighters or with the sheriffs. It apply it simply removes the exemption for our meetings with the administration to discuss what our bargaining position will be when we go to the table. And for that reason alone, I think it's very bad public policy and it's not a necessary step to making a change to opening up bargaining sessions. At some later point, it's simply a bad move right now to signal and have Nick Rodgers sit in the room while we're negotiating, while we're discussing with the mayor how we want to bargain with the police. I don't think that's I think that's quite obviously on its face a bad policy. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Flynn. Up next, council members say to Barker we have you back up. Thank you. Just wanted Kirsten to clarify, because I discussed this with her. That the collective. Bargaining conferences encompasses all of the collective bargaining according to what carers and confirmed for me when we had this discussion. So it's not just when we're deciding our positions, it doesn't it's not just about that. It's about collective bargaining in general as public meetings. Kirsten, can you confirm or clarify? Kirsten had to step away. So I'm able to speak on that. I need to be back with her to further discuss this. But that is not the way that I read this. It's exactly what counts. But one step. This is about internal conferences. But we would need to circle back. She obviously has a wealth of knowledge on the subject, but that is not the way that I read it. So. Okay, I'll go ahead. Never mind. Go for it. I was just going to I was going to ask Councilmember CdeBaca if she was had anything more to add. Okay. All right. Thank you. Next up, Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. And, too, I'm going to take on what John Griffin just said. The collective bargaining sessions themselves, the ones that John and Rob Ness for go into the room with unions are not subject to in the open meetings. There goes my clock again. Not subject to the open meetings. Requirements are in our code in the first place. So this removing this exemption does has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's simply this paragraph that it would be deleted by this amendment simply refers to our conferences with the administration on our strategy going into those bargaining sessions. So that's that's why I think it's bad public policy. I don't want them in the room when we're trying to hash out what we're going to offer them and what our alternatives might be. All right. Well, thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I haven't weighed in yet on this. And then we'll go ahead and do the roll call, vote on it. Councilmember CdeBaca, you still had your hand up. Did you have. Okay. All right. Great. I'll go ahead and weigh in. Geez. Have been working on this since last July when I was elected as city council president, really trying to shore up this process. And we created initial guidelines that we sent over to all of you that you've reviewed. And then, in addition to that, have worked since January to develop a memorandum of understanding with the administration as well, outlining what the steps would be if we got to an impasse at any point during this process. And honestly, having worked very closely with Jonathan Griffin as our council representative. I'm not sure how we would strategically be successful in our bargaining if we had it open at this point in time, because I don't believe that we have heard from all of the many different stakeholders that we would need to talk to about how this would actually get set forth. And so I am of the mindset, if it is something that is the will of a majority of this body, we can definitely do that stakeholder process and open this ordinance up and address it at the appropriate time. And so I will not be supporting either one of the amendments this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on the First Amendment we have. And to clarify, this amendment eliminates the exception for collective bargaining conferences. Roll call, please. CdeBaca, I. Claire? No. Flynn No. HERNDON No. HINES No. Cashmere? No. Can each. No. Ortega? No. Sandoval No. So here now. Torres? Nope. Black. No. Madam President. No, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results, please. When I 12 name. 12 nays. The amendment to 20 1-0572 has failed. Council members say to back your second motion to amend, please. Thank you. I move that council bill 20 1-5 72 be amended in the following particulars on page five line one strike means and replace with means and recordings of meetings shall be posted on the city's website. Okay. Thank you. We have it moved and we have a second by Councilmember Hines. Questions or comments by members of council. Council members say to Barker. Thank you. This amendment requires all virtual meetings subject to this ordinance to be archived on the city's website. I think that's important because not all open meetings are archived, and with the many meetings that are occurring, sometimes the residents have to choose which ones they attend and they should be able to go back and watch the ones that they couldn't attend in person and archiving would enable that ability. Thank you. Next up, we have council member Sawyer. Mr. President, just wanted to weigh in here to just say again, with the stakeholder in process, we haven't had a conversation with tech services about what archiving that kind of information might look like, what storage space we would need to pay for, how much it would cost, whether we would need to have FTE is added to mail in something like this, etc.. So again, while I think it might not be a bad idea at some point in the future, it's not something we discussed in this process and it is something that we need to reach out to our stakeholders and find out more information about before we can responsibly vote on something like this. Thanks. Thank you. Council member Sawyer. Up next, we have Council Member Hines. Thank. Thank you. Council President. I think that I certainly agree with the spirit of this amendment that we should have recordings for for everything that's that is a part of our city process. With I also am somewhat concerned about the stakeholder process. I know when I served on the Denver Commission for People with Disabilities, the it was difficult to find a venue. The Webb building changed some of the requirements for having holding meetings in the Webb building. We ended up finding a space in the Denver Museum of Natural Science next to a yoga session, a regular, you know, monthly yoga or at least monthly, that every time we were meeting there was yoga immediately outside. And, you know, I don't know how we would have necessarily met the requirement for open meetings in that venue. Maybe it's possible. I don't know. And I don't want the Commission for People with Disabilities to be unable to meet because they have to meet this regulatory hurdle. Maybe they could. Maybe they couldn't. But again, I think that's what the stakeholder process would do. Thank you. Council president. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Madam President, I like this amendment very much. But like Councilman Sawyer, I think it needs a little bit more data behind it so that we can understand the costs. I would like to see it. I'd like to see this come forward at some point as an amendment to this part of the code. But I'd like to know, for instance, everybody that I've tried to see, recordings of meetings I've been able to find. So I know that we already archive a lot of them. I don't know what is not being archived. So maybe, Councilwoman CdeBaca, we could work together to figure out who isn't reporting and and why not, and can we get them to do that? I think it's an excellent resource that we do need to provide. I don't know that it's soup yet to put it in this up, to amend it into this ordinance. But I'd like to come back and have that done, for instance, if I can ask Councilwoman CdeBaca. Madam President, do we know? Would this applied to in-person meetings that are not broadcast on Zoom once we go back to in-person, if there is simply meeting in a in a room in the web building and it's not broadcast on Channel eight, where are you talking about? Like audio recordings of meetings and things like that as well. So to do. That, that would actually make sense. I think through COVID, what we've recognized is the potential of always having this alternative for for a virtual participation. And we know that it's easier to listen to a meeting than it is to read the meeting minutes. And so in 2021, I think that we should always default to recording meetings, whether it's a zoom recording or a voice recording that gets uploaded somewhere. It just makes more sense to have that as the standard rather than just your written minutes. Thank you. Madam President, I agree. And I think perhaps we could ask our staff to gather the data on what boards and commissions that are listed in this ordinance, and there's a ton of them. What is their current practice? Do they record now? If they do, do they archive it? Do they make it available on the website? I think that's that's something we should pursue immediately after this. But I don't think that we should put it in the code right now because we don't have the answers to these questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And, you know, would be open to learning more about that, but likewise, would like to see that stakeholder process so that we're making sure we understand the intended and unintended consequences of our actions and we not seeing anybody else up in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment, which would require all virtual meetings subject to this ordinance to be archived on the city's website. CdeBaca, I. Claire? No. Flynn No. Herndon? No. HINES No. Cashin? No. Kimmich? No. Ortega. No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres now. Black? No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announce the results. When I tweeted this. When I 12 nays the second amendment to 20 1-057 excuse me 0572 has failed council bill 20 1-057 to is currently on the floor for publication. Questions by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-057 to. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, dash 057 to please. Black. I. See tobacco. I. Clark. All I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman and I. Can each write. Ortega like Sandoval, I. Sawyer. I mean Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 30 nights. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0572 has been ordered published. All right. Next up, we have Council Bill 516. Councilmember Flynn, would you please make a motion to take Council Bill 516 out of order, please?