A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the coordinated election on November 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver to give City Council the authority to consent to certain mayoral appointments. Submits to the voters of Denver the power for City Council to confirm Mayoral departmental appointees. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-9-20.
Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Correct your comments the council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council member can each where you please for council bill 536 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I put Councilor Bell 536. Uh. Sorry. On the floor in order. It's not on the floor. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Courtesy public hearing for Councilor Bill 536 is now open. Are we getting a staff report from a council member from CPD? What are we doing on council members, staff report or are we going straight into hearing? We can go straight into hearing unless everyone is dying to hear a staff report yet again. Yet again. Okay. From your code of battery, you're going to. Have to do a just a quick overview of it for everyone to hear it. Okay. Well, you do that. A quick overview. Sounds good. Absolutely. Okay. So this is a this so this would be a proposal that would be referred to the voters in November 2020. It covers 14 mayoral appointments, the 11 positions that are the mayoral cabinet, which are specified in the city and city charter of Denver. Those positions are sort of like the what I would call the quote unquote, major cabinet positions of the city of Denver. So that's the heads of things like the airport parks and Rec, Finance, General Services, Human Services, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Department of Community Planning and developments, things like that. The quote unquote, big ones. And then it also includes the three heads of safety. So that's fire, sheriff and chief of police. The reason that it includes the three heads of safety is because Councilwoman CdeBaca had originally, back in October, proposed that the city and county of Denver have an elected sheriff. Well, the proposal had a lot of support from the community. It did not have as much support from the administration. And so that is a yeah. You're not shocked to hear that. That is that this is a compromise that straddles sort of it bridges the gap between the two. So having the three heads of safety also be included under this proposal is a way to bridge that gap where it allows city council the ability to approve those 14 positions. So it gives you the people a voice through your elected city council representatives. This is a best practice across the the most of the strong mayor systems across the United States of America. Denver is the only strong mayor system in the state of Colorado that does not do this. So it's you know, there's lots of discussion that we've had about it. I urge you to go back and look over. If you look online at our committee presentation, Councilman CdeBaca and I did two Tuesdays ago at our finances. Yeah. Yep. It's worth watching to just sort of fill yourself in on a lot of the different ins and outs of it. But the proposal would allow us, as a city council, a majority, seven members, to approve these 14 positions. If the if the appointment is not approved, then that's it. Then they're not then they're not approved. And then the mayor would have to either find someone else to approve the position, into the position and appoint, or they would have to whoever the mayor is would have to come back to us and have discussions about why it is that we, as the Council, did not support at seven members. And then, you know, if it was an issue of, you know, questions that couldn't be answered or something like that, then then maybe it would move forward after a discussion or, you know, maybe not, but it would require a seven member approval of council in order for those appointments to go to move forward. Councilwoman CdeBaca, do you have anything else you you want to fill out? Two quick things. There are two ways that something gets on the ballot that you vote on. And one is through a citizen led ballot initiative where citizens have to collect 9000 signatures, valid signatures to get it on the ballot, or by getting seven of us to vote on something to refer it to the ballot. This is the one way that we can help you to govern. This is an important change because there are no salary caps on appointments, there are no job descriptions. There are no ways for us to fire any of them. Should we find them in trouble for something? This doesn't give us the power to fire them, but at least, at least gives us the power to say yes or no if we know that somebody's being appointed as a clan member or something. You know, it gives us one mechanism that's important for us to be able to have some kind of balance. And this is one of many charter changes that we're hoping to put in front of you. And so this will be the first one tonight that you guys get to weigh in on. Yeah, I think that's great. And I think, you know, if there's anything that we've heard tonight, it is that the community is crying out for transparency and accountability from your government. And thank you. This is not a perfect solution, but it is one solution that is a best practice across communities across the United States of America. It is a way that is rooted in research. It's a way that is rooted in best practice. It is something that is done already. It is something that makes sense for our community. It is a way to create partnership and to create buy in, right. So this is a way for city council members and the community through your city council members to create collaboration and a sense of collaborative ness that, in case you had not noticed, does not really exist in our community and in our government right now in a lot of ways. And so what this can do is change that narrative in a more positive way, in a more collaborative way. And I think that that's really important to keep your eye on and to remember. So that's the goal here. That's what we're doing here. And we look forward to your comments. Councilman said about could you have anything else to add? Let's hear the. All right. Yes. Thank you. Tonight, council. Sorry. We're sorry. Okay. Tonight council has received 31 written comments by people who are not here, but submitted them as one of our options during COVID. So 31 written comments on council. At 536, there were 30 submitted comments in favor of the bill and one submitted comment in opposition of the bill. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submitted comments. So do any members need more time enabled in order to read the written testimony? Because if so, then we need to go to recess so everybody can read. Please work in if you do. Looks like everybody's good. Okay. Seeing none. Council Secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 536 has been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 11 people signed up to speak on this item. So first up is Dennis Brookfield. Dennis. Brookfield. Brookfield. All right, Katie Leonard. Katie Leonard. This is Jamie Titus. James Titus. So my name is James. I filled out in favor of this bill. I think the strong merit system, the amount of power that Mayor Hancock currently has in this system, in this system and in the city is abhorrent, especially when it comes to those three safety branches. It seems pretty self-evident that the current, the way things are currently laid out, that the city council is fairly weak. There are I believe this is a time in which I can ask questions regarding this, or I can only say if it's. Still just public comment. Your feelings about this bill, I mean, you could pose a question that someone might try to answer later, but. Well, it's not accurate. If you would like to answer my question, I would ask you, which is, does is there anything in this that affects people being grandfathered in? If there is somebody who is currently a head of department, do they have to go through a new approval process in order to be appointed? And so people won't answer right now you'll throw it out there and people can answer once we get to comments. So you can just keep them. Well, contingent upon that question. I would I would say that that is something that needs to be added as another charter or should be adjusted. And I would also request commitments from all of you, all of you who want to get reelected, to not approve the reappointment of the sheriff of the city who has instituted domestic terrorism on our city. So I would really appreciate anybody who can commit to not approving an appointment. I would also be in favor of extending this power more so that you have that you can't just say no. Because I'm also curious about what happens, who stays in that position, like who is a sheriff, who is the head of a department if that appointment is turned down, if an appointment is repeatedly turned down over some course of time, I don't know how long that would take, but I would hate for some interim goon to stay in there for some long amount of time while things continue to go to set. So again, I'm for this, but I think those are all important questions that people that need to be addressed. And I would I demand your commitments on that. In relation to your reelection. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is. And he can wait. Hello. Um, just want to speak to you guys about, uh, checks and balances tonight. If we're actually going to be a actual government that supposedly protects people, we should be able to not have our city become what is almost a dictatorship. Like when there are no checks to power, when people can be put in the places of power they have no like job descriptions or anything like that. That's ridiculous. I can't become an educator. In a university. If I don't have a masters degree. It should be the same in our city. You should have actual experience with safety and how you should be questioned. You should be like, I think it's so ridiculous that we don't have it. I know the history goes a long time. Back to Mayor Speer. That's the reason why we have such mayor power in this city. It goes back historically a long time, but we know that that power even back then was used for corruption. So you as the city council, we look to you guys and that is why I'm in support of this. And I think all of you should be in support of this, too. Another thing I want to speak on with this is, um, I don't think this is enough, but it is a start. And we believe that all of you can help hold the mayor accountable. Like the mayor has done many messed up things, like when you put the home in, like the sorry, the real estate owners and the gentrifiers in charge of the housing department, like. That's ridiculous. Well, there are other things I could go on and on and on about with, but I don't have the time. But I. I just want to come in front of ya and have it be said. Many people, like even your commenters, there's only one or two people. I assume that one was sent in by the mayor. I can neither confirm nor deny, but, uh, I think that is the case. But as we look to all. Of you to keep power. In check on the mayor, we hope that you use this. Power wisely. And we hope that you. Can do what needs to be done. Like if. You see somebody unfit, please. Make sure that you. Stop these unfit people from taking positions of power. Shouldn't have a dictatorship in our city. It's unacceptable. God like I want to do more. Like I could go into AIDS department. But you already. Know very well enough. Y'all have people in there. And I think the best example I could take from was what just happened earlier. If we're letting that type of incompetence, that's the thing go around and that's the shit that they're giving you. I think the mayor needs some checks and balances. Next up is Jason Ball. Jason Ball. Hello. My name is Jason Ball. I live in. District three. And two times in a row. I got to go after Kenny, so. All right. So, yes, of course. I'm in favor of this bill. I believe that, you know, I'm a history teacher in District three. And I teach children about civics and. The American governments. And it's kind of seems ridiculous that our own city doesn't really model. These same values. Of so-called American democracy, of checks and balances, a legislative branch that can actually hold the executive accountable. And this is what our own federal government supposedly does, where it's like, okay, cool, you can make appointments as the executive. That's how it should work. If it's good enough for the federal government, it should be good enough for Denver. And as Kenny had mentioned in our history. The reason that we have such a strong mayor. Government is when the city and county was created in the early 1900s during this administration. And yeah, well, he did a lot of things make the city pretty. He was, according to historians, notoriously corrupt and did some shady things. And we have seen this continue in our current mayor administration, where you can kind. Of choose to pick the people that you want to to go. Through with your agenda. And I'm sure as city council members, it must. Be frustrating because I know a lot of people who come here. They'll move from different parts of the country and think you have more power than you do. And a lot of times people will say, you have this power and you'll be like, well, unfortunately we don't. So for me, this is kind of a no brainer. Why would you not want to give yourselves more power to hold the male mayor accountable, to kind of give the citizens of Denver an actual vote to decide for themselves by voting yes on this? You're not committing to it. You're letting the people of Denver decide. So that should be a pretty big no brainer for me. So vote yes on this and I certainly support it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Blair Step. Blair step. All right. Next is Tesla. Tesla. All right, Kristina Shulman. Firstly, I'd like to thank Councilwoman Sawyer and CdeBaca for opening this to public opinion. My name is Christina Shulman, and I am a social worker in the Denver community and live in the university area. Transparency in government and stakeholder input is the foundation of this country. I hate to I hate to reference this colonial period, but the American Revolution occurred in part because the people had no say and no look into what their monarchs were doing. And I hate to quote a white male colonialist, but it seems that some of you only respond to those types of people. He famous, he more. Famously proclaimed, Give me liberty or give me death. But he also said this The liberties of the people never were nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. While we are not under a monarchy today, we are under a strong mayor system with all sorry, transparency and governmental appointments is necessary for the people to feel seen, to feel heard, and to trust that their thoughts and values will be reflected in those in charge of calling the shots. If we allow the mayor's appointments to go unvetted by the council, we are opening the door for corruption and nepotism. Councilman Cashman is my specific district councilman and while I understand the question posed concerning the whispers surrounding the potential deterrence of applicants, that deterrence should be the big red flag in and of itself. It is a privilege. It is a privilege, not a given right to hold office in this country, to hold the power to make decisions that could directly or indirectly affect the people they serve. And that includes you all. So if we're boring you or if you're tired, we're just getting started. So feel free to resign. We need leaders that are not only qualified for their positions, but also are willing to show up for their agencies in a way that represents and reflects the values of the public they serve. As the Council to vote yes on Bill. 2005 36 to show your constituents, the people that give you this privilege, my clients and your fellow Denver rights, the people that you live next to you, the people that you passed on the street, that you will give them merely the opportunity to ensure that you will take your responsibility to the public seriously, your privilege of having a seat in public office seriously, and the checks and balances of power in our government. Seriously. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think that Chairman Sekou has stuck around. I don't see him. No. Rosie Dupree. Rosie Dupree. No. And I don't see Jesse Perry's stuck around either. No, Jesse. I see. Okay. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there questions for members of Council on item 536? Council member took us. To the speaker's point. Did we clarify whether or not retained appointees would need to be reconfirmed? Yes. So the way. Kirsten, do you want to take this or do you want me to? You want me to take it? Okay. So. So, yes, the wording is that if an if a if an appointee is going to be retained and maintain their position as an appointee for the same position under a new mayor. Right. So a new mayor is elected and there's an appointee who's an a current appointee who's going to maintain that position moving forward. Then they would need to be reappointed. If there is an appointee who is going to stay in their position just until a new appointee takes over that position just to cover the time period, then they are no longer the appointee in that position. They've moved to an interim appointee. And this does not specifically cover interim appointees because that's that's a temporary position. So then they do not need to be reconfirmed. Do you do you need to clarify anything that I have said there or was that good? That was. Well, I'm confused. I've never heard of an interim appointee being different from permanent appointee. What about? I guess I'm looking to Kirsten Legal. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. There are circumstances where we have have interims fill a position if someone, for example, resigns. This bill is intended to apply to permanent appointments and it's not uncommon drafting. You know, we have to look to other jurisdictions as far as when a new mayor comes in. The question is really whether the nomination and the bill moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner. So if someone's holding the position and the new mayor's intent is to have the person resign and fill it, the question is, you know, what period of time is reasonable? The standard for reasonableness is what an objective person believes. So there's case law on that. And, you know, certainly there are there could be a situation where someone thinks it's unreasonable and they're just filling it with an interim to avoid the process. And we would have to deal with that when it comes. But we shouldn't draft further unreasonableness, in my opinion. Got it. Thank you. And actually, there was a question from one of the speakers about whether there was like how that worked. And just so everyone knows, it is written into the charter amendment. So it would be written into the charter that a mayor is required to fill the positions in a timely, reasonable and timely manner. So what that does is it's not you can't put a time period on what a reasonable and timely manner is. It can't you can't say like six months is a reasonable and timely manner, but you can say, are they is the mayor doing some sort of action that shows that they are trying to fill the position versus are they not doing any action and just using this interim position as a as a holds position and not actually taking action to try and fill that position with a permanent position, permanent person who would have to go through the appointee process. Confirmation process. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I'm answered. And Councilmember CdeBaca, did you also want to help answer that question? Is that what you're flagging me for? Well, just. To add on to the question from the audience about. Basically getting rid of the sheriff. So we don't currently have a sheriff. And that would actually be one of the very first appointees that we would be able to have this power over, because it's between now and November that this would happen and it's unlikely for us to have a full blown sheriff process before November. So this might be our first chance to have this power, and that would be the first one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Torres, you all good? Okay. Councilmember Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilwoman Sawyer for clarifying one of the sections that was giving me some heartburn, which was when the 30 day shot clock starts. You're welcome. So I would like to I would like to make a record here, because there's been a lot of confusion about our contracts and approval process with a 30 day shot clock. When it was adopted in 1982 or three or so. It was always understood by the city attorney's office that the 30 day shot clock started when the bill or contract was filed Thursday noon for the Monday meeting. And when I came on council five years ago, I found that the city attorneys have interpreted that differently along the way. And they start the clock when they file, when they bring the bill to us, and it goes through committee, which shortens our time. And so I want to make a record here that the way I am reading this, Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilwoman CdeBaca, the intent is that now that the wording says it used to say that the shot clock started when the mayor made the right reading, the recommendation of council when he gave us a letter. I am appointing this person to that position that started the clock and the wording now is much more precise and much more acceptable that it starts 30 days, starts when the resolution is filed for action by the Council . It is my. Interpretation of our rules that the resolution is not filed. For action by the Council when it comes. To a committee. It's filed for action by the council on noon Thursday for Monday. So that will give us that extra time. And I want to I just wanted to bring that out and asked the two sponsors, is that your interpretation of this or are you interpreting that the clock starts when it comes to committee? Committees are not required. So I would interpret it that way. No. You would. No, I would not. Committee is a. Courtesy. Right. So I would not. Interpret it that way. So the clock will start Thursday noon when it's filed for Monday action. Thank you, counsel. And sir. That's correct. And it is written that way in the final draft, specifically because of the conversation you and I had about that. Right. And to clarify it exactly in here so that it will live on in our charter, clarified exactly like that. Okay. Could I ask our legislative counsel if the city attorney's office agrees with that? Yes. Kirsten Crawford, legislative counsel. And John worked on this. So I'm speaking for John. But John drafted. It just. The way we're representing here. So, yes, when it gets filed the Thursday before. Okay. So thank you. And then, Mr. President, my next my next proposal will be that we interpret contracts that the clock starts with. We will have to say that one for another day. Councilmember. All right. Anything else on this bill? Councilmember Flynn. No, just a comment when we get the comments. All right. So no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 536 is closed. And now we'll move into comments by members of council. Council members Sawyer and CdeBaca. I'll let you guys YouTube decide how you would like to go first or for comments or do you want to defer? Well, I have said most of what I already need to say. So got that. As I will defer my time and if I want to jump in at the end, I will thinks. I've said my piece. If you care about defunding the police or any department in this city, it's coming under the leadership. Their budgets come under the leadership of their appointees. And so if this is one place that we can at least try to get some different people making decisions about our budget, then let's do it. Let's try it. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Folks, this is what democracy looks like, and I want you to keep coming. By the way, this is your house. And so please keep coming. Keep stay engaged. But speaking of democracy, I am also amazed at how well educated and informed our speakers have been tonight, specifically on city politics, which is an interesting beast. And my dog will be really unhappy because he has appeared in over 12 hours. But anyway. But but speaking of democracy, there is a there is a disconnect between perceived democracy in the city and actual democracy in the city. Just as as the people have have said, we need three functioning branches of government here in the city. And and and the way we learned it from Schoolhouse Rock was that we would have three equal branches that would keep each other in check. So now what we have in Denver and you know it, which is amazing, it's amazing that that that you were that educated and that engaged. So this, I believe, helps it. It doesn't make that three equal branches of government, but it helps modify some of that actual power towards some of the perceived power. And so I'm I'm really excited about it. Councilmember CdeBaca talked about how the appointees have no salary caps. This is a subset of all the mayoral appointees. But if you look at all the mayoral appointees, which is approximately 60, it kind of it fluctuates a little bit. The the the budget for the entire legislative branch, from Mr. President to the receptionist to all of us electeds and our aides, is less than the budget for the mayoral appointees. So the previous conversation about how we are, where we are, we we're very lean that is to councilmember said about this point there are no salary caps for the appointees and this helps us balance that power to make sure that our perceived government is in line with our actual government. So I am excited to refer this to you to vote on in November. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. Ms.. Shulman mentioned during comments when this was first brought up, I was considering the idea that good candidates might be concerned with subjecting themselves to that public process. But thinking about it further. I have a hunch that should this pass tonight and get to the voters and should the voters adopt this? I have a hunch it may be the last time you even hear about this, because it doesn't entail a big process. When the mayor makes an appointee, the appointees go on to our consent agenda. And if there is no problem, it just gets passed on with the rest of the bills. And I think it's really no loss of power for a good mayor who is really concerned with putting the best possible candidate for a position. But if if we are presented with a mayor who's trying to do favors and put people in positions that they're not the best qualified for. You know, we talk a lot about the salaries of our cabinet people. And there there are comparatively a drop in the bucket in our city budget. I often wish we could pay more and when there's a position open, I want absolutely the best individual in the country to fill these positions. I mean, Denver's at a time where there's so much going on. We need real visionaries. But I think what's going to happen. Should this pass is a mayor is going to be forced to involve council early in the process rather than, you know, no executive wants to look bad and put someone up that's going to get voted down by council. So I think there will be conversations about if there is anybody that that's got stuff that might concern council, I think there'll be discussions ahead of time. So, you know, it might be maybe somewhere down the line there'll be a brouhaha and the Mayor will put someone up and there'll be a big discussion on council. But I think most of that will get done during the nomination process. So I appreciate my colleagues bringing this forward and I do look forward to supporting this. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Jason Ball. Thank you for being here representing District three. I appreciate your work, your activism, and we've had good conversation and thank you for being an educator. This will be an easy vote for me, I think, Councilman Sawyer, for shepherding it since last October. So remember, you voted in people last May and June who came here to change things and they started doing that right away. I also want to make sure, you know. Only 39% of Denver voted in the last election. So democracy is in November. That's where it actually hits the road. And whether or not you vote and others vote in this city for this and for everything else that's on the ballot. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So first, I'd like to just thank all of you for sitting here. I can't remember the last time we had a packed chambers. I think it was the pit bull ban. I think there were more people here talking about pit bulls than I have heard in a long time. So I asked you all to show up when things were happening, and I didn't expect it to look like this. But here you are. It's 1015 and you are still here. So I'd like to thank all of you for your activism. And I, too, will be supporting this to push this to the ballot. And that's going to be at the ballot. From what I understand, it's going to be three pages. So you all need to look at all of the state initiatives. You need to look at these initiatives. And when you're talking about defunding the police department, I need you guys to look at the Gallagher amendment. I need you to understand what Gallagher amendment and TABOR does to our coffers at the state and at the city level, because we don't have money like other states have. We have taxes like other states have, but we don't have money because the way that the Gallagher amendment and the TABOR amendment collide makes it super challenging for us to get money into our coffers and to pay for all of the things that you all are calling for, the reforms that you are calling for. You all need to get educated on what's on the ballot. So that's my little spiel for the Gallagher to D.D. Gallagher, I think is the term of it. I know I'm quite sure they just passed it. It's on the state. But if you have more questions, feel free to give me a call. I have a cool PowerPoint presentation that I got at the Latino Leadership Institute last year when I graduated from Do You, and they broke it down in five slides. I've been asking questions about Gallagher and Tabor my whole life and they broke it down in five slides. So if you want that by PowerPoint, contact my office council district one. I will gladly share it with all of you. And as for this bill, as Councilwoman Tori said, thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer, for pushing this forward and bringing something this type of dialog to this council. I think it's needed right now more than ever. So I appreciate you for your effort and doing the hard work to do outreach. It's really hard to do things citywide, so thank you for your steadfast leadership. Thank you. Council member. Council Member. Flynn Thank you, Mr. President. I do share some of the concerns about that were expressed by one of the speakers and several of the members about whether a process like this results in perhaps not the best candidates coming forward because of jeopardizing a position elsewhere or whatnot. And I want to recall that both that the community was upset with the processes for finding a new superintendent when they ended up with only one finalist and also the president of the University of Colorado system, when they ended up again with just one finalist because other finalists withdrew because there would be a public process. The answer to that isn't that, well, somebody if they can't get seven votes, then we don't want them anyway. I don't want someone who can just get seven votes. I want someone who can get a substantial number of votes up here. There's always pros and cons to every measure that we consider up here. On balance, I believe this is a good proposal and I'm very happy that to have the shot clock issue clarified so that there won't be any dispute about when we start and when we have to act. And so with that, I'm satisfied. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Torres, thank you for urging people to vote in November. If you haven't turned in your ballot, you can vote right now. So just wanted to add that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sandbach a perfect segway. I was going to add that democracy happens in November, but if you live in Denver, it also happens in May and in June. If there's a runoff, our elections don't happen. In in November for our city council races. So keep your eyes open. It's very different. That's why we have low voter turnout and our ballot will be long in November because these things that we refer will go on the November ballot. But follow us on any social media, Candy, said Abarca. We will create ballot guides for all of you to be able to share and disseminate and explain things so that we break it down and it's not hard. Just check the boxes. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, I go. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you for sticking with us and echo what many have said and and and vote right now. We have an election going on. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call on 536. Sawyer. I. Torres. I black. I. CDEBACA Heck yes. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon. I can. Pass. Cashman. I can. I. Hines. I. Council President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results. Two of us. I believe. I just want to clarify the record. I believe that was 11 Eyes and one. Heck yes, I believe is what I heard. Constable 536 has been ordered published on Monday, July 20th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 520, changing the zoning classification for 5061 Perry Street in Regis.