A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the coordinated election of November 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver granting the Denver City Council appointment power over the Independent Monitor and to remove an exception from Career Service for Monitor employees. Gives City Council the appointment power over the Independent Monitor and no longer excepts Monitor employees from Career Service. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 8-13-20.
Six nays, seven I's Council Bill 836 will be referred to committee. Moving on to. Our next item. Is Council Bill 837. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 837 on the floor for publishing? Thank you, Madam President, and will be accountable. 837 The Order Books. It has been moved and I get a second second. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Bill 837. Councilman Flynn. Here we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. Many of the same comments I would have on this one as well. This came to committee October over the November 28th. Last year was ten months ago. So it's November. October. And we haven't heard from it since. And it was scheduled for committee and it was pulled. And far from weaponizing process, what we have is weaponizing chaos again. The independent monitor isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There's no need for urgency or to rush something to the ballot that doesn't receive adequate vetting by committee and not here on the floor on a monday night. Several things that are problematic with this is that it's changed from when it was in committee in October. And I was there and I did read the bill. The at the time, there was a process to remove the independent monitor, and that's been changed. I had asked that the Screening Committee for Independent Monitor, which was then five individuals and is now seven, that we retain the list of qualifications because the people who are screening candidates for independent monitor should have some qualifications for choosing that person. They should have some life experience. They should have some background in how police brutality is investigated. But there is none of that in the bill. And this is, again, not something that needs to be rushed to the ballot. Nick Mitchell isn't going anywhere. There's one thing in here that I do like and that is and even that's not done the way I would prefer to see it. And that is putting the independent monitors, some of his 13 employees within the career service system because they are not right now. And although I don't believe that everyone should be other than the monitor, I think the monitors should have the freedom to appoint, as does the clerk, and the auditor should have the freedom to appoint deputies that will serve, especially policy director, so that if a new monitor comes in, that person has the freedom to choose policy direction without having to use the career service person that's been there the whole time. So there's many, many changes that need to happen at this before this would be even ready to consider for the ballot and doing it on a monday night, the week before we have to act on final is just not the place to do that . Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon is up next and then we'll go to the queue. Madam President, I have no comment. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. So, Councilman CdeBaca, I guess this question is for you. The wording of the charter change in the in the actual charter versus what is. The ordinance that actually sort of sets out what is specifically the the wording that that sort of governs the monitor itself. Would you be willing to go back to committee, both through committee, to discuss the changes in ordinance? If we were to refer the charter changed tonight or published the charter to commission, I refer it next week. And if so, what is what would the specific charter change wording be versus the ordinance? So one this does it should have a companion ordinance. And the history of how the monitors offices started was started is important because it was first started by ordinance in the code and then it was moved into charter to make it permanent. This does not deal with any of the things that Council Member Flynn mentioned. This charter change changes the appointing authority to city council. It doesn't change the qualifications. It doesn't change any of those things. It bumps out the monitor from underneath the mayor to city council appointing. Nobody here wants to change who the monitor is. But it's important to understand the structure that we're working with in this current emergency that the mayor is the independent monitors boss and the chief of police, his boss and the sheriff's boss. And so we don't the Monitor is investigating two other people who are appointees of the mayor. There is no. Leeway. There is no independence that is embedded into the independent monitors office. And so we need this not to change who the monitor is, to change whether the monitors boss is. And that is critical right now. If we want just investigations, if we want just outcomes related to what's happening in our city right now. And so absolutely, I would happily go through if and when this passes, I would happily do the companion ordinance that I think does take a lot more time and it's multiple changes within that ordinance that do need to happen. And I think there's a lot of feedback that we can get from the monitor after these investigations are completed that could inform the ordinance change. But this is simply changing the charter to make sure that. The. The boss is different, the appointing authority is different. So just to clarify, because I want to make sure I've got this very, very clear. This is like a two sentence change. It moves the monitor out from underneath the mayor as the appointing authority. And moves the independent monitor to a city council is the appointing authority. And that's it? Correct. It looks like a lot of pages, because what it does when you change the charter, you move the section. When you change the appointing body in the charter, you move the whole section with that with the person. The only thing being changed in this are the strikethrough, the new added language, our underline. It is not a significant change. It's just that the appointing authority and pumping it all into our city council section. So if we were willing to support you in that change, in that one structural change, then would you be willing to agree to go to committee with the ordinance for the Independent Monitor before the vote this November to do the work on the discussions that need to happen around the structural other things with the independent monitors office in committee, and have the in-depth discussions that need to happen there as well. Of course, and we had a draft and I would love to take more of the Monitor's time to be able to build this out. But considering what he's dealing with and what size staffing has and funding he has, I have been reluctant to also add that on top of this, but I would happily do that. Okay. So give it. Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. So given the given everything that the Monitor is dealing with right now and given the importance of that focus, do you and given that there is another ballot in November of 2021. Do you think it makes more sense then for us to hold on this as well until the Monitor can really focus on this and give us his undivided attention in and back that and and ensure that the outcomes are there before we refer something like this to the ballot. You're frozen, and I can't tell if it's me or you. I don't. I don't know. Did I unfreeze? Can you hear me now? Okay. I don't know when I stop. Now I stop talking. You're good now. Okay. I absolutely think this is critical right now. We are not working with a similar timeline for an ordinance change that can happen at any point over the over any size period. And so I think this is critical because we have a duty right now to make sure that we are creating the independence that we need right now to get these investigations done appropriately. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on that. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So, Councilman CdeBaca, how did you come to the point where the Independent Monitor needs only career service employees? Don't you feel that it would be nice to have a hybrid similar to the auditor's office, similar to I think you and DIA has appointing power so that if a new auditor comes in, they can create their own team. Because sometimes you get left with a legacy team. It doesn't work necessarily very well. So what was his outcome and what was his suggestions? And who in his office and prior to working in his office have you talked to to discuss those points? I have worked directly with the Monitor on this proposal, and I believe the Monitor is on the call, able to have him answer any questions. This is a protection we what we're doing is offering his employees job security. And when you're a compliance officer or when you're doing investigations, it is critical to have that, because if you do something that you're if if right now, his employees do something that is not liked by higher ups, they have no career protection. And so they deserve that protection. And this removes the exemption from that. So they're not appointed by the monitor. They're appointed by the mayor? Yes, if you look so if you look down at the section that's stricken out, it says any employee appointed to serve at the pleasure of the mayor for the purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety and any employees appointed by the Monitor to serve at the pleasure of the Monitor. The appointment of any monitor by the Mayor pursuant to this or any other provision of this Charter, shall require confirmation by the City Council. It replaces that section to just say, the head of the Office of the Independent Monitor. So once again to the committee, did you feel like you didn't have the votes to bring this forward out of committee either? Is that why you didn't go to committees? Because you felt the similar to your other discussion. You didn't have even the votes just to move it forward. I really don't feel like this one should be a problem at all. What my what? My hesitation was on the other one is the blockage of the other two. I wanted these three to all come in a package and I kept getting resistance with them. Coming in a package. These things are designed to work together. So I understand the want, the need and desire to have things come as a package. I honestly I really do. Yet at the same time, I also feel like the need to have information given to me in a timely fashion, it's really challenging. Like you said in your own statement, given how many things City Council's working on and our caseload right now and everything to have things come last minute. And so if it would have worked as a package, if they all got on the ballot together so. That the fact. That this hasn't come to committee and I've got the language at the last minute and haven't been able to do the own outreach for my community that I represent is really challenging. I just need to say that again, and I know that it's challenging to go through the committee process and I hear that you feel weaponized and that's unfortunate really. It is super unfortunate that you feel that way because I think that that you would find that if you came through committee, there would be people who are there to support you, too, that see these changes needing to be made throughout Denver and throughout our structure and are just as anxious and wanting to work on these matters as important processes. But yet when you when they're not able to come through committee and we're not I'm not able to give the time that I is needed to for me to do outreach to the monitor and to other employees and how they feel. It's super challenging. So with that, that's all my question. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilman. On the call, would it be helpful for him to respond? I know that we brought him in. Councilman Sandoval, would you like to have the monitor respond? I'm good, thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. We do have him available. Here, though, Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. So two questions. One, has H.R. given any input. On how years of service would be calculated for. Folks becoming new CSA employees who weren't before? What I believe would happen is depending on if they had already had been employed with the city, that it would just depend on what pay grade they were before. If they were not, then they would start over like anybody else. How is it dependent on pay grade? If their career service. Can you read your question? Yeah. So the staff of the Monitor's office becoming career service employees, if they've been there for five years or more, if there were regular CSA employees, they'd be. Vetted or bested. Excuse me. What happens for these folks once they. Convert to CSA? Did you want to bring the monitor on? Anybody who has an answer to that would be great. Go ahead, Nick. I don't see him there. We've got him unmuted. Nick, are you there? I'm here. My video does not appear to be worth it. Hang on. Sorry. Hello there. Hi, Nick. So the question I think had to do with if I understood properly a vesting and time of service and then maybe inappropriate question for the employment lawyers at the city attorney's office. I'm not sure if that was vesting. I think of it in a sort of pension context. So I'm not sure that I'm the right person to speak to vesting issues. I can't say that I am supportive of the idea of creating career service protection for subordinate employees of the Monitor, his office. They have very difficult jobs. I'm incredibly lucky to have a very talented staff who have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. And almost every other category, almost every other type of city employee has career service protection. And I ask we ask a lot of my employees to to work on these investigations, to take sometimes very controversial positions on cases. And I think it would do a world of good to help build in sustainability into the office for those subordinate employees to have those protections. So if there's anything on that point that it would be helpful for me to speak to, I'm happy to speak to anything on that point. I appreciate that. Nick, some of the question has. Been around whether these. Folks, how many staff are in the Monitor's office? 13 right now. Are they do they serve at the pleasure of. You or the mayor? They. I hire them, and they serve at the pleasure of the monitor. Okay. Thank you so much. The second question that I have actually to that point, Councilwoman. Sandoval. Made a suggestion of a hybrid. Have you had you considered that already in terms of some that would be appointed in your shop and others like your deputies, for example, and others that would be career service protected or categorized. Yeah. I think that, um, I think it's certainly worth considering. I think there are reasons why it could make sense to have a small number of appointees. And, you know, given the size of the staff that we're talking about, probably to who would who would serve at the pleasure of the monitor? You know, I think that that's really something I would consider. I think the bill, you know, works as is or at least that, you know, that portion of the bill, from my perspective, works as is. But to the extent there's there's interest in, you know, having a select number of employees who remain at will, I think there's I think there's potential American idea. Okay. Thank you so much, Nick. Councilman CdeBaca, the other question that I have. The section that's stricken. Section eight. Of. Eight. Any employee appointed to serve at the. Pleasure of the mayor for the. Purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety. Why is that section stricken? Does it apply to anyone else other than staff in the Monitor's office? So this so Kirsten can help explain this. This is. Doing it because it's in the this is in the careers section of the charter, which is not necessarily under the department's or under city council. It's its own separate section in the employment. And so this is where there is an expansion. If you read at the top of this, it says Career service shall comprise all employees of the city and their positions except one. And so this is removing them from that. It's removing the exemption. It's not it's not necessarily removing the possibility for him to have a hybrid. Is here's some able on how that works. And I think to. Clarify it, whereas Chris Kirsten's coming on. My question isn't about because I would like actually. For a consideration of. A hybrid for Nick. I totally get what. Councilman Sandoval is. Saying in terms of the lack of flexibility sometimes when, if and when. Hopefully decades from now, Nick leaves the Monitor's office. That Legacy offices can be can be incredibly challenging. Particularly for those where. New. Leadership. Really needs to set. A tone. So I would like to consider a hybrid, even if it's offering language tonight. But this language seems to speak to. Individuals separate. From the monitors office to the Department. Of Safety. Are there any other people who would fall under this? Any employee appointed to serve at the pleasure of the mayor for the purpose of monitoring. Internal. Investigations and. Disciplinary actions. And I'm wondering if, you know, maybe the new Public Integrity Office. Or Public Integrity Division. Have mayoral appointees. This would then this then apply to them. Kirsten, can you explain if this was the if this was put in there intended for the monitor when they move the monitor to the charter? If she's on. She is. We'll get her unmuted. Okay. Go ahead. Kirsten, you should be. All right. So, Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council. I actually would kick this to John first, since he's the primary drafter. And also because I dropped the call temporarily. So why don't we have you ask your question again, let John take a stab at it and then I can catch up with you all. John, my question is about the stricken Section eight. Any employee appointed to. Serve at the pleasure of the. Mayor for the purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety. Would that refer to anyone. Else other than the staff in the Monitor's office? For example, the Public Integrity Division, which was created after. This section was put into charter. I was under the impression this would only apply to the Monitor when I made the drafting decision. And certainly Kirsten's on the line. If there's other people that can speak to this, I'd like to know whether that was the intent. Yeah. That this would still make sure that the monitor was not under career service, but all of their all the employees of the Monitor word subject. Yeah. And I will just chime in now that I hear you repeat the question, Councilman, I do think it's a good point that, you know, there's some open ended language in the in the current language, not the reach that we have here that would allow for or maybe contemplate more than one particular individual. However, the current charter language, which appears earlier in the draft, does contemplate only one head of the office. So if you wanted to capture more than just the the current head of the office, then then you might need to make some changes. And to that. Point, if we. Were discussing any option of potentially two appointments that Nick could make. Or the Monitor could make. That remain. At serving at the pleasure of the monitor, would that be in this section? This is John I can speak to. I mean, if you look to the section right below it, there's a thing about the clerk of recorder I like. You can carve out a number of employees, as has happened in this section of the charter. Thank you both. Councilman Torres, we did have someone from H.R. to talk about the vesting piece. I think we might need to get Kala back up into the queue. But we'll try to do that. As well. And in that interim, trying to get Carla back up into the queue. If it's okay with you, Councilwoman Torres, I'm going to go to Councilwoman. Can each next step into the queue and we can come back. Councilwoman can meet. Thank you. Madam President, I think this is a really important discussion. And like many areas of monitoring, it gets to where you have actual issues, perceived issues, or the potential of mitigating future issues. Right. So we've had two pretty robust monitors under the process that we've had. But the concern about what that might look like in the future and the structural issues, so I take it really seriously. I too struggle with the timeline in terms of the ability to check in back with stakeholders. I don't know, for example, if we have anyone from the Citizen Oversight Board who is interested in talking about their perspective, have they had a chance to weigh the pros versus cons of career service for the entire department versus for having a few appointees in terms of their desire to ensure that the office is truly independent under whoever is appointed. So I would invite, if there is a member, I see someone's raising their hands and the attendees, if they've had time to vet and discuss this and take a position or whether they need more time, that's of interest to me. So I see it looks like the brand new chair, Al Gardner, is raising his hand. Would it be appropriate to promote him, Madam President? Yes, we will go ahead and get now promoted. And as he comes on the. The CLB worked in partnership with us to craft this. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Gardner. Okay. Hello. Thank you all tonight. Well, I don't I probably won't provide much context on a lot of the technical pieces to it. What I will to do is speak to the broader consideration of expanding the arms, sharing the independence of the independent monitor. I can tell you that the sea lobby is absolutely in support of creating a situation that would put the independent monitor in best position to be to have to have most independence as possible, especially when doing the performing of different investigations. The goal of independence is what we're looking for. And actually, as we go down the road of beginning to talk about police reform and the different ideas that will come to play as we look at these different options, although it doesn't seem like it's something urgent tonight we are entering new territory where that level of independence will be a lot different than potentially the what it looks like now. So we're definitely in support of the deal and providing more independence there. On the other piece, when it comes to the staffing, being able to move that under a situation where they will have excuse me, career appointment, that will seem like it will be more beneficial as well. As we head toward a more independent. Thank you. May I just ask a follow up question? Mr. Gardner, did you all take a position on both pieces of the bill then as a board? So as written both pieces the board supports, correct? Correct. As well as written both. We had a couple of changes in in wording. I mean, I've had it here. I don't have it in front of me, but most of it revolved around moving the IOM, the O&M and still be from Article two of the administration to Article three, which moves it under the city council. And that was one that we sent back to Calgary. And then you. Oh, but I'm. Hello. I think our legislative council there is. Okay. Hopefully they answered the question so those two minor changes. But for the most part, yes. Right. And so, you know, we're doing what's clearly committee work on the floor here. And so the next question I have is, is one about termination. So we have a I understand that there is a I understand that there is a intention to have a companion ordinance. But we have this interesting situation where we already have an ordinance that creates a very particular procedure for termination of the monitor. And I was wondering if either the sponsor or legislative counsel has done any analysis, because I have to refer this night without knowing whether or how the ordinance will change, which is part of the problem with this timeline in terms of ensuring that things work together. And so, you know, so so what analysis is there about how this charter change with and comport with the termination procedures that are outlined in the ordinance? And I wouldn't be able to speak to you tonight. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That wasn't for you, Mr. Cook. I didn't mean to make you feel like you're on the spot. Thank you very much for your participation, though. Thank you. That was probably for either the sponsor or the the. And you are probably looking for a legal response, but I don't personally believe that it interferes with that. So. Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative counsel we I think his counsel would, like I said earlier, there would need to be a change. To. The code at some point if this went through regardless. So we haven't fully analyzed the effects of this change beyond the knowledge that we would, depending on what went through both tonight and if it went through and was approved by voters, what would need to change to conform to these changes that are inside of this charter amendment ? Yeah. I guess I will just speak to what I see in the ordinance, which is that it gives very specific procedures to the mayor, which would make no sense. So we would have a charter that has a council as the appointing authority, and then we have an ordinance that has the termination procedures and conditions being pointed towards the mayor. And so I do see a conflict. And again, these are not things that couldn't be surmounted. They're things that require time. And I guess, you know, with any charter referral I have, I have two concerns. Always one. Well, three. One is is what I'm doing legal and everything fits together. And I'm giving the voters something that they truthfully can vote up or down without fear of issues, or at least I know what those issues are. So that's one. The second is, you know, is it is it a policy that's consistent? You know, I can't vote against my values, even if, you know, I mean, that's just my personal philosophy. Others may feel differently, but I can't reverse something that, you know, I personally don't feel like represents the best that the city can do , because that's what I was elected to do, is to make that initial evaluation. And then the third issue is, am I setting up, you know, for success in terms of the ability to succeed with the voters and so on this point, I'm concerned. I, you know, I feel like the voters already are seeing that there are process concerns and timing concerns. I don't know if those are going to be seized by a no campaign. I don't know if a no campaign is going to seize on the conflicts that's in the ordinance. So I what I do not want to do is have this go to the voters and have it fail and have a set behind this goal that the S.O.B. has had and the community has had for a while. So so that does concern me in terms of the, you know, the intention of succeeding and having all of these questions not answered. And then I will just appreciate the conversation from my colleagues about the appointments as Nick, it's I'm glad you have such a great staff and I'm glad that you feel so comfortable with them. But I, I do not believe we can have a truly independent monitor without several deputies that you get to pick. These are folks who might go to very high level officer involved shootings in your dead. You have to feel 100% confident in them for this system to work. And so I would obviously need to see at least one, if not two appointees that come with this, because I think it's essential for your office to function independently, do not have to be relying on legacy positions for your left and right hands. So that change would be necessary as well. So so I'll just leave it there and listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you, Madam President. I think you. Respond to that. We've got four more council members up in the queue, Councilwoman. So if it's a very brief response, go ahead. Yes. The section. Of the board. That talks about the removal, it says that appointment, the monitor shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor prior to any remarks by the mayor, the. City council. And the board regarding his or her intention to remove the monitor. And so I think that if that's vague enough that it says if there were if there was an issue, they would still have to consult with council. And if this passes, then council is the appointing body. So if the mayor decided to fire the the monitor under that. Under that section. What would prevent us from re appointing the monitor ourselves? Thank you, Councilman. Go ahead. Go ahead, Councilwoman. I wasn't sure if that was kind of a rhetorical question or whether you were asking it back to me. Councilwoman, I'm sorry. It's not a question. I think the answer is there would be nothing preventing us from reappointing him ourselves once we have that appointment authority. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I thought. I thought there were others ahead of me. Is monitor Mitchell still here? Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. A monitor. I'd like to ask you just one question. You've been monitor for eight years, correct? Has there ever been an occasion when the mayor has reached out to you and tried to influence you on any of your investigations? No. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I have questions for the monitor as well. Do you monitor? Do you support changing who appoints you? You know, so I was pretty clear in my in expressing my support for the career service portion of this bill. To some extent, I feel that it's a little bit of a conflict for me to opine on who should be, who should have the power to appoint, to monitor and remove the monitor, given that I'm the incumbent in that position. So I think my response is that I'll sort of let the two branches of government sort of hash that out, and we'll sort of reserve my comments regarding the second portion of the bill. Would you support having the Citizen Oversight Board have the authority to appoint the independent monitor? I you know, I can see lots of it. I think I would support. Sound public policy choices that will enshrine the independence of the office now and long into the future. What does it look like as it relates to the appointment and removal of the monitor? I don't think I'm going to opine on specific proposals at this point in time, but clearly we need to have strong faith in the system. Community members needs to need to feel that there is an independent voice in the process and changes that we can make as a city to ensure that that trust is there. I will be generally supportive of those kinds of changes. Well, I would agree. I my goal is also for maximum autonomy of the monitor. And so the monitor has the resources to perform its mission. So, I mean, I guess how about I ask the same question of Mr. Gardner and you, because that's your job here. So would you support the idea of having the Citizen Oversight Board appoint the monitor? Because then, I mean, the reason why it's like the question is then it's it's not a branch of government at all. It's, you know, that's one more layer of independence away from us, slightly politicians or whatever. I don't think it's slimy, but you get the generalization. First and might also be able to speak to this because Kirsten and John, we we discussed this as one of the options. And so they might be able to talk a little bit about the appointment power and who has appointment power so. That Mr. Gardner. Doesn't necessarily have to speak on that. Well, I am asking him, so I would like to hear his answer. Okay. Thank you. My answer is yes. The answer from the CLB is yes. It just in the short term. Absolutely. Because there again, just to reiterate that point of making sure that and I know the question was asked, had the mayor ever gotten involved in something like it, it's more of a broader question of ensuring that something like that never occurs. And from the community perspective, of which is the reason why each of us are on that board, that's really our only drivers to make sure that that type of independence is enshrined in that office. So, yes. And I mean, I would say you're right. You don't want to have that opportunity where someone might ask you for a favor and make you feel uncomfortable. Also, I don't want a position where the monitor even could potentially feel uncomfortable. I want I want there to be a total check and balance. And and so that's I mean, that's what I thought of the idea. But since Councilmember CdeBaca mentioned it, just Miss Crawford or I don't know, do you. And it probably be John. Go ahead, John. Jonathan Griffin, can you repeat the question? The question is so I ask that copy are that if they would support having authority to appoint the independent monitor instead of the mayor instead of city council, having a citizen oversight board appoints the independent monitor. I. I'm sorry. I don't. I don't understand how that applies to me. And we discussed this if the CLB would have appointment power to do that. For a. An appointee of the city. Is your. So I'm sorry. Here, I'm maybe struggling to understand. This is your question. Can the CEO be appoint the independent monitor. As does the CLP have the authority to appoint the independent monitor? I would not believe so for the same reasons that we've talked about before, about how the mayor in a strong mayor system is ultimately the person who makes all administrative appointments unless otherwise granted. The CLB. Would not. I mean, I think the way that we have it right now, where there's a nominating commission that gives the answer or, you know, that that is involved in that point. But I don't think that would be able to be a charter. But I, I think that would need to be in code and in a similar function to the way it is right now, since the copy itself, I don't believe is in Charter Club. I, I need to look more into the question as the easy answer. So more research monitor is also saying, I think certainly worth considering. I just. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President. And Council and Hines, just to remind you that the c0b is appointed by the council and the mayor. We appoint some, he appoint some, and then we have some joint. Like the bill before this. I'm very open to the idea and I would love to talk about it more. I think it's great that the s.O.B. Worked with Councilman CdeBaca to draft the bill, but unfortunately we weren't given that same opportunity to talk about what was going to be in it. And that's what we're doing now. And so it's like right now we're having a committee meeting on the floor when we're deciding whether to put something very important on the charter for voters to vote for. And I just don't think this is the way we should do it. All of the questions demonstrate that the bill's not ready to move forward. We're talking about new ideas, and it's a great, robust conversation. But we really all need to sit down and talk about it at a committee meeting or at several committee meetings. So I just want to reiterate the importance of the council process as well as a public process. And moving forward. I am 100% on board for talking about this further. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for bringing this forward. I think that this one is really important, and I think that there's a lot a lot to like in here. But again, I think the conversations that we're having are also really important. And I think we're discussing some really important things that we want to get right. Referring something to the charter, then enshrines it in their only voters can change it. And I think that is incumbent upon us to make sure that we have fully vetted and worked all these questions out. As a couple of councilmembers have mentioned, you know, our independent monitor isn't going anywhere. We have another election next year. And I think that this is something that warrants that full conversation that we should be having in committee. And I look forward to that conversation and getting this right so that we can get it to voters. And that's right when we get it there. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Clerk. Councilwoman, can I have Councilman Cashman up? Is it okay if I pop over to him and then I'll get back to you back in the queue, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I just. Would. Echo what a few of my colleagues have already said. I think there's more than a nugget of good things to be gained from taking this proposal through the process. I mean, 100% fan of the structure that creates the independent monitor and enshrined it in the charter. And I happen to think we've got an excellent person in Mr. Mitchell filling that post, and anything we can do to strengthen the independence of that office is something that I look very forward to working on. But I do think that, as has been said, this needs more time to bake and I think we're going to come up with something truly excellent. And I thank the councilwoman for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Canete. Thank you. So, another one of these. Oh, sorry. My dogs are here. Another one of these committees on the floor questions. So I just am thinking about unintended consequences that I didn't have time to think through. So one of the things I feel like we've talked about before is our inability or our lack of ability to direct . And I want to be very clear. H.R. has been very supportive of the council in the search for our executive director and has always been accommodating. But I may I feel like there's some nagging thing in my brain about the question of running a search like this? And is there a difference in terms of our ability to say, sorry? You must help us with this search and conduct a national search? I just want to make sure there's no unintended consequences hiding in here in terms of our ability to fulfill our function. So if we take this on, as if, to my knowledge, the only employees that we appoint now are those that are under our direct control, unless I'm forgetting anybody. So if I'm forgetting anyone, please let me know. But I just want to clarify. There's a whole infrastructure for hiring that is accessible to the mayor because that's who does that. And so we've leveraged it for our own offices. But is there any issue or is there any limits on what they can do for us and or our ability to make, make, make sure that they are there to give us that infrastructure? This, for example, there's cost involved. So, for example, running a nationwide search for a position like this, I'm assuming you want a search firm of some sort. You know, there's some cost involved. So just talk me through anything about any unintended consequences we may be missing here. And I guess, again, for the sponsor or alleged counsel and if no one has an answer, that's okay. But I'm putting it out there because I just want to make sure that we're prepared for this passing. If it if it were to be referred. Perfect. Thank you. I think that H.R., I think, is also on the call. But if we if it's something that we take under our wing, I think it's something like anything else that we would plan for in our budget. And we had Carla Pearce who had called in. And I'm asking the staff if we have another representative from our. Carla Pearce is with the employment unit of the city attorney's office, which is a little different because they would handle problems. They wouldn't me I mean, maybe they wouldn't necessarily handle an administrative function like a search that would be an employee, not a city attorney's employee. Yeah. I don't believe we have anyone for an hour here. So. But to your point, again, those follow up nagging questions before we refer something. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. So I think with that's probably a great Segway. Clearly, there are questions that are left and based on the comments of a lot of my other council members. I would like to move to. We refer this to. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Madam Secretary, or any conversation. Excuse me, Councilwoman. Can each is your hand? Thank you. I just. I want to be clear that I probably would be ready to vote in support of this tonight. But if it's referred to committee, I'm committed to continuing to support and help make sure that it gets so whichever path ends up happening. I am very committed to working with the community and the sponsor on ensuring that this continues to proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So just hearing all of the comments and concerns by council. You know, when we do something that we put in the charter. You know, this is serious and this is where details matter. And there's a lot of details that are not that still need some clarity and some answers. And so it's why I supported the motion of sending it back to committee so that we can do the appropriate work in the committee process and be able to thoroughly discuss what kinds of changes people would want to see made that allow us to be able to have a bill that we can all explain, that we all support, that we want to move forward to the voters. So that's that's where I'm at on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a better move than they're moving us forward tonight, obviously, because I agree with Councilwoman Kimmich's earlier remarks that to have. Imprecision and confusion and lack of clarity over the ordinance that would implement this. That, for me is highly problematic going to the voters and saying, we'd like to appoint this person, but we don't know yet how we're going to go about doing that or or how all this works that it would that if it were to lose at the ballot, that would be a much worse outcome. So I'll vote no on re referring to me because it's just as easy to file a new bill, the election as the other election as a year away. And as long as this comes to committee and stays on the agenda and has a robust discussion, I support the concept of us appointing the independent monitor completely. What I don't support is all is what was in the draft bill that implements all that. Remember when we changed the Citizen Oversight Board to have more city council appointments in the screening committee, etc. that I actually wanted to do an amendment that didn't have support to have the CEO be appointed entirely by council and not by the administration, to have each of the 13 of us appoint one member. And so I do support us appointing the independent monitor, but I don't think it's ready to go to the ballot, obviously, and referring it would would would would see to that. But it's just as easy to appoint or to to let it die tonight and then file a new bill as the process moves along at a much better pace. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Just an interest. If this doesn't get re referred to committee, I'd be interested. In adding an amendment to allow for the monitor to have to appointed positions within that language. So I'll see where things go from here. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. See? No other questions. Madam Secretary, roll call on Bill 837 being referred to committee. Is there not a is is councilman Tory is not offering an amendment. We have a motion already on the floor to re refer it to committee. And counsel. Oh, go ahead. Thank. Sawyer. I. Torres? No. Black I. CdeBaca. Pass. CLARKE All right. Flynn Now. Herndon. At times. I. Cashman. I can each pass. Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sorry. No. Seelbach. Abstain. Can I? Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One abstention. Three names. Nine eyes. Nine eyes. Council Bill 837 is referred to committee. Moving on. The next item up is Council Bill 842. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 842 on the floor for publishing?