Charter Review Commission Mon, Apr 13, 2026 · Charter Review Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1462 == Executive Summary == The Charter Review Commission held its initial meetings, focusing heavily on understanding its mandate, the Open Meetings Act (OMA), and the powers of a Home Rule City like Santa Fe. A significant portion of the discussion revolved around planning for robust and meaningful public engagement, including strategies for community meetings, curriculum development, and ensuring accessibility. Commissioners also expressed a strong interest in reviewing the city's budgeting process and developing a strategic plan, requesting historical context on past charter amendments and mayoral powers. Key decisions included approving the agenda and postponing the election of a Chair and Vice-Chair to the next meeting to allow for full commission participation. The commission established its next meeting for April 30th at 5:00 PM in the council chambers, with a hybrid in-person and remote option. Staff were tasked with providing historical information, researching meeting logistics, and assisting with research requests, while commissioners committed to preparing for future discussions on strategic planning and public input strategies. == Key Decisions == - Agenda for the initial meeting was approved by unanimous 'aye' vote. - Motion to postpone the selection of Chair and Vice Chair to the next meeting passed unanimously. - Next meeting scheduled for April 30th at 5:00 PM in the council chambers. - Next meeting format will be in-person with a remote (Zoom) option for attendees. - Confirmed that the commission can form a subcommittee without a chair. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of the agenda — Passed unanimously ('aye' vote). - Motion to postpone the selection of Chair and Vice Chair to the next meeting — Passed unanimously. == Public Comment == Commission members introduced themselves, sharing backgrounds and motivations for joining. Commissioner Gold emphasized reviewing previous commission recommendations and expressed interest in the council-manager form of government. Commissioner Duran questioned re-litigating past voter decisions on mayoral executive power. Concerns were raised about parking and accessibility for public meetings, with suggestions to coordinate with community partners and use their spaces. Commissioners also stressed the importance of meaningful public input, suggesting pre-work with community leaders and a focus on quality over quantity for meetings. No public comments from non-commission members were recorded. == Topics == - Open Meetings Act - Meeting Logistics & Schedule - Charter Review Commission Role - Public Input Sessions - Chair and Vice Chair Election - Member Introductions - Agenda Approval - Staff Support & Resources - City Budget Process - Subcommittee Formation - Historical Information/Research == Full Transcript == We are live. Thank you. I'm going to call this meeting to order, and we will start with roll call. Commissioner Gold. Yes. Commissioner Duran. Here. Commissioner Vadriel. Present. Commissioner Ray. Here. Commissioner Pettz. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Chavez. Here. Commissioner Gano. Merbella here. Okay, we have a quorum. The first item on the agenda will be the approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? Second. Okay. Commissioner Gold. So moved to approve the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Valel. And those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed. The motion carries. The next item on our agenda will be the introduction of members and staff. My name is Xavier V. Hill. I am the Assistant City Clerk for the City of Santa Fe City Clerk's Office. I will be serving as a liaison for this committee. Any questions or concerns that you have regarding the work of the committee, please feel free to reach out to me. And I will go ahead and pass it down the line. Hello, I'm Jerica. I am a project administrator in the community. Hi, my name is Marcy Ianino, and I am the manager of the Legislation and Policy Office, and I'm super happy to be here with you guys today. We also have a few members of staff in the audience if they would like to introduce themselves. Okay. These are the members of staff that we'll be working together with for the next year to get the work of the committee done. Okay. With that, we will move on to, oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So sorry, I'm moving a little fast. This is my first meeting here, so this is a bit of a learning experience for me as well. If you would like to go through and introduce yourselves to everybody. We'll start with Maria and go onward. Hello, everybody. Esteemed colleagues, it's a pleasure to be here, and thank you to the city and the staff. My name is Maria Perez. I served on the last Charter Review Commission. It's an honor to be here with you for the next year. And my interest in this work is that I do democracy work. For my day job, I run a democracy-themed nonprofit. So, I'm very much interested in what we're going to be discussing. Thank you. Hey, everyone. Kendall Chavez, a proud resident of District 3. Honored to be here as well. I am a state government employee by day. I just have my whole my bag with all my stuff in it that I just tread from my office. And I've had the pleasure of working with some other people here on the commission through other projects and with the City of Santa Fe through my role in the Governor's Office. So, happy to be here and to dig in. Thanks. Hi, everybody. I'm JP, and if I have to put a title, I just guess I'm a community liaison, relationship builder. Excited to be here. I served with Maria Deassin, so just excited to be here again. Thank you. Hi, everybody. I'm Pam Ray. I'm retired. I was a lawyer with the Legislative Council Service. So, I was a lawyer for the legislature for over 25 years. And we had a lot of discussions about separation of powers and things like that. And so, I got really excited about this when I heard about it. So, I'm looking forward to it. I think it'll be fun. It's great to see some of my colleagues, former colleagues, and it's a little weird being back in city chambers. But grateful to be working with all of you in this capacity. Again, Renee Variel. I was interested in this and was appointed, and essentially because of the work I've done on council for eight years, and that actually split between two different administrations prior to becoming a strong mayor structure. So, I do have perspectives from like what that used to be like and what it was like before I completed my term in 2023. And also, my day job, what I do regularly is I work for a statewide gender justice foundation called newmexowomen.org, and I love that job. So, yeah, pass it on. Good afternoon. My name is Robera Duran. I was born and raised here in Santa Fe. My family goes back generations and blessed to call Santa Fe and surrounding areas home. I'm retired, but I have 25 years of governance experience working with the State of New Mexico, specifically around working with people and programs and policy for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I'm interested in this position, and I'm honored to serve and grateful that I was nominated and approved to ensure that we have a government that is balanced and fair in its powers, roles, and responsibilities, and most importantly, that we have a government that works for all of its residents, no matter what part of Santa Fe they call home. Thank you, and I look forward to working with all of you. Hi, everybody. My name is Brandon Bella. I have an engineering background, and I'm relatively new to Santa Fe. I'm on the Water Conservation Committee, and I took an interest in this role because I'm really passionate about making Santa Fe the best it can be. I'm looking forward to learning a lot and contributing as much as I can, and it's a pleasure to be on this commission. Okay. Thank you, commissioners. It's a pleasure to meet all of you, and I'm looking forward to working with you over the next year. Okay. Our next item on the agenda is presentations. And I will turn the floor over to Marcos Martinez for a presentation on the Open Meetings Act as applied to the Charter Review Commission. I see, are we able to put the presentation on the screen? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Charter Commission members, for your service. I'm happy that you're here, and I'd hope to go over some basics that I think are important. And that's to start with the Open Meetings Act. So, forgive me for those of you who may already be familiar with it. We'll just go through this hopefully quickly and through the next one as well. So, the Charter Commission as a public body, the State of New Mexico has an Open Meetings Act law, and it states that any administrative adjudicatory body or other policymaking body of any state or local government agency, including municipalities, is covered by the ambit of the Open Meetings Act. And so, I have put there a citation from the charter, our charter. It states that a Charter Review Commission shall be appointed as needed, but not less frequently than every 10 years. The commission shall hold no less than two meetings in each of the city's council districts for the purpose of taking input from the public. The commission shall recommend charter amendments to the governing body on or before the first week of April prior to the election when any such amendments are to be considered. And so, this charge that comes from the charter, I think, falls under policymaking, the policymaking rule of the Open Meetings Act. So, the big picture is that public business is to be conducted in public. The purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to provide rules that public bodies follow to ensure that public business is conducted in the open. And to accomplish this goal, the Open Meetings Act requires that public business be conducted in full public view, that actions of public bodies be taken openly, and that deliberations of public bodies be open to the public. And I think, you know, a critical criterion for the public, the Open Meetings Act, is the quorum. And so, this is a quote from the Open Meetings Act as well. All meetings of a quorum of the commission members are to be public meetings. Oh, no, this is from our charter. Open to the public at all times unless the meeting qualifies for an exception to the Open Meetings Act. And then from our code, a majority of members of the governing body, but in this case, I'd like you to read into your to that the Charter Commission currently serving is a quorum for purpose of transacting business. All members of the governing body present at a meeting are counted toward a quorum, and unless otherwise provided by law, a question before the governing body shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That's out of state statute. And I think those that quorum standard applies to the Charter Commission. So, we want to be mindful of decision-making that happens outside of the public. And so that the, the prohibition is really against rolling or walking quorums when a subset of the governing body or the Charter Commission or any subset of the governing body that meets and makes decisions does so outside of the public view. It begins, it violates the Open Meetings Act. So, decisions among public body members are subject to the Open Meetings Act requirements anytime a decision is made includes a quorum of the public body members. So, if you come to a decision outside of an open meeting, that is a problem. That that action or that decision can be voided. There's also times when you will discuss things or meet in public, and it isn't a violation of the Open Meetings Act. So, imagine a situation in which five counselors or five commission members in our in our example, including, well, not the mayor pro tem, all volunteer for the same organization that provides free meals during the holidays. These five counselors are part of a text message chain in which they discuss the schedules for the volunteer organization and share recipes. Does this violate the Open Meetings Act? No. This example is meant to illustrate that you guys can meet in public and discuss things other than the subject of the Charter Commission, and that doesn't create a quorum just because five of you meet or or a majority of you meet together, so long as the discussion and any decisions that get made are not regarding the subject of the Charter Commission itself. So, feel free to exercise your First Amendment rights to meet in public, all of you, even, and discuss things other than the Charter Commission. But once you begin to sort of come to a decision or you want to talk about something that came up in a meeting and you think you you've got maybe you can coalesce or come to a consensus out of an open meeting, that's where I would urge you to not do that, to hold it until your open meeting. Express your consensus in public, and that decision will be valid and upholdable. So, to underline, underscore that point, decisions made by a quorum of a public body outside of an open meeting, any decision would be void. And this is out of the Open Meetings Act as well. No resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or action of any board, commission, committee, or other policymaking body shall be valid unless taken or made at a meeting held in accordance with the requirements of Section 10151. 10151 is first subsection of the Open Meetings Act. Along with that right, or that need to make decisions in public, is the public's right to attend and listen. And so, the Open Meetings Act specifies that all persons desiring so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings of the public body. Reasonable public access is required. But the Open Meetings Act is not intended to be so strictly construed as to impair or impede the effective workings of government. So, there's a there's a reasonableness requirement there. All access shouldn't mean that everyone in the city should physically be required to be present in order to hear, to attend and listen. And that's why the city and other local public bodies subject to the Open Meetings Act make other accommodations available. They record meetings. They make them streaming or available for subsequent attendance. Also, remote appearance is permitted by the Open Meetings Act. Remote appearance at public meetings is not prohibited under the Open Meetings Act. The public body just must have its own authority allowing it, and that's specified under 10151C. The City of Santa Fe does allow remote appearance under city code section 1-9 when it is difficult or impossible to attend a public meeting in person, and advisory committees are permitted to meet remotely when the advisory committee determines it is in the best interest of the public to do so. In-person appearance does not have to be difficult or impossible. So that's Resolution 2022-338. So if it supports the ability of this Charter Commission to meet remotely, or one member needs to meet remotely, that's permissible. There are notice requirements under the Open Meetings Act. A public body must give notice of all public meetings of a quorum of the public body. The notice must include the licensed broadcast stations and newspapers of general circulation that have made a written request for notice of the public body's meeting, and the body is to determine reasonable notice annually. The city does that. One of the first resolutions the city passes is an Open Meetings Act resolution. There's also a 72-hour requirement such that the agenda has to be available 72 hours before the meeting. The 72-hour requirement applies regardless of whether it includes a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. For example, a public body holding a meeting on Monday at 9:00 a.m. would meet the 72-hour requirement if it made the agenda available on Friday by 9:00 a.m. Minutes are another component that is a requirement of the Open Meetings Act. All public bodies are required to keep written minutes of all open meetings. Minutes of open meetings have minimum standards. They shall provide the following information: the date, time, place of the meeting, names of all members of the public body in attendance, and a list of those members absent. A statement of what proposals were considered and a record of any decisions, any votes made by the public body, and how each member voted. The minutes also must contain a description of the subject of all discussions had by the body, even if no action is taken. A draft copy of the minutes is to be prepared within 10 working days of the meeting, and draft copies of minutes must be available for public inspection. The public body must approve, amend, or disapprove draft minutes at the next meeting of a quorum. The minutes are not official until they are approved. The minutes really shouldn't be an opportunity to sort of revise what you said. They should be an accurate reflection. If you said something that you wish you hadn't, you can just sort of make a new statement at the following meeting. So, we want to be mindful of what actually took place. If there was a grammatical or typographical error, those types of corrections are always welcome. There are exceptions to the Open Meetings Act. I don't think you'll run into these too often, but I want to go over a few of them just in case they do arise. Certain types of discussions by a quorum of public body members are not subject to the Open Meetings Act and minute-taking requirements of the Open Meetings Act. I think these will be rare, just in case I'm going to go over them. The ones that are most likely to come up, well, the first one is not likely to come up for you: certain personnel matters. This is for the governing body. The second one as well would be deliberations in connection with an administrative adjudicatory proceeding. I don't think that's going to come up with you because you're not going to be considering any individual rights by the Charter Commission. It is possible that there could be a meeting with the public body's attorney pertaining to threatened or pending litigation. I hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, we can go into executive session to discuss it. I think that's really probably the only one that will apply for you. So, let's hope that there's no litigation. A meeting subject to the attorney-client privilege pertaining to threatened or pending litigation in which the public body is or may become a participant is an exception to the Open Meetings Act. That's the only one I flagged. There might be an extra one in your packet, but I revised this after the fact. So, I think unless you have questions now, I'll just move on to the next presentation if that's okay with the clerk, or I can stop for questions now and then we can do questions after the second presentation on Open Meetings. Are there any questions from the board? Okay. The big takeaway is public business in public. Whenever a quorum is there, the decisions by a quorum need to be made in a public meeting. Our next presentation will be, what does it mean to be a home rule city? And I have another presentation if they can. Thank you. Okay, so locally, I think we often refer to ourselves as a home rule municipality, called a charter municipality in the constitution. The terms are interchangeable. Santa Fe has been a charter municipality since 1997. The power to become a charter municipality was enacted by voters really in 1970. Santa Fe took advantage of that by holding a special election in 1997. And I'll just read a little bit from the constitution. This is Article 10, Section 6: "A municipality which adopts a charter may exercise all legislative powers. Perform all functions not expressly denied by general law or charter. This grant of powers shall not include the power to enact private or civil laws governing civil relationships except as incident to the exercise of an independent municipal power. Nor shall it include the power to provide for a penalty greater than the penalty provided for a petty misdemeanor. No tax imposed by the governing body of a charter municipality except a tax authorized by general law shall become effective until approved by a majority vote in the charter municipality. The purpose of this section is to provide for maximum local self-government. A liberal construction shall be given to the powers of municipalities." That's really where you all draw your power, and these are sort of the limits on that as well. This one statement in the constitution. But in addition to the constitution, there is a set of laws under the Municipal Code of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated, and it's called the Charter Act. The Charter Act also governs charter municipalities. It kind of restates what was in the constitution. "A municipality organized under the provisions of the Municipal Charter Act shall be governed by the provisions of the charter adopted pursuant to that act. And no law relating to municipalities inconsistent with the provisions of the charter shall apply to any such municipality. A municipality which adopts a charter may exercise all legislative powers and perform all functions not expressly denied." Charter municipalities by general law or charter. Again, "a liberal construction shall be given to the powers of municipalities to provide for maximum local self-government." Again, it's really the voters that passed amendments to the New Mexico constitution. But what this reflects is a recognition that municipalities should be able to enact laws even when the legislature has not specifically regulated or authorized municipalities to act in a specific way. And our limitations are basically civil domestic relations, criminal laws cannot exceed petty misdemeanors, and any taxes have to go to the voters, to restate what was on the prior slide. Then this is also part of your job, which is amending a charter. The Charter Commission considers whether amendments would be in the best interest of the public. The Charter Act specifies how to do that, and it basically states, I'm going to summarize a little bit because, well, let's go ahead and read it, I guess, and I can summarize. "The charter of any municipality adopted under the provisions of Article 10, Section 6 of the Constitution of New Mexico by law of the territory legislature of New Mexico or under the provisions of the Municipal Charter Act may be amended or repealed either by a proposal submitted by the governing body of the municipality to the qualified electors or by petition as provided for in Section 3-15-4 NMSA 1978 for the adoption of an original charter at a general or special election and ratified by a majority of the qualified electors voting on the amendment or repeal." So any amendment still requires a vote of the electors, a majority vote. So, what can a charter municipality do? I'm going to read a little bit from this case called *Cain versus City of Albuquerque*. And this is sort of restating some of what I said. "In 1970, New Mexico adopted a state constitutional amendment that establishes the right of citizens of a municipality to adopt a home rule charter, citing Article 10, Section 6. Municipalities that adopt home rule charters, quote, may exercise all legislative powers and perform all functions not expressly denied by general law or charter. Thus, home rule municipalities do not look to the legislature for a grant of power to legislate, but only look to statutes to determine if any express limitations have been placed on that power." And the cases have sometimes summarized this as charter municipalities can enact anything that is not prohibited by general law, and they, but they cannot permit something that is prohibited, and they cannot prohibit something that is permitted. So it's like, if there isn't a law that prohibits, in other words, the city can permit it. If there's a law that prohibits something, the city cannot permit it. This other case, this is *Smith versus the City of Santa Fe*, talks a little bit about what some of the limitations are for a charter municipality. "Limitations on home rule authority are evaluated in a two-step process. In the first step, a court asks whether a state law is a general law." So if there is a state law out there and it doesn't apply generally, it was meant to apply only to, I don't know, traditional historic villages, like Agua Fria, that's not a law of general applicability, and it's not a law that applies throughout the state. So then it's not going to apply. It's not going to be a limitation on the City of Santa Fe. But if there is a general law, a law that applies generally throughout the state, it relates to a matter of statewide concern and impacts inhabitants across the entire state. That's the first step that has to be satisfied. "Then in the second step, the court determines whether the general law expressly denies the city power. The court must consider A, whether the statute evinces any intent to negate such municipal power, and B, whether the effect of the statute implies a clear intent to preempt that governmental area from municipal policy-making, and C, whether the grant of authority to another governmental body makes its exercise by the city so inconsistent with the statute that it is equivalent to an express denial." So there's kind of a, it's called a preemption analysis that the courts undertake when charter action is challenged by someone, and that's where we really learn what our limitations are. And the city has exercised its home rule or charter municipal authority to do very novel things in New Mexico. We enacted the first minimum wage, and their challengers said there's a general law out there, there's a state minimum wage, and so therefore the city cannot enact a minimum wage over and above what the state's minimum wage does or holds. The court basically analyzed, they got to that first step in that section, but then they determined that the general law did not expressly deny the city's power, that the city could go beyond what the state had done. The state had set a minimum, and the city could go beyond that and impose a higher minimum wage than was permitted previously. The city has also regulated domestic wells, and there again, there were challengers, people who had applications with the State Engineer's Office, who wanted to drill domestic wells in the city limits. They said the city can't do this. This is under the express purview of the Office of the State Engineer. They regulate water. They administer water for the state. And so they believed that there was a general law that applied throughout the state. But again, the court looked again and said that general law does not expressly deny the city's ability to further restrict groundwater regulation in the city limits. And so the city's domestic well ordinance was also upheld there. There have been cases where municipalities have not been as successful. Albuquerque has had a few ordinances that have been struck down where the courts went through that analysis. They said there was a general law on the books, and one of them had related to involuntary commitment for people with some disabilities. And the courts struck that because they found it to be a type of civil relations that the city could not regulate. There was a City of Gallup also had a situation where they had a charter amendment where they wanted to have city councilors elected at large. There is a state law that says that city councilors need to be elected by districts. And so the New Mexico Supreme Court determined that that completely preempted the City of Gallup from being able to have at-large members. So there have been examples where municipalities have been challenged on their home rule powers. And it's really that second step where the courts have found denials, basically expressed denials of local government authority. So I'll stop there. See if there are any questions on charter home rule powers. Okay. Well, I'll be working closely with Marcy and the Clerk's Office. So I think we'll probably be in communication because the charter, ultimately, the City Attorney is tasked with opining on the legality of any proposed charter amendments. And so I hope we have a fruitful communication throughout this process and wish you all well, and I'm excited for your work. Thank you, Marcus. Thank you to City Attorney Martinez. The next presentation on the agenda is Charter Review Commission Resolution Process and Timeline by Marcy Ianino. Marcy, please take it away. Okay, so I don't have multiple slides, so I thought that we could just use our books if that's okay with you. So I think maybe one of the first things that we should perhaps look at is what you'll find in the CRC resolution tab. This is the resolution that the governing body passed in 2025 to outline the task before you. And I imagine that you all know how these things work, but the "whereas" clauses in the resolution are going to be like the recital of the facts that got us to where we are. And the "therefores" are what the governing body actually wanted to happen. So if we were to skip to page two of that resolution, I just want to point out that there's a lot of good information for you all here about how to organize yourselves, what the task is before you. So it starts with the name of your commission, which I think you know this, you're the Charter Review Commission. The purpose of it, the main purpose for you all was to dive deeply into the idea of separations of powers for the governing body. At least that's how the governing body was contemplating your all's work. I know that many of you, a couple of you already dug into this, and there was a first pass at it the last time that you all were convened, or not you all, but the last time there was a Charter Commission convened, and there's been some work on that. If you want to see that Charter Commission's report, feel free to reach out to me. I can always dig it up and give it to you, or you guys can start fresh, whatever you all want to do. So the purpose was to focus on separations of power. The duties and responsibilities are laid out there in Section 3. The last time the Charter Review Commission, a Charter Review Commission, came together, there were some changes to Article 10 about how we are going to see your work unfold. And so one of them was the April to April is going to be your year-long process time, and also that you're going to have multiple meetings in different in the council districts. So the clock starts ticking on April 1st, and then it ends on April 1st in 2027. And then my office's clock starts ticking because we will draft all of the resolutions that include ballot measures for the governing body to contemplate and vote on. And if they vote yes, those ballot measures will go before the electorate. And if they vote no, they won't. So does that make sense? Stop me if you have questions. And so, and we're working backwards from the November 2027 November 2027 election. So you all will hand your report over in April. My office will draft, and we have to get them before the governing body in time for those final ballot measures to go to the clerk, which is usually sometime in July or August, right? So it's not a lot of time, actually. You have a lot cut out for you, and then my office will have a lot cut out for us as well, depending on what your, the size and complexity of the report and what your recommendations really are. So there's a list of things here, A through F. These are ideas that the governing body are interested in having you all look into, but it is not limited to these. So the idea there is that you all are going to have ideas come up and insights that maybe we didn't, they didn't have. And so don't feel like you have to stay in A through F. You can do what you need to do. Your term is April to April. Your membership is here. Your officers, your absence policy, the vacancies, what happens if there is a vacated position, are all that what you do is here. Meetings, duration, your quorum, your staff liaison, and so that's the basics of this resolution. And then I'll put together a draft timeline for you all. I don't want to be in the business of telling you what to do, but I also thought it might be nice. I was imagining if I was you, I might want kind of a plan to work from. So in April of 2026, you all come together. We were sort of thinking May through December, you're holding your council district meetings. And Jerica might speak about that a little bit if you want. And then January through March of 2027, we were thinking could be a good solid working block for you all because you'll want to go here, maybe gather information, but then I can also imagine that having some time set aside just to work would be beneficial. And then, and then in April, you'd hand over the report the first week, and then my office will facilitate the review of the recommendations and the drafting of the ballot or the resolutions with the ballot questions. And then June or July, the governing body would consider those. And then July, August, we'll get those ballot measures together. And then in November, the electorate would vote. So does that make sense? And then I put the actual piece of charter there for you underneath so that you see it. Yeah. 10 Article 101. Yes. You tell us again who you are. Of course. Commissioner, I'm actually forgetting your name too. Pam Ray. Okay. Commissioner Ray, I am Marcy Ianino, and I am the Manager of the Legislation and Policy Office at the city. Is that part of the Clerk's Office, or is it separate? Technically, I'm housed out of the City Attorney's Office. And you do the draft. Question, Marcy, are these meetings that are to be held in the districts rest of the year simply to receive public input on some of the questions raised here? G is nodding her head, so we will not be deliberating at these meetings. We will simply be asking for input. Is that correct? Commissioner Gold, the meetings part, and I'm just, I'm sorry to be like this, but I might just say I'm just going to look at the what the charter says because that's kind of how I'm thinking. And actually, Commissioner Perez and Commissioner, I forget your last name, Rano, you guys, you all have an idea about where that language came from and what the intent was, probably even better than I do. But let's see. Let me find it. It says, somebody else finds it before I do. You do it. Well, the reason that we picked it, and correct me if I'm wrong, was the fact that they gave us three months to do everything the last time. There was no budget. There was no conversation with community. And I, I as a commissioner at that time, felt horrible because the outreach, though it was on the city website, though there was education, though there was things, it wasn't a broad enough outreach. And all we had, and correct me if I'm wrong, was two city constituents out of every district that showed up to any of the meetings in those three months. And so our idea was that we should educate the people on what the charter is, what we're doing, and why we're working on it, and hear what they think about those things, take the notes, and then work on the project itself. Because I, I felt horrible saying we should write this in the charter. And then I don't, though I have the opportunity to speak for my district, I, I'm not the expert in my district, and I don't know every need. So hearing other perspectives and being inclusive was more our thought in that process. And Maria, if you'd like to say. Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Dil. That is correct. We, we discussed how we just didn't have enough time to be effective and do like a meaningful process with community. I would like to offer my thoughts on that, Marcy. On this schedule, I would like for us to consider moving these community meetings back a little bit for us to move, for us to meet as a commission together for a couple months so that we can design a process of community input that's actually meaningful and not just formative because we don't want to talk at the people. This is like boring stuff about governance. So like, I would like for us to come together as a group and think about what we want to share with the community, what kind of information we want them to think about, how we're going to collect that information to what end, and make it be something that, that it's worthwhile for people to come to. So I think that will require a little bit of planning on our end. So yeah, I guess my, my suggestion would be that we maybe start those community meetings in the summer, like maybe in July, and have a couple meetings where we can get it together and plan a proper community outreach process. I very much like that suggestion. I think that will lead to more meaningful public input. If you ask the general public to come down and talk about the charter, most people have no idea what you're talking about, and you won't get much use. But this group, because we have all demonstrated interest in this subject, begins to have some discussions, comes up with some specific language or suggestions on which we would like to hear the public's input. I think that might be more meaningful. So I, I, I would second your suggestion. Commissioners, I found this sentence. And it is, it is exactly what, what you all are contemplating now together. It, it really does say that the commission shall hold no less than two meetings in each of the city council's districts for the purpose of taking input. And I think that is exactly what you're describing. Not to preempt, but there is a proposed schedule in the next tab, and you all are welcome to change it around, do what you feel like you need to do in order to facilitate that taking of public feedback. It is public. And the other thing, as far as public goes, we also have the sentence right before that is talking about how we're going to have your function advertised on a separate page of the city's website. So that hopefully that will be accessible to everyone, and it will allow the public to submit proposed amendments there. So that was in the city's last iteration and went to the voters. And so Article 10 now talks about that. **Commissioner:** For my colleagues also, I'd like for us to have a conversation about, I know we have some sort of budget associated with our commission. If that's something that we can talk about offering the things that make people come to a meeting, like food and childcare or whatever things like that. So just putting a pin on that for us to discuss. **Commissioner:** Yes. Again, I am completely consistent with your thinking, because I think at the outset, we should have a discussion as a commission about how we want to do the civic engagement, how to make it meaningful, how to make it helpful to the deliberations that we'll have next year before leading to some recommendations. And having food and having childcare and such are considered key ingredients for successful meetings. But there are many others that we ought to be talking about and get comfortable with. And if there is a budget, and if staff is willing to assist us, then we could move forward accordingly. But I don't think we should go right out into the districts to start holding meetings. **Commissioner:** Commissioners, would you like to talk about the budget part? I think maybe this is a good time. **City Clerk:** Commissioners, thank you. Geraldine Carter, the City Clerk. There is a budget, and we will look into making those accommodations for you guys. And so with that, Jerica did propose a cadence calendar for you, but we will work with your schedule. And I do appreciate the fact that you guys want to give us guidance on how to do the input sessions. So I think it sounds like the desire of the commission is to hold a few more commission meetings before we set out and do public input. Thank you. **Commissioner:** Thank you, G. **Commissioner Gilo:** I just want to say thank you. That's what I was telling you too. **Commissioner:** Thank you. **Commissioner:** All right. Any other Commissioner Brielle? So, habits, old habits. Okay, Marcy, thank you for the info. I was curious about, and maybe the former commissioners and current commissioners that have already served could explain how this could work better, because that timeframe that you all worked in was horrible. It was very crunched, and there wasn't enough public input. But I was wondering about research, and who out of staff would be able to assist with any research to look at other models or anything, because I don't think all of us have always capacity to research, although I think all of us probably could. But I think it would be helpful to have a staff person if we ask about doing certain research on a specific topic that we have the go-to. Would that be you, or what does that look like? **Staff:** Commissioner Variel, I believe it would probably be my office in concert with City Attorneys, likely depending on the content of what you're asking for. Yeah, we're here for you. **Commissioner:** And along those lines, if we have research, if we have studies to offer, may we offer them to our commissioners? **Staff:** Absolutely, Commissioner Gold. **Commissioner Gold:** Yeah. Just one other thing I thought about, it would be helpful to know what the last commission recommendations were, because they worked really hard on that. And I would say many of those didn't actually make it to the governing body to approve and onto the ballot. So it would, I think, just for me to have a remembrance of that, like what were the things they talked about that, because there was a lot of information that you all compiled that I think would help us too. Obviously, we don't have to follow that path, but I'm just saying that there were some really good suggestions that helped with the conversation about leadership models or governance models that I would like to see that would be helpful for me. **Staff:** Commissioner Viel, I have the report that itemizes the recommendations. And then, I don't know if it's helpful or not, but we did draft resolutions for every single one of the recommendations and put them before, that was that epic meeting that went until 2:30 in the morning. Sorry, it was great. It was eventful. And so, but I'm happy to dig all of that out and send it along. **Commissioner:** Yeah. And I'd be happy to, maybe JP and I can go over and have some sort of summary presentation to this body at some point, maybe next time. **Commissioner:** I think included with that, any context as to why the commission is running again so soon. It sounds like there were time constraints, and I'm curious to know if there's any new topics in focus as opposed to last time, if it was a matter of running out of time or resources. But any context as to like the sort of rerun of this commission two years later would be helpful. **Commissioner:** I'm happy to provide some context if that's okay on that. **Staff:** Please, Commissioner. **Commissioner:** So, Commissioner, I have your name. Brendan, what's your last name? **Commissioner Bella:** Bella. **Commissioner:** Commissioner Bella. So, last time, like Commissioner Gio said, we met for four months over Christmas, and it was nuts, right? But we did, we put forth a number of recommendations, some of which ended up going to the voters and being approved by the voters. One of those was whether we're going to have a strong mayor system or a weak mayor system. Now, the voters agreed that we should go back to a weak mayor system. So that was left unclarified what that means. This is why this commission has been reconvened at this time in a nutshell, is because, okay, let's have this weak mayor system, but like how? So we can't, we couldn't wait eight more years for the every 10 years commission to answer that question. So this is really where we're being convened. But then at this point, really, like staff said, we have an opportunity to really dive deep into these questions of separations of power and government efficiency and decision-making and all that. **Commissioner:** I think that's helpful. The ballot measure was the mayor's ability to vote. Is that what you're regarding as a strong? **Commissioner:** So, do the mayor have a sort of decision-making power or just come in vote if there's a tie? So, serving as an executive or part of the legislative body. **Commissioner:** And you're saying that the way that vote resolved was because people voted in favor of that tiebreaker policy as opposed to a permanent vote. This points us in the direction of a weak mayor model. Is that what you're saying? **Commissioner:** Right. Then we have to decide what does that mean? If the mayor, the voters said the mayor just comes in to break a tie, what is the totality of what that looks like? **Commissioner:** Gotcha. Thank you. **Commissioner:** And that's why it also brings up the focus of what the counselors can do in here too. So it's like who has power to do what in what space, because prior also only the mayor could appoint certain people or different things. And so it's like what role are they going to play in this? **Commissioner:** And counselor, one more. You know, the reason why I'm excited to do this work is because we have this unique opportunity in this body to really look at government efficiency on one side, which people complain about all the time, right? Like things just don't move in government. We have an opportunity to look at that from sort of this governance piece, and then also the opportunity to look at how, so like how to maximize government efficiency and simultaneously minimize the opportunity for people to abuse their power, right? So to me, this is like an awesome responsibility that we have here to make our city work better. **Commissioner:** Great. Thank you. Marcy, you may have already answered this, but Section 4B of the resolution seems to limit the ability of this commission to discuss other forms of government, particularly the traditional council manager form of government, which is practiced by over 3,500 cities and towns across America. I'm hopeful that your qualification that this doesn't limit us would allow us to look at that form of government as part of the discussion that has just been described. **Staff:** Are you asking, will you ask your question, Commissioner Gold? I'm so sorry. **Commissioner Gold:** Section 4C talks about whether or not the mayor is just the executive or also serves on the legislature. In the council manager form of government, which is the most prevalent form of government across the country and in the world, the mayor is not the executive. The mayor leads the council, dominates policy discussions, makes sure that the council is fully informed and helps shape that discussion, but is not the executive. Will we have the opportunity to discuss that form of government? **Staff:** Commissioner Gold, yes. **Commissioner Gold:** Thank you. **Staff:** If you will. Yes. Sorry. Commissioner Duran, thank you. **Commissioner Duran:** I just have a clarifying question about the call for charter review. There's a lot of amended language in there. Is this something that you guys looked at, or is this new since the last time you made your recommendations? **Staff:** In the back? You mean like in the red? **Commissioner Duran:** It's in the red. So that is this what they want us to look at? **Staff:** No, actually, this what you're looking at there is technically part of the resolution packet, but this is an amendment that at the time Counselor Michael Garcia put forward, and it didn't end up passing. Actually, it was just in the packet, and I think it's not part of the resolution actually. It was an amendment that did not get adopted. There was an interest in looking at this, including these type of language. **Commissioner Duran:** Right. Okay. Thank you. A clarification on this strong and weak mayor. Is that what you were talking about? Because my understanding was that the city had voted to have a stronger executive, because that's the reason they moved him out of the council so that he could be more of an independent executive. And so you're saying at some point the city actually didn't make that choice, the voters. **Staff:** I'm not following your question, Commissioner. **Commissioner Duran:** Okay, this goes back to the concept of the, we've all... **City Clerk:** Commissioners, I'm so sorry to interrupt. G is asking if I can ask you all to speak into your mics so that it can be transcribed. Sorry, on Zoom. So sorry to interrupt. **Commissioner Duran:** Yeah. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. **City Clerk:** No, I apologize for interrupting. **Commissioner Duran:** No, that's okay. No, my question is about the decision that the voters have made already about whether we should have an executive that is not part of the council or that is part of the council. My understanding was that the city had always had a city, the mayor had always been part of the council. And when we voted several years ago, not this last time, but several years ago, and when we ended up having electing Mayor Weber, the voters had actually determined that they wanted to have a more powerful executive that wasn't part of the City Council. They wanted those things divided. And so I thought we had already made that decision as a voting populace. And I'm confused now because it sounds like we're going to rehash it and then go back to the people and ask them again what they want to do. So, I don't know. I thought that we were here to clarify what we wanted the powers of the mayor to be and the powers of the council to be. I hadn't anticipated that we might actually go back to the mayor as being a member of the council and being elected. Well, he was elected by the people, but he voted. I mean, he was basically a member of the council and non-executive. I think that brings up a good question. I think what would be helpful for all of us is giving us an understanding of when that first charter amendment changed the structure, which was strong mayor, and then it actually got enacted when Mayor Weber won. So there was a period of time that it had to be. It didn't completely get enacted when it was, and then we had another charter amendment. It changed it so that the mayor only votes in case of a tie, but all of the executive duties and understanding has not been defined. So, I feel like we're kind of in limbo. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong, staff. I feel like we're kind of in limbo right now because we haven't fully defined what even the charter, sorry, the resolution says about the separation of powers, balance of powers between the mayor and city councilors. I think that part is where we're still, it's still unclear, and that's what our role, and that's why we are coming together again. But I think it would be helpful to understand what changed when that charter amendment passed. Then we had some other charter amendments that changed. It wasn't so much governance structure, but there were some that passed in 2023, and then we just had some that just passed recently that changed the voting. It's essentially just the voting. It really is not creating an executive structure like how Albuquerque has. They have a mayor who's an executive clearly. He's not part of the council. Right. Yeah. So I think it would be helpful to understand that just so we can get a clear visual and then what still needs to, what's still kind of hanging there for us. I am very excited to see section 3 C and D. If I were to speak frankly, this city could really use some budget or budgeting process refresh. And I'm very excited to see that on the list, and I hope my fellow commissioners will also be interested in digging into that topic. While it's not explicitly balance of powers, it is a very critical backbone infrastructure governance that the city needs to mature. And same with section 3D, adopting a strategic plan, what that looks like, how often. Also very excited to see that. Commissioners, do you need anything else from me? Thank you, Marcy. Marcy, welcome. Well, to Commissioner Vela's point, could we get a, maybe for our next meeting or in the interim or something, just like sort of like a timeline of these changes, you know, like what's gone to the voters and when, and what changed, and where we are now, like in a nutshell? And not in legalese. Not in legal. Yeah. Plain language would be helpful. Thanks. Sure. You bet. Anything else? Awesome. Thanks, commissioners. Thank you, Marcy. Okay, we will be moving to item six on our agenda. That'll be the appointment of the chair and vice chair. So, the way this is going to work is you all will nominate someone who is sitting on the board. You can nominate yourself, or you can nominate another one of your fellow commissioners, and then we will vote on that nomination. We will do that each for chair and vice chair. Once the chair has been appointed and voted in, the chair will take over running the meeting. But I am still here to help. So, do we have any nominations? I just have a point of clarification. We have two members that are not with us right now. Right? We're missing two. One member. One member. Okay. I guess my question is, do we know if that member had any interest? I have no inclinations as to whether Commissioner Ortiz has had interest or not. That's just one thing to think about. And then my other question was, do we have to decide on chair tonight and vice chair? Do we have to vote on that tonight? I'm not sure. Clerk, can you clarify, please? It says discussion and possible action item. So, Right. If it is the desire of the commission to not take the vote and wait for the commissioner to come in, that is, that's up to you all. You just let us know whether or not we should put this on the next agenda. I guess I'm curious what my colleagues think. I think it would be good to find out if the other commissioner is interested, and also instead of trying to figure out who's interested right now, maybe we could talk about that. I mean, I know it's supposed to be public, but I'm just, I don't know if everyone has thought about that yet. At least I, I move that we postpone the selection of the chair and the vice chair to the next meeting. So moved. Council Vela. And for my colleagues, Commissioner Ortiz was the chair for our last commission. Oh yeah, Nancy Long was the chair. That's right. Sorry, that was my bad. Great. Yes, there's commanding. Commissioner Vela, I would love to understand better the roles of the chair and the vice chair besides running the meeting. The chair will recognize people when they would like to speak at the meeting, including staff or anybody on the agenda. What else? Approve the agenda and approve what's on the agenda. But we can get you more details and send that out to you all, the responsibilities of the chair and the vice chair. That would be great. Thank you. And of course, the vice chair would serve in those duties when the chair is unable to attend the meeting. If I'm not mistaken, the chair is also to make sure that everyone is heard and that no one overly dominates the discussion, and after adequate deliberation, begins to move the commission toward decision-making. That's true. Okay. So, we have a motion to postpone the nomination of the chair, and it has been seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. The motion passes. Okay. The next item on the agenda is our public input session planning, and I will turn the floor over to Jerica Simmons to cover that. Electric boogie woogie woogie. Hello. So we have touched a little bit on the proposed cadence and have heard all the things that we've talked about so far. I still want to pitch or propose the initial proposal just so you guys hear our thought processes from hearing how the last commission went and things that could possibly be made better by a similar cadence or something. We just wanted to give this proposal in such a way that you guys can see what spirit of this you like and would like to work with moving forward, and what is your wiggle room spaces from how we see it in projecting how the next year will go. The goal of the proposed cadence or something similar to it is to ensure that all parties involved have an efficient amount of time that they feel comfortable in the amount of input that they're receiving, how they are able to translate it, and how it's able to be transcribed into action moving forward. So the proposed cadence by month basically starts in May just because that's the earliest following this month that a meeting could happen. And the proposed cadence was to have two districts be hit in a month, a gap, two again, in such a way that by the end of July, you will have gotten one round of all of the districts under your belt to one, get cohesion in what is the represented spirit of this commission, what people are wanting to talk about, and what people are passionate about, and that being broken down per district. There are other options on ways that meetings can be had, which X will speak to after this, which is virtual hybrid, as well as study sessions so you guys can get the information that you've been hearing from the public, ruminate on it as a collective, and then see how you want to turn that around moving forward to get towards the next swing of hitting all of the districts. The proposed cadence by district was initially District 1 in May and September, District 2 in May and September, District 3 in July and November, and District 4 in July and November, with June, August, and October being those possible study, virtual, or makeup sessions for any missed sessions or where you thought that you could do more work in a particular district or area. If we're looking further down, an additional reason for this section of today's meeting is to see different options on where these meetings could be had and the different scope of how many people they can seat. My job here is to provide as much structure as possible on the front end so you guys have as much workaround space as you possibly can to get done what you want to get done. There is a lack of city buildings in District 2. So another hope of mine is to get any suggestions of buildings that you all know that are possibly available in that district that I could do more research on. Currently, I have my eye on two high schools. But yes, so is there one, any suggestions for any spaces in District 2, and two, based on the proposed cadence in the booklet, anything from the spirit of this initial proposal that you like and things that you know you don't like other than the first meeting being held in May? I have lots of thoughts, but I'd like to make space for my colleagues. Is there an expectation or precedent for how often this commission meets, taking into consideration these public input meetings as well? Commissioner Vela, it is required in the resolution that the commission does meet at least once a month for the next year. So until April. And that year includes eight required sessions, two per district. So you can do more than those eight. You are required to do more than those eight. But my job is to, where are you having those eight and when? Right. So at a minimum, let's say for a given month, we'll meet at a minimum once and then have maybe, if given this cadence, two additional district-located meetings that would satisfy the minimum. Yes. Was there, what was the, well, I guess you guys were working on a different timeline. But how often did the commission meet in this capacity the last time around? Commissioner, we met monthly. Okay. And then we also had a couple working groups that were meeting outside of that, like smaller, not quorum groups that I would suggest we do the same. So, a sort of sub-commission, subcommittee. Okay. I don't have any advice about where to meet in District 2. I leave that to others to help with. And Jerica, you are an expert in civic engagement and have seen a lot in your career. So, I look forward to your suggestions. I think it's common understanding in public administration these days that having wide open hearings on broad topics where individuals stand at a microphone and talk to a group at a dais is one of the worst ways to obtain public input. It's the least effective. What we have learned through many mistakes is that putting information to the public that it can digest and allowing members of the public to talk to each other in small groups and collecting that information is far more effective. And indeed, we've had some experience with that in the city of Santa Fe in recent months, and I'm hoping we will build upon that with this charter commission review. Am I hearing correctly that one of the priorities of the public meetings is educating the public on what the commission is? I think that's essential. Awesome. When would we like to do that first? July? I've seen you on Instagram all the time, and I think that if we used the social media that we've already had and made those small clips, Mike makes them all the time in his office. It doesn't seem like he's busy. Let's ask him to make some more. But no, if he just did five minutes about what the charter is, what we're going out to do, and what we're looking for. So, if we broke it down into three sections, 30-second videos that would be digestible for the community to even start a conversation. So, supplemental educational videos in addition to the required meetings. The resolution sets forth six questions that it says that the governing body is interested in this commission to decide upon. I think this commission ought to discuss, are those the right questions? Are they posed in the right way? And then figure out how to make them most interesting for the public to come together and discuss. I agree with that, Commissioner. And I think that what you just mentioned, for this commission to become really clear on what we want to ask the community to spend their time talking about, is key. Not everything is going to be something that we need to get public input or want to get public input on. A lot of this stuff is very dry, but a lot of the stuff is important, right? In terms of how the community sees their government, sees themselves represented, and whatnot. I'd like to offer to my colleagues, I have a lot of training and experience with popular education and developing curricula and sort of thinking through how we're going to do this and why we're going to do this, how we're going to collect the data, how we're going to report back to the community what we're doing. So, I'd like to just offer, I'm happy to work on a subcommittee on these things. But to your question, Jerica, I think that the spirit of this is great. I think that having the sort of staggered, right? Like one month we do two districts, then we do another two districts. My suggestion would be to take some time, like I said before, for us to meet for a couple months, two, three months, to really get clear on what we want to do, how we're going to do it, what the design of the curriculum is, etc. And then maybe spend a couple months just really hitting the community sessions without necessarily meeting as a body outside of those, and then coming together again. That's just my two cents. My strongest suggestion is to not touch the working block of January, February, and March so that you have had all of the time to speak with the public with the intention of getting their input and then having a solid block to discuss with each other what do you feel, what do you think, and what do you think should be the future that comes out of this group of people. So, the working block stays still, possibly. Yes, I would like my fellow commissioners to know that I am deeply involved in the legislative session, which this year, in 2027, is 60 days. So, capacity on my end will be slightly limited in those months. Another last thought that I want to share with my colleagues here is when we met last time as a commission, we were talking about Portland, Oregon, and what they did with the charter review commission, which was incredible, right? First of all, they democratized the whole commission. So, there was representation from all over the city, a big, big commission. I think they had like 24 members or so. But they also took two years to do their work, and the main concern for the commission was the community engagement and the public input. And so they spent a lot of time working with local nonprofit organizations, faith organizations, high school government clubs, whatever it was, right? And those were the meetings that they were having, right? So, they were convening a meeting in a certain district or region of the city, but the commissioners had already been doing outreach and having one-on-one conversations with those leaders of those nonprofit groups, of those student leadership groups, whatever it is. So, that those people would already have a little bit of context, right? They're doing the work with their constituents. By the time that people come to the meeting, there's already a little bit of prep that's been done. So, I'd like us to consider, to my point before, what a meaningful community engagement is, because we could do a lot of pre-work before getting those people on those chairs on the day that we do those community meetings. Do we envision that these community engagement meetings involve everyone on the commission? Does it need to be a quorum situation? It's not required for each meeting. No, I'm not sure how to answer that question. I mean, do the commissioners have an interest in being in attendance at the input sessions? I think somebody should be there. I think my question is maybe around if we wanted to incorporate smaller, right? But in terms of a personal capacity standpoint, we could either all attend every district's community input session or use time when the focus is outside of our district to attend and those, what you described as like the smaller gatherings or more focused gatherings, or create other opportunities. Yeah, Commissioner, I'm curious about the quorum question, right? Because we are required to hold these meetings out in the community in each district. Are those meetings, are we required to have quorum in those meetings? You're required to have at least one meeting per month until your year is up. Eight are required to be broken down by district. I think that is the requirement that we have. For those eight, we do need to have quorum. Those eight, they do need to be public meetings. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Jerica. I would be a little concerned, Commissioner Bella, about fragmenting this commission. If we're going to ask the public to come and talk to us about these issues, I think we should all be present as much as we can, understanding that there are work and other commitments that may keep us away from one or two. But I think we benefit from hearing what the residents have to tell us from any district, regardless of where we reside. And so I would suggest that we commit to a certain number of meetings. If there are additional meetings that are held to do the pre-work as you described, Commissioner, fine. But as far as the actual meetings go, we need to show up. We need to commit to them. I can appreciate that. I will. Yeah, I'm very inspired by what you're sharing, Commissioner, around the kind of the practice model and popular education and being in community. And I think those, like the deep dives in community, those could be smaller subsets if those could be from our own districts, right? And then we report up to the larger commission at the broader meetings. I think is added. Look forward to seeing what you come up with. Also, on whatever cadence we do decide and how we implement these meetings out into the public, the goal is for you all to feel comfortable and confident. So, whether it is all of you at a meeting or most of you at a study session and all those things, you'll have time to talk with each other. You'll have time to talk with the districts. But we want to make sure that we also have time to get the documentation to the teams that their deadline is a quicker turnaround. So, the longer that our pre-work is and the longer our meetings stretch into the end of the month, then you're competing with other events. So, then you're competing with May is Bike Month. Kids get out of school in May. We have some movies in the park this summer that you should attend. But if we're wanting to start talking to the public in July, we can shift some of these things down. But when we start to have them and have those meetings that we're needing space and time and people and utilizing that $20,000 budget towards implementing what we're implementing, we can do this, man. It's going to be fun. I would just remind us that this is a hyperactive city. This is a hyperactive. There are multiple meetings every week. This staff is gearing up for another meeting right now in the midst of this meeting because that's how it runs in Santa Fe. So, meeting fatigue is real. When we have meetings, they should be well thought out, substantive, proper use of the public's time, and moving towards something. So, more isn't necessarily better. It's quality over quantity in my view. Or is also. Jerica, I have a question. I previously served on the Children and Youth Commission, and I'm just curious from other commissions. Are there any best practices or lessons learned or things that you would want to, I mean, some of that's probably in your proposal, but things that you're seeing in other commissions that you think you should consider? Best practices so far that we're learning in these public input sessions is the more time we give the staff to make those educational videos, to book the spaces, that's usually our hurdle is finding the space that is available in the time frame that we're looking for it. So, the earlier we can make decisions to where I can start building the bones of these meetings, the better. So, for instance, the convention center is booked out always. But I got a list of like five to six dates that they're available. Their first being in May. Their next being in June. So, if we're having these soon or at some point, the earlier that I can know, the earlier we're able to have our choices of places to have them and like ordering like food and making sure that we know what the layout is going to be of the meeting itself. And if there's any like required reading materials or handouts for the public to have that we're giving our communication staff enough time to prep, do their prep work for the implementation of these meetings sessions. Question, Jerica, would it be doable, acceptable for us to hold some of these meetings, to Commissioner Gold's point, people are meeting all the time. Like, should we just try to make it so that we go to one of their meetings that they're already having so that way that you don't have to coordinate logistics for like getting a space, getting the food? Like, let's say that Youth Works is already having a meeting with their people. Like, can we just go there for all intents and purposes? Like, would that work? I mean, there's no set rules against it. I mean, as long as it's noticed properly to the public, I don't see why we couldn't do that. So, it's just something for us to think about. Yeah. I mean, I was thinking when Jack was mentioning the movies in the park, we could do like, let's just go to the Railyard and have a little pre-meeting right there. Need a power outlet. Also thinking about the cadence of, so budgeting is on my mind obviously, but the budget season, right, which we're in and wrapping up, but like also being cognizant of how these things interact with other policy decisions that are happening at the city level, at the state level, I think is also the other charge for this for in terms of the public understanding the connection to the broader, the broader mission and and why it's important. And the budget for this commission is this commission's budget to use as is needed, $20,000, including rental fees for spaces. If we look at the calendar and if we work backwards from December to Jerica's recommendation that we don't impede on that January through March final stretch, I think it might be wise to try and group the public input meetings in between essentially working sessions. So your original proposal has it sort of distributed throughout the next nine months or so. I think we probably want to make some progress, like we've talked about, over the next, depending on how many we want to squeeze into a month, the next two months, get to a point where we share, collect feedback, do another iteration or move on to another phase, and then do the next chunk. So I guess my recommendation in short is if we wait or if we postpone for two months, we do two months of public input meetings, spend another month working, and then do the last touch public input. Just basically group them instead of distribute them equally throughout that time period. I think it'd be possible to do District 1 and 2 in July, District 3 and 4 in August, and then start over in September or space it in a way. Yeah, so it's helpful to be specific. Thank you. But in that example, September would be a working month for us to process that input or move on to another set of questions to answer and then do another prepared rollout. October, and then November and December are weird because of holidays. That's what I was thinking. Possibly if there's one in November, it'll be in the front half, and one in December, also in the front half. I don't know how y'all's jobs are, but this is a ghost town around that time. Just one comment about the suggested venues for District 1. Personally, since I represented District 1, these three are always difficult because of parking issues. So I don't know if people, if we had something at the convention center, people actually get to park for free. I'm assuming that's the case. And so I just want to be cognizant of that. And I actually don't think these are very fun. So I would rather do some kind of coordination with community partners, even maybe having it in their spot, in their space, and co-hosting something. So I like that idea. But I do want to think about expanding District 1 possibilities. And I know you picked that because they're city-run facilities and they're free. I just think it's hard sometimes for accessibility for people to get to those meetings, especially the main library and parking issues. Thanks. There's also the option of hybrid and virtual meetings too for folks that don't get into the catchall of in-person. So to recap, Jerica, what we're kind of working with is May and June meetings. We convene as a commission. We make some decisions about what we're trying to do with public input and the sort of the topics, et cetera. I would suggest, also recommend, that we perhaps today form a subcommittee that we can start meeting on the side around curriculum or whatever it is that we need to do so that we're ready to hold District 1 and 2 meetings in July, District 3 and 4 meetings in August. September and October we would come back to our commission duties, and then November and December we'd squeeze some more community meetings towards the beginning of both months. Are we... I think that works. Yeah. If I'm understanding that correct, that's May and June as internal meetings. Internal. July, District 1 and District 2. August, District 3 and District 4. September and October, internal meetings. And then District 1 and 2 in November, and District 3 and 4 in December with a January to March working block. Sounds good to me. Y'all are fantastic. Thank you very much. You are fantastic. Commissioners, we're looking into right now if the commission can form a subcommittee without a chair. So stand by. We'll get an answer for you. Okay. So with that in mind, let's go ahead and move on to our next item on the agenda, and that will be virtual, hybrid, or in-person meeting options for future meetings. I understand you guys are all very busy people. You know, you have regular jobs. Everybody has things going on in their lives. So I want to give you some options on how you would like to meet. In person, if we want to keep this space for this time, the only day that's going to work is the fourth Thursday of every month. And the time is flexible. We can meet at any time of day that works best for you guys. But as far as when this room, the council chambers, is available, it'll be the fourth Thursday of the month. If not, we can definitely have virtual meetings. You know, we can be a lot more flexible with virtual meetings because we don't have to find a place to meet. The public can still attend in the same capacity. And yeah, I think it would just be a little bit more flexible for everybody's schedules, but it really depends on what you guys want. So I'm ready to take in your input on that. I want to propose we have the Zoom option, or Zoom or whatever platform we end up using. It also is really nice to be in person as humans, especially as we're getting to know each other. So maybe we could try and commit to the first few internal meetings doing that all in person if possible, and then but having a remote option for people if they're traveling or sick or whatever other reason. So if we do meet in the chambers, people can attend remotely. We do have it running, the Zoom. So people, if we can meet, we can have hybrid meetings in here. So that's definitely an option. Yeah. And just, yeah, and if the, and if the body is open to trying to attending in person the first few just so that we get to know each other. I would say let's, let's just as a body, I agree that in person just a lot more is able to be worked when we meet in person. So my recommendation is that we have, we meet here for Thursdays and there's like a virtual option for folks who can make it. Let's make the expectation be that we're going to work together. Okay, we can definitely do that. So is there any disagreement with the fourth Thursday of the month going forward then? Yes. That's a good question. Would you guys like to include the fourth Thursday of this month as part of that string of meetings? That's next week, right? Let's take a look. And also for my fellow commissioners, my birthday. Happy early birthday. I, I'm not available on the 23rd this of this month on the fourth Thursday. So I just want to let you know that. I think that we need to elect the chair, take care of that as soon as possible. So I don't know what that means exactly as far as our schedule goes. I don't, I don't think it should wait until the end of May. Okay. No, I, I definitely agree with you, Commissioner. I believe one of you said that the fourth Thursday wouldn't work for you. Just that month. Just this. Okay. Me as well for this month. It's April. I could do the 30th. Okay. I will have to check to see if the chambers is available that day. If it is, we can make it work. If not, we'll have to figure out something else. Our good colleague consider a meeting on her birthday. Absolutely. There's nothing that I like to do more than in a volunteer capacity for my birthday. So, Maria, you're saying not the 23rd? That's your birthday. Yeah, but I'm fine with the 23rd. Okay. You can't make the 23rd. And... And I'm also the 30th. Okay. Thanks. If you just bear with me for one moment, I can check to see what our availability is. In the meantime, commissioners, we looked and there does not seem to be anything that would prevent you from forming a subcommittee without a chair. We checked code and Robert's Rules. So if that's the will of the commission, you could... I, I don't think anybody here is proposing that. I, I'm, I'm with my colleague here that we ought to get our chair and vice chair in place. But then the thought was maybe we need a subcommittee to delve deeper into the design of the public meetings and the curricula. Is that correct? That is my recommendation, Commissioner, but it all goes back to our decision not to select the chair and vice chair this meeting. Yeah, I, I don't know what to say about that. I, I suggest that be the first order of business at our next meeting, either the 23rd or 30th. I don't care which. Okay. So it does appear we do have some flexibility for the 30th. Would the 30th work for you? Okay. Yes, the 30th works for me as well. When we're looking at after hours, Xavier, are you looking at after like a... Yes. So I'm looking around the same time, 5:00. Okay. I will go ahead and schedule that next meeting for then. And thank you for your flexibility. I appreciate it. Yes, of course. I want to make sure that we're serving you all equally and fairly. Okay. So we'll do the next meeting on April 30th. That'll be in person. And then, and there will, if you do need to attend remotely, that is certainly an option. And then just so you're aware, if the board ever does decide to go to a virtual format, that does require a vote per Resolution 2022-38. That resolution has been included in your packets. Xavier, then for, we're having our next meeting on the 30th, and first line of business that we're suggesting for our agenda is to select the chair and vice chair and then talk about public input subcommittee at that point. Okay. And then I'll add some historical information for us to review before then just to have some background information. On the points, Commissioner, that you discussed before, like what's the history with the powers within the city of Santa Fe in the last 10 years or so. Okay. If I can invite folks to share some of their research or areas of expertise. A couple of examples. Commissioner Chavez, you mentioned the strategic plan, item D, I think it was. If you have examples or reference materials, I'm also very interested in this point. Commissioner Gould, the common model that you described, if you have any context on that and would be willing to share it. Happy to. And Commissioner Perez, the Portland example that you gave, if there's an article or something, I would love to learn about all those things. Sure. Any context on the strategic plan examples or otherwise? Okay. And with that, I think we're kind of already talking about it, but the next agenda item is agenda items for the next meeting. So, so, so we have the appointment of the chair and vice chair. Discussion about the public input sessions. Possible subcommittee. I, I would also like to add a discussion on the items that the council, the governing body has asked us to look at and for us all to come to that meeting with ideas that we might want to also add to that list. I feel like that if we're discussing order of the agenda, that might be best before the subcommittee to, in case there's something to dive into. I also have a request for staff. This probably lives somewhere, but an update for the whole body on how the city of Santa Fe currently budgets, what the process is, or the process doesn't exist. So that we, the whole body, has a shared understanding of how that works and the direction we may want to head. I'm assuming there's a slide deck or something you guys can provide or a short presentation. We can certainly check with our finance team. Council adopted a resolution last year setting forth the process for the agenda or budget development this year, and it looks like you're deviating from it slightly, but the basic intent is the same. Any other desires to add to the agenda for next meeting? We sound like we do have a full agenda. All right, thank you. Okay. Next is matters from staff. I think we've kind of discussed a lot of the matters we've had, but I will open the floor to any members of staff. I have nothing. Okay. Hearing no matters, we will move on to matters from the committee. Any commissioners, do you have any matters you would like to bring forth? Going back to the matters for staff, I would just like to suggest to us that as you just did very respectfully, sorry, that we don't assume that staff has unlimited time and resources to research every question that we've got. These are very busy people. They have day jobs. And so when we make requests of staff, let's make sure that they're discreet, they're clearly defined, and we're flexible about how soon they come back. That would be my request. Agreed, Commissioner. And also that if we are very curious about things, that we consider doing some of the research ourselves before we burn the staff with that. I would like to say, Xavier, you're doing an amazing job for this first meeting and the whole staff. Thank you. And really looking forward to working with you. For my commissioner colleagues, if you haven't served in a commission like this, there's a lot of time that we're going to be going back and forth with the legal team and the attorneys, and it's infuriating if you're not a lawyer, but it is the way of this thing. But so in those moments of frustration that are undoubtedly coming our way, do appreciate the staff. And really, I mean, you guys support this work, and we're able to do what we are going to be able to do here because of you also. Let's keep up the good vibes, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, thank you, Commissioners. We do appreciate that. Okay. Anything else from the commission? Good first meeting. Thank you. We have matters from the chair. We don't currently have a chair. So, Get rid of that. Our next meeting will officially be on April 30th, same place, same time. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you all.