Charter Review Commission
Thu, Apr 30, 2026 · Charter Review Commission
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1474

== Executive Summary ==
The Charter Review Commission held a comprehensive meeting, beginning with the election of its leadership. Lilly Mae Ortiz was elected Chair and Commissioner Petes as Vice Chair. The commission then delved into a review of the city's current charter, specifically focusing on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, and the roles of key city officials like the City Manager, Attorney, and Clerk. There was significant discussion about the scope of the commission's work, with commissioners seeking clarification on whether they could address issues beyond the initial 'separation of powers' mandate, ultimately concluding that the resolution's language allowed for broader recommendations.

A major part of the meeting was dedicated to planning public engagement. The commission decided to replace formal 'public hearings' in November and December with 'community conversation meetings' to encourage better participation, especially during the holiday season. They also agreed on a 'fusion approach' for these conversations, combining education about the charter with opportunities for public input. Commissioners emphasized the need for effective outreach strategies, including partnering with community organizations and utilizing educational videos, and requested a budget for these efforts. The meeting concluded with a discussion of future agenda items, including the form of government, mayoral powers, and council committees, and a commitment to a two-hour meeting limit for future sessions.

== Key Decisions ==
- Lilly Mae Ortiz was elected as the Chair of the Charter Review Commission (6-3 vote).
- Commissioner Petes was elected as the Vice Chair of the Charter Review Commission (7-2 vote).
- The commission decided to proceed with a voice vote for the election of both the Chair and Vice Chair.
- The commission agreed to have the current charter displayed on screen for public viewing during the review.
- The commission reached consensus to call their public outreach events 'community conversation meetings' instead of 'public hearings', ensuring they are fully noticed and open to the public.
- The commission agreed on a 'fusion approach' for community conversation meetings, combining education with discussion and input.
- No formal public hearings will be held in November and December; instead, 'community conversations' will take place.
- The meeting schedule for community conversations will mix even and odd-numbered districts (e.g., 1 & 3, 2 & 4) for better city representation.
- Future meetings will have a two-hour time limit.
- Staff will compile a list of commissioner emails and phone numbers for easier communication.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Motion to reorder the agenda — Approved.
- Nomination of Lilly Mae Ortiz for Chair.
- Nomination of Commissioner Vela for Chair.
- Election of Commissioner Ortiz as Chair — Passed 6-3.
- Election of Commissioner Petes as Vice Chair — Passed 7-2.
- Motion to adjourn the meeting — Passed.

== Public Comment ==
Public comments were primarily integrated into the commission's discussion, with commissioners themselves highlighting their commitment to good governance, unbiased decision-making, and community service. Commissioner Ortiz emphasized her extensive experience and commitment to adding value. Commissioner Bella highlighted the importance of respectful collaboration and evidence-based decisions. Commissioner Petes underscored her professional governance experience and interest in serving Santa Fe residents. Concerns were raised about the clarity of reporting lines for city officials, potentially leading to 'organizational dysfunction'. There was also a strong emphasis on the need for public education about the charter and effective, inclusive community outreach strategies, with one commissioner from the south side stressing the importance of people from other parts of the city visiting to understand it better.

== Topics ==
- Form of Government
- Council Committees
- Elected Officials' Seats
- Councilor Aides
- Commission Operations
- Chair Election Process
- New Commissioner Introduction
- Agenda Reordering
- Charter Review History

== Full Transcript ==
Beth, how are you? Hi, Pamela. Hi. Who said that?

[laughter]

It's Renee. We're testing the microphone also. Can you hear me when I talk sometimes?

Xavier?

Xavier? Can you hear me?

Ben, are we going to be able to hear Pam in here? Hello.

Audio's coming through.

Yeah, her audio's coming through. Can you hear me now?

That's not, it's not, it's not coming through in here. She just needs to speak a little louder, I think. Oh, it's because of the, because of the, can you hear me now? Yeah. Can you hear me? Hello.

Pam, I can hear you, but I can only hear you off of my computer. How do we change that? Okay. I can hear her audio inside of the AV room here. Okay. Can you speak, Pam? Hello. Hi. I can't hear any of you. Is she going to be able to hear everybody else, I think? Once everybody starts using the microphones, they should be able to hear. You should be able to hear them. That's why you hear me right now. I can only hear people when they use their microphone. That's correct. Yeah. We did a full audio test, and we have audio going both ways, both signals. So you can hear me now. Okay, yeah. Now we can hear you. We can hear you, Pam. You just got to be a little louder on your microphone. Oh, I got to get closer to it somehow. Ben, can we turn up the television volume?

The audio is not coming from the televisions. It's coming from the speakers inside of the room. Okay. Okay, this is probably as close as I can get. And mine is up here.

I can hear you now. I'm getting a clear signal inside the AV room that's all tied into the system. So, I think if she just gets a little closer to her mic and speaks a little louder, you'll be able to hear her more clearly. Okay. Let's hope I can do that. Did that help any?

Are we streaming? We're live. Okay, I am going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. Before I take the roll call, I'm going to give the floor to Lilly Mae Ortiz so she may introduce herself. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Xavier. I appreciate, I've not met all of you, but I did watch the last board meeting so I feel like I sort of know who you are. I am Lilly Mae Ortiz. I am a lifelong resident of the state of New Mexico, northern New Mexico. Been living in the city now for 8 years. Lived in the beautiful valley of the Walkie for almost 40 years. I'm pleased to be here to work with this commission. I have worked with this commission before with the same effort. And I've also worked for the Citizens Redistricting Review Commission a few years ago, which was a really worthwhile project. I think we got a lot of work done there. I was also a school board member in Pojoaque for 12 years and I've met a few of you in that capacity. I come from the Department of Finance and I worked there for 27 years as a planner, as a budget analyst, and then I retired as the division director. So, I have a little bit of experience working with someone, worked with the Governor's office, working with the Governor's office and some of the other agencies. I'm here basically because I was trained by my grandparents, grandfathers, to contribute and add value to the community when you can. And so, I offer my services up in that regard. I come with no preconceived notions other than good governance and look at where we are and where we need to move and look at best practices and move forward in that regard. So, that's a little bit about who I am and I'm pleased to be here. I see a lot of nice familiar faces and I thank the staff for getting me up to par in terms of the data. I regret not being here on the 17th. I was not notified, sorry, the 13th. I was not notified until April 17th that there was a meeting. Otherwise, I would have been here. But I did watch the meeting and so, I feel like I'm caught up. And so, a pleasure to be here and I want to thank Xavier for getting me all the materials and getting me up to speed. It's good to be here with you all. Thank you, Lilly Mae. We're glad to have you on board.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and take roll call now. Commissioner Gold. Here. Commissioner Duran. Commissioner Villadriel. Present. Commissioner Ray. Here. Did you hear me? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Perez. Here. Commissioner Ortiz. Present. Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Graniel. Present. And Commissioner Vela? Present. Okay, we have a quorum. Our next item of business will be approval of the agenda. I will entertain a motion to approve or are there any changes to the agenda? I'd like to propose a change of order for number six. It says discussion and possible action items in the of A through E. And I was wanting to propose that we stick with A, election of chair and vice chair, and then move up D of the review of current charter for reference. And possibly review and discussion of the Charter Review Commission's previous recommendations, which is E. And then talk about formation of possible subcommittees and last public input session planning. And I'm not wed to that order, but it just makes more sense to me instead of the order it's in right now. I would second that. I agree with the reordering. And I would only suggest that we postpone creation of subcommittees until we've had further discussion of where this commission wishes to go in its discussions. And once that becomes clear, then maybe the committees would come from that. I think we're a little early to start creating such committees.

Okay. Commissioner Villarreal, I'm so sorry. Can I get your motion one more time? So moved. It'll be ordered A, so six A as one as the first. D, E. And I was going to say C, we can postpone that. And then is that we don't, we at least have a discussion about.

Right, right. Okay, so it's A, B, E, C, and B as in boy. Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Villarreal to rearrange the agenda discussion items on by A, D, E, C, and B. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. And moving on to our next order of business will be presentations. We have no presentations for this go around. Oh, thank you. I was just corrected. Our next item on the agenda is approval of minutes. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes unless there are changes that need to be made. Motion to. There was a few typos, but other than that the content looks good. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes.

[snorts]

Okay, now our next item is presentations. There are no presentations for this meeting. So, we'll move on to our discussion and possible action items. Item A is election of the chair and vice chair. So, what will happen is I'll entertain a motion for, or I'll entertain a motion to nominate somebody and we'll vote on it and we'll do the same for the vice chair. Once the chair is elected, the chair will take over running the meeting. Do we have any nominations? You can nominate anybody on the board or nominate yourself. I'd like to make a nomination. I'd like to nominate Commissioner Ortiz for chair due to her vast experience chairing boards and commissions here locally. I'd like to volunteer, nominate myself as chair. Okay, do we have a second on the nomination for Lilly Mae? Second. Okay, we have a motion to elect. Wait. Okay. Okay, so we have a motion made by Commissioner Villarreal. No, I'm so sorry, Commissioner Perez. To nominate Commissioner Ortiz as the chair. And that was seconded by Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do a roll call, roll call vote on this one. Commissioner Gold. No. Commissioner Duran. Yes. Commissioner Villarreal. Yes. Commissioner Rey. Yes. Commissioner Perez. Yes. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Ganeo. And Commissioner Bella. Yes. Okay, the motion passes. Okay, I will turn the reins over to Chair Ortiz and so we can appoint a vice chair. Just a point of clarification before we get into vice chair nominations. When there's two nominations, I guess I'm confused that we don't, do we consider the second nomination? If the first nomination passes or. The way I'm understanding it is I believe we have to make a motion and a second and vote on the first one first. Okay, thank you. Can you please speak into your microphone so Commissioner Rey can hear you?

It went unanimous like because everybody already voted yes. I don't believe it would change, no. I'm sorry. I believe the next point of, or the next action would be to appoint a vice chair. In the same fashion. Yes. Yes. Thank, I was waiting for, I thought.

Okay. Sorry about that. I thought I had said, maybe I didn't. Well, first of all, I want to thank you. Thank. But I will do my best to. Okay. Real quick point of order. Our attorney is looking into Commissioner Villarreal's question. So just give us a quick second. So, I know a little bit about Robert's Rules of Order. This is a new one for me. But I think that it looks like in this case it should be that you can have any number of nominations and then vote by voice if there are multiple nominees. This is from the internet, but it's from Robert's Rules of Order. So I think we may need to, with all due respect, to the, to go with the Robert's Rules method. I think we should go back and do a nomination. Anyone who wants to nominate themselves for chair and then as you suggested, Michelle Ouellette. So on it and apparently we don't need a second. It can be done but it's not necessary in this. I believe so. I would just say nominations from the committee or from the floor since there's no, I mean. And then we're just not an audience per se.

Doing like a voice vote and then like breaking tie, like I don't understand what's happening here.

I just had not encountered this before, but I do think since the start here, we should go through the process, I think. And Commissioner Ouellette did nominate herself. We have at least two candidates, so to speak. And so let's go back and vote on the candidates and anyone else who wants to make a nomination can, but so maybe we start from there. Yeah. Correct. Well, it, it looks like there are multiple voting methods. There's a voice vote, a ballot vote where we could actually write down our voice if that's comfortable or roll or roll call. So it'd be the pleasure of the committee or the commissioner rather. I, yeah. Correct. And if commissioner would cast his vote if like, I'm not saying him, I'm just saying like if there's two and this one already went unanimous, they chose, could they?

Thank you for indulging that. I am ready then. I nominate Commissioner Ortiz for chair.

Excuse me, I, I have a clarifying question. Whoever's going to be nominated or if they nominate themselves, can they give a little background about why they want to be chair and a little bit of about their experience related to that position? Sounds appropriate. I don't think there's, I think that's what I nominate Commissioner Ortiz for chair. Do we have any other nominations? I will nominate myself for chair. Okay. Would you like to give any reasoning? Yes. It would be an honor to serve as chair for this commission. It would be my first experience as chair. But I think what I bring from my previous experiences would serve this commission well. Things including being an unbiased and a neutral party in terms of this commission and previous decisions that have been made. A determination to conduct the commission in a calm and fair environment and create a collaborative environment. Use evidence-based balanced with popular input for us to encourage us to make decisions and scope strictly based on what we've agreed upon previously to make sure that we stay on course.

Thank you, Commissioner Vella. Any additional nominations? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Ortiz, please go ahead.

I did a great job, by the way. It's just tough to do this stuff. I just offer my services, and if it is a choice of this commission that you would like for me to serve in this capacity, that's wonderful. But it's always good to have new faces and new ideas. I've served on this commission before, not as chair. I've served as chair of the Redistricting Commission here in the City of Santa Fe. I have served as chair of the National Hispanic Caucus in Washington. I have served as chair of the Pojoaque School Board for many years. I have served as chair of the Church Finance Council for 25 years, and I've served on many boards. I'm here to offer my services to add value, to move us forward in a logical, concrete manner, honoring the wishes of the residents and looking at best practices, where we're at, where we need to go, and do it in a very sequential, hopefully efficient and timely manner.

Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz. Okay, what is the pleasure of the board on how they would like to vote? Would we like to do a private ballot, or do we want to do a roll call vote? We can also do a voice vote.

[snorts]

I think a roll call's good. If I may, Commissioners, a voice vote is conducted where the members would express their preference verbally. So, we'd go around and you'd say a ballot vote would be a piece of paper with your voice. And then the roll call vote, I suppose, would name one and you'd go down the line like we do at our typical governing body meetings, but just voting that way. We'd say one of our nominations, go around, second nomination, go around. So, just so it's clear what the options are. Voice vote? Okay, so we're going to have a voice vote for the chair. I'll just go down the list here. Commissioner Gold. Commissioner Bella. Commissioner Duran. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Villarreal. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Murray. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Padas. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Granillo. Please make sure you're speaking to the microphone. Commissioner and Commissioner Bella.

Commissioner Bella.

Okay, so by a 6 to 3 total, Commissioner Ortiz will be the chair of the committee. And with that, I will turn this meeting over to her. Thank you. And I appreciate the question and appreciate the fact that you worked through that and took care of all the wishes that the body that all are comfortable with how we move in. Thank you. I'm sure we'll get a lot. So, we're going to move on and thank you for the nomination. I will do my best. We're going to move on to the election of the vice chair. And so, we'll open it up for nominations, and we'll allow for many people to nominate as they like, and we'll get the names down, and then we'll do the vote. Nominations?

I nominate Commissioner Bella.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Pettis.

Any other nominations? Going once. Going twice. All right. So, is this where then we will have roll call? And, well, wait a minute. Before we do that, let's have each commissioner share a little bit about why they would like to serve in that capacity. And we'll start with Commissioner Bella.

I don't think the reasons would be distinct from before. But as a reminder, they would be to conduct the commission respectfully within the scope that we've agreed upon, creating a collaborative decision-making environment, and balancing evidence-based or best practices with popular input.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Commissioner Pettis.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to step up for this position as vice chair because I come with a lot of experience around the issue of governance through my work that I do in my day job as executive director of a non-profit organization. And it's just a very deep interest of mine that I have a lot of knowledge and experience with. So, much like Commissioner Ortiz mentioned, I'm here to serve this commission and the residents of Santa Fe. So, I offer my experience to serve this commission, and that's why I would be interested in taking this.

Thank you. Appreciate that. So, now we have both the commissioners that have been nominated and have spoken to their desire and their qualifications for running. So, I call for the votes. Voice vote by our, who's doing that? Xavier. Okay. Commissioner Gold. Commissioner Bella. Commissioner Duran. Commissioner Petes. Commissioner Villareal. Commissioner Petes. Commissioner Ray. Commissioner Petes. Commissioner Petes. Commissioner Petes. Chair Ortiz. Commissioner Petes. Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Petes. Commissioner Vanio. And Commissioner Bella.

Commissioner Bella.

Okay, by a total of 7 to 2, Commissioner Petes will be our vice chair. Congratulations. Would you like to say anything?

Just thank you, colleagues. Looking forward to working with you, Chair, and with this body and with our staff. Thank you.

So, does that complete the election of the chair and the vice chair? Is there anything else we need to do in that regard?

No, Chair Ortiz, that completes the election.

You guys did a good job. I'm sure we can have our meeting. Thank you for being patient with me. We're going to do great. This is a great team. So, we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda, which has been with the amendment at the approval of the agenda changed to item 6D as the second item, if I understood it correctly, review of the current charter for reference. So, we'll have a presentation, I'm assuming. Is that what's going to happen? And then we'll have a conversation afterwards or during or questions. How would you like to proceed in that regard? I'll leave that up to Marcy.

Chair Ortiz, Commissioners, do you want me to put it, there's a document in your agenda that represents the current chapter of the current charter. Do you want to look at it up here, or how do you want to look at it?

Let me ask a question procedurally. So, what you put on the screen, does the public see that? Because if the public sees that, I think that would be the best way to go so that if we have anyone watching, they can see what we're referencing it because we have the hard copy here. So, I would like for it to be put on the screen if that's doable.

You got it.

And then also for the public, if we could have you introduce yourself so they know who's speaking as well as your name and your title, and we're very transparent.

Chair, a point for staff, a request for staff. The version of the charter that is on the website is not the latest version. So for the public also, if that could be updated because I downloaded it and it's the 2020 version.

Thank you. Chair Ortiz, Vice Chair Petes, that is something we are currently working on with the codifier at the moment. We are aware that that version is not up-to-date. There is an up-to-date version that Marcy was very kind to put together in your packet, and that is also available online on Civic Clerk for the packet for this meeting.

Thank you. Commissioners, Chair Ortiz, Commissioners, my name is Marcy. I am the manager of the Legislation and Policy Office for the City of Santa Fe, and I am very happy to be here with you all this evening. And what you have before you is indeed a copy of what the charter, what is in the way? Okay. This is the current version of what the charter should say. So, I think one of the things that I should say first is that the, it keeps, the yellow highlights in this document are the most recent additions to this charter. And these are the changes that occurred in 2025 at during the November election. I'm so sorry. I don't know why this, IT, we seem to be having some problems on the screens. This document is also in the packet digitally for the for the agenda in case you all want to know that and for the public as well. So, you know. There is also a hard copy in your physical packets. So, I don't know where it would make the most sense to you all to begin, but I might suggest that we start with the mayor. It's Article 5 of the charter. The items above that were, were Commissioner Pres.

Thank you, Marcy. I guess I would just like to, yeah, remind the commission and the public that this is very basic update or summary, right? This commission is supposed to be, is mandated to be convened every 10 years. We were convened three years ago. Some of us served on that commission. And so this is an ad hoc convening of this commission between the two that is supposed to happen every 10 years because of what the voters voted on that this commission recommended be put to the voters in the last election. So, just to remind us and the public that our mandate here, our remit, is to really look at the issue of separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branch of this governing body, and that is the task. So, with that, I think it's a good idea to start looking at mayor and the powers of the mayor, but just just reminding us what we're here to do.

Thank you. And I appreciate that clarification. I think that's very important. And I'm also, I will say, very mindful of our constituents and our citizens and the public that are watching and listening. There are 11 sections in this charter. If you could spend just one sentence or two on each section because it will help our citizens know what's in the charter. One of the issues we had last go-round is we were getting lots of information and suggestions of things that this organization commission had no authority to do. So, I think it's clear, it needs to be clear for the community that there are certain subject matter that we can look at. And if you just give attention one or two sentences to each of the provisions, I think that might be helpful and then go into a little bit more detail as to Commissioner Pederson's suggestion. Does that work for the commissioners? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Marcy.

Thank you for that, Chair Ortiz. Okay, so with that, the very beginning of the charter talks about when we became a home rule city. And our charter, I think it's, this is an analogy, is a little bit like the City of Santa Fe's constitution. So, it talks about how our government is going to function. And so, the beginning of the charter talks about when it became, when it came to be. And then we have a preamble that talks about, you know, it declares Santa Fe our home rule city. Article 1 of our charter talks about incorporation and what our powers are as a city of Santa Fe with its own charter. Article 1.01 is the purpose, and I might read this purpose actually. I think it's worth reading if we are going to bring the public along with what we are reading. The purpose, the purpose of this charter is to provide for maximum self-government and the greatest possible exercise of home rule powers. In no case shall the city have any fewer powers than a non-charter municipality in the state of New Mexico. It goes on to discuss the incorporation, and it says the municipal corporation now existing and known as the City of Santa Fe shall remain and continue to be a body politic and corporate with the same name and boundaries as existed prior to the effective date of this charter, and the boundaries of the city may be changed as provided by law. And then it goes into the powers that we actually have. So, it discusses that the powers are possible. It's all the powers possible under the constitution of the United, sorry, of New Mexico, and how we might accept those powers and how we might, the devolution of the powers is how it's stated.

Paragraph C under that area is talking about the general law municipal corporations. It goes into that. I don't know how far in the weeds you all want me to go.

If I may, I think you're going into a little bit too much detail. Maybe not into the, if the Chair agrees, maybe just outline for each article what we're talking about. Okay. Let's move it forward. We started this at 5:30. We don't want to spend a whole lot of time on it, but we do want to be informative. Thank you.

Okay. So, Article 1.03 is called "The Construction," and it's how the charter is constructed in favor of the city. Our intergovernmental relations prescribe that the city may exercise any of its powers jointly or in cooperation with any other governmental entity. The state and the municipal laws are talked about in Article 1.05. Rights and property, it goes into that part.

Policy statements are Article 2. These are the city's policy statements. Actually, it's exactly what it says. Article 2.01 is our Code of Ethics. Article 2.02 is a segment on human and civil rights. It talks about our policy goals and aspirations. 2.03 is environmental protection. 2.04 is cultural and neighborhood preservation. These are our policy values as we're scrolling through them. 2.05 is campaign and finance campaign practices. 2.06 is our general plan, and it's talking about how the governing body establishes and adopts by ordinance resolution policies, goals, and objectives outlined by the city in a general plan so that we know where we're going. Support for local businesses is 2.07. Support for local business and an enduring local economy.

Now, Marcy, the Charter Commission would not be involved in dealing with any policy, correct?

Well, you all would be able to recommend changes to that section.

Can't I thought we were just dealing with structure and governance? I guess I should say a Charter Commission could potentially recommend changes to that section, but you all were convened, as Commissioner Perez was talking about earlier, to truly dig into the concept of separation of powers. So, these articles that I'm reading about right now are not contemplated as being part of your focus, but they are part of the charter.

Thank you, because I think it's important that we clarify what the parameters are of what we're going to be talking about and try to narrow it down because it can get very lengthy. Thank you.

Do I have a question? Commissioner Ganim. My other question is, yes, I understand that's our focus. Are we able to add on to it if we wanted to work on something and it got approved? So, it's open-ended. Is that what you're saying, that we're not restricted? Like, okay, our main focus is the powers of the mayor, but hypothetically, if somebody wanted to add something in and we asked and we voted on it, could we add it into recommendation?

The answer is yes, we can deal with policies. What I have heard you say...

Chair Ortiz and Commissioner Granillo, my understanding is that the intent of the resolution was to have you all focus on separation of powers. I would use the resolution that you all have a copy of to justify any changes that you might want to make to the charter. Use that as your guide. And there is a "may" in there, but the intention of the governing body was to set, focus on separation of powers, and you know.

Okay. Thank you. And thank you for that comment. We'll keep that in mind as we move forward. Go ahead, Marcy.

May I make a comment?

Yes, please.

It seems to me that the Charter Review Commission, as Vice Chair or as described, accurately as not convening any less than every 10 years, doesn't necessarily make this a special session, just an advanced meeting of the Charter Review Commission. And so I would support that if voted on by the commission, we can expand the scope as dictated by the charter. I don't think that the charter constrains the Charter Review Commission, and how that balances with the governing body's proposal, I'm not sure which supersedes the other.

Are you finished?

I'm sorry. Yes.

Chair Ortiz, Commissioner Vela, I think I understand what you're getting at there. It's like you all are your body, and you are making your decisions and doing your work. And then there's the governing body who voted to bring you together and put together a resolution that established what this Charter Commission's purpose was for. And I guess my question might be one for our city attorney. If we have a resolution that is supposed to be formalizing what the governing body's purpose is for pulling a commission together, it would seem to me that that would be the guiding principle, right?

Yes, I agree with you, Marcia. I think we're, the commission here is guided by the intent of the resolution, which if you look at it, and it is, I found it here on the website, the civic clerk from your last meeting. But we could bring it up, maybe. Just to look at the language, I think it could be instructive for purposes of directing the commission. I appreciate the comment to broaden the scope, but I think once we do, as you said, get into the weeds of it, this will prove plenty to do just in the separation of powers question. So, what I'm reading here in the resolution is that that's really the focus that the governing body wanted you all to take as you reconvene. But, we can look at it together if you...

Would that be okay with Chair? Sorry. Looking at the resolution, the sentence right before the six items that the city council was outlining for us clearly says, "The commission's recommendations shall include, not be limited to, the powers and duties of the mayor and the city council, including the following." So, I think that's very clear. It does not limit us to that. It leaves it open, and so I think we can bring up whatever we feel as we move forward. But, I was just trying to get some insight from Marcy regarding policy. Normally, that doesn't occur, but that's not preventing us from moving in that direction. So, does that satisfy the commissioners? So, we can move forward because we can have a long conversation about each of these areas, but that's not the intent. The intent is to get an overview and understand from Marcy's expertise on the different pieces to this charter.

It's very helpful, Adam Chair, because if we're to spend a year talking as a Charter Review Commission only about the relations between the mayor and the city council, that's a tremendous waste of time. I'm hoping that there is a little more latitude here to delve into the governance issues that you referred to, Commissioner Perez. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner. Marcy, could you... Would we be good to move forward?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay. Marcy.

All right. So, the third article of our charter goes into citizen rights, and it starts with establishing parameters for referendum. The next article, Article 3.02, is on initiatives, and so it establishes parameters for those. Article 3.03 is for recall initiatives, or recall and parameters around them. Article 3.04 covers citizen complaints. Article 4 is on elections. And so, the first section of that one is 4.01 over elections, and it establishes that we have regular elections and non-partisan elections.

One thing I might point out as I'm going through this document with you all is that there are notes under each section that do talk a little bit about the history. I think they're usually accurate. I did discover one thing that I was a little bit confused about last week, but I do think in general they're very helpful in case you want to know what has happened when. And my colleague Christine has also put together a timeline that we can talk about later, but I just thought I would point that out as we're getting familiar with this document. There are little history notes under there.

So, elections, there's 4.02 for qualified voters. 4.03 is for nominating petitions. 4.04 is establishing election code. 4.05 covers campaign public campaign financing. 4.06 is ranked-choice voting. 4.07 is campaign contribution limits. 4.08 is timely disclosure of purposes of tax increases and measures.

Okay, the next article is Article 5, and it covers the mayor. And the first subsection or section of this article, 5.01, is on the powers and duties of the mayor. And so we've got, I think I might go through these actually because this is related to the resolution. So, I'm going to dive into this part. It says that the city has a mayor who shall be elected at large by the voters of the city. Yeah, the mayor needs to be elected. You'll see yellow highlight for letter B. That's not yet online, not for lack of trying. Unicode is going to update it. But this should say that the mayor votes only on an issue before the governing body in the case of a tie. And that happened in 2025. So, that went before the voters, and the voters approved that the mayor would only vote in the case of a tie or when it's necessary by law. So, there are cases either in state statute or in our ordinances that require the whole governing body to vote. And so, that would include the mayor. But otherwise, the mayor would vote in the case of a tie.

Paragraph C says that the mayor is the chief executive officer of the city, whose position shall be full-time. So, the mayor is an actual paid employee who's full-time and here a lot. I was going to say full-time, but I'm like, all the time. Let's see. Paragraph D talks about the initial salary that the full-time mayor earned. And so, the first full-time mayor was $74,000 until such a time that an independent salary commission is established by the city by city ordinance, and such commission sets the salary for the mayor. And as I understand it, we have had that happen since this, the mayor's salary has been updated, and there is an ordinance that covers that. Paragraph E...

Next question.

Yes.

Do changes like that need to be reflected in the charter? Does the charter need to be amended to reflect those type of changes?

In this case, no, because what's here is talking about an initial salary, and then the rest of this sentence has occurred. Does that make sense? We're not out of compliance with it. There's no change. It is as it states.

I have another question. Since there are things that were amended to reflect the changes that happened with the voters in 2025, and maybe this is already happening, but doesn't this document from the beginning need to reflect that it's been amended with those changes from 2025?

Commissioner Duran, it should. And that is what our partners at Municode. My understanding is that's what they do. When we send them the updated amendments, they make notes. That's what those old history notes should be. So.

Thank you for those questions. Do we know when that is going to be completed? How long does it take? Election was in November. How long does it take to get those adjustments made? Just curious.

City Clerk Carolyn Cardenas. So, prior contract with the codifier, they're updated quarterly. However, our City Attorney's office flagged for us that that had not been updated. So, we shot over an email to MuniCode to have them updated. It is pending clarification right now.

Thank you for that. Marci, go ahead.

Okay. Let's see. Paragraph E is discussing how the mayor appoints, with the consent of the governing body, the city manager, city attorney, and the city clerk, and then also members of advisory committees. Paragraph F: the mayor exercises supervisory authority over the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk. Paragraph G says that the mayor has authority to remove the city manager, the city attorney, and the city clerk without council approval. So, I'll skip that. You're welcome.

I believe that the approval has to be approved by the governing body of the appointment. Or those, am I wrong? The mayor, just as it says here, may dismiss the city attorney, the city clerk, and the city manager without. But also the governing body, when we get down to the governing body section, they are also allowed to. That was one of our more recent, you'll see. It's a good question, Commissioner Granillo. Thank you.

Okay. We're on paragraph H. The mayor shall cause ordinances and regulations of the city to be faithfully and constantly obeyed. The mayor shall have within the city limits the power conferred upon sheriffs of counties to suppress disorders and keep the peace. Paragraph J: the mayor may propose programs or shall propose programs and policies to the governing body. Item K: the mayor shall represent the city in intergovernmental relationships. Item L says that the mayor shall present an annual State of the City message, which shall identify, among other matters, the mayor's legislative agenda for the upcoming year. Item M: the mayor shall work with the city personnel and timely prepare an annual budget and propose spending priority for review and approval by the Finance Committee and the governing body. Paragraph N: the mayor shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes. And last but not least, item O says that the mayor shall be recognized by the governor for purposes of military law.

And then you do have some history notes here. You'll see that they do not yet include the 2020. I think there was, we should look at our timeline, but using may not yet. There should be 2025 notes there.

Madam Chair, the last commission, we made a bunch of recommendations about this, but there hasn't been a charter amendment about this other than what is highlighted in yellow, correct?

That's correct. There was a resolution drafted for that item out of the 2023 recommendations, but it did not go before the voters because the government did not.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course. Sixteen items that were presented, and I think only five were moved forward by the City Council. And as we move forward in the other presentation, we'll talk about those. Thank you. Go ahead and proceed.

Okay. We can spend maybe 10 more minutes, 12 more minutes on this.

Yeah, that sounds good. Okay. So item 5.02 is eligibility of the mayor. 5.03 is the mayor's term of office. 5.04 establishes the role of the mayor pro tem. Item 5.05 is talking about vacancies, like what happens in the vacancy of a mayor. And 5.06 is grounds for removal from office.

Article 6 is for the governing body's powers. Their composition is covered under Article 5.01. The powers and duties of the governing body are established in this next section, 6.02. And so it goes through them. The governing body shall serve as the principal policymaker of the city. So, they are identified as the body that makes policies, and the way that they do that is through their ordinances and resolutions. And they shall, as necessary, amend any existing policies consistent with other provisions of this charter. And the governing body shall consider the legislative agenda put forward by the mayor and propose amendments to that agenda. And we do that through a resolution each year. That one comes through. It's a resolution.

All legislative powers by the city shall be vested in the governing body except as otherwise required by the law of this charter. And the governing body shall provide an exercise of its powers and for the performance of all duties and obligations imposed on the city by law. It's just going over their main powers, their legislative power. The governing body shall by ordinance fix annual salaries of the municipal judge and councilors, shall review those salaries not less than every four years. The governing body by ordinance can establish an independent salary review, a salary review commission whose sole purpose shall be to review the mayor's salary, and the independent salary review commission reviews the mayor's salary no less than every four years.

Item E is about the governing body by ordinance shall set policy for reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred by the mayor and the municipal judge and city councilors. Item F talks about how this governing body considers and takes action throughout the year on the mayor's legislative agenda. And item G is a new one. It's from 2025. The governing body may suspend or remove the city manager, city attorney, and/or the city clerk by a vote of six councilors during a regularly scheduled meeting.

Item 6 covers the districts. Item, excuse me, 6.03, 6.04 covers their eligibility. 6.05 covers their term of office. 6.06 covers vacancies in office. 6.07 covers grounds for removal. Article 7 covers the municipal court, and I'm going to just speed through because I don't want to bog us down. Article, what are they, what's that? 8? It's the city manager. Now this one has a technical, this is a technical amendment in items 8.04. It talks about the city manager's removal. That was taken out. So if you were to look at the charter in its, what it should say state, this item would not be here, but I just wanted to show you that it was removed in 2025. And the reason for that was that it's covered up in the governing body's powers above, so we didn't need to say it again down here. Article 9 is our miscellaneous governmental issues, and Article 10 is about the charter review. So, this is how you all come together and how you work. And charter amendment or repeal is covered in section 10.02, and that's about amendments to the charter. And Article 11 is on general provisions. And that's, that is all of it.

Excellent. So, you've gone through it, and I appreciate you doing that. It did take some time, but this is the meat of what we're going to be looking at and looking at amending. So, I wanted her to spend some time on that. Any questions from the commissioners for Marci at this point on this topic?

Yes, Madam Chair. I just want to test my understanding, Marci, based on all that you have just reviewed. Under the current charter, as amended in the last election, the mayor runs the organization, is the CEO, sets the legislative agenda, but doesn't have a vote unless there is a tie on the City Council or unless there are not enough councilors to make a quorum. The mayor appoints the city manager, the city attorney, and the city clerk with approval of the governing body, I'm sorry, the City Council, and can unilaterally remove any of these key positions. But the City Council now reserves the right to also fire any of these positions regardless of the mayor's position. The city manager, city attorney, and city clerk report to the mayor. They work for the mayor, but they do not work for the rest of the council. Is that correct?

Commissioners, there is some kind of ambient noise. I apologize. Commissioner Gold, that is correct. The governing body certainly can bring forth a motion to remove the city attorney, city clerk, or the city manager. It is not clear to me that those three positions do not work for the governing body necessarily. That part I'm sure about.

Thank you, because go back to the resolution that says that the mayor has supervisory authority over the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk. That means they report to him or her, and they are his or her employees, correct?

Commissioner Gold, Chair Ortiz, Commissioner Gold, that is correct. They do supervise. The mayor would supervise those three positions.

Thank you, because there is this issue of who do these key players work for? Is it the whole council and the mayor, or is it just the mayor? And this causes confusion in the organization and has caused significant organizational dysfunction in the last few years. Further questions? Any further questions, Commissioner Gold? Other commissioners? Questions? I have a clarifying question.

Yes, Commissioner Bella. Is it accurate to conclude that there are no current term limits for any of these positions? Marci, do we know about term limits? Are there job descriptions for these positions that would clarify a lot of what we're asking?

So, Commissioners, Chair Ortiz, I think it would be a good idea to take a look in Chapter 2 of our code and wrap our heads around what the roles for the mayor, the city clerk, and the city attorney are as established in our code. And that is where some of what Commissioner Gold may be, this is one of my quibbles where I'm like, I'm not so sure that the city attorney and city clerk and city manager don't work for the city because they do have a role described in code. There is the supervisorial thing, and it is not for me to agree or disagree with what it has caused or hasn't caused, but that's there. The term limits, they're appointed by the mayor, and they could potentially stay on, I suppose. Sorry, I just, at will, at will employees.

Yeah. Just to clarify, I was describing more broadly in the charter term limits for the governing body and the mayor.

Oh, got you. Yes. Yes, there are no term limits. That's right.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, that was confusing.

Chair, I have.

Commissioner Vella, any further questions?

No, that's all, thank you.

Chair, I believe from our commission work last time that it was clarified to us as a commissioner at that point that that is state law that doesn't allow for cities to impose term limits. So, this is my recollection, but I will defer to the attorney's office to clarify.

So, Commissioner Pederson, that's an excellent question, and these are the kinds of questions that are needed to be answered. And as we get deeper into our subcommittees and deeper into the work, we're going to make, probably have a list. So, our attorneys are scrambling now looking through all. We'll have a list of the questions that will address what we need to know and be somewhat organized in terms of giving guidelines to the staff as to what we want because we could spend a lot of time going through a lot of information and questions at this point. And at this point, I want us to get through the basics and then deal with the questions. But if the staff will take note of the questions that are being asked so that they can be answered when we get to that point when we need to give information to our subcommittees when we decide what we're doing. But these are all great questions that are being asked, and I appreciate that. Did you have a response for Commissioner Perez on her question?

Chair, Commissioner Perez, I would also defer to our attorneys. I'm not sure.

Yeah. Madam Chair, I can answer that question, and when we go into the next section, that was something that the last commission looked at, and it describes why they weren't able to make changes because it has to happen at the state before we make any changes to term limit language for the city.

Good. About information. Thank you, Commissioner Fierro Gallo. I appreciate that. So good to have a lot of historical experience on this commission. Marcy, anything else? Any other questions, Commissioners? That was really thorough. Really appreciate that. We did spend some time, but I think it was important. So, we're no further questions on this area. We're going to go ahead and move to item 6.3.6E, which is the third item, which is review and discussion of the Charter Review Commission's previous recommendations. And who will be doing that for us? Is that you again, Marcy?

Sure, Ortiz, I can. I don't know. Sorry, which item are we on?

We're on item 6E on the agenda, but it was moved to the third item of discussion, which is item E, review and discussion of the Charter Review Commission's previous recommendations. And I know we have the report in our document, Charter Review Commission final report. Are you prepared, or shall we go through it ourselves?

Commissioner Ortiz, I was not prepared to present on this necessarily, but I'm happy to share what I can. I was brand new.

Okay, fair enough.

The last group, the last commission came together, and I entered stage left at drafting the resolutions that happened as a result of that. Fair enough. So, I'm familiar, but not, you know, I'm not an expert.

Okay, appreciate that. So, what we'll do is we'll jump in, and those of us commissioners that have been here will have a little bit of conversation about what we recollect, and then if there's other questions as we move forward from the commission that Marcy can answer or anyone that can answer, you can do that. You all have copies of the Charter Review Commission final report. And in that first page, it has the, the second paragraph talks about the 15 proposals that were submitted by the Charter Review Commission. We worked really hard and really long putting those together, and of those, nine topics were sent through the commission by the governing body that we looked at. We looked at those as well as some others that were presented by the commission members. We recommended six substantive amendments, of which four of those were sent for the governing body to consider. Oh, and four of those are sent to the governing body for consideration, but not as charter amendments. So, we had different groupings. We had, these are the ones that we want to be moved forward to the voters, to the electorate. These are good ideas, but not something that we're recommending leaving it to the city council to make decisions because the city council, because all we did was recommend, and the city council was the one that would make decisions as to what would move forward. The pages that follow list the recommendations. And let me just quickly go through some of the, I have the original voting sheet from that night in front of me. So, I'm just going to read the headings of them so that we don't go through them all. Number of districts and counselors, that was talked about, that was determined that it's a non-charter issue. Counselors who lose mayoral elections, we talked about that. We took no action on that because that was, we felt, a non-charter issue. Boards and commissions sunsets, we took action on that, but we felt that was a non-charter issue as well. Roles of the mayor, city council, city manager, municipal court. Roles of the city council, city manager. Those we moved forward. Full-time counselors, that was a non-charter recommendation that we recommended, but was not moved forward. We had a finance section that dealt with budgets. We had initiatives, referral initiatives, referendum, recall section. We had a quasi-judicial section. We also had an agriculture and food policy that was a non-charter recommendation that we took action on that, but not part of the charter. There was an at-large council member item. There were term limits. We took no action on that. We talked about human rights, open meetings, and even 6-year-olds voting. So, there's a lot of, what did I say? 16. Oh, did I? 6-year-old? Well, they're too young as well. But, we did talk about the 16-year-olds. So, thank you for changing that. We could get into trouble with that. So, lots of issues. Spent a lot of time discussing them. You can read the detail here, and maybe some of the information here that the charter commission recommended the language based on what we decide to move forward with can be used, clarified, or improved on. So, this will be useful so that hopefully we don't reinvent the wheel. Hopefully, we can benefit from past work and not work so hard. I like for us to try to see if we can work a little bit more efficiently because it is a lot of research to be done. Commissioner Pettis, Commissioner Gurnee, would you like to add to that in terms of the charter review commission final report?

Well, you covered it all. We're good.

Okay. Appreciate that. The other thing I uncovered, I work for Department of Finance and Administration. I keep records just so that you all know. I uncovered a sheet of lessons learned from that experience. And at whatever point in time you would like to hear some of those that might be helpful to us. It also might answer questions and clarify some of the questions that were raised by the commissioners at the last meeting. I could do that now, or I could do that at the end when we're dealing with the, there's a chair opportunity for comment. What is the pleasure of the commissioners? We'll do it now so that there is some clarity to it, and then if we talk about it later in another space, I say let's shoot for it now.

Okay. That work for the commissioners?

Yeah, Madam Chair, I would like to hear about that. I also would be interested to know from those of you that served, what are some of the recommendations that you proposed to the governing body that you wish they would have considered to actually put on the ballot? And then the second question I have is, I don't know if you, if this body wants to know of some of the things that actually made it on the ballot and actually passed, or you could read it in the document. Because I thought that was interesting, too, but because I was there. But more primarily, I really wanted to know if there were things in here that you wish you would have had more time to, because you had what? Four months? Three months? It was, and then you don't, and you factor in the, that vacation time in December, Christmas. So, so I guess that's like two part. I really would like to know if there were things that you wish the governing body would have considered to put on the ballot.

So, I certainly have sponsored that, but I want my fellow commissioners that were on the commission to respond first. Do you have something you'd like to share?

One of the things that I really wanted to work on because I was on the Civil Rights and was the idea of urban gardening for there to be fruit in every park that was already out there for individuals, seeing how Santa Fe had it. Food scarcity at the time, and we still do now. But anybody walking by would have the fresh fruit, and I think the other one was, that I'm happy that did pass, was the amendment for our charter to last that longer session and the amount of budget given to it.

Commissioner Pettus.

Thank you, Chair Ortiz. To answer your question, Commissioner Villarreal, I was feeling pretty good when we wrapped up our work last time, and the questions that did go to the voters were some of the issues that I was very invested in during our last commission, the time that we were convened. They, I do have to say that there were, I wish that we had more time because I would have loved to take a deeper dive particularly on the issues that we are now mandated to take a deeper dive on. So, I'm very happy to be here. And I do wish that the governing body had looked at some of our recommendations a little bit more seriously, perhaps. So, that I'm talking about the stuff that is not necessarily going to go to the voters, right? But for the, for the governing body to consider.

Thank you, Commissioner Pettus. Commissioner Garniel, you had something more?

Madam Chair, I forgot though, we didn't touch on full, we didn't really go, we kind of stepped away from the full-time counselors, but re-looking at having the opportunity for aides for the counselors, like one aide per district, so that you have counselors who don't get a lot of monetary out of it. They're doing it for the love of their community, and they're doing full-time jobs and raising families and didn't have the opportunity, and I'm not making scapegoats for our, you know, city either. There's accountability, but for the most part, they're human, and when we get to that, having the opportunity to have the help really would have helped them out. So, that's something that's why I was asking Marcy if we can come back in and look at other things. And that's why I posed that one. So, thank you, ma'am.

Commissioner Corneal, some of those, I think the one you're mentioning now is one of the items that we recommended, but to the, to the city council to move forward on and didn't feel it needed to be in the charter. But we can revisit all those. And I appreciate you bringing that up. My response to the question of Commissioner Villarreal is, I thought all of the items that the commission voted on and that sent to the city council should have been presented to the electorate. They all were not. I also was an advocate and was very interested in seeing the issue regarding budgeting. That should have been sent to the voters and should have been part of the, the charter. I'm glad to see that the, the city councilors currently have an item that dealt with, I think it was strategic planning. What was the other one that was on there? And I think one of the other commissioners I saw at the last meeting was interested in seeing that addressed. Strategic planning and budgeting, of course. So, I'm very interested in looking at those and moving forward again with those because we had a committee that dealt with a governance that spent a lot of time working on that. So, those are two areas that I thought should be looked at. Just something else, Commissioner Pedas.

Thank you for the reminder, Chair, about the whole like finance and audit stuff because we spent so much time talking about that, really thinking through that, and then it just kind of evaporated by the time that it got to the governing body. So, I will second that that is something that I was disappointed that wasn't paid more attention to.

And it was very key and actually at the, at the time, timely because of at the time audits had now been done for some time, and there was a concern from the citizens. I mean, that was one major thing I heard during that time. You know, about the audits. Going to do that, they've been approved and they're much better now, but it's still something that maybe needs to be institutionalized, some language that will help prevent that from occurring in the future. So, Mr. Vigil, did that give you some insight?

Thank you so much, all of you.

Okay, any other questions? I'm going to list, I have a list of nine. I'll go through them quickly. This was April 2023 lessons learned. I'm going to try to edit as I go because I wrote this sometime ago. The four-month timeline, December, January, February, March, was insufficient to do quality work. We were not set up for success, and we felt poorly about that. Number two, publicity is essential, radio, newspaper, social media, virtually non-existence. There was not enough information out to the public.

One of the things I came across was the reporter where we have a commission reporter. The commission could rewrite the City of Santa Fe's governance, but no one knows. So, that was probably the most publicity we got. And so, publicity is key, especially if you're going to have hearings. Number one, people don't know about them, they don't know what the topic is, they don't know why they should even go. So, we have to start early on with publicity, and for me, that's going to be one of the major things that I want to promote.

The Independent Citizen Review Board, I went on the radio with Richard Eeds. We had a letter in the newspaper. We had big posters that we had at our couple of public hearings that had the layout of the districts. I mean, there was work that had to be done, but at least people came and would ask us. We had something to share with them. We need to work really hard and promote our work because there was not enough information to the public.

Number three, there was no budget. So, it's a challenge to do the work without a budget. We need transparency in connection with the public, media coverage charts for public hearings, one-page handouts on topics being reviewed. Without a budget, I think that makes it a little bit more cumbersome to do.

Number four, I'm thinking I don't know that we had any public meetings that were conducted. I know with the Charter Review Commission, we had one at the—I'm sorry, the Citizen Independent Redistricting Commission—we had one at Southside Library and we had one at this library. But I'm not sure that the Charter Review Commission had—did we? I don't think we did because I looked at my notes and one of the notes I had is we had done a disservice to the citizens of Santa Fe because we did not allow a hearing. So, I think we really have to work on these hearings and do some good planning.

Public meetings need to be structured to provide clear data to the public so they can digest and comment on. The public needed an idea of what was being considered. Public meetings did not—oh, there were no public meetings. Much of what was provided to us was in writing. We would get stuff on email, and a lot of it was not within the purview of the commission. And a lot of the comments we got via email were mainly reactive. It was useful and we appreciated the comments, but there wasn't sufficient. There was an area on the website, the city website, for comments to come in. We got some emails in that regard. So, we need to work to make sure that's available again.

Number five, provide for ongoing community comments online and disseminate to commission members. Some of us were getting emails individually, but not the full commission was. And it would be really good if whatever comes in in writing, if it's online, all the commissioners get copies of that, so they're all aware of the different issues and the different people. A lot of people had my email, so I was getting a lot of information, but I think everyone on the commission needs to get that.

Number six, we need to be efficient with the resources and the lack thereof resources. Commissioners need to discuss, prioritize, and come to consensus on what issues to spend time on. Initially, we had too wide a range of topics, and it was unrealistic. We had no staff. The commissioners would do the work on their own and the research on their own. It made it problematic because we had such a short time frame.

Number seven, we need a dedicated staff to provide some research. I'm being repetitive, but this is what I wrote. Most work was done by the commissioners during offline work sessions in subcommittees. Subcommittees met outside of full commission meetings, and I have to say there were a lot of hours spent on the subcommittee meetings, probably even more so than in the full commission meetings. We spent time researching, and then we reported back at each commission meeting their progress to that point. We would get general consensus from the full commission if that subcommittee was going in the right direction, which is very important because we don't want a subcommittee going off on their own and doing work that the full commission could not support. So, that reporting back is very important. So, we got consensus from the full commission on the direction they were moving.

The subcommittees we had were Governance and Finance, Council or District Boards and Commission Issues, and then the third one was Human Rights and Social Issues, Agriculture and Hunger. We had three commissioners assigned to each committee, and the chair would move to whichever committee she felt she needed to go at that time. That's how we structured it then. We can structure it however we choose to.

Number eight, we used the National Civic League Model Charter, which was very productive and very useful. I don't know if this is still useful and valuable. Everybody has it. Xavier sent it, you got a link to everybody. The National Civic League? Because I didn't get it. I think that may have been before we were connected to your email.

Chair: Ortiz, I'll make sure that you do get it.

Great. I'm glad because I printed out all my emails and I did not have that one. Okay, so it's probably this is an old one. Great. As long as everyone gets it, if you could get me a copy, that would be awesome.

And then the last thing, this was a handwritten one. We have to be mindful at our meetings. We had a situation where at one of our commission meetings, we entertained comments from two, maybe three, sitting city councilors. Then we had a letter written because I wasn't chair, so I wasn't sure how that all was carried out. We got a letter written by another sitting city councilor saying all the councilors should have had an opportunity to speak on the issues. So, as a commission, we need to decide number one, if we want to hear from the city councilors at all regarding their recommendations, or if we want to be independent and do our work without them. It's our decision, but if we decide to have city councilors present, we should open the door to all of them and not just a select few because I still have that letter that was written by the city council. So, we need to be mindful to be fair and equitable to the city council when we do that. Again, it may or may not be an appropriate thing for us to do. We need to decide that. So, those are my comments back in April of 2023. Any questions?

I just thank you, Chair.

Madam Chair: Thank you. So, hopefully that will help us move forward in some of the or answer some of the questions that were had. Okay, so that takes care of the—do you have a question? Okay. I don't want to not let someone speak if they need to speak, so raise your hand. So, we do have a commissioner online, and I want to make sure that Commissioner Way has—if she feels she needs to speak to—I guess the staff will let us know if she raises her hand, correct? So, we haven't totally not paid attention to her. I want to make sure. Any questions, Commissioner Way, at this point? We can't hear you yet. Please unmute yourself, Commissioner. She's okay. She's given us the okay sign. Thank you, Commissioner Way. That works really well. I appreciate that. Okay, so that was item 6.3, discussion of Charter Review Commission previous recommendations. Any other comments? Questions, Commissioner Pettus?

Madam Chair: Thank you. I would just like to direct my colleagues on this commission to really take time to read this over several times over the next few days because there are a lot of recommendations, particularly written into our work here around governance and the duties, roles, responsibilities for the mayor, the city council, and whatnot. So, I think that would behoove us to sort of come level set on that regard. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Pederson. Commissioner Viera Viederman.

I would reiterate that. It was so helpful to read through that. I'm getting the wrong name. Model Cities Charter. Is that the full name? I read through it, and it was very helpful. And it actually referenced Commissioner Gold, some of your resources. They were actually very aligned. So, I think that would be helpful. There were a lot of resources you provided. I went through some of them, and they were actually saying very similar things to Model Cities. So, if you all make time to do that as well, there's some good things to kind of dig through. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Viederman. And so, I'm glad that everyone has that except me, Commissioner. I had a question.

Commissioner Vela: I had a question for you, Madam Chair. You mentioned that there were six items put forward to the city council, and you wish that they had all gone to referendum. Could you clarify how many went to the voters, and how many—

I will do a spreadsheet for the next meeting.

Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Viederman thinks there were three that went. I didn't think that many went. But—

There were three, Chair.

Okay. So, we'll have a spreadsheet of what was sent in terms of the topic, what was sent to the council from the commission, and what the voters voted on. And I'll do a spreadsheet that kind of helps us have a big picture of what all of the issues were, because we might be able to use some of those again, or pull some of those off that list.

Sounds great.

Anything else, Commissioner Vela?

Vela, I'm sorry. So, I also know that we're talking about the city municipal item. I also want to thank Commissioner Goolsby for sending—and I'm going to say this because I want to make sure we all have all the copies—he sent council management government policymaker administer of roles of staff council management governor is a professional manager expensive council management government what is a normal level of staff turnover? And he sent a listing of additional resources. And then we from Commissioner Pettus, we got the Model City Charter. This is it?

Madam Chair, that is the dense version. That's the section specifically on the sort of separation of powers issues. But the whole document, the link, like you can get to the whole document through it.

Okay. Okay, so I didn't get that, but I do please want the full document because that is the document that we got the whole financial piece and the whole budget piece out of almost verbatim, and it was really good. So.

Madam Chair: Thank you, members, for providing this information. Commissioner Pettus? A clarifying question, did you just request that staff provide a printed copy of the model city document to the commissioners?

I requested one for myself. Other commissioners like that, they certainly—I think that's the kind of thing we should be getting.

Yeah, I think that would be great for everybody to have a hard copy. I have one so I don't need it. Okay. But it would be great. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification. But yeah, I think it's important for us to look at that document, and if making copies at home is almost impossible like it is for me, I came earlier this week to get from Xavier all of this because I wanted to review it before tonight. So, if Xavier could get copies of that entire document for the entire commission, that would be wonderful.

Madam Chair, I would be happy to do that for you.

Okay, anything else? Let's move on to item 6C, which is the fourth item.

Formation of possible subcommittees. In approving the agenda, there was a comment made that perhaps we should wait on that formation of subcommittees. I can't remember who made the comment, but I think it's very, very valid from the standpoint that we have the ability to set up three different subcommittees. I think once you look at the topics, we can kind of funnel them to different of the three subcommittees, and people can decide where they want to be. But I think it's a little premature to form them now because you may be formed with, let's say, three commissioners there, but you may not be interested in the same topics. I'd like for us to come up with topics, and then group the topics that makes reasonable sense, and then have you decide which committee you'd like to be on. Does that make sense?

Commissioner Penas: Yes, Chair, that makes sense, and I would like to offer the commission a couple of thoughts around some possible subcommittee formation. This is following what we had talked about, the Portland, Oregon Charter Review Commission work. The way that they organized their subcommittees for the work that they did between 2020 and 2022, they included a research on governance subcommittee specifically, and then a subcommittee that was working specifically on community education and outreach. I like the framework of that. That's just two topics, right? We can form more committees than that, but I just wanted to offer that thinking to my commissioner colleagues here.

Great. I've got those down as suggestions, those two subcommittees. As we move forward, it'll become more evident what other subcommittees you might want. Any other comments from commissioners regarding formation of possible subcommittees? Okay, let's move to item number five, 6.5 or 6B, public input session planning. So, that takes us to the calendar. I've got two copies of calendars that I printed, and I'm not sure which is the most recent one. There were no dates on them, and I can't remember the order of the emails. So, one of them has a more detailed description at the bottom that talks about actual locations, and the other one does not. I know you all had some conversation about it at the last meeting. It wasn't voted on or acted on, but I have a comment if you permit me to make regarding scheduling.

We have district meeting scheduled, district hearing scheduled for November and December. I just have to say, it's been my experience when you schedule public input, trying to gather people, November and December is almost impossible. December is, November is problematic. So, I would just put that out there saying that I don't think we'll get, I think we should not schedule November and December for hearings. I think we should schedule a commission meeting and move those District 3 and 4 earlier, perhaps September, October, whatever the wishes of the commission, but I think those two months are pretty, and I think someone said it earlier in terms of getting people to participate. I think they're really difficult. So, I just want to throw that out there just to make us more successful and hopefully get more people. It's hard to get people out there, but starting the holidays, it's impossible. So, that's my only comment on the public session input, the calendar. Any comments on the calendar? I have a question.

Commissioner Bella: I have a question for commissioners from other districts. Is there any concern about the order or the way in which the districts are consulted? I think in effect, it shouldn't make a difference, but seeing as Districts 1 and 2 occur before 3 and 4, is there a perception we want to avoid in that, or does it not make a difference?

Mr. Bella posed a very good question. Any response?

Commissioner Pettis: I think that's a great point, and maybe we could just do odds and evens. How does that sound to the commissioners? I appreciate that point because I'm in one of the other, one of the most, I'm in, yes, I appreciate that point. So, I think Commissioner Pettis's suggestion is a good idea.

Did you have a different way to?

No, I think, well, I'm confident we'll all strive to consider all input equally, but you mentioned publicity earlier, and this might be a point where we can be proactive in what parts of the city we're consulting and in what order.

Excellent. Excellent. So, let's talk about Mr. Ghoul.

Okay, I just want to make sure we get the commissioner's comments, and then we can have the staff respond. Did you have a?

Yes, my comment, I may reiterate some points that I made at our last meeting, but the design of these public meetings is very important. If we're going to ask the public to come out and comment on something as arcane as the charter, we have to be very clear about what we're talking about, what's at stake, and rather than have a public hearing format where people just stand at a microphone and speak at us, I think it behooves us to have some discussions amongst the commission, decide what are the salient issues that we wish to probe with the public, pose them in clear questions, and agree on some background information, some contextual information that would be provided upfront, and then provide that information to those that show up, and then break them into small groups to talk amongst themselves, not at us, but to themselves about what they think about the discrete questions that we've posed. Capture that information, provide that publicly, be as transparent as possible, but try to make sure that the input that we get is as valuable as possible to the ultimate deliberations of this commission. I concur with you, Madam Chair, that November and December are very problematic for getting public input. So, I would suggest that we, as we talked about at our first meeting, get a sense of the commission early on about what are the aspects of this that we want to focus on, really bear down on the design, then have our public input during the summer and early fall, but then not plan to do it in the holiday season. That would be my suggestion. Thank you.

You know, it's your public input early summer. Yeah. Okay. Chair, group discussion, we'll do group discussions at the hearings. Draft salient issues with context, and Commissioner Vela talked about, and with help from Commissioner Pettis, fixing up the evens, odds, group B. Okay. Further?

Chair, Commissioner Staff, I'm trying to recall at the last meeting. I know we're required to do one meeting per district. Two meetings per district. I was going to say, we also, I don't remember why, I know there are some positive aspects to splitting the districts up, but there's also some. We could do four, but you also could invite everybody, right? So, last time, I think we were talking about this as district specific, and so there's maybe a way to do that a little bit more organic, more flexible, and to do these kind of back-to-back in a tighter timeframe. I'm probably saying the obvious, but that's, I don't, we didn't, we didn't state that clearly at the last meeting.

Could you state that clearly for me so I can take a note?

Rather than district-by-district meetings, so in-district for district, for the constituents of a district, doing whole community meetings in different parts of the city.

Oh. It's another option.

That's a great idea. So, invite the public, just have them in four locations. Right. So, right each, but at least, yeah. And I don't think we talked. No. Putting that on the table.

Chair, if I may. Hang on. Please be patient with us. I want to get all the ideas on the table because then that way you can respond to them all. Commissioner Travis, invite the entire community, four different locations. I think that's a very commendable thought for us to discuss further. Okay. Commissioners, anyone else? On this turn, Commissioner Pettis.

Madam Chair, I'm not exactly sure what to share right now, but what I'll share is that we had a sort of like very preliminary, but the discussion which Commissioner Boldt just summarized from our last meeting. I'd like to tell the commission that I had a lengthy conversation today with Ms. Sofia Alvarez, who has now a different last name because she got married, but she was a staffer in the city of Portland who was tasked with the community outreach part of this for their two-year commission work. I got just so much insight from her about how they went about it, what kind of decisions they made, how they did their community outreach. I don't think this is the time to really get in the weeds with that, but what I will say is that they did their community outreach in three phases, right? The first phase was just a community education tour, which was, "This is your city. This is how your city works," so that people have a little bit of context on what we're even going to be asking them to deliberate later. The second phase was a deliberation, a community deliberation about the issues that were being asked of people to be thinking about. And then the third phase was really like getting the recommendations from the community, right?

The other thing that I'd like to share right now is that Portland had a real budget and two years to do this work, right? So, we're, it's a little bit apples to oranges here, but something they did is that they had an RFP, the city had an RFP for a community organization that was going to convene a coalition, right? So, that's what they did. And then that coalition of community organizations, each one working with their own constituents, right? So, they have the people who are working with the AAPI community in Portland and the people who are working with bikers and the people who are working with youth or whatever it is. They all came together in a coalition of, I believe, it was 10 organizations. They did the work of doing those education sessions with their constituents. Meetings were already happening, right? So, they were supporting the work of the commission by holding some educational meetings and then bringing their constituents to those deliberation meetings and whatnot. Importantly, my point being is that it wasn't just like, "Hey, here's the thing in the paper and a poster in the library that we're having a public meeting at Genevieve Chavez Community Center. Come if you want," right? It was way more intentional than that in making sure that we're reaching the people, different constituencies. I would also love to share with the commission that I've been thinking it'd be really great to do some of these sessions at the community college government classes, right? What do they think? Let's get a little more creative than just calling for a public meeting and hoping that people will show up. Thank you.

Putting your name down, Commissioner, for the government classes at the community college. Excellent, excellent points that you raised. I appreciate that, and this is why we need to spend a little bit of time planning these community hearings because that to me is the main meat of our job, being transparent and getting it out to the community. Then we need to make some decisions. Anything further? Commissioner Ranida. Okay. Okay, I got your name here too, Granado. Okay. Anything else in terms of what we're thinking about the public input session planning, and then I'm going to give esteemed clerk an opportunity to respond to all six of those points.

Please, Chair, and Commissioners, I don't think the intention of the districts was to only have constituents from that district at that location. I think it's just we wanted to spread it out throughout the city so that it's convenient for whoever's there. So it's not specific to each district. We just want to make sure we hit every part of town. Okay, great. Anything else? That's all, Chair. Okay, I appreciate that.

So, we probably, I'm going to go through what was stated, and maybe we can make some decisions as we decide what we're thinking about for these public sessions that will help the staff to plan, because coordinating all of these meetings takes some time. So let's talk about first the issue of not having hearings in November, December. We agree that that is something we should not do.

Commissioner Granado: I'll start a motion just to take them out of November, December public meetings. So if we do them here at the council or virtual Zoom if we choose at that time because of the holidays for everybody.

Okay, let me ask a question before we move forward. Do we need to have motions on each of this stuff, or do we need to sit down and talk about what we want and then give one statement to our City Clerk to implement? And does it need to be an action item? Consensus. Okay. So, okay. Could you run that by us again then? Mr. Ganiyo, could you restate that then?

Yeah, I'm stating, okay. Everyone agree with that?

Commissioner Bella: I agree. I think the problem that then arises is the phased approach that we talked about last time, and that Commissioner Perez reminded us of the model today. We, from the original schedule that was presented, we decided to group them such that we can do initial work, communicate that work, take the input from that communication, do more work, and have a second phase of public input. So, I just want to, I agree with moving them out of the holidays as they would be ineffective. The problem that I think arises is we then don't have a gap to do work, re-engage with the public. Timing is clearly an issue, and this is probably where those subcommittees are going to be pedaling fast and working hard and bringing their results to the commission. But you raise a very valid point. Any commissioners have a feeling about that?

Chair: If I can.

Commissioner Servis: Thank you. If the container of the first run is education, then we don't need a ton of time for that iterative feedback. We don't need the two months. So, it depends on which option. I personally love the education. Pick the first run as education, and then the second run is that deep generative community conversation work that's going to need, take a little bit more time to plan. So, if we go that route, we may not need the two months in between the first run and second one. Super. Okay. Did you have your hand up? No.

Mr. Empetus: Madam Chair, I think that I agree with Commissioner Chavez about not needing like a big, like we can be doing our work, right? At the same time that these public hearings are happening. What I would like to maybe get some clarification for my colleagues on this commission about how they're thinking about this is, are we talking about public hearings, right? Where we are required to do two public hearings in each district, right? In the public hearing specifically, right?

Yes. Yes. Because to Commissioner Gold's point, like, is it a hearing that we want, or is it more of a participatory process with a community, right? So, I'm curious about that. And then we're not limited to two per district, right? So, like to my point before, if we, if some of us were to go do some sessions with students at the community college or with members of Chain Breaker or Youth Works or whatever it is, those are extra, right? And I think those kinds of things can happen in November and December. For example, if school is in session, we could go do these kinds of things, but it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be the public hearing, right? That gets posted for people to come to a public hearing.

Well, thank you. Commissioner, I think there's going to need to be a distinction between public hearings and public outreach. Public hearings are very formal and need to be advertised, and public outreach, going to the community college, is a little different. And we can talk about that.

Madam Chair: Commissioner, can I add to that? For the, well, to follow up in our resolution, it says, "The commission shall meet at least once a month in accordance to open meetings act and any other, let's see, and shall hold no less than two meetings in each of the City Council districts for the purposes of taking input from the public." Sounds like meetings is not hearing, so.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Ms. Olvera, Ms. Google. If the commission agrees, I would suggest we call them community conversations. And we publicize them. We make them open to the public, all of the new normal rules, but call them community conversations rather than public hearings. Yes. So I think my recommendation is that we call these meetings community conversations. They're open to the public. They're fully noticed just like a public hearing, but they are not public hearings. The language of meetings, it seems like we can call it whatever we choose to. Suggestion is made that we call them community conversations. Community conversation meeting. Make sure we comply with the law or the resolution. How does that sound to the commissioners? Do we have consensus on that? Comments? Yep. Sounds good. Number two, community conversation meetings. I'm sorry. Sounds good to me. Oh, you didn't, yeah, you're right. I didn't call for that. But, no, no. You are on it, Lisbeth. I appreciate you because I was going to go back to that. So, it's good and thank you for keeping track for us because we want, I appreciate that. So, we have consensus on calling them community conversation meetings.

The providing the education, I was holding off on that simply because of timing. I think once we, we need to decide, it's been thrown out to have four different meetings in the different districts. Well, that would be eight meetings, right? In the different districts, calling them community conversations. I want, what I wanted to weigh in on that, providing education first of all. It's been my experience that when you have meetings like this, hearings, whatever you want to call them, you're going to get people there, not a whole lot, and they're only going to come once. So, if the first session is only on education, then we're not going to get a lot of input. And it's in my experience, when you, and I, I'm limited in experience. You, you want input from someone, you tell them, "This is where we are. This is what we're doing. This is what we're thinking." Give them a baseline of data, and then let them react and respond to you. What I saw with the Citizens Redistricting Commission, we got all kinds of stuff that had nothing to do with what we're redistricting. So, we need to be clear about what our parameters are. But, I, I think if you break them up to one education meeting in the district and then later on, more information, I think we're going to get two different groups of people. So, my, my hope would be that we could be prepared enough what we're looking at, maybe not resolutions, but at least a listing of these are the 10 items, these are the 59 items we're looking at. Having our bill for what? Governance, budget, strategic plan, whatever. And then putting that out to the community, "This is what we're looking at, talking about," and maybe a paragraph on each to get their input on that. But if we just talk about initially the charter of revision, what we're doing, and not going in giving them any meat, we may not get them back for a second educational session. So, because Commissioner Hardesty recommended that, would you please give me your,

Acknowledge too that I was recommending something that my brilliant co-commissioner recommended first. But it just, Chair, to lovingly push back. We may get two different groups of people either way. So, I think there's no perfect way to design this. I think if we're, if it's the community education piece is important to the whole body, then doing, I mean what Commissioner Hardesty recommended or what put on the table, I think it's something for us to think more deeply about because it does make a lot of sense. So, I will defer to the commissioner who originally rec- Commissioner Hardesty?

Madam Chair, I would recommend that we at least look at what the commission in Portland thought through and decided before we make a decision about this because they thought very deeply about doing a phase that's specifically on education, how to get people to participate and come back. There was like stipends, there was like different things, right, that went along with it. Because to our conversation last time on the 13th and to Commissioner Hardesty's point, we have to be really clear on what we're asking people, and we have to be really clear on what we are providing people so that they can give us their input and their insight onto what we're asking them, and that in my mind, I mean, if we were talking maybe about, you know, if we were, if we were a commission that was here to talk about what we're going to do with the vacant plot of land in the City of Santa Fe or something like that. It could be something that in one session, we do a little education and then get people's insight. But we're talking about some really dry stuff, right, about governance. But I, I think that it just requires a little more cultivation. So that, that would be my recommendation.

Any comments from other commissioners in that regard? I would agree, Chair, that we do need to provide some information and education around what it, what the charter is. I mean, being new to this, I was like, what the heck is this? And so going out to the public and asking them to participate and do community engagement around the charter and what we're going to recommend and what we want them to have to write feedback on, they need to know what it is. Well, I don't know if it's, it maybe it's not all or nothing, but we need to incorporate education as part of this community engagement. So, like that. Education.

Commissioner Gold: I, I understand the, the sense that we need to provide the participants some base level understanding of what's, what the charter requires, what it's about, and why we're having these discussions. Absolutely. But I, I concur with you, Madam Chair, that having two sets of meetings, one to explain the charter, and then ask everyone to come back months later to talk about discrete questions about the charter, it's probably going to cause confusion and we're going to see a huge drop-off in participation. I would suggest instead, particularly given the compressed nature of our schedule here, that if we're going to have these public meetings in the summer and fall, that we get really clear on how we summarize what the charter is about, what it is that we're inquiring about, and, and provide that information at those meetings. But not separately. I think we're going to frustrate members of the public that are used to public hearings if we tell them to come on down and be educated about the charter and how the city operates and then we don't ask for their input. So I, I would suggest we put them together. Key aspect of civic engagement is providing basic contextual information up front. We do that really, really well and, and then we engage the community in talking about the topics that we've decided most important.

Any other comments regarding structure of the meeting?

Chair, commissioners, and staff, a fusion approach would be that the first round could be a little more education-heavy, and then the second one would be we would have more formative recommendations. But still being very clear that the first round does need to have a bit more context. I want to agree with Commissioner Duran on this. I'm in government. I do this. This is my, and this is extremely dry. Impactful and important, but dry to the general public. So that is another kind of middle option.

Okay, any other discussion regarding the format of the actual community conversation meeting? Okay, so I'm hearing, let me see if I got this, that, and I think Commissioner Chavez said it quite well, that we should be heavy on the education, and then we should have some formative recommendations or formative ideas or suggestions as to what we're working on. And to me, that makes a lot of sense. Does that work for everyone to at least start planning in that direction? Does that work? Okay, do I have consensus?

**Commissioner:** Yes.

Okay, thank you. The format of the meeting is heavy on the education. Yes, ma'am.

**Commissioner:** Yes, it's all part of that. Yes, ma'am. Yes.

Well, what was said was heavy on the education and then provide formative recommendations. Yes, I think what she said captures a lot of what was discussed. I'm trying to simplify, but I think you're doing a better job capturing it. Thank you so much. Okay, so we have consensus. We have consensus on—

**Commissioner:** Chair, do you mind if I just, for clarity, first round, educate, more education-heavy, but still having time for the meat of the conversation, so the ideas that we're considering. Second round being formal recommendations and doing that generative back in community conversations. Yes, maybe a little lighter. Okay, we all good? Consensus on that. Thank you all of you so much for that conversation. You had a lot to— Let's clarify that. Let them— Chair, one more point. Are we considering partnering? So, having— these are public meetings, right? They're open to the public, but to the Portland best practices, as a commission, are we interested in partnering with local nonprofits and different organizations working with different constituents so that they will also mobilize their folks to come to those public meetings? I think that's very important because then we address the issue of drop-off, right? So that if people are coming because they belong to an organization, they're brought there because of their membership with an organization, they're more likely to come back for the second round, right? I think that we should really consider some model. Are we discussing specifically inviting individuals to attend our meetings? Oh. Is that what we're suggesting?

**Commissioner:** I would imagine if I'm hearing it right, Commissioner Pettus, is the idea of, like, hypothetically, Vital Space, right? Vital Space got this huge new spot. It's in the middle of the city. It's already moving. It has a lot of people going through it. It's a conduit. It's a hub. So, maybe we're not holding it in a city building, but we're going to the institutions themselves to hold these community conversations, where they're more likely to come right back because they go to Vital Space every Thursday night for whatever it is Vital Space wants to do, like DJ stuff. But it could be a lot of things. And I'm just thinking if we do that across the city, then we have multiple spaces that we can partner with community partners, and their voices are heard as well.

**Commissioner Pettus:** Michelle Donahue, yes, this is what I'm talking about, right? So that it is a public meeting, but that we're going where, and where it's easier to keep track of who's coming. It's easier to incentivize people to come back next time because they've already formed some relationships, right, with each other and with the space. So, and this is something that model that you've looked at, Commissioner Pettus, worked well with the Portland model, is that correct?

**Commissioner:** Madam Chair, it worked swimmingly, but again, they had money. They had a budget. They had, you know, they could—

**Chair:** Thank you for that response, because that's what I was going to talk about next.

**Commissioner:** Minimal, right? We have a little bit of a budget that we could use for something like stipends and things like that.

**Commissioner Viego:** I think there are two ways to do this. Have public spaces where people actually convene and go to and have meetings there. And then the other piece of it is actually having captive audiences where we work with groups that already have their constituencies, whether it's a regular meeting or they convene them saying this is going to be a topic that we want to discuss, and they invite their constituencies. And the reason why, and I'm not saying it's just in Portland, it's also we did this for the Midtown process, and we struggled for a long time, and what actually finally worked is relying on community groups to convene and actually bring people together to get public input. So, we've done it before, and I think staff is very, you know, has also background on that. So, but we can also with all of our networks know what groups that we can actually reach out to to help us organize that.

**Chair:** Thank you. So, this is a big issue in terms of who we're going to pull in, who we're going to invite. Do we need to make a decision on this tonight, or we think about that as we move forward and see which issue calls for that kind of environment? Can we hold off on getting a consensus on that? Okay. And I'm going to meet with Commissioner Pederson and go over some of the ideas she has with Portland, so maybe we can refine that and make it clearer for everyone at the next meeting. Does that make sense? Okay. For the other issues that were up, we've already decided no hearing November, December. They're going to be community conversations. We're going to start off with the first round with educational sessions and the second round with more framework, more informative recommendations. We talked about mixing up even and odds. We didn't get a consensus on that. Does that make sense? Yes, does everybody agree? Commissioner Vela, would you just state your idea?

**Commissioner Vela:** The current schedule shows that District 1 and District 2 would occur chronologically first over District 3 and District 4, and the suggestion is that we reshuffle that so that the city is better represented in time.

**Chair:** Like 1 and 3 and 2 and 4? That's the result of it. Like some— That was suggested, but I just remember the other suggestion was they're all open. They are all open, but it's a matter of access if you have to cross the city. Okay. Chair, you want to— Okay. Yes, ma'am.

**Commissioner:** Living on the south side, I think people from this side of town need to travel to the south side to see what it's all about.

**Chair:** I'm with you. So, we're going to mix even and odds, is that clear? So, the resulting proposal would be District 1 and District 3 occur in the same month, and District 2 and District 4 occur in the same month. Okay. Consensus on that? Yes. That's— Is that right? Yep. Okay. We have a consensus on that?

**Commissioner:** Yes. Chair, I was— yes, consensus, but we may also end up deciding we want to do three or four in a month or so. I don't want to— I don't think we want to tie ourselves to two per just because of our abbreviated schedule, the November, December decision. So, we may decide to be a bit more aggressive and do more than just two in a month.

**Chair:** It's very true, but I'm doing this for the purpose of the staff, because the staff has to find the locations, and that is a challenge, and I know it is. So, the sooner we can make that decision. Right now, we're giving them direction. They're— and two a month, not November, December, and then based on the locations, they can tell us they're recommending. Does that work?

**Commissioner:** For clarification, perhaps for staff, so when these eight meetings, right, eight community conversations, staff needs to be there, right?

**Chair:** Chair Ortiz, Commissioner Pedez, that is correct.

**Commissioner:** If we were to do, say, an education session and a community input session at the community college, at the government class, is that something that Commissioner Granillo and I could do ourselves, or does staff need to be in those meetings as well?

**Staff:** Chair Ortiz, Commissioner Pedez, I think so. I might need to get a little more clarification on that. Although, if we're going to do that, that wouldn't qualify as one of the meetings as required by the resolution, because that would require a quorum of the entire board.

**Commissioner:** Right. But if it's not a quorum, right, if it's just informal, then staff doesn't need to be present. In terms of your capacity is what I'm thinking, right, because if we can do more community outreach and get more community input, that would be ideal. But I want to keep in mind staff capacity, right, so just to keep clear on what we're able to do.

**Chair:** We'll need to talk more about this because those are very valid questions. I mean, we're talking about meetings that we're required to do, and what I'm hearing you talk about is wonderful community outreach, which this commission would still want to do. So, let's talk more about how what that would look like, knowing that the community meetings will have to be recorded, they will have to be announced, public meetings and all that. So, let's keep that, put a pin on that, and bring that up again. It might be a community outreach that maybe one of the subcommittees chooses to do on a specific topic, and we have the flexibility to decide if we want to do it that way.

**Staff:** So, I would also recommend that, you know, we wait until our events coordinator's here, Jerica Simmons. She's really good with all of this stuff. I'm sure she would have some very valuable input. Unfortunately, she was unable to attend today, so she wasn't here to offer input. But, and before we really make any decisions, I really, I think it would be a good idea that she'd be present for that so she could offer her ideas and her input as well.

**Chair:** So, what we'll do is we'll put a pin on that, and we'll— I'd like for the Vice Chair and I to meet with the staff before the next meeting and come up with the agenda and plug that into the agenda somehow so that we address that if we have additional information to offer. Does that work?

**Commissioner:** That works for me, Chair. Thank you.

**Chair:** All right. So, we've got public meetings, evens and odds. Great suggestion. I think that was it from my notes. Anyone else have anything I missed?

**Commissioner:** Very well done, Madam Chair.

**Chair:** Okay, so we've got consensus on the discussion of possible actions. Now, let's hear from the staff. Staff, Laura.

**Staff:** Thank you, Chair Ortiz. Just want to give a shout-out to the staff up here with me. We appreciate your presence here. I know I definitely do. I also just want to give a shout-out to the legislative team. Marci and her team have put a lot of work into providing the materials for our two meetings that we've had so far. And I just wanted to say that I value Marci's work that she's put into this meeting. Onto a more formal matter, one thing that we wanted to ask you all is if you had any input about what you would like to see on the website that the public would have access to. You don't have to give me an answer now. If you want to email me after you've had some time to think about it, that would be fine. Yeah, I think part of the education will be making information available online. And in tandem with that, our comms team can also do social media blasts so we're getting the information out on social media.

And so we'll get a bigger reach by putting it out there on Facebook, Instagram. Great question. Very, very important for transparency and publication. You all did a really good job for the Citizen Independent Redistricting Commission. You had on the website at the very bottom right-hand side a little picture about the Redistricting Commission. So when people opened it up, they saw it on the first page and then they could click to that. And in there, we had the four maps. Actually, there was more than four. We had three different options of four different maps, and they were all on there for the community to look at. So the sooner we can come up with some of the subject matter that we're doing, if we could put that on the website and then still have a link for comments from the community, because as I said earlier, I got a lot of comments from people because they saw something on the website. So the sooner we get that going, that would be awesome, and I'm sure that commissioners have other ideas as to what we could do on the website, plus other media.

Comments about video. My idea right now is it would be great to have some of the education components in very short videos that can be, you know, that one of us or one of the staff can be talking about specific things about, "This is your city, this is your government, this is how it works," that can be on the website and to have those actually in English and Spanish, and not just subtitled or some Google Translate situation. And then, yes, I will have a lot to say about this in the next few meetings because I will ask the Portland folks exactly what they did about that. I think a QR code for the full charter. If you had that, because once we give these snippets, and not to steer anybody, but I would open it up right to the mayor's part so that when the QR opens, it's specifically on the topics that we're focusing on, not the beginning of the charter, and then they have to sift through it because they're already just learning it. So just access-friendly in that idea of opening up to kind of where we're at. So it's like, and with those videos with Jerica, if we could do them on the social media, like 30-second topics and hits, like, "Hey, this is what the full charter does. It's like a constitution, right?" And then the next part would be like, "What we're focusing on this year right now is," and then state exactly what that is so they don't get lost in the rest of the charter.

Jerica, broken record here, but we have to decide what we want to focus on first, and we haven't had that discussion yet. So before we put up websites and a lot of information, let's decide. Thank you.

Yes, sir. So, part of the conversation that Commissioner Patterson and I will have to look at the agenda will include, after she does some research, what we could put on the agenda for the commission to decide in terms of the new videos, major with the mayor, whatever. But we'll put it on, it'll be something on the agenda. Anything else?

Yes, sir. I would just like to follow up with what Commissioner Gold just said. Do we have a timeline to when we're going to decide about what we're looking into in terms of bringing? We have the mandate from the resolution, but are there additional? I think the sooner the better to bring those to the commission to vote on so that we can just really limit, right? Like be really clear on what it is that our vision is and open up. So, I don't know if it's our next meeting or what, but let's put a time limit on it.

Anything else? This is actually the city staff needed. Yes, city staff conversation right now. So, let's please stick to that. Yeah. So, I have nothing further. Sorry. Do you, and do either of you have anything? Okay. We have no further matters from staff, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Xavier, and I'm sorry, attorney. I don't have your name. Sarah Pelt. Sarah, and Marcy, and Elizabeth, you guys are doing a great job. So appreciate you. Thank you for your work and effort. And we're trying to wrap this up by 7:30. So, thank you. Some matters from the committee, we touched on some of them. Anything else?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to thank staff for putting this information together for us. I know we didn't go through it, but there's a tab that was, I think, really important, the Mayoral Powers Timeline, and it went through all the resolutions for the most part that have been approved through history. There were two years that were missing. It was 2000, just for our knowledge. If we ever use this, I think if we use this again, 2018 and 2023 were missing in this. But overall, I think it's just helpful to kind of see the various iterations that have happened through the years and what has changed. And just all the other information you went through and being and presenting to us without necessarily being prepared to do that. So, I appreciate that.

Marcy: Here, Commissioner, and Chair Commissioner and other Commissioners, all of you. I just want to thank my colleague Christine for putting that timeline together. She did a great job. And we had focused on changes to the powers of the mayor and the governing body, and I don't know if we had other changes to the powers in those other years, but we can double-check and we can add those to it. And you're right, we didn't include all of it because there wasn't always a change to the powers and duties of the mayor and the city council. It was good. I looked through it. Thank you for doing that. And then the other thing is just wanted to thank Commissioner Vela for running, and I think that's important, and appreciate you taking, you know, putting yourself out there for that. And I'll also congratulations to our Madam Chair for leading and facilitating our efforts. And that's it. Thank you.

Anything else, Commissioners? Okay, I'm going to try to wrap this up in a few minutes. I'm Madison in the chair. If the commissioners all agree, I would like for the staff to put together a listing of all our emails and our phone numbers so that when we need to contact each other, we have that information. Is that agreeable? We'll get that from the staff. And also, group chats, correct? Yes, if you're going to email each other, make sure to blind copy so that a conversation doesn't start because that does constitute a rolling quorum. And the reason we used these last commission meetings because we had subcommittee meetings, and we needed to contact our subcommittee members. The meeting is not Tuesday at 4:00, it's Thursday at 5:30. That kind of stuff. And so be mindful of the rolling quorum, the walking quorums. I'm reminded of that, but it's useful to have that information. And then I want to ask the, oh, Commissioner Ray, did you have any comment? Is it okay with you if we list your phone number? Yes. We're doing fine. Okay. Now, keep giving me the thumbs up. That's what I need to see. Thank you.

I wanted to ask you about a time limit for meetings. This is two and a half hours, 2.5 hours. And I'd like to see what the consensus is so that if you feel they're going too long, I can push them along, but I don't want to push them along unless, because I don't want to curtail conversation. Comments?

I think just setting expectations will help. The last one was two hours, and this is longer. So as long as whatever it is is consistent, we can plan for it. That's fine with me.

I'm asking. Two hours. Two hours is plenty. Okay. I didn't, I didn't time your last session. I wasn't sure. All right, two hours. And then I also want to promote shared participation, and I will try it if you can let me know when you have something that you want to speak. I like to call you by name so that the public can know who's speaking because I've listened to many meetings and someone's talking and I'm like, and my, you know, you can't see the lips move. And so if you can raise your hand, I can say Commissioner Pattison, that way the public will know who it is. And then I would like to allow everyone to at least speak once before they speak a second time just to be fair.

What I would like for you to think about as well is what topics you want to bring. And if any of you have topics now, I would like to hear them to get them on the list. Anybody have topics or issues they want to? I know Commissioner Chavez talked about strategic planning and budgeting. I heard her say that at the last meeting. Are there any other areas? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Gold.

Madam Chair, with your approval and that of the rest of the commission, I would like an opportunity to discuss the form of government. I'm delighted that everyone's interested in the National Civic League's Model City Charter. It calls for a council-manager form of government. I'm delighted everyone's interested in what Portland, Oregon did. They moved to a council-manager form of government. What we have in Santa Fe is unique, and yes, we're the city different, but it has real problems, and we need to discuss that, and I would like an opportunity to discuss how the council-manager form of government came about, why it is the most prevalent form of government throughout the United States and other countries in which local government is practiced, and what it means in our city to have something very, very different.

Okay. Anything else? Other commissioners? Commissioner Pattison.

Madam Chair, I'd like us to revisit the conversation we had last time we met as a commission about elected officials, council members particularly, having to give up their seat if they run for office and whether they win or they lose. That conversation I'd like to revisit. Thank you.

Okay. What else? I'd like to hear from Rod, if you want to get started on that conversation right now. No, but I do really want to hear what you have to say on that whole topic. If we could also bring up the aides for those councilors. I think that's a dire for how things are happening is having the opportunity to have that support.

Point of information, I'm sure. The city has engaged a consultant to do a study of what councilor aides would do in Santa Fe, how they would be apportioned amongst the council, what they would cost. That report is due, I think, in a month. Something like that. Correct, Marcy? So, that is in process, sir. Oh, okay. So, that's in the council's very interesting. Marcy, can you explain that because that came from a resolution, I believe, the study. And then there's, maybe you could elaborate. Let's not do that now. But that's a good point because it's getting late and people, but I'm making a note. Report's being done, and Marcy's going to update us at the next opportunity. But thank you for that point of information. Back to you, commissioner. You have the floor.

That's the only one for now, and I know there's more. I just got to get them out of my head. So, thank you, ma'am.

Anyone else? Commissioner Rivera. Possibly looking at, and this goes with like form of government and the structure, rethinking or reassessing the mayor appointing the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk. And then the other thing is just consideration, and it may fall into this as well, but election of pro tem or appointment. It's currently appointment as of pro tem. Other cities have elections of the pro tem by the city by the council members, and it changes every so often. I don't know. Right. So. Thanks. I got, I do, but I'll wait till next time. Okay.

I'm going to start a running list for the, well, this is about the form of government, and it may be ideals for topics, not necessarily to discuss some of the topics.

Right. That's why I said I'd wait till next time. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Wright. I appreciate that. Anyone else?

One other, please, Madam Chair. It's tangentially referenced in the charter, but I would like to have a discussion about council committees. This city uses more council committees, and redundantly, in a way I've never seen before in any other city in which I've worked or consulted. And I'd like to talk about that. Now, what I would also benefit from is some advice from the attorneys about what types of things appear in the charter versus what should be in the municipal code. Obviously, things in the charter are much harder to change, requiring electoral input, but what kinds of things should be in the general municipal code? That would help me a little bit. But I really want to see if the committee commission is at all interested in talking about council committees. I've never seen anything like it.

Okay, I've got that on the list. And as you were speaking, Commissioner Groh, I appreciate your comments. You were talking to the attorney about doing some research. I think one of the lessons that I learned in the last independent redistricting, the two commissions I was on, is we were trying to throw a lot of research to the staff. The staff has limitations, and we cannot ask them to do a lot of the work. So, consequently, they're missing a lot of the work. And I think before we direct the staff to do some research, that we all decide, yes, that is what we want them to work on, because we need to list our, we need to list what we have on there, prioritize them, and then work on the top issues, because a year is going to go by very quickly. Commissioner Geller.

I'd like to propose a structure for how we do this next time, and we can do this offline. I'm happy to. But it seems like some of us are passionate about certain topics, and if we have an opportunity for first in the resolution A through F, or through, have a shared understanding of the intent and the maybe the challenges that they represent, qualify them as something we want to focus on, and then do so for anything that is extra resolution, extra to the resolution, then that would give us a body of focus, and then we can start to divide those into subcommittees and work bodies of work.

Great suggestion. I like that. So, if we added A through F with everything that's been mentioned, come up with a list for next meeting. Is that something we would like to have a conversation about? Thank you for that suggestion. So, Mr. Pederson and I will work on putting that together and giving or giving it to Xavier for a part of the agenda. Anything else on that point? It's really good. Mr. Pederson.

Madam Chair, just quickly, I think we talked about this before, but staff capacity to do research, I would urge my colleagues on this body to read. If you have an idea, cross-reference the charter before you bring your idea next time and make sure that it's a charter issue. That will save us a lot of time. So, it's just a little bit of research on your end before we come with our ideas. Thank you.

Okay, we have a lot of work to do. Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Ray, anything else you would like to add, parting words?

No. You guys have really covered a lot of ground today.

We have. Thank you for participating. We appreciate you being online. We hope to see you in person at our next meeting, which is May 28th. So, our meeting will be at 5:00, May 28th. Correct? Yes. At the last meeting, we voted, or the board voted, rather, that the meetings will be the fourth Thursday of every month in the chambers. Is there any room for that to be changed for exceptions, or is it solid the fourth Thursday?

Madam Chair, I believe that that has to do with availability of the chambers more than anything.

That is correct. I mean, if we want to move to earlier in the day, that would open up some more meeting times, but I do understand that you guys do have other things going on when you're not sitting on this commission, so I felt that 5:00, or we felt that 5:00, was the best time.

Okay. 5:00, fourth Thursday of the month. Okay.

Madam Chair, I will be in New York City on May 28th. I'll do my best to participate electronically, but given the time change and some commitments, I may not be able to fully participate in that meeting. Sorry.

May 28th. Okay. Any other comments? Thank you very much for all the work that we did tonight. We have a lot of notes here. We have a lot of work in between to get the agenda set up for the next meeting. Commissioner, Commissioner Patterson, I will meet with Xavier to cut the agenda. Any last words on next meeting?

Chair, for just anything else? Driving this boat, you did an excellent job. Thank you so much.

You're welcome. Do I have a motion? Oh, the meeting is adjourned at 7:37.