Charter Review Commission Tue, Jun 30, 2026 · Charter Review Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1515 == Executive Summary == The Charter Review Commission held a series of meetings focused on reviewing the city's governance structure, particularly the roles of the mayor and city council, and the city manager. A significant portion of the discussions centered on the pros and cons of the current 'strong mayor' system versus a 'council-manager' model, with commissioners acknowledging Santa Fe's unique hybrid approach. The commission also delved into the city's budget process, the lack of formal performance evaluations for key appointed officials like the City Manager, and the potential need for a Chief Financial Officer and a formal strategic planning process. Considerable time was dedicated to planning public outreach and community listening sessions. After extensive debate on the timing, format, and content of these sessions, the commission approved a two-round framework for public input, with the first round focusing on general experiences with city government and the second on structural and accountability questions. They also approved a letter to community partners and decided against allowing anonymous online submissions for public input. The commission is working to finalize logistical details, including budget allocation for outreach and communication protocols, to ensure broad and effective public engagement before their final recommendations are due in early 2025. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda for the meeting. - Approved the minutes from the May 28th meeting with corrections to public meeting dates (July 15th to July 16th, August 17th to September 17th). - Approved a two-round framework for community listening sessions, allowing commissioners to provide input via email to the outreach subcommittee for the first session on July 23rd. - Approved a 'dear community partner' letter for outreach. - Decided to follow the City Council's model regarding anonymity for the online input form, meaning no anonymous submissions will be allowed. - Passed a motion to move the first public outreach meeting (originally July 16th) to no later than the second week of November. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed (7-0). - Motion to approve the minutes of May 28th, 2026 — Passed (6-0-1, Commissioner Gold abstained). - Motion to postpone all neighborhood meetings until the fall (September, October, November) — Failed. - Motion to move the first meeting (July 16th) to no later than the second week of November — Passed. - Motion to approve the framework for public input sessions as presented (including a two-round approach and allowing commissioner input via email to the outreach subcommittee for the first listening session on July 23rd) — Passed (8-0). - Motion to approve the 'dear community partner' letter — Passed (8-0). - Motion to follow the City Council's model regarding anonymity for the online input form (i.e., no anonymous submissions) — Passed (8-0). == Public Comment == No public comments were made during the initial segments of the meeting. During later discussions on public outreach, commissioners themselves raised concerns and suggestions regarding public engagement, such as the need for a 'hook' to attract attendees, the importance of childcare and interpretation services, and the desire for all commissioners to be involved in outreach. == Topics == - Governance Structure - Public Outreach & Engagement - Budget & Expenditures - Subcommittee Reports - City Manager Role - Mayor's Role - Council's Role - Meeting Logistics - Staffing & Support - Public Comment == Full Transcript == Are we live? We are live. Oh, we are ready. Okay. Good evening. I would like to call to order this evening at 5:03, the Charter Review Commission. Could we get a roll call, please? Commissioner Duran? Present. Commissioner Vadriel is excused. Oh, okay. Will you please let Commissioner Variel in, please? Commissioner Ray? Here. Commissioner Pettis? Here. Commissioner Gold? Present. Commissioner Travis is excused. Commissioner Gineo? Commissioner Bella? Chair Ortiz? Present. You have a chair, Madam, or you have a quorum, Madam Chair. Excuse me. Just want to say present because I'm here now. Can you hear me? Morel, thank you very much. Thank you. I, we will do that. I think that makes it easier. Let's move on to approval of the agenda. You all have copies of the agenda and you have copies of all the information that we will be looking at this evening and discussing. Any discussion on the agenda? And if not, do I have a motion? So moved. I have a move for approval of the agenda. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second for approval of the agenda. If there is no discussion, we're going to have a roll call vote. Is there discussion? No. Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Vadriel? Yes. Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Pettz? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Yes. Commissioner Bella? Yes. Commissioner Duran? Yes. Chair Ortiz? Yes. The motion to approve the agenda has passed. Thank you. We're going to move on to approval of the minutes. And you have the minutes in your packet. And these are the minutes of the May 28th, 2026 Charter View Commission. Do I have a motion for approval and discussion? I so move. Motion. Chair, I have a point of clarification. The first public meeting is here is July 15th, and I had it on my calendar as July 16th. Which is correct? You're correct. It is the 16th. Okay. So, that needs to be corrected in the minutes. Okay. And I went back and looked at all the dates and that's absolutely correct. The sheet that had it had the 16th, and it also had on there, since you brought that up, you have August 17th, and it should be September 17th. But it could have been easily misspoken. So, but those dates that were presented in the outline last meeting for the hearings are still the dates that we're looking at. But thank you. Anything else, Commissioner? No. Any other corrections, comments, additions to the minutes? I have a motion. Do I have a second for approval? I'll second. I have a second from Commissioner V. All in favor say, I'm sorry. Roll call vote. Okay. Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Pettz? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Abstain. I was not in attendance. Commissioner Vela? Yes. Commissioner Duran? Yes. Commissioner Variel? Yes. Chair Ortiz? Yes. The motion to approve the minutes has passed. And thank you, Elizabeth, for the minutes. You do a really good job. I really appreciate your concise and excellent capturing of what occurs. Thank you. We're going to move on to presentations, and it's my understanding we have none. Is that correct, Xavier? Madam Chair, that is correct. And do we have anyone for public comment? There is no one in the audience for public comment. Okay. Well, we're moving right along. And so the main meat of our meeting, as you all can see, are the subcommittee reports. We have three subcommittees. Then I am going to ask the lead for each subcommittee to take some time to recap for the full commission what occurred in the subcommittees, each of the subcommittee leads with their group. And I understand you all have been working really hard, a lot of hours. I appreciate it. I know it takes time and effort and appreciate all the work that you're doing. But I'm going to ask the leads to present what they feel is important for the commission to know. Because we're looking at, I'm trying to keep our meetings as much as possible under the two-hour time limit. But because this is really important, I want to start off by allowing at least half an hour for each of the leads to present the information of the work that was done in the subcommittee. If more time is needed, because this part, I think, of our work is really important because it's setting the tone for future work. If more time is needed, then I think we might want to take time to continue a little bit longer if that is needed. But I'm going to start with allowing each of the leads 30 minutes to make the presentation. The leads can decide if they want to make their full presentation all at once and then allow for discussion and questions after, or if you choose to have portions of your presentation made and then discussion and potential motions and action. However the leads want to do that, because I think depending on what you're presenting, one format might lend better to one situation than others. So, each of you leads can choose how to do that. And if we need motions made, please do that. We will be taking roll call votes because we have a commissioner on Zoom, and we want to make sure everyone's vote is captured. Any other questions about the format? Good. Okay. Well, let's get going. So, let's start with the governance subcommittee. Commissioner Pam Bray will be doing that for us. The floor is yours, ma'am. Thank you, Commissioner. The governance committee met twice on June 6th and Friday, June 19th. And the tasks we were supposed to look into were the separation of powers, the role of the mayor, shared involvement of the council and the mayor, including hiring and firing of administrative staff, and degree of shared oversight of administrative staff. The members of the committee are Renee Via Rial, Maria Pettis, Rod Gold, and Pam Ray. Research was to focus on the question of how would power be distributed between and shared by the mayor and the council to incentivize efficiency in the way the city as a whole responds to the needs of and provides services to the community. Currently, the mayor has a vote only in cases of a council tie. The mayor has the authority to hire and fire the city manager, city clerk, city attorney with confirmation by the city council. And the council can suspend or dismiss a city manager, city clerk, or city attorney. And I think that's on a six to eight vote. So, it's a slight super majority. And the mayor has the responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the city and ensuring that the laws of the city are implemented and adhered to. The National Civic League's Model Charter, City Charter, ninth edition proposes that the best practice is to have a city council, a city council, city manager form of government. More than 3,500 cities in the US have this form of government. Commissioner Gold provided the following comments in his May 28th letter to the commission. In the council manager forms of government, the mayor and the council set the direction for the city and adopt budgets, ordinances, resolutions, and hire the city manager, the city attorney, and city clerk. The city manager manages the administration of the city, carrying out the will of the majority of the council with effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. The city manager serves at the pleasure of the mayor and city council and can be dismissed at any time for any reason by a vote of the majority. Commissioner Gold also added that in this form of government, the city manager is a professional manager with the experience managing public institutions such as a city and a skill that this is a skill that neither mayors nor counselors generally bring with them into their offices. The administration of the city's business is therefore removed from the politics of the city. A subcommittee scheduled and held. The subcommittee scheduled and held a conversation with two Las Cruces city council members. As Las Cruces has a city manager form of government, the councilors expressed some challenges with their form of government, especially around the issues of who is allowed to introduce legislation, not the council members in Las Cruces, and frustration with the restrictions on the counselors having conversations with colleagues outside of a formal public council meeting. But regarding the council manager form of government, these counselors felt it worked well in their jurisdiction. And that is because the city manager is a professional manager who's able to implement the governing body's priorities and tend to the culture and efficiencies of the city's departments and staffs. The benefits of this form of government would be reduced disruption of the administrative leadership of the city. When a new mayor is elected, the city manager would continue to exert administrative authority during transition periods. Department heads would be employed by the city manager and remain in their positions during a political transition. Administration is removed in theory from the influence of politics and is performed by a knowledgeable professional. A professional city manager should provide more efficient management of city administrative duties. The entire council will be involved in the selection of the most qualified city manager candidate and will therefore feel they are responsible for the success of the chosen candidate. The city manager would report to the entire city council, which can then proceed with making policy for the city based on the information they receive from the reports of city manager. The city manager would serve at the pleasure of the city council and could be terminated if not providing the quality of management required by the council. That means dismissed, not terminated. Possible removal would be by a simple majority vote of the city council, and that's in Las Cruces. It's not here. The meeting on June 19th consisted of reports from committee members regarding contacts they had agreed to make. Commissioners Via Real and Pettis spoke to city councilors in Las Cruces to find out how their council mayor city management system manager system worked. And that was what was just in the report. There seemed to be a strong support for the council city manager government because it provided professional management, protected sustained staff expertise, and did provide insulation from some political volatility. They noted an example of the excess, the success of the city council city manager form of administration from the viewpoint of these council members was a recent opportunity for the council to raise an issue. Oh, this was an example of the kind of, of the reason why they felt it was a good form of government for them because recently they had been involved in an issue with the mayor, and the mayor refused to raise the issue in council, and they were able to raise the issue in council and then pass it successfully. Fully. And so concerns that they had were that the city manager was not accountable to all the counselors. Success of the administration was dependent on the quality of the city manager. The city manager was not elected by the voters, yet exercises a significant authority, and accountability is through action of the city council, which hires and fires the city manager, thus leaving limited checks and balances on the activities of the city manager or control of the manager's authority and power. The committee also sought opinions that were in support of the strong executive mayor form of governance, and information from the US Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities and Common Cause did not specifically endorse the strong executive mayor, but they did provide some insight into why communities prefer that form of governance. Commissioner Gold summarized the research he had found that discussed the strong mayor form of government. He searched the websites of the National Civic League and the US Conference of Mayors. He was unable to find a study that compared the strong executive mayor form of governance with the council city manager form of government governance and gave a definitive assessment of which form might be better. However, there were some pros and cons to a strong mayor form of governance. One pro was a strong executive mayor is thought to be more accountable to the voters since the mayor is elected and may be subject to recall. The mayor would focus on day-to-day operation of the city government as a whole. And because a mayor is elected at large, the mayor is not concerned with the demands of a single district constituency, but responds to the needs of the entire city. The department heads and the city manager, this is another pro, the department heads and the city manager, clerk and attorney are generally at-will employees of the city and the mayor can hire and fire them. The mayor determines the qualifications that best fit the needs and budget of the city. Another pro is the mayors are thought to be more in touch with the interests and concerns of all of the city's voters regarding local issues. A con might be that politics can drive many decisions of mayor because he must run for reelection. There could be a loss of institutional knowledge and project momentum when the mayor changes, and we see this in our current situation actually because we lost a lot of department heads. Other research efforts are ongoing discussion with former Mayor Chavez and the New Mexico Municipal League are planned, and we also discussed the use of consensus for decision making and came to a consensus on how to use it. So, and that's the end of my report. Thank you very much, Commissioner. That makes me curious, what your consensus on the consensus was, but I'm sure you're sharing. It had to do with our thumbs. Okay. So, questions. I'm going to open it up for questions from the commissioners, and then at some point, Commissioner, if you would like or are prepared to share what your next steps of that committee will be looking like. Okay. So, I'll give you time to think about that. But so I'm opening it up and by the way, let the record reflect that we are joined by, thank you, my Commissioner Elizabeth. Yes, Commissioner. Madam Chair and other commissioners and staff, I apologize for my tardiness. Number one, we were helping a family, eight families got displaced in housing right now. And I apologize for not giving you the opportunity and I'll go back and I'll look at what you said. I don't have personal questions right now, but I just wanted to let you know that I am present. Thank you so much. We appreciate that you're here, that you made it. Welcome and welcome to all the commissioners and thank you for the good work you do offline helping families in the city. It's very important. Okay, Commissioners, questions. A very extensive report. You can tell by the report that a lot of work was done, a lot of conversation was had. And that's how we need to get started with these subcommittees sharing and offloading all the data we have. Any questions? In the future, we will be, well, Commissioner Viala and myself did talk to Mayor David Chavez, and so we'll be reporting on that. And I still have to organize a meeting with the Municipal League. That's one of the things that has to be done. And we really need to start focusing on the separation of powers. Okay, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner Ray, for that report. I think to your question, Chair, in terms of our next steps, we wanted to bring the conversations we'd be having, the recap that Commissioner Ray just shared with us with the full commission so that if, you know, there's an opportunity to have a conversation in terms of what people are thinking, in terms of what you're hearing, the different choices, we are not prepared as a subcommittee to provide a recommendation yet. We have different opinions, right? So, we are doing the in the weeds research and just bringing this to the full commission so that hopefully we can have some of your insight and some fruitful conversation about these issues so that the next step is then we dig deeper into the things that come out of these conversations with the full commission. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Pettis. I appreciate that. Yes, and I wasn't expecting recommendations because we're all just starting on revealing what we're finding and having conversations and we haven't even begun to have our hearings. And once we have our hearings, that should add more food to the banquet there so that we can make some recommendations at the end. And I for one have an open mind and will be listening to the community and then spending time searching my soul in terms of the literature and what it tells us in terms of the best practices. At this point, my mind is quite open and I appreciate the work that you're doing. Other commissioners, any comments? Commissioner Gold, you're on the committee. I thank my colleague for her summary of our two meetings and was accurate and helpful. As indicated, we've spent most of the time talking about information gathering and research and a little process discussion. It's my feeling it's time for our committee, it's not a subcommittee, it's a committee to begin to discuss the issues before us. What are the roles of the mayor and council and by transitive logic, the city manager? What should they be in Santa Fe? How do they work together? How does that lead to a more efficient, effective, and equitable community? I'm hoping that we begin that wholesome discussion now. And I'm happy that the committee is interested in having a discussion based on facts and verifiable information rather than just an exchange of opinions. So, I'm delighted by that. Good. So, I mean, that's, you bring up a great question. What are the roles? And this is a question that came up at the previous Charter Review Commission. What are the roles? And have you all come up with probably out of the charter and are there job descriptions? Have you defined that yet or you're still going to search that out? Commissioner, we haven't really gotten into those issues yet. Okay. And clearly not asking what they should be because it's way too early to be at that point. Are there comments from commissioners? Commissioner. Would it be possible to. Ella, I'm sorry. That's all right. Get it wrong. Would it be possible to concisely distinguish the two forms that I heard, two forms that we're discussing, the strong mayor and the city, the council manager models? I'm a bit confused on the distinctions because in the current strong mayor model that we have, he appoints a city manager. So, we have a city manager. I heard the qualities of a professional manager. It doesn't seem distinct to me or mutually exclusive from our model. So, I heard that there, or I gathered that there's three parties in this discussion, mayor, city manager, and the city council. Somebody help me understand better the distinction between the two models that we're discussing. That's a great question and I have two people I know ready to answer. Which one wants to go first? Commissioner. You and one thing before you start, sir, yours and Rene's name plaques are mixed up, so it says you're Renee, even though I know exactly who you are, sir. And I love you that much, Mr. Gold. And, you know, I voted myself off of joining that committee when you were gone because I believe that you would be better off on the committee you're in, and I trust your expertise as a colleague. And I just want to say thank you for everything you do, Mr. Gold. I watched that meeting and I saw that you did that and that was very kind and generous of you. Thank you very much for that opportunity. That shows where your heart is in this effort. To your question, what are the fundamental differences between the strong mayor form of city government and the council manager form of city government? And I welcome anybody to correct me. But typically the strong mayor form of government is characterized where the mayor is also the chief executive officer of the city organization. He or she is in charge of running the day-to-day operations. The city hires and fires a city administrator, not a city manager. We're a little different here in Santa Fe. And the city administrator reports directly to the mayor. So, the mayor does have direct control over the department heads through the city administrator. Sometimes the strong mayor has a veto over decisions made by the legislative body, the city council. Sometimes that doesn't occur. These are variations on theme. Sometimes the strong mayor has a full vote. Sometimes he or she does not have a vote on legislation. The idea is a separation of power somehow leads to better policy. But it sets up a conflict between the elected officials on the city council representing districts and the mayor who is generally elected at large. But the city staff understands that they work for the popularly elected mayor. In the council manager form of government, the city council, which includes the mayor, hires and fires the city manager, the city attorney and city clerk as a body. They make the direction for the city. They adopt all ordinances. They adopt budgets. They adopt resolutions. And they oversee the work of these three key appointed officials. If the city council, a majority of the city council is displeased with the performance of any of these three officials, they can discharge them at any time for any reason. So, it's a collegial effort. So, it's a team effort. The administration though is left to the professional city manager. And the idea is that you hire somebody who has the expertise, the training and a proven track record of actually running cities. It is specialized knowledge to run a multi-disciplinary full-service city and you have greater success when the manager has actually done that before, learned, made mistakes and gotten better and has proven to be able successful in that matter. The city manager in that case reports to all the members of the city council including the mayor. Now, the mayor may still be full-time and the mayor still may see the manager more than the other council members, but it is up to the city the manager to provide equal information to all the members of the city council. So, they are all involved because they all represent the constituents of the city. Those are the two essentially the most common types of city government. The council manager form is the most prevalent in America with probably about 80% of 3,500 cities countrywide. The strong mayor form is generally found in larger cities, generally of populations of over a million. Does that help? Yeah, I have, it does. Oh, right. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that I understood. So, is it accurate that you would characterize the current city manager as more of an administrator than in the council manager model? And is it also, did I understand correctly that the council manager model the mayor becomes essentially an at-large voted council member? Could you repeat the questions please? So the first thing I wanted to make sure that I understood was you used two terms. You use administrator. Yes. Use manager. The administrator is generally what you find in a strong mayor form. He or she reports directly to the mayor, is appointed by the mayor, works directly for the mayor. There's no perception that the administrator works for the rest of the council. Council has little say over whether or not the administrator keeps his or her job. In the council-manager form, the city manager works for the entire council, including the mayor, and a majority at any time can unhorse the manager if they're displeased with his or her performance. We have a hybrid situation here in Santa Fe, which I've never seen before, which, according to our charter, the mayor will appoint the city manager, city attorney, city clerk with approval by a majority of the city council. And then the manager and the attorney and the clerk report directly to the mayor, and the mayor can choose to dismiss them at any time if he or she chooses, but so can the council. The supermajority of the council is unpleased. So even though on paper it says that the manager reports directly to the mayor, the manager also must please the city council. So reporting relationships are really confused in Santa Fe, and I think part of the reason that we have this commission is to talk about that and to decide whether or not any changes are recommended. That helps. Mr. Vela. Thank you. That helps to understand our hybrid situation because I was trying to put us in a bucket of one or the other, and we're in neither. We're neither and both. That clarifies things. That's why they say it's a city different. Thank you, Commissioner Vela. Anything further? That helps to... Commissioner Vadriel has her hand up. Okay, I've got her on the list. Commissioner Ray is next. Thank you, staff, for keeping me with a good list here. Commissioner Ray, one thing that I'd like to say is that most cities are hybrids. No two cities are alike anywhere. And I've learned this through experience, through working with the legislature and in my contacts with state governments and the cities that are in various states and how they all differ from each other. So that's not... I mean, it's in the detail. The detail of how a city actually operates is really where the efficiency and the effectiveness comes from. We are a smaller city. We're not a really huge city. We're not over a million people. We're approaching 100,000 right now. But our city has made the decision that we should have a strong mayor, and this was made eight years ago or over eight years ago when we implemented the charter to begin with. And I think that it's very important that we realize that we came out of a city council where the mayor actually was a member of the council, and we had a manager that had some... I don't know if the manager ever had more authority than the mayor. I mean, according to Mayor Coss, I think that the mayor always hired and fired the city manager and had, and basically he was, the city manager was an employee of the city itself. Well, of course, any city manager would be. So the other thing that I think we should point out is that the city manager would never be an elected position. So he's not responsible to the people. And if he's responsible to the city councilors, it may appear that he's responsible to the entire city council, but it's impossible to be responsible or responsive to nine people's demands. And so, whether or not that actually works very well is a good question. Anything else, Commissioner Ray? That's it. That was really good. I so appreciate the questions that Commissioner Vela asked. Commissioner Vadriel has some questions. Please join us with your questions. Actually, not a question, but just a response to Commissioner Vela about the difference and then some of the explanations. Can you hear me okay? A little bit louder if possible. Staff, do anything about that? Yeah, I don't know what to do about it either. I think just I want to add that not to confuse administrator and manager, they are essentially the same, and it's not about being having to speak to the public about what their needs are. An administrator and a city manager, in general, are basically overseeing a lot of personnel issues regardless if it's strong mayor or the city manager form. So it's just important that they have a role. It's not to necessarily speak for the people but to speak for personnel and the people that work within the city government. And the other thing that I just want to note, Commissioner Gold used the word collegial, that it's collegial. It works better, like there's more collegial representation or collegial relationships when there's a city manager and council form. And just saying that after talking to Dr. our Mayor Coss, former Mayor Coss, that that wasn't the case. There wasn't a lot of collegial energy when somebody didn't like or the council didn't like a mayor, or sorry, didn't like a city manager. There was a lot of consternation about that, like just trying to figure out. The city manager was hired by the mayor at that time, but the city councilors didn't have a say in the hiring and firing. And when there was tension, they would get the votes and vote them out, and then they'd have to start all over and hire somebody new. So, I guess I just want to say it's not always collegial on either form. And I think it's just, yes, we want someone that we always want a city manager that's professional, but there are nuances that play in politically regardless of the structure. So, I just want to add that in. That's what makes this complex. It's like we have two, we have two kind of main structures or models. There's even a third one if you think about the legislative executive form that Albuquerque has, which is another structure. It's another model. So, I just want us to be aware that we're like trying to do our due diligence to like pull out some threads of like possibilities. And I know we're hybrid. I just think there needs to be a more unifying structure so that there's more councilor and mayor working together and that the city manager is also working in, working well with the city council too. And in my experience, I didn't, I didn't really have that experience as a mayor, as a city councilor. So, I'm sorry I'm jumping around, but I'm a little sick today, and I just wanted to add that into the mix. And I also wanted... Go ahead. Go ahead. I was just wondering if Maria Pettis or Commissioner Pettis could also describe what our consensus process is. It's more unique than just a consensus practice. And I was wondering if she could elaborate. She's next on the list. Anything else, Commissioner Vadriel? Yes, thank you so much. Appreciate you joining us. Feel better soon. And we thank you for your commitment. I have two more commissioners: Commissioner Pettis and then Commissioner Duran. Thank you, Chair. The points that some of my colleagues just made, I just want to remind us all that democracy is very, very messy, and there's not like a thing that works. Like, every city is unique. Many, many cities have charters because at the local level, at the local level, we're actually able to experiment with democracy in a way that is much more nimble than we can do at the state or at the federal levels. We have some models to play with. We have some limitations because of what's in our current charter, what voters have voted on that we have to honor. So this is all a big experiment, as it always is, right? So, as a commission, we're charged to figuring out, given our local context, given the times we live in, given the things that we have already in the charter, what is the best way forward to, to quote Commissioner Ray's reading of the report, "How should power be distributed between and shared by the mayor and the council to incentivize efficiency in the way the city as a whole responds to the needs of and provide services to the community?" So that's our goal. So how do we incentivize the mayor and the council to work together, to not undermine one another? How do we incentivize the city manager to be of the highest quality, the best qualifications? How do we incentivize the city manager to work both with the mayor and the council? How do we make the sausage in a way that we can have a better democracy for a little city? So there is no answer, right? Like there's no correct answer, but we're here to try to figure out the best answer. So that's my two cents about that. I welcome everybody's thoughts and insights about this. I'm looking forward to the conversations that we're going to be having over the next few months between us and also with the community. And I'm happy to share our consensus model whenever you think is the right time to do that, Chair. Thank you. That's, we will discuss that and look at that. Thank you so much. Commissioner Duran. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for all the work that you did and that you presented here today. It's very helpful, and I appreciate your question because it could be a little bit confusing. And based on that, in a strong mayor model, does the mayor have full voting on the city council? It depends on the city. I'm sorry. Is that all right? In some strong mayor forms, the mayor sits on the council and has a full vote. Also sets the legislative agenda, as is the case here in Santa Fe under the charter. In some cases, the mayor doesn't have a vote, and some strong mayor forms, the mayor doesn't even attend the council meetings because the mayor is strictly involved in administration. And the real issue here is roles. Who's in charge of legislation policy? And in the strong mayor form, the strong mayor may or may not be involved in it. In the council-manager form, it's the council, the elected representatives of the people that set the direction, that make policy, that adopt all laws and oversee the key administrators. But the manager is responsible for the administration, and he or she alone is responsible that it be effective, efficient, and equitable. Thank you for your response. This goes back to what Commissioner Pettis said, that we also need to honor what the voters told us last November, and it seemed, it just seems that they're moving away from a strong mayor model. Yes. With what they voted on. So I just wanted to make sure I had a clear understanding of that. Thank you. Anything? Actually, I do to Commissioner Vadriel's point about sometimes there's no agreement about, should we keep a city manager or should we get rid of them or fire him? And I was just wondering, has, does the city manager, is there any evaluation and performance evaluation here at the city? Commissioner Vadriel, do you happen to know the answer to that question? We're putting you on the spot. I would say no. We had, that was a sticking point for us as councilors. We wanted to be able to evaluate how the city manager was doing after a certain point of time, and so we never got to do that. I think there was a loose evaluation potentially with the mayor and the city manager, but it wasn't very formalized. So, I think that's problematic. I would agree. And if there was a performance evaluation, then whether or not to keep someone or have them go away, it could be based, it could be tied to a performance evaluation. So, If I can, if I can jump and ask a question on that point. The city manager, the treasurer, I'm sorry, the city clerk, the attorney, are they considered—I know in state government we have at-will employees that are appointed by the head of whatever that organization. So are these individuals all at-will? And if they are, thank you. There were never evaluations because they were at-will. So they are at-will, and the city did not implement any evaluations. I understand there can be evaluations. I'm just saying, in my limited experience, there were no formal evaluations done. You were okay. Anything further? No, it just seems to me that it would make sense to have a performance evaluation so that we can determine if someone is actually doing the job that they're hired to do. And I would just like to add, where you talk about incentivizing efficiency, I also think what you're proposing is to incentivize transparency, responsibility, and accountability. I would also like to add that Mr. Durant and then Mr. Gold, is it on that view? I just want to say, with what you just said, Commissioner, that evaluation should be every six months or so, so that there's a continuous—like if there's a line, if we do it annually, it takes so long to come back to see if those evaluations ever happened. Thank you. Anything further, Commissioner Durant? Commissioner Gold, I know you had two points. Amen. First, and I invite the staff to correct me if I'm wrong, but having observed the administration of this city the past year, not only does the city manager not get a performance evaluation, virtually no one in the city organization gets a performance evaluation. None. It's unknown in this city. And as a result, people do what they think is necessary to hold on to their jobs, and they often aren't clear on what's most important. We need to develop stronger management systems. For 11 months last year, the city had its first professional city manager. And in 400 years of history, no other time did the city have a professional city manager, someone who had done it before, who was credentialed, who was certified, who was trained to do that job. We began to move toward management systems that are common in almost every other organization but absent in the city of Santa Fe. To your point about having evaluations every six months, that's fine, but we need to clarify who's doing the evaluating. Is it the strong mayor who's deciding whether or not these three key people are doing an adequate job, or is it the mayor and council? Currently, the charter says that the mayor would do the evaluation. It isn't explicit. That doesn't mention performance evaluation, but it says that these three will report directly to the mayor. On the other hand, if the council is unhappy, the council can fire any of these three if a supermajority are unhappy. So, who does the evaluation? Who do they report to? It's unclear currently. I think that for that, I was curious with that. There was mention in the charter who does the evaluation. There's no mention, unclear. Okay. Anything further? Commissioner Grenita, you brought up the best points of making that clarity, but that also goes into our work of does the city adopt a strategic plan, which is something that they should have done a long time ago that I think that I will support later regardless, but I am with you 100%, sir, on the direction you're going. Anything further, Commissioner O'Neal? Commissioner Ray, please. I think that one of the points that Commissioner Gold made was that we've been a city for 400 years, and there are a lot of things that we haven't done in city government in those 400 years, and we're not going to correct all of them in the next year. I think that what we have to do is identify the things that we think we can correct and figure out how to do that in the best way possible. Thank you. Any further comments? Any further questions or a comment, please. Yes, Commissioner Gold. And I apologize for all the talking I'm doing. No apologies. We're here to have conversations and we're here to share ideas. So, please do. There's one more facet of the form of government here in Santa Fe that I would like this Charter Review Commission to have a look at, and I've mentioned it before, and it's council committees. I've never seen a city that had so many overlapping council committees that required so much redundant staff work, had so many circular discussions between factions of the councils on the various committees. The committees have been led by chairs appointed by the mayor, allowing the mayor to reward those that are most congruent with his or her wishes and punish those that are not. And we saw an instance this past week where the council committee system led to a decision that was controversial but could not be laid at the feet of the entire council because the entire council couldn't vote on it. And it was an appeal of a major land use decision, a major hotel. And I'm not going to speak to the merits of that. That's not the issue here. But a council committee decided to reject the appeal. Now, the council committee is a fraction of the council. It was not correct. That's correct. So, so it wasn't the Quality of Life Committee. Can't hear you, Javier. Well, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. And hang on, ladies and gentlemen, before we get so passionate and get involved, first of all, we need to maintain decorum and we need to be respectful of all parties at all levels and our staff. Exe has something to share with us. Could you please tell us? Just a quick point of order. Because standing committees are not included in the resolution that established this Charter Review Commission, items for this couldn't be considered unless the public brought it forward. So with that being said, X, somebody from the public would just have to—how do they bring it forward? They would be able to do so during our public input sessions. Great. We'll have that happen next meeting. Commissioners, let's be respectful of our staff giving us guidance and listening to that and moving forward in the true spirit of what should be going on here. So, yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Right. Thank you for that clarification. Evidently, the opinion writer for the New Mexican got it wrong. Okay. Thank you. So, yes, ma'am. No, no, please. It's the attorney. I don't know if this is on. I think arguably you could address, and not to contradict you, but this question of these standing committees, if it's within the question of the mayor's and councilor's duties and powers, I don't know if it is. And the separation of powers and balance of powers, that's what's in here. So I hear, regardless of the details of this thing that happened last week, does the question of how these standing committees work fall within the mayor and councilor's duties and powers, the separation of powers, balance of powers? These are the questions that we're here to discuss. And so, you know, we're encouraging a more narrow discussion here, but if you can somehow slide that in there, I think it's relevant to this question because it does raise sort of what are the powers of the council versus, you know, or, you know, yeah, that's— I appreciate the clarification, but Commissioner Gold, anything further? I know we stopped you in the middle of that passionate statement, but— Madam Chair, may I say one thing to Mr. G? I think I saw Commission, but is a sign up first, please. And then I'll go to you. Thank you, Chair. I'm just getting pretty stressed out about our time. I know that the Outreach Committee is going to need some time, and we're going to need some decisions from the whole commission, and we're last on the agenda. And if we don't get those decisions, we are not prepared to hold a public meeting in a couple weeks. So, can we please move along? Thank you so much for that encouragement and that reminder. If you'll make it quick, Commissioner Curt. I will make it quick. But what you're talking about is the financial committee which didn't want to end the contract for Urban Alchemy, and they all voted not to bring that forward. That's—but you are right. It was just a different matter. And we can get into those weeds later, and we'll pass it on to Miss, to Madam Chair and Commissioner Perez. We don't need to discuss the activities of other commissions or committees. Please, and if we could be respectful of their decision, their time to do their work. Let's be mindful of that. But we can learn from the structure, the organization of what they're doing to see if we can improve and perhaps make recommendations on how the city can be organized better. I think everyone has had an opportunity to speak on this regard, and I thank you, Commissioner Pettis, for reminding me of the time. I also like listening to all of your thoughts and ideas. I do appreciate Commissioner Vela's question about getting an explanation of what the strong mayor looked like, and that's for the larger cities, and what the council-manager environment looked like, and that's what I think was said 80% of the cities utilize. And then the brief discussion about the hybrid of Santa Fe, and there was a comment made, yes, we are a city different. So I appreciate all that, and I really appreciate the thought that a couple of commissioners really believe in listening to and honoring the voters. I think that's real important in the whole process. We need to be mindful of that. So, thank you for the conversation and the discussion. The next steps I heard were going to be to look at separation of powers, to dig deeper in what you all are looking at, looking at what the roles are, looking at maybe at evaluations, and looking how to incentivize productive working relationships in the city of Santa Fe as your outcome. So, I appreciate this dialogue. Let's move on to the Strategic Planning and Budget Committee. Commissioner Brandon Vela. Thank you very much. I would say I'll try and be quick, but that's never the case when you state it. So, what I would like to do though is actually go in reverse order. So, I shared a summary document. There are three sections. I'd like to start at the elections and council vacancies because I think it's a little more cut and dry. I do want to say too that this subcommittee, made up of myself, Chair Ortiz, Commissioner Duran, and Commissioner Chavez, who's not here with us tonight, we focused on this first sprint to just get this current state, and it sounds like we're aligned with the other subcommittee on this. So what I want to share with you today is our understanding of the current state across the elections and council vacancies question, which was number three. Item number three on your—yeah, I was looking at the resolution. We know it's in there. It answers questions. The budget process, which is somewhat open-ended, and strategic planning, which gets a little hairy, so and future-looking. So starting with number three, the subcommittee divided this topic into distinct scenarios and made the following determinations. Councilor running for mayor. This is a repeat question from the last Charter Review Commission, and we agreed as a subcommittee that we would follow precedent, and we did not see that it was necessary to pursue changes requiring councilors to resign when running for mayor. The second part of that question has to do with vacancies, and having taken part in one of these processes just recently, I wanted to walk us through the councilor elected as mayor scenario first. Although I think the scenarios overlap quite a bit, in this case, where Councilor Garcia was elected mayor, by the charter, he was required within 30 days to appoint his successor to the council. As it stands, this process is quite vague. He invented a process and met the deadline, which was within his right to do as described by the charter. Although in the future, this may be approached differently. He chose to do a combination of interviews, a public forum, and public input to make his decision. There may be other ways to approach this, such as retaining the current process but defining it more clearly. The steps shift to a council-approved or selection or a council selection process, appoint the most recent runner-up from the district election, as coincidentally was the case, and hold a special election. Not all of these are equally feasible or appropriate, but those are some examples of other ways it could look. The other vacancy scenarios, I'm going to come back to the separation of powers question, but the other vacancy scenarios are vacancies that arise under any other circumstance where there's not a councilor elected mayor necessarily. It says in the charter today that in the event that a seat becomes vacant due to a variety of circumstances, the mayor shall within 30 days appoint a qualified elector from the district in which the vacancy occurred to serve until the next regular city election. So, slightly distinct but very similar to the previous scenario. The question I think this raises, or the subcommittee discussed, is that of separation of powers, specifically in that the mayor will have influence over the council by the appointment of that councilor. And this can be the case, as it is in the most recent example, for two years, or up to almost a full term depending on when the vacancy occurs. We agreed that coordination with the governance subcommittee is necessary on this matter. So that, and I want to pause in between each because they're quite distinct. So this is our understanding of the current state and essentially the problem statement or challenges that the current state offers, and I'll open it up to any questions before I move on to the budget and strategic plan. Okay, questions on part three of this committee's report, elections and council vacancies. Commissioners, Succinct summary. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, you answered all my questions for now. No questions. Okay, we're going to have Commissioner Bella do all the reports. Okay, happy to. Good job. No, seriously, no questions. Yeah, I think, okay, great. Commissioner, Are you moving forward? You keep, you're doing a good job. You do it however you choose to. You're doing a great job. Okay. The next thing, the next two topics are somewhat intertwined. I would consider the budget process more of the current state, and because we don't have a strategic plan, this is more of a forward-looking question, but they are quite intertwined. So, with regards to number two, the budget process, the subcommittee agreed that the current budget process functions, excuse me, process functions as the city's de facto strategic framework. Funding decisions currently serve as the primary mechanism for setting priorities. The subcommittee did not yet evaluate the detailed mechanics of the existing process. This is, I have somewhat of an update there. I'll come back to that. There is strong alignment in continuing to implement performance-based budgeting, including public-facing performance metrics tied to spending, which I think is a theme that we've already heard from the governing governance subcommittee, and clear accountability for outcomes tied to budget allocations, also a theme that I heard previously, but in a different dimension. It was also noted that the upcoming fiscal year, July 2026 through June 2027, will feature new budget motions, which may allow the commission to focus on recommendations related specifically to the implementation of a strategic plan, though this is still to be determined. Members noted that strategic planning and budgeting are tightly interdependent and that overlap with the governance subcommittee's work is expected, particularly where authority and accountability structures are involved. I did want to call out some of the new budget features that are happening in this upcoming fiscal year. There is, as designed, more input from city staff, the mayor, and councilors in building the proposal, a more streamlined process than prior years. That may be an opinion statement. Earlier budget preparation in the calendar year, more active city council participation from the outset, performance-based budgeting linking department budgets to objectives and measurable outcomes or key performance indicators, and public workshops to gather community priorities and trade-offs for funding decisions. So, quite a few not-so-trivial changes that are taking place this year in the direction that I think the subcommittee was recommending we go, which was higher accountability and visibility across the budget process. Also, just for clarification, the current process has the, and correct me if I have this mistaken, the mayor proposes the budget, the budget committee recommends it, and the city council approves the budget. Madam Chair, would you like me to finish the last section or take questions? Well, it's up to you. How would you like to handle it? I think I'd prefer to pause and see if there's any questions. Ladies and gentlemen, represent a commissioner. Commissioner Gold. Sorry, I have a question for Marcy. Marcy, last year the council either adopted a resolution or an ordinance setting forth how the budget for 26-27 would be adopted. Was it an ordinance or was it a resolution? Commissioner Gold, thank you for the question. Commissioner Ortiz, sorry, I was going to say May, and that's wrong. So it was a resolution. Yeah. Yes. And so it was a statement by the governing body, including the mayor at the time, that this is how we want to run the budget from here on out. And it does include the features that you've described. So, well, Commissioner Mel, I'm not sure that the budget adopted actually follows all of the direction that was given by the governing body. For example, I don't believe that the budget that was adopted had any goals, objectives, or KPIs in them. That was, we were told that that would come separately. So, we hope that that occurs. It was also to be quarterly reporting back to the governing body about whether or not the staff was actually accomplishing the goals and objectives set before the budget. I'm not sure that's happening either. This is an important discussion, and I'm hoping that the charter review committee can get into it, but I'm not sure that you want to put budget direction and even strategic planning into the charter. That's something I think belongs in the municipal code so it can be changed and adapted as conditions change rather than have to go back to the voters when you make a change to the way you budget or your strategic planning. So, I would hope that the committee would grapple with that a little bit, but it's an important discussion, and I hope we're allowed to have it. Commissioner Bella, I do recognize your distinction, and I just want to review the question in the convening resolution that says whether the mayor, city manager, or the city council should propose the city budget and what should be required in the budget's development. I think we can discuss the scope of what or what is in scope for the commission and for the charter specifically. The question of what should be required in the budget's development is in the resolution, but I think it's a valid question as to whether it belongs in the charter or another piece of legislation. There was also a question, it was a resolution and not an ordinance, and so subject to change in a different way than an ordinance would be, and so that's a good clarifying point as well. Another part, if I may, Commissioner Gold, was that your comments? Okay, thank you, Commissioner Bell. Commissioner Greno, I would also ask that the charter look at, while you're talking about the finance, Commissioner, you were a councilor yourself when the mayor or whoever brought the budget forward, was it shown with enough detail for you to make clear decisions as a councilor on what was presented at the time? And what is the current state now of, are they line-itemed out of how those are working in the budget? Thank you, Commissioner Gian, for the question. Commissioner V, would you like to respond to that? You don't have to. It's up to you. I'll respond. I've worked in two different government or governance structures, and in the administration beforehand, before it was like a, it was the city manager, mayor, no, sorry, city manager, city council structure, we had more of an ability. There was more detail, there was more deliberation and weigh-in about changes to the budget. And when we moved to a strong mayor, it was more about, this is what I proposed as a mayor, and basically there was very little ability to weigh in to make changes. I do want to say though, I think it's also personalities that weigh in to the kind of personalities of people that want to be able to involve the council. I think there's a better way though, and I'm hoping that resolution actually changes a process where there's the council is actually more involved at the beginning process and like what you said, performance-based budgeting. So I think there's a way to do it regardless of the structure, I think, but again, I think it's based on personalities. I don't know if that helped answer your question. I just think that we didn't get a lot of information that we needed. And as we moved into many years into the strong mayor administration, we got less information as years went by, and it was really frustrating. Thank you, Commissioner Viel. Commissioner Greno, Thank you for your expertise, your service, and everything you've done. We really value it because a lot of us don't get to see the back end of what you saw on both. So, I'm hoping that when the charter, when the commission looks at this, that that's also adopted in there where regardless of personality, there's a format and a structure that gets completed for both ends because you can't ask city officials to make decisions with things they can't see or have buy-in in. And that's my final comment. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm sorry I didn't see you. Thank you. That's okay. I just wanted to point out that Commissioner Vadriel actually has her hand up as well to speak. Okay. I, okay. Thank you. I will, Commissioner Grena, you're done. Commissioner Vel, now it's your turn. You don't have to answer a question. You can ask them. Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Bella, for the summary about the strategic planning and budgeting process. I was curious if you all did some outreach from former administrations to see if they did strategic planning. And I'm talking about like Mayor C, maybe even later. I will say like in the time that I was under the Gonzalez administration and the Weber administration, there was one time that we tried to do strategic planning together, and different staff folks came and presented to us, and it was very helpful in terms of like what the departments were envisioning. I think what made it hard is all of us were together. It was a public meeting, and the media was there, and people couldn't have honest conversations about the challenges that we're facing as a city because the media was there, and they were going to present on it. So I'm just trying to figure out a way how strategic planning could be very open and authentic and transparent, and people feel like they can say what they need to. Because it's a full council and mayor, it has to be a public meeting. So, I'm just wondering if ever in the past there's been administrations where they did strategic planning and how they made it happen. And also if you all have done any research about other cities and how they've, if they've done strategic planning, like Las Cruces or Albuquerque or other jurisdictions in New Mexico. Thank you. Those are really good insights and thoughts. Appreciate that. Anything further? No. Okay. No, just wondering if they were able to look at that yet. Okay. Models. Okay. Back to our lead, Commissioner Vela. So I will talk about strategic planning. It's a good idea and we have not researched past attempts at it in the city, but we will. What I wanted to mention too, in response to some of Commissioner Gold's comments, was that my understanding is that much of what was set forth in the resolution around the budget process is supposed to kick in this year. So, from tomorrow through this time next year. So, if you haven't seen things that you were expecting from that resolution, that might be part of the reason. Yeah, we can get into the details of when those things were supposed to go into effect. Yeah, I think that's everything I have to say on the budget. Any further? Yes, Commissioner Ray. Have you considered at all the necessity for a Chief Financial Officer in the city? Because the reason that I ask this is we were in budget trouble in the city for quite a while and we needed a professional person to help us get out of that, and we found one. We did a good job of moving out of the problems. And I was just reading the other day that Las Cruces has, for the last four years, has been overspending its budget, and it's such a common problem, I think. I mean, like MOA has a lot of problems with its budget, and it's just a New Mexico theme. And so it might be a really good idea to think about whether a Chief Financial Officer is another one of those people that we should be thinking about putting in the charter and making sure we have on board. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Vela. Noted. We can definitely look into it. Thank you. Anything further? Commissioner, can I get clarification from Commissioner? Did Commissioner Vela have her hand up? I did. I didn't, but I just wanted clarification. Do you mean Chief, when you say Chief Financial Officer, are you talking about the Finance Director or a different position? Well, it would be an administrative position. I don't know really what it has to be called, but it would be a person that is solely focused on the budget and how we're how we're following it and how we're doing financially in the city. Got it. Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Vard? Okay, Commissioner Gold. Sorry. Point of clarification. I fully endorse the thrust here, which is let's think beyond a 12-month cycle. Let's look a little deeper down the board as to where Santa Fe is going and make plans accordingly. Strategic planning is a corporate term that goes back to the 50s, and it generally involves 15, 20, 30-year time frames. The world is changing so fast that most corporations have ceased doing that. At most, they look at three to five-year time frames. Cities generally think in terms of strategic goals in the midterms, that three to five-year period, and then these are longer-term visions, and they try to develop their budgets to achieve longer-term goals. I think that's where you're talking about, and I'd love to discuss that with you offline because it is considered a best practice and it is something we should be adopting. Thank you, Commissioner Gold. Commission. Yeah, I think we should get into strategic planning. So, within the context of the budget that I was describing, the key performance, the accountability, and the performance-based budgeting, strictly within the budget and the model we have currently, this is a very short time horizon. When we talk about strategic planning, which this subcommittee did reach a consensus that we would benefit from adopting a formal strategic planning process, where we don't have one today or may have tried one in the past, we will look, we will research that. But the idea here is to extend that time horizon from the current budget process to build some more continuity and give ourselves a better chance at making progress against tougher challenges. As I mentioned in the budget section, the current approach relies heavily on the annual budget as the city's primary expression of priorities. The subcommittee recommends shifting to a model where a three to five-year strategic plan establishes goals first, with annual budgets aligned to those goals. There is, there are models that align the strategic plan refresh with the election cycles, and this is something we need to dive a little bit deeper into. In fact, Chair Ortiz has done some of this research already, but it was outside the scope of our current state report out that we scoped for today. Of course, there's interest in researching peer cities with similar size, demographics, and importantly, cultural context to identify best practices for this. This represents a potential structural shift in how the city defines and executes priorities. It is not trivial, rather than a procedural adjustment. And we've agreed that the capacity may well be a core obstacle in implementing a new heavy lift for the city and governing government participants. It's already difficult to adhere to the processes that we have today. And so, while we're not certainly not ready to make a recommendation or haven't explored thoroughly what the path forward could look like, it may take time, and some research indicates that it could take up to three years to collect the data to make decisions against. So there, it may be that there's a runway to a strategic plan element. That's what we're going to dive into next. So, the current state again, as we had intended to share at this juncture, is limited in terms of a strategic plan. I appreciate Commissioner Varial's recommendation to look back at previous attempts. I was not aware of any in the past, so I can, we can definitely dive into that. I'll take any questions if there are other questions. Commissioner Pettis. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Vela, thank you for that. What's coming to my mind is some of the points that have been brought up, that things are changing so quickly, that it's hard to plan for the long term, but that we must not just be tied to a 12-month cycle. I'm not really familiar exactly with how the general plan works in the city, like how often by law you're supposed to revise it. I know that it's been a while, but I know that the general plan in general is something where we have a longer horizon, right? It's like we're thinking 20, 30 years into the future. I would like to ask that the subcommittee perhaps grapple with that, right? Like maybe there's a way to set strategic goals for the city that are long horizon. We're thinking about climate change. We're thinking about migration. We're thinking about things, right, that we can sort of try to get ahead in terms of principles, how we want to handle these things in the future, and then have a strategic plan proper that is maybe two to five years, right? But that we're sort of like have a North Star that we're working towards strategic plan by strategic plan. So that's just a request in terms of process or thinking that I invite that subcommittee to think about. Thank you. Anything further, Commissioner Pettis? Good comments. Commissioner Vela, back to you. Commissioner Perez, I appreciate the distinction. And we may well have included that in this summary, that this is not a replacement or a substitute for the general plan. My understanding is that the general plan is more general and directional and doesn't serve the purpose of the strategic plan, which I'm not saying is what you were implying. But the general plan is up for renewal, and there might be synergies to those to the process that's in flight and one we might want to recommend and compliment. Certainly they should be complimentary to some degree. So we can definitely flag that for including in our forward-looking recommendation. Anything further? Further questions? No, Chair. Further presentation, Commissioner, on this topic. So I kind of glean these are just my personal notes. We're going to be looking at whether this should reside in the charter or the admin code. Some good question that was asked that we should look at. I think a question was asked previously in the previous charter, but we'll look at it again. Do we need a Chief Financial Officer? Is that type of person with credentials needed to be placed in there? Do, and we're this committee is going to be looking at models for a three to five-year for a strategic plan and making sure that the strat plan is not a substitute for the general plan and looking at that. I appreciate all the comments. I really like the comments that Commissioner Vela made regarding personalities. Sometimes the best practices that need to be put in place can be derailed or can be shifted out of place because of personality. So we have to keep that all in mind and do our best job in coming up with a recommendation that keeps in mind the reality of the situation and the environment. Thank you all for the information. Thank you, Commissioner Vela, for the report. Really good job. Appreciate it. We're going to move on now to our third subcommittee, the outreach subcommittee, and Commissioner Pettis will be presenting that. And you have as much time as you need. Good. Thank you, Chair. So, Commissioners, a little report back on the outreach subcommittee. I'm going to say straight up front that I'm going to hustle through this report because, like I said before, I do want to ask you to make some decisions today so that we can get the work moving forward. I'm also going to say straight up that I'm going to rope in Commissioner Vela to give a little bit more nuance update on the sort of like the publicity and marketing part of this. But in general, I'll say that the subcommittee met twice also since our last meeting, and we have organized our work into three different work streams. One has to do with partnerships. We'll get into that a little bit later, but basically this is working with community groups in the city to ask them to support the work of this commission and engage some of their constituents in participating in the public piece of this, the public outreach work stream. Specifically, this is social media things. This is little videos that we'll be recording, giving the community a little bit of information about what we're doing, what kind of feedback we want from them. We've been talking to Jerica about cadence of these things. Commissioner Vela will give a little bit more detail on this, but that's the public outreach piece of this. And then there's the public input meeting design, which I'll get into some detail in a moment also, which is what are we doing when we when we are holding these public meetings that are going to start on July 16th. What are we bringing people to talk about? How are we going to design that time that we have, those two hours that we have with the community each time? So that's the, those are the sort of the questions that, or the work streams that we have decided to organize ourselves around. In terms of partnerships, I would like to direct you all. You have two other pieces of paper here that say "draft" on them. One of them is called, the title there on the top of the page is, "Dear Community Partner." I'm going to take a minute just to read this out loud for you all and for the public. This is what we've drafted so that members of the commission and also Jerica and staff can start doing that outreach to our community organizations within the city. And it goes like this: "Dear Community Partner, we are reaching out to you as members of the City Charter Review Commission. The city's charter is like the city's constitution. It defines how our city government works and serves its residents. We have been brought to work together for the next year, focusing on the following key questions: How should power be shared between the mayor and the counselors? Who should have hiring and firing power over the city attorney, city manager, and city clerk? Should counselors be required to vacate their council seat in order to run for mayor? Who should be in charge of preparing the city's budget and what should that process be? Should the city have a strategic plan? We take this responsibility seriously and we are committed to engaging the residents of Santa Fe as we consider these questions. We understand that these topics require some collective learning and dialogue, and as such, we are offering different levels of partnership, some of which offer the opportunity to engage in a deeper way." Then you'll see that there are three levels of partnership that the person with whom a member of the commission or a member of staff will be talking to will get some one of these commitments from our community partners. So the first option is the broadest. This is a building partner. This organization would host members of this commission for a learning session about the city and its charter at one of their member meetings. This organization would encourage and support two to four members of the organization to attend at least two of the community outreach meetings, particularly the meetings that would be happening in that person's district between July and October, and also commit to sending emails to their member partner list with information about upcoming community listening sessions. So this is the most level of commitment that we are asking people if they're willing to commit to this level. The next level of commitment is a supporting partner, which means they would commit to host members of the commission for a learning session again about the city and its charter at one of their member meetings, and additionally, go ahead and send the emails to their lists for upcoming community listening sessions. And finally, the basic partner level is just for them to commit to sending email to their members and partner list with information about upcoming community listening sessions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, the 2026-2027 Santa Fe City Charter Review Commission. That is the draft that we have. I would love if we can approve this so that I know that Commissioner Gano has committed to hitting many of these organizations. We have a comprehensive list that we came up with as a subcommittee. Commissioner Viel and Commissioner Vela were also ready to do some of this outreach, as was Jerica. So, if we can get an approval on this letter or any changes that people feel are necessary, that would be great. Should we pause there and get some feedback? Just a question. The comprehensive list. Do you have a copy of that comprehensive list? Yes. Commissioner Variel, are you able to share that or somebody? I don't think I put you on the spot again. I don't think I have any sharing capabilities through this Zoom. I could... Commissioner, if you want to send it to me, I can share it with the board. I think Commissioner Bella, you might have it handy on your computer that you can share it. We're asking for the list of partners. Yeah, the list of partner organizations. Bella, what are we going to do without you? Exhaustive list. Just so you know, it was just us brainstorming groups. And so if you have other additions, please let us know. We developed the most exhaustive list that we could think of while we were meeting, but yes, there's always room for the more the merrier, right? We want the deepest engagement from our community partners in this process. Okay, while you're looking, Xavier... I think Commissioner Vela is about to say what I was about to say. I'll defer to him. Okay. I've been made aware that Jerica is going to make us hard copies. So, she will provide the list. Okay, perfect. Perfect. Because it's important to see who we're reaching out to to make sure that it's equitable and fair and representative of the entire community of the city of Santa Fe. So, that's great. Glad we got that going. Okay. So, while that's coming... Thank you. Yeah, this is great. So, I guess my question to the commission is, does the tone of this letter work for you all? Are you good with sort of the what we're stating here, what we're doing? Can we get behind this as a commission so that we can start doing the outreach ASAP, given that the first committee meeting is in two weeks? Commissioners, does the tone work? I like it. Commissioner Gold. I think the tone is fine. Where I hang up a little bit, Commissioner, is I want to know what the meeting design is. What are we asking these people to do? I love the idea of having different tiers of partners and reaching deeply into the community using existing organizations and groups. Terrific. Let's do that. But it appears from this memo that we're going to ask groups to simply opine on the five questions that you've identified here in kind of a public hearing format. What do you think? No, that's not the case. Good. And I'm hoping that, and you've indicated in your chart that you're about 22% finished with designing the meetings, but we need to find something to grab people, to give them some reason to want to come to these meetings and give their valuable time. And I'm not sure we've got a hook yet. These are pretty arcane questions for most residents. I would just appreciate your thoughts on what the meeting design looks like, what we're actually going to do in these meetings, and how we can pump up the volume a little bit to make this more attractive to as many people as possible. Thank you, Commissioner Gold. Anything further? Yeah, Madam Chair, if I... From Commissioner Gold. Oh, anything further? Okay. Commissioner Bale, were you... It looked like you wanted to say something. If not, I'm going to move... I'll make one comment. This is not the most broadly facing communication. This is specifically to those partner organizations. So your point is noted about making it more attractive to a more general audience. And so that'll, we can talk a little bit more about that when we come to the public outreach and the promotional marketing piece of that. And then I'm sure she was going to mention, Commissioner Perez does have an outline of that activity that we're going to go over. Thank you, Commissioner Gil. Commissioner Gold, right, to your point of enticing the individuals, right? So, when we brought that up with our budget, which is the $20,000, we are said not to entice the community to attend, but is that incentivize? Incentivize, right? So, we can incentivize them. So, my budget, we can do food and childcare. Is that not incentivizing or is that like, how does this work and what can I spend the budget on? Like, what can we spend this budget on? Because I don't want to take the $20,000 and pay for rental spaces across the city. If that money trickles down to the community, what does that look like? This would be a city question, right, to the attorneys of how can I use it to motivate the people because childcare is a necessity, food is a necessity, and it's not an incentivized, but I do need you to show up and pay attention as a community member, which if you have a baby crying and you're trying to hear an important question at the same time, those two things don't work together. And if I'm worried about making little Johnny food, then I got to leave your meeting because that's not relevant to my present state. So that's, how do I get to spend this money? It is a question of incentivizing, right? And how we do it in our community. Anything further, Commissioner Corno? And we're waiting for the list. You brought a really good point up in terms of budget expenditures, what this $20,000 can be spent for, and how much of it has already been spent, and we are just in a few weeks of, I mean, a few months of our charge. So, I'm going to ask Xavier if he might be able to talk to us about that. Last meeting, I had seen an invoice that showed about $1,500 was set aside for rental of rooms. $20,000 doesn't go far. And I'm assuming, I could be totally incorrect, that that amount is covering the costs of all of our, not just rental meetings, but of the staff support to take minutes of the meeting. I'm not sure if that comes out of that $20,000 or not, but anyway, Xavier, could you tell us about the budget? What kinds of expenditures are included? Because if we're looking at providing childcare and that's not something that's been done, we need to regroup. So, could you let us know what's allowable? I have some correspondence here from our city attorney, Marcos Martinez. We can use the budget to purchase ad space about the meetings in the newspaper. It could provide benefits that are shared by all attendees, like food at the event and drinks at the event. The commission could apply the funds to rent a different event space in a district with fewer free spaces for the city. And we could also use it to pay for polling. A what? A polling. Oh, a polling. A survey. Correct. Event space and surveys. Okay. Newspaper, publicity, food for the actual event, and the space for the event and surveys. Anything else? That is everything that Marcos had included in this correspondence, Madam. So that's information for our subcommittee. So that sounds like it rules out childcare. And a comment from our stenographer. I can't hear the stenographer. I don't know if she's on a microphone. Okay. Can you use your microphone? I think Commissioner Vel is telling us that she can't hear. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. We're getting some further information from our stenographer. Thank you, Commissioner Verel, for letting us know. What I'm saying is that my stenography services will be used for your eight official listening sessions, whatever you've decided to call them. And that is done through a PO with the city clerk's office along with this meeting. So those meetings have to have minutes. Those eight official meetings that you're doing, these meetings that you're doing, would not be a quorum, would not be, as I understand it, would not be meetings that we would do minutes for. They would have to be reported back to the commission by the commissioners who are there without a... Does that make sense? So, so there was here in our, the outline, as I'm looking at whatever grouping we're looking at, whether it's a building partner or a supporting partner, a basic partner. When commissioners go out and are being hosted by these organizations as individuals, you're saying we can't have a quorum. If you do have a quorum, then minutes are required. So, Megan, make a correction to that. My apologies. I know. Please. A quorum would need to be noticed. You can, we would just have to note that no action would be taken at that time, but you wouldn't need to do minutes for that. Yes, on minutes. Quorum noticed and plus minutes. Quorum notice, but no minutes because it's not technically an official meeting. But if a quorum is present at one of these meetings, it does need to be noticed to the public for the open meetings. Exactly. Okay. Minutes required for the official. Okay. Two per district meetings. So for these groups that are hosting our commissioners, we would, if there's a quorum, we would have to notice them going out and speaking. If there's no quorum, three can go out and have a conversation. No minutes are required, but the commissioners would have to come back and report to the full commission. Is that what I'm hearing? I'm trying to understand what the city's guidance is telling us. Is that what I'm hearing? That's correct. Yeah. It would be up to the commissioners to communicate that information from the public back to the commission. Okay. And I appreciate the guidance because the letter that we got from our attorney Marcos some time back was giving us guidance on the subject matter. Now, not just the subject matter is the issue, the mechanics of implementing this and following the open meetings and doing all of that is good to know. As frustrating as it might be, it's the law. And so, anything further you need to share with us? And then I'm going to go to Commissioner Pettis and let her speak. Attorney, anything regarding the format that we're looking at for these soliciting information from the community? Is this all looking appropriate? It does. Okay, perfect. And I did want to add, I think there's nothing that says you can't have minutes for these meetings, but the question is, when does it meet under the open meeting? Okay, I'm going to let Commissioner Pettis express her viewpoints, but at some point, I think we probably need something in writing to make sure that we are doing this appropriately. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Pettis, please. All right. Thank you, Chair. I just have to say that this report back was completely derailed by things that were not part of the report and that we've missed much of the time that we had to have this conversation for which I need your approval on things. So, trying to move right along here. We have this public outreach in terms of the design for our community meetings. You have another draft document here. This is what we're proposing broadly. What I'm asking for this commission today is to have an approval for the subcommittee to move along without having to have a vote on every single decision. In terms of the design of this, again, we have two weeks to implement the first community meeting. The details of the design need to be still worked out. So, if we can get out of today's meeting with an approval on the general proposal on the themes and the kinds of questions that we'll be asking people and the sorts of ways in which we'll be asking people. So, I'm going to read this out loud as well. If we can hopefully keep from derailing this report back, that would be amazing. So, the commission's outreach subcommittee proposes that the two rounds of community listening sessions that we'll be doing between July and November be organized along two main themes. This proposal is based on best practices from the City of Portland, Oregon's City Charter Review Commission and their community input process, and the City of Lexington, Kentucky's very recent Citizens Assembly that they did regarding their charter questions and what kind of community outreach they did for these specific things. So, for the first round of listening sessions, so this will be one per district. The theme that we're proposing is just your experience with city government. So, there's for each of these two rounds of community listening sessions, there's an educational component. We've talked about that. And then there's the dialogue and deliberation component. So, our goals for the first round of listening sessions will be to provide information via a short slide presentation to the residents present about what our city government does as per the charter. So, just a very grounding informational, like this is what the city government is. These are the kind of decisions that are made at the city government and by who. This is how your city works. The second goal would be to get feedback from the participants regarding their experience with the city's government. And we would do this via small group discussions, World Cafe style. There'll be like tables about specific themes. People can circulate and give their, have conversations and give their feedback. We would also have large group discussions, report backs with the utilization of popular education tools, which really allow for people to participate in the different ways in which adults learn and think about things. Some example questions for this first round of listening sessions could be, what has been your experience with our city government, including departments and offices? Has the city been responsive to your needs? What makes you and your community feel helped or heard by our city government? What are some things about the city and community that make Santa Fe feel like a good place to live? And what are some things about the city and community that get in the way of us becoming a good place to live? These are just very simple sample questions, but wanted to share with you sort of like the flavor of things that we are thinking about including in the conversation. So, this is the first round, right? For the second round, ideally we would be retaining some of the same participants so that we can have sort of like a richer conversation. This is where our community partners come in and bringing in some of their members, right? Incentivizing some of their members to show up to the different rounds. But it's not necessary. We could have these conversations with people who came to the first round or did not. So, for the second round, the theme is, how should our government work? We already talked about how the city is designed, how your city works. Now let's talk future facing. How should it work? So, this is where we dive into the questions that we've been asked to consider as a commission. Our first goal here is to again provide information via slide presentation to the residents about how our city government is organized as per the charter to include basic information regarding the issues the commission is looking at, including separation of powers, budget, strategic plan. Our second goal here is to get feedback from them again via small group discussions, large group discussions, and the utilization of popular education tools. So, the design is very similar for both rounds. It's the theme that really is going to be changing. The first one is an intro to like, what is your city and how does it work? And then the second one is really inviting more conversation about how should it work. Example questions for the second round include, is it important that power be distributed as equally as possible among elected leaders, or is it better that a single leader have more power? Who would you prefer to hold accountable for making sure the city's priorities and policies are being carried out? The mayor, the council, a city manager? What are important key components in any organization to ensure efficiency and transparency? And is it important for a city to have a strategic plan? Again, these are just sample questions. Would love to hear your thoughts. We're short on time. Again, what I'm hoping is to get an approval of this as a guiding document so that we can actually design the whole thing with a facilitator agenda that comes down to like, at this point the facilitator would say, these are the materials needed. We'll spend 20 minutes on this activity and then rotate, right? Like those decisions. I'm asking for the commission to delegate to the subcommittee so that we can actually move on these community meetings. So, I'll pause at that. Great. So, questions. Who wants to be up first? Mr. Brenny, I saw your hand go up first. So, we're going to need two motions, right? One for the cover letter and one for the draft for the second one. I'll let Commissioner go speak on his and after that then we'll do motions if that's okay with you, Madam Chair. And there's a third motion because Commissioner Bella, we still need to get an approval on moving along as a subcommittee with the social media content and things like that. So, Commissioner Gino, that was all you needed to. Anything else? Okay, Commissioner Gold. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the work for the committee on developing this community outreach civic engagement proposal. I think it's very well thought out. I like the two-step approach. I like wading into the topic by asking people about their interactions with the city and their impressions of what the city does well and what it could do better. So, I'm fully on board with that as well as then the second round of discussions focusing much more on the charge of this commission. I'm prepared to make a motion to support this proposal. I would only ask Commissioner Bella if we could bring back the questions for the second discussion after we've heard the input from the public on the first. I think the second questions need a little more polishing and I think the whole commission should be part of that discussion. But the overall approach is excellent and I'd like to make a motion that we approve it and give the subcommittee the authority to move on this as necessary to meet the deadlines. So, anything further? We have a motion for approval, but we need more discussion because as we, yes, ma'am, I did see the staff huddling over there. So, please tell us what we need to know as you're moving forward because you clearly have more information. Yes, ma'am. No. We're going to have separate motions on each of the documents. The documents. Yes. Yeah. The document that I believe we're referencing now because we're talking about first round and second round. This is dealing with the listening. Listening sessions. Yes, ma'am. Correct. Correct. Motion was to approve. Yes, ma'am. You've got it with the one little caveat that I'd like the questions for the second sessions to come back. Thank you. Okay. So, we've got the motion on discussion. Excuse me. Right. I don't have it a second. Second. Okay. Motion in a second. So, discussion board members. Mr. Villa. This is going to pertain to both the listening sessions and the public input that's made through the website. We will need to discuss how we will weigh the input. Just because something is recommended obviously doesn't mean that it gets the full attention of this commission. Right? So that isn't urgent in that we can collect the information and decide how we'll use it. But that is something that I think we'll have to figure out for multiple input mechanisms. No, it is not. How to is a separate discussion because right now we're focusing just on this. Anything else, Commissioner Vela? It was a good point. Thank you for clarifying that. Just want to confirm that we're providing the educational component in both sessions in the event that somebody didn't attend the first but needs the context in the second. Is that correct? It's going to be similar material in the slide presentation about how our city government is organized per the charter. I see that similar language but not the same. I mean, yeah, we'd have to, thank you, Commissioner. We'd have to really design this, but that's the goal. Roger, Captain Vela. I appreciate that, just in consideration that we may not see the same people at both. That's all I have. Thank you. Are the commissioners, I'm going to commissioners first, please. Are the commissioners? I run away. And also, I love the, by the way, thank you. This is a lot of work. I know this is a lot of work. I appreciate all the time that you all put in this and the thought that you put in this. I really, really like the second round format. And it goes a little back to what Commissioner Vela is saying. I've been around a while. Getting people to come to one hearing is a challenge in and of itself, and I'm grateful and thankful to the people that come. But I think I want us to be successful and not frustrated in the process. I would love for us to focus on the format and the questions in the second round for all the hearings and not have this first part because that first part actually looks, anyway, it's good, but I think it's a little bit more than what we're here to do. I like the targeting. I like the format of the second round of the listening sessions. The questions I think are more relevant. Is it important that power is distributed equally? Who would you prefer to hold accountable? Or do you even care? I mean, I would add that to the questions because if it doesn't matter to them, then we're asking them to make a decision that is irrelevant to their life. So, you know, we may as well weed those people out. What are the important components to ensure transparency? And I wouldn't ask, is it important for the city to have a speech as your plan? I wouldn't ask a yes or no question. I would ask something different. But I personally would vote for a modification to the motion to include all our listening sessions to focus around the format that's outlined in the second round. That's my personal preference. I believe we'll be more successful. I find it very hard to believe that we're going to get multiple people, the same people at two meetings, and I want us to have them come in, listen to the presentation, answer the questions, we gather our data, and we're done. And then hopefully other people will come. But that is my thought, and I, if the motion doesn't change, I'm going to have to vote against it. If we can adapt the motion or modify it, then I would support it if we're focusing on that. So that's my personal viewpoint. Comments. Yes, sir. I'm not asking for anyone to do anything. I am stating my position as an individual member. I'm not asking because that would be the chair asking that. I'm not asking that. I understand. I'm trying to be respectful of all my commissioners here, just voicing my personal position. And I want Representative, I'm Commissioner, I'm sorry. I do lobbying for the legislature, so I'm used to doing that. Commissioner Pettus, to please respond. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate your comments and opinion. The proposal here is based on best practices from several different communities that have done this. And the decision has always been that people, whether it's the same group of people, ideally there will be some repeat, but that you can't start the conversation with a charter questions. You have to start the conversation at a much like base level. What are we even doing? What is the city about? What is the city in charge of? Because most people don't even know, right? Most people don't even vote. People just don't have an idea. So I'm happy to entertain anything, but I do want to say that this model of like the two rounds, starting with super basics, 101, even remedial, and then having the second round, there would be part of the info session. There is like, what did we learn from our first session, right? In terms of people's experience with the city and, and, um, yeah, their insights. We start the second round with that. But this is based on best practices from how other places have gone about their charter review community outreach. Chair. Thank you. Commissioner, I have a question. Those other cities that you took this work from, did they have a longer period of time to get feedback and to do their listening sessions because we are kind of in a crunch time? Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. So, the city of Portland, yes, they had two years to do this, and they did a very extensive process, which I've shared some of those links with the commission. The city of Lexington did this process through a community organization that led the process, and it happened in the month of March. The whole process happened in March this year. So they held like a couple of, you know, it was like a couple of weekends that was like intensive weekends with a group of residents, and they went through these two rounds. Thank you. Thank you for that. And in Lexington, do you know what the turnout was? They only did it. In Lexington, it was a citizens' assembly. So it's a whole different model, right? It's a group of residents. They chose 32 residents in a sortition. So it's like jury duty, right? So it's a representative sampling of the whole entire city by district, by race, by everything. But it was those 32 residents that went through the whole process in a civic assembly. So it's just a different model of getting it. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. And I appreciate all the work that you guys did. And I really do like the questions in the first round, but I agree with the chair that because we have limited time and people are not going to want to go to multiple meetings, but we're not going to get all of the people from round one to round two. So, I would agree to add an education component into the round two and structure all the listening sessions based on what you have as round two. So, basically the same as what the chair said. I agree with the. Point of clarification, though, there that both rounds have the same design. So there's an educational component and then a deliberation component. So I'm not clear on what we're talking about. Commissioner, my concern is if, and I like the questions, and I think these are important questions to ask our residents. I just don't think what, like, what are we going to do with that information? Number one. And number two, we're really here for specific questions related to the charter, which I see is in round two. Commissioner Pettus, any comment or that's? Made my point. Yeah. You don't need to. Okay. Anything further, Commissioner D? Commissioner Vela? I wanted to express agreement with the structure and thank you for putting all this effort into it. It does check the boxes of being interactive and input-oriented. I like the education component. So I agree strongly with the structure. I agree that the questions for the first session may confuse the scope of what we're trying to collect from the public. And with Commissioner Gold's comments about the questions for session two, I'm wondering if there's a way for us to proceed with the structure as you've designed it. I recognize that we don't meet again as a commission before these take place. So I don't know that there's a way for us to deliberate on the questions outside of this meeting, but it seems that the questions are the sticking point for both sessions. Now the latter, obviously, we have more time unless we adopt those for the first round of sessions. So I guess a general question is, is there a way for us to explore this in the interim two weeks before the first listening session? Open question. So, staff, correct me if I'm wrong. This commission can decide to call another meeting before the first hearing. Is that correct? That is correct, Madam Chair. So, if timing and more time to have this conversation is needed, that's certainly an option. I'm just wanting to put options out there. We certainly can sit here and discuss it a little bit longer to get some resolution because I know the committee is anxious to move forward. And so we can do that even though it's 7:04. I'm not proposing to shut the meeting down because it's 7:04. This is very important, and I'm willing to sit here and discuss it. But if we need to go because we are trying to accommodate the two-hour rule, we can schedule another meeting, a short meeting, and provide feedback if that is really necessary. It's what's the will of the commission? Can I add one more? Yes. Yes, sir. Just want to clarify that my position is that I support the structure and would support the same questions in both the first and second rounds. Okay. Xavier, if I can make a recommendation. We're going to have another meeting between now and the first input session. We do have the possibilities for virtual meetings via Zoom. The commission would just need to vote to hold a virtual meeting in order to do that. It might be a little easier to get everybody together again. I know that timing with scheduling the council chambers is a little tough. So, a virtual meeting could be a little more accommodating if we need to have another meeting to discuss the public input sessions a little further. Okay, that's another option, ladies and gentlemen. Commissioner Bennis. I do want to bring up the fact that it takes a lot of work and intentionality to actually design this to a facilitator agenda level. So, this is something that like I volunteered to do, but if I'm given two days to do it, I will not do it because I don't want to do a bad job at something that's important. So we can meet again, but like we need to start making some decisions and to a design of a whole like community input process and the whys and the what's of it. It can't happen in a couple of days. So I'm just being realistic about that. Very fair statement and good information. Appreciate that. Further discussion. Xavier. I just wanted to point out that Commissioner Variel has her hand up. Oh, Commissioner V. I'm trying to get all the commissioners to speak, but and then we do need to go to staff. I know one of the staff members has had her hand up, but I'm trying to get the commissioners to speak first. Commissioner Vad, please. I think Jerica has something important to share with us. Before I speak, I'd like to hear what she has to say. Hi. I'd just like to share with the commission that currently the theme and the questions of round one, currently the different departments of the city are doing these questions and these types of sessions departmentally and answering these specific questions. These have been on these sessions multiple times, and people have been answering them, and we've been getting those in the reports and things. So, in order to take that off of y'all's plate to not have to reiterate these questions in the sessions, I propose utilizing or continuing with round two and just expanding it into two different themes. So you can combine goals, one, from both of to provide information to present to the residents about how our city, about what our city government does and how our city government is organized as goal one. And then take your feedback and then theme two can then do the same thing, but proposing the definition portion more so bringing them back to defining the A through. That way you have the definition and structure the same in both rounds, but you're first defining and giving people common language about how the city is organized and what it does, and then talking specifically about what the charter does and how it is working for them. Okay. Anything further? That was good information. I appreciate that insight. I appreciate hearing that other organizations are looking at those first round of questions and that, and I appreciate you saying that the definition structure could be the same in both. Thank you for that. Commissioner Vela, did you have anything to ask or you just wanted to? I had more to say about it. I think I get everybody wants it to be a certain way. I think from what we were trying to structure it is it obviously is going to be related to the charter. We can't say what's your biggest issue with the city because it might not actually be something that's charter related. So I think the first and second rounds actually will be related to the charter. It just you have to get it to the ground level where people are at. They do not understand what the charter is and even if we gave a presentation, they'll still want to talk about the issues, which is fine. I think we have to be a little fluid with this. Like we should have specific kind of framing of questions for each meeting and then the second rounds. But we're going to have to be more fluid. Even in the second round, we could ask how many of you have been to a meeting yet and we could actually gauge the interest. Like, oh, you haven't been here at all. There's a few that have. So we could actually figure it out. Like we need to be a little bit more flexible at these meetings. I know we need structure, which I appreciated Maria helped us with some structure and we all weighed in. I guess I just don't want us to wordsmith to and have another meeting so we could try to tie down questions. I would prefer that maybe each of you, if you had an idea of like some kind of question related to the charter, so that we could open it up to the public and they feel like we're reaching them where they're at, that you could give us some ideas like emailing them to us so that we have some more input. I just think if we have another meeting, it's like everything's backing up. There's all these things that need to happen. We need to announce it. We need to let people know what these meetings are. We want people to be there. I mean, if we don't have any plan that actually Commissioner Vela didn't even go into details about like more of our plan to reach people. I just I'm just worried that we won't get anybody. So that's where I'm at. I would love to hear and get feedback from folks so that we can synthesize it and get it ready for the first meeting. Commissioner Vela, I'm trying to make sure I understand your position. Would you summarize it real quickly what your thinking is? I was thinking it would be easier if you all had a strong like questions you think would be best to ask in that first round meeting to send it to us so that we can like integrate it and figure out the best way to approach that first meeting because we're not only going to be there as participants, but we're going to need staff and folks that are helping with facilitation. It's a big production, y'all. It's not just like we show up and we're like, "Okay, let's talk about the charter." It's a lot more involved. So I just feel like we're running out of time and then the holiday, you know, is coming up this weekend. So I just want us to not have another like special meeting that because it's coming up in 15 days that we have this community meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Vela. And I'm not advocating for another meeting. I what I try to do is give options to this commission and this commission determines what direction we go in. So don't don't think I'm wanting another meeting. I have Jericho, is that a second time? Okay, go ahead. I just wanted to share for the public input sessions that have happened so far, the attendance has been between 80 and 150 apart from one, and that was because they had a like a week turnaround between them starting to put out the things and the actual meeting happening. So you're going to get people there. I just wanted to share. Thank you, Commissioner Gold. Thank you, J. I appreciate the insight and the information. We are faced with a dilemma here, and I I was initially very taken with this two-stage approach because asking most residents to come talk to you about the city charter is a really heavy lift. But asking people to come and talk about how they they meet the city, what how do they relate to the city? We we create cities to do things for us that we can't do for ourselves. We do it for the collective good and and the charter is the constitution of how we organize ourselves to do these things for the common good. I I like the questions that were proposed for the first one because it kind of gets to what do you expect from your city? How is it working for you? I'm delighted to hear that we're already gathering a lot of that information and then it's being well participated in that. That's very encouraging. I'm I'm also a little worried that we're not ready. We're pushing too hard against some arbitrary deadlines of doing these first meetings in two weeks. So I I would ask, Madam Chair, I know we have a schedule that we agreed to in the first meeting, but I I just sense that the the commission needs to focus a little bit more on what are the salient questions that we want the residents to help answer for us. The questions are key. All the rest of this stuff is good and and I you know we want to reduce barriers to participation. We want to create great incentives for people to come and help us with this, but the questions are key and I don't think we have that because we haven't discussed them as a as a commission yet. So I I wonder is is there a possibility to push off some of these sessions until the fall to give ourselves the summer to work this stuff so that when we do get the public engaged, it's it's really focused and it's most helpful to our deliberations. Is that a possibility? Commissioner G, thank you so much for asking that question. I was hoping someone would come up with that thought. The commission, the meetings that we have said are our choice. We can if we choose to delay the first hearing and add one at the tail end of them. That's certainly an option. Virtual meetings are an option. We have lots of options and we need to decide what we want to do. So that that is certainly one more option to to consider. So I appreciate you bringing that up because I had that in my mind. I thought I'm just going to let the commission move in the direction they feel they want to go. So that's an option that we need to consider. The the the format is an excellent format and it certainly is workable. It's worked other places and anything can work if we apply ourselves and make it work. My only concern is the nature of the first questions. I I sat on the city of Santa Fe's citizen citizen redistricting commission and we had hearings and community came in and came in and we had one at the library that was our most contentious one and members would sit there and say, "I'm here. You want to know about redistricting? Well, let me tell you what's going on in my district." And we heard nightmare after nightmare about what's going on in their district. We we were commissioners. We had to sit there. We had to listen. We had to be polite and listen to what they're saying. And after they expressed their concern, it was more than one person that did this. There was their issue was nothing that was in within the within the purview of the citizen redistricting commission. We were looking at redistricting the city and and that was all it was. And so there was that thought out there that we invited them to a hearing that we wanted to know what they thought about redistricting that they could bring anything up. And so I I had the the distasteful situation where we had to tell people, "Thank you so much for that information that that your neighbors your neighbor's dog is barking really loudly, but we we have no control over that." And and they left like we set them up. You I came down here to tell you this and you are not. So my concern about the first series of questions, we're talking about them Santa Fe being a good place to live. What do they like? Which leads to what they don't like. That's great. And what are we going to do with that information? Jericho is telling us that that's already been collected elsewhere. I I would like that to continue to be collected elsewhere and us focus more on what that second round is is geared toward. I the questions in the second round are great. And I'm still thinking in my mind that we need to have one meeting, one format for all the meetings and be be similar in that regard. So that's still my position and that's how I'll vote. But but I appreciate your comment about we can push we can delay that first meeting and and add a one at the end. Comments. Commissioner Pas. I thank you, Chair. As a matter of design, I just fundamentally disagree that all the sessions should be the same because why are we having two sessions per district if we're just going to duplicate a session? The point is to bring residents along the process. So that's just I mean this just like sort of like basic adult learning principles and like design for community input sessions. If we're just going to do the same meeting twice in a district, we should just do it once. That's my my recommendation on that. I would ask that we make a decision here because we're getting to 7:30 and we're still we still haven't even heard from Commissioner Vela on the social media and sort of like publicity part of this that we also need some approvals from the commission on. Thank you for that comment and I I I certainly agree with you. We eight hearings is a lot, but that's not our design. That is a city councilor's design. So, Commissioner Gilo. Okay. Commissioners, any further discussion? Commissioner Gold. I withdraw my earlier motion. Instead, I I I would like to make a motion that we postpone these these decisions on on when we're going. I'm sorry. That we postpone the neighborhood meetings until the fall to give us more time to deliberate over what what are the really important issues and and how we want to engage the public in discussing them. I don't think we're ready at this juncture. I think it will be rushed and I'm not sure that the input will be that valuable and I don't want to put this committee through a huge work project with untenable timelines. I I'd like to give us a little more time. Okay. I I was just going to state. Yes. Postpone the listening. Thank you very much. Correct. He started by saying he was going to withdraw his motion. Yeah. Okay. And postpone the sessions to the fall. So that's a valid motion. Do I hear Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Any discussion? What do you mean by fall? Calendar year falls, I would assume September, October, November. Any further questions? Commissioner V. Is that right? Is that what you meant, Commissioner Gold? Shaking his head in the affirmative. Okay. September. Yes. Okay. So, I have a motion. I have a second. I'm going to go to commissioners first, and then we'll have staff. Commissioner Duran, I agree that we need more time for planning, and the outreach subcommittee has done a great deal of work. I don't want to put a lot of pressure on that subcommittee and on Commissioner Pettis to try to rush through this because, at a couple of meetings ago, I said the public listening sessions are the most important part of this work. So, if we need to take a little bit of a pause so that we can get the work done, then I'm in favor of that. But I'm not in favor of waiting until the fall because we won't have enough time to do eight listening sessions before we meet our timelines in January, February. Mr. Duran, anything further? Commissioner Bella, you had your hand up as well. Yes, thank you. I'm open to the idea of giving us more time. I'm looking at the cadence, and it seems like the only option where we both avoid the holidays and get our eight sessions in is to condense the schedule and do more, more often. So, I'm in support of giving us more time upfront. I have questions about logistically how that would work. You have questions about, I'm sorry, logistically how that would work because we've set our cadence so that we have two a month, that's one every two weeks. From a promotional standpoint, that's also Jerica's point, the amount of time that seems appropriate for the best turnout. So, if we move the first or the first and second sessions, we get into November, which may be doable because it's technically before the holiday season, but it gets a little hairy. So, we can figure out how to place. I wouldn't go past July, though, in moving them for that reason. Thank you. Commissioner Sergeant, did you have your hand up again? Well, just on that point, we can move July 15th into November if we think we are going to be ready by July 23rd. Okay, good comments. So, good comments. Any further comments we have? Oh, Xavier was going to share something. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask the commission to be mindful of staff time as well. Marcy's team will need time to put together legislation and do research. So, I just please ask that the commission be mindful of that as we proceed forward and make a decision on how to move forward. Thank you. I appreciate that. And we're not changing the January, February times, and that's when you're going to start looking at our final recommendations. That's correct, Madam Chair. All right. So, we have a motion to withdraw. Commissioner, I'm okay. Commissioner Gold withdrew his motion to approve, and his motion is to postpone all the hearings until September. And we have a second. Okay. To the fall. I thought you clarified it was September. Okay. So, that's a motion. Postpone them all until the fall. We're going to take a voice, a roll call vote. Sorry. Yes. Oh, well, one more comment, Commissioner. Is this going to be possible if we start in September? Are we going to be able to get those two July? I mean, it'll be four meetings, right, that we have to move. That's correct. And I would also just like to point out, Commissioner Ray, that the resolution does require two meetings in each district. Right. Anything further, Commissioner Ray? No, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Okay. So, I don't know. Commissioner Vadial, do you have another comment? Your hand is up on the screen. Yeah, I was just going to say I think September is too late. And if people want to weigh in more about what the design is, I think why have a subcommittee when we're trying our best to formulate something that makes sense, that's equitable? And if we can't figure that out within the subcommittee, we might not even have a subcommittee if everyone wants to weigh in about what they want the meetings to look like because it's a lot of work, and we're trying to coordinate with staff, and they have other meetings that they're also planning. This is not just on their plate, Charter Commission meetings. So, there's a lot of moving parts. We're trying to get the website together that is out of our control. I mean, there are a lot of things that are out of our control as a Charter Commission, and it's hard to try to just formulate something as a subcommittee because I think we can work with these questions and make it work for folks. But I don't want to delay until September. We're not going to get this done. So, I won't be voting for the motion. I just think we need to figure out another way to make this work for all of us and not also decide that we're not going to all micromanage each other because I don't know how to make it work. I know it's a government entity. I'm just trying to think of an easier way for us to, if we're going to put in the work, which we've put in a lot so far, and most of us have full-time jobs. So, I'm just noting that there's a lot to be done. So, I'm trying to figure out after we vote what our next plan for this is because it's a lot of work and also coordination with staff. By the way, we don't make these decisions in isolation. Jerica has been going to every single subcommittee meeting with us. So, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Appreciate it. And Commissioner Pettis would like to respond. Jerica's had her hand up for a long time. Do you want me to go first? Yes. I'd like the commissioners to speak first, and then I call the staff, and we're allowing her to jump in. She's already jumped in twice, which is really good to have her give us information, but I want to honor the commissioners as well. Thank you, Chair. And I just wanted to touch on what Commissioner Variel just said. The point of the subcommittees is for us to sort of self-select into the places where we have interest and expertise, and then come back to the full commission for whatever it is that we need. I want to point out that the different subcommittees are a little different, right? The strategic planning and the governance subcommittee, it's about research. We're bringing ideas. We're bringing what we're learning. We're having a conversation. The outreach subcommittee is about action, almost exclusively. Like, we're making decisions about when we're doing this, when is that going out, who's going to film the video, what is it going to say, what is the design of these meetings. So, to Commissioner Variel's point, if the subcommittee does not have agency to actually move this work forward, then I would suggest that we just disband the subcommittee, and the whole commission can make decisions somehow. I don't know how. And we don't have time. So, to me, to be perfectly honest, this is seeming like we're just getting into a check-the-box process in which we are doing a performative community input process for the sake of doing what we have to do to the resolution. But we're actually not going, like, we are moving in a direction where we're not going to have any meaningful process. Like, we're just doing the same thing to check the box. So, I'm feeling very deflated by the conversation today. I feel like, to the point that Commissioner Variel pointed out, we've done a ton of work within the commission. We brought some recommendations to the full commission. If we need to have these conversations as a full commission, then I would just suggest that we stop meeting as a subcommittee. Yeah, I don't know how we're going to do this if we can't make a decision at all. Anything further, Commissioner? No. Okay. I appreciate those comments, and I appreciate the sentiment, the frustration, and I can understand where we're at. This is our third meeting, and I think we're going in the right direction, and I think a lot of progress can be made. So, let's just take action on the vote. Just vote on the motion that is asking us to postpone until the fall the hearings, and depending on how that vote goes, we can be open to a second motion to follow. But I really do believe that we can make a decision this evening. And before we do that, Jerica, did you have one more thing to add? Yes. I just wanted to reiterate the proposed cadence that we're currently on. July, August, September, October. It leaves two months for you all to deliberate internally. And then the three months for the legislative team to translate that information to then go to the county. So, my recommendation would be rather than postponing until September, to do the second option that was proposed, not by motion, but to move the July 16th one as opposed to the first, like the first couple months getting pushed back. Thank you. I appreciate that. We have one motion on the floor. We're going to vote on that, and based on the outcome, then we'll take further steps. Roll call, please. Can we just get a clarification on who seconded the motion? Mr. Bernito. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Duran. No. Commissioner Variel. No. Commissioner Ray. Commissioner Pettis. No. Commissioner Gold. Aye. Commissioner Granio. Commissioner Bella. No. Chair Ortiz. No. The motion has failed. Okay. Is anyone prepared to make a motion on the floor? Subsequent motion? If not, I will. So, do we make a motion now to just move one of the meetings to the tail end? I would love to make a motion to move the first meeting to the tail end of the session so that we have proper time to complete what we need to and get quality work. I have a motion by Commissioner Breno to delay, defer the July 16th meeting to a date in November. Second. Any discussion? Can you repeat the motion? I can't hear the. The motion is to move the first meeting to November and continue with the second meeting in July and that schedule. Okay. Any discussion? Commissioner Bella. I'd like to know what the delay will, what the plan with the delay is. After the discussion, I think we might be making perfect the enemy of the good. And if we don't have a plan for addressing the structure or the questions in the interim, then I don't think the delay is going to help us if Commissioner Pettis feels like she can put this together in the time frame that we have left. So, if we don't have a plan for that interim time because we don't have a meeting scheduled as a commission, then my position would be to go ahead as proposed. Good, good question. And once this vote is, well, Commissioner, let us all, let you speak first. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I do think that we're not prepared. I don't see how we're getting prepared with the current process we have. However, so we need more time, but I don't know what five days or a week are going to get us between the 16th and the 23rd when we don't have a good process to make a decision, and the subcommittee doesn't have agency to move forward. Like, I just don't think what the purpose is of giving ourselves an extra five or six days. Commissioner, Chair, Commissioner Pettis, I think you guys have the structure and the framework. I think what I've heard is just a matter of the questions that will be asked at each of the first round and the second round. And believe me, it's not my intent to micromanage anything or anyone. I just want to ensure that when we go out to public comment, we're doing it in a thoughtful way, and we're actually getting the information that we need based on our responsibilities serving on this commission. Thank you, Commission. Any other comments? Okay, we have a, and after this vote, another motion could be made regarding the structure. So, I really think we can make the decision this evening and give the subcommittee that go ahead to continue, but let's just take a vote. We have a motion by Commissioner Gold, a second by, oh, Commissioner Grano, second by Commissioner Gold, to move the July 16th meeting to sometime in November to be determined. Roll call vote, please. Oh, one more question. Yes. Can we make an amendment to that motion? Could you state your amendment and we'll see if it's a friendly amendment? I would just like to amend the motion and not push the date sometime in November, but meet no later than the second week of November. Oh, okay. I agree 100%. Yes. Okay, let's roll call vote, please. Commissioner Ray. Yes. Commissioner Pettis. Yes. Commissioner Gold. Yes. Commissioner Grano. Yes. Commissioner Vela. Yes. Commissioner Duran. Yes. Commissioner Varrial. Yes. Chair Ortiz. Yes. The motion to move the first meeting to the second week of November has passed. No later than the second week. So, thank you for that vote. So, the floor is open for another motion to address the proposal for the listening sessions. If no one has a motion, I'm happy to make one, but I will let the commissioners make one if someone would choose to. I have a question, Madam Chair. Commissioner Pettis, do you, let's see, what am I trying to say? Do you just need from us approval to continue the planning? I mean, based on the questions that you, the format that you've set forth with enough latitude to change them as you see necessary. Is that what you'd like from us, or is there something more specific that you're asking us? Thank you, Commissioner. I think that we're getting a little stuck on the questions, which I mentioned are sample questions, right? To Commissioner Varrial's point, it would be great to get everybody's thoughts about what kind of questions we should ask and the direction of that. What I would like approval on today is sort of just the framework of this proposal where we're doing things in two rounds. There's two themes, right? There's one theme per round, and we can integrate charter flavor to both things. But yeah, what I'm seeking approval of is, is this framework something that the commission can get behind, sort of following this line of thinking that is stated in the proposal? So that if we can get approval, then as a subcommittee, we can actually work on designing the whole thing in the timeframe that we have, incorporating the questions that you'd want to incorporate. Yeah. Does this framework work? And if not, we're starting from scratch. Anything further? Not yet. Mr. Gold, I recognize that we're pretty late now. I like the approach from the start, and I'd like to see it go forward. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement at the commission level about whether or not we ask the same questions at each of the sessions. And what's being proposed is a different approach for each of these meetings, and I like that. But I think we have to settle the question of whether or not we're holding identical meetings, same meeting twice in each district. So I'd like to hear what the commission has to say about that, and then we can make a motion. Anything? I like the fact that we're having two different meetings to get quality input. We may not get the second person in the second one. We do have the educational part in both. So giving the opportunity to do a full walkthrough, it's up to the community to want to show up. They know what's at stake. Is it a heavy burden, a heavy ask? Yes, we are also doing a heavy burden of having to ask by being here. We're all volunteering to be here and to give our time and our space. None of us get paid, excluding city staff, and I'm not talking to them. I'm just saying in general, we can ask them to show up. It's their choice if they want to participate in their governmental duties and civic duties. Anything further? Vadriel does have her hand. Good. Mel, please. Thanks, Xavier. I hope you're feeling better, and we're not making you more ill. Ask me tomorrow. I'm just kidding. I just wanted, maybe I was just, I want to clarify. We keep referring to Commissioner Pettis as like the sole person of putting the design together. We all had input on this, and we, I think that where we needed her guidance was just like sample questions, and it wasn't like these are set in stone, we're not changing them. We didn't have time to actually like start vetting through them, like really sussing them out. So I think we have time for that. I just would love to get input from you all, and you can send it via email, and then we can like reassess those questions. I think the design can look similar, especially if we end up getting brand new people in the second round. We call it the second round. It may not even be a second round. It might be brand new folks. So, I guess I just, I'm still going back to the being fluid about who's in the audience, who actually shows up. So I guess I just feel like we need to meet again as a subcommittee, and we can refine those, and we want your input. I just, I don't know if it needs a motion though, per se. I'd rather just us vote, voting on the, like the, what did you call it, Commissioner Pettis? The... The framework. Proposed framework. Yeah. Thank you. Anything further, Commissioner? No. Okay. I want, oh, Commissioner. I'd like to make a motion. Can I respond? Sure. As a comment. I usually try to wait till the last. I want to answer your question, and you asked about whether the meeting should be identical. I'm not hung up on the questions. I think the questions should be relevant, and there's a lot of good questions in there that are relevant. I, and I would vote this way, that the format be the same for all the meetings because we're going to get different people. That's my answer to your question. But this is a commission of nine, and I'm only one vote, and so this commission needs to decide what we want to do. I think we can make a decision this evening, and I think Commissioner Vela is going to give us a motion that we can act on now so that we can move forward. Commissioner, it's my intention. So, I'd like to make a motion that we approve moving forward with the framework as it was presented, that the option for input by the commissioners can be made via email, and that the outreach subcommittee meets to negotiate that input and get us moving towards our first now input session on the 23rd. So, clarify your motion, please, because I'm not sure I understand it. That sounds right. What is your goal? Are you saying that the meeting should be the same for all the meetings, or are you suggesting, as the approach suggests, that there'd be two different types of meetings in each of the districts? Which is it? It's not a part of the motion. I think it can be part of the feedback and negotiated through the subcommittee is my proposal. So you're deferring to the subcommittee to decide that matter. Madam Chair has made it clear that this is an important decision that we need to make this evening. You have a preference. I don't personally have a preference. See any further discussion? Commissioner. Seconded. I'd like to make sure that the subcommittee has the latitude to formulate the questions in a manner that they think is most appropriate for the meetings. And so I think I'm, I'm not adding that necessarily. I mean, that's too much wording. I realize that, but I think that we need to give them the latitude to do their job. Agreed. Okay. No, we still need direction. Is it the same meeting done eight times in all four districts, or are there two separate meetings that the subcommittee will design and implement? Which is it? Okay. So, we already answered the question. We're going to delegate this to the subcommittee side. I see. Point of clarification, that I thought the motion said to approve the framework as presented. Well, there might. But as presented, the framework has two. So, if we're going to approve the framework as presented, as presented, the framework includes two rounds. Yes. So, would the negotiations be on the sentences, the questions asked? So, we would hypothetically, if I'm clear, Commissioner, is we stay with the two-pronged approach that we already have, is the negotiation on the sentences and present that part on part one and two? Yeah. Yeah. Discussion. Chair, this, my concern about not having the same questions at all eight sessions is that someone that comes to session two or the second round, and we're asking them specific questions about the charter, people in the round one that didn't get those specific questions may raise issues that they didn't have an opportunity to actually provide input. This is why design is very important. So, there's ways to catch people up on the second that didn't come to the... Okay. A lot of conversation. We're just going to call for the vote. And I just want the, the... Yes, I want the motion restated so that it is clear that we are approving the framework. Basically, that's the bottom line. I can't hear what the stenographer is saying. What? The motion is made by Commissioner Vela, seconded by Commissioner Ray, to approve the framework as presented with the option of input by the commissioners through email to the outreach outreach committee, and that the outreach committee will meet to negotiate that input in preparation for the first listening session on the 23rd of July. Okay, that's the motion. Question that negotiation looks like. But we're not going to entertain that now. We're going to vote on the motion. Please take. Commissioner Pettis. Yes. Commissioner Gold. Yes. Commissioner Grano. Yes. Commissioner Vela. Yes. Commissioner Duran. Yes. Commissioner Varrial. Yes. Commissioner Ray. Yes. Chair Ortiz. I'm voting yes because that is the consensus of this group, and my comment, I'm not going to send you an email. I'm just still advocating for same questions at every hearing. But the motion passes. The motion passes. Yeah, the motion passes. So, you now have your marching orders, and you're good to go with that format. Mr. Grano, can we also make a motion to pass the outreach paper to the community because that's a whole another one, and it'll take five minutes. Certainly welcome to make whatever motion you would like to right this moment. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're the best in the world. If I can make a motion to approve the written paper as a community partner outreach one that we're going to be able to go forward with it so that I can have my marching orders to get on the street before we get to the other meeting. If I could have a second. I have a motion and a second to approve the dear community partner letter. And any discussion? Roll call, please. Commissioner Gold. Yes. Commissioner Grano. Yes. Commissioner Vela. Yes. Commissioner Duran. Yes. Commissioner Varrial. Yes. Commissioner Ray, yes. Commissioner Pettz, yes. Chair Ortiz, yes. The motion has passed. I thank you all for that. I also, during that conversation, had we had some guidance from the staff regarding the budget and the minutes. If you could put that in writing so that it is clear what the parameters are as we move forward in those two areas so that there's a question later on. That will be done. Thank you, Commissioner Pettis. Thank you, Chair. I wonder if we close and we are very, very late if Commissioner Bella would give us a very quick update on the outreach, so on the publicity and social media sort of strategy because we also need an approval there. So, this, you've got something written or this verbal? Do it in two minutes. Okay, go ahead. Okay. So, public outreach we defined as the broad communication not to our partners but to the whole community. There's a few dimensions to this. The web page is going to be the source of truth, and I'm proposing this as our path forward. The web page is our source of truth. Most everything we communicate will point back to this for the core information. There will be a public input form on that page, which is the second mechanism for collecting public input besides the listening sessions, and copy and media to be used in the marketing communications will be planned out and will be constructed in a manner where we have a call to action, an element of education, and a notification of the upcoming public events. The question that I wanted to pose to the commission, and I don't know that we need to vote on it, but I'd like input on anonymity in the input form. The pro of anonymity is that we welcome all input. The con is that we may not be able to discern the balance of input across community members. Say if we get 10 pieces of feedback from one anonymous individual, we can't discern that from 10 pieces of input from 10 people. I believe that the community input form that we are sort of basing this on for the City Council meetings does not provide for an anonymous submission. That is correct. So, I would recommend we follow that model as best practice. I move we follow that model as best practice. I second. Is that a motion that you want voted on? Any discussion on that motion? Can you say more about best practice? Thank you. I appreciate that. No, it's good to get it clarified so that there's no question later on. Thank you. This is, yes, and that we are not accepting anonymous feedback. No anonymous feedback. We encourage the public to speak to us, but people have to identify themselves. That's the practice. That's a motion for me, Commissioner Gold. Seconded by Pis. Okay. Commissioner Pettis. Any discussion? Commissioner Via, your hand is still up. I'm, I was, I have another question but not related to this vote, so I'll wait. Okay, great. Let's roll call. Commissioner Beno, yes. Commissioner Bella, yes. Commissioner Duran, yes. Commissioner Vadriel, yes. Commissioner Ray, yes. Commissioner Pettz, yes. Commissioner Gold, yes. Chair Ortiz, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, we're on a roll. We're doing well here. We've got a few minutes before if you want another motion for something. I'll have another motion. I'm going to, I'm just. You have more to report. Two more pieces. Oh, go ahead. One is that we will receive data from this input form and we can decide at a future date how that's processed as we discussed earlier. And then for the copy and media that will go out along with the promotion of these events, the plan is that I'll create an outline. I can share it or we as a subcommittee can decide what's, you know, how to chunk up the different commission elements, but that's work that's to be done still. Any, is that before your report? That's all I have. Commissioner Pettis, would you add to that? Yes. Something that I believed we were hoping to get approval of today, Commissioner Vela, is on the videos that the city is, was on. So, yeah, the city is going to staff, Jericho particularly because she's a superstar, filming some videos to start putting out on the city's web, city's social media and whatnot about, hey, the Charter Review Commission is happening. These are some of the issues that we're going to be talking about. We want to invite the public to participate. I would love as a subcommittee to get approval from the whole commission also on working with staff directly on getting those scripts out and approved without needing to come to the full commission to approve every little thing that gets put out there. So, if there's guidance in terms of like guardrails or anything the commission would like to talk about, but it would be very helpful for the subcommittee to have sort of just delegation on how to move on these things, radio ads and all that kind of stuff moving forward so that we don't need full board approval, full commission approval for every little thing. Thank you, Commissioner Pettis. And I appreciate that, that position. Totally makes sense coming from one, from where you're at. But I also feel I have a responsibility to this full commission that we should be aware of some of the, the, the way it's being presented and and get some general idea of what we're saying out there so that we as commissioners are not blindsided or have no clue as to what's happening out there. And there's these videos going on. Is there a possibility that something could be developed for the commission to look at and and and say this is the tenure, this is the environment, this is the format that we're going to use for all of these and these are the four main points. Just, just something that gives us an idea of what it looks like because I, I, I'd rather not give blanket approval to something I'm not sure where, what it looks like. And I'd rather just be silent on that, but I would prefer that the commission could get some kind of sample of what it looks like, either a one-pager that shows the outline or what the points are being made or what's being said. Whatever. Yeah, because a blanket approval to me is I'm not doing my job if I'm just giving you blanket approval. So, that's what I would prefer to see. Commissioners, any weighing in on this? Any comments? We can certainly, I, I just want to be conscious of the quorum and how we exchange information outside of this meeting, but I'm happy to share an outline and a sample and give you that sense of what these packages would look like. So, okay, that would be great. So, does this, does, what was, give me a timeline as to when you all were looking at getting these out there. Maybe that's why Jerica's raising her hand again. Yes. Right. Thank you. I was, thank you. I was going to mention that we can't be doing that. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Timeline. We have more time now. Our plan was two weeks in advance of the first meeting. So, we have a wider window now, which gives us more time to review, to share and review that content. So, to answer your question, it'll be two weeks from the 23rd that we send the first communication. Okay. Erica. I just wanted to clarify that the copy for the videos and things are written in collaboration with the communications team, the legislative team, and the City Clerk team. And then also the first video is, is filmed and and ready to go. Oh. So, we can, we can drop that. And that one is just referring people to the website. Oh, so it, it explains what the Charter Review Commission is, while it was brought back, that it was brought back and then referring people to the website. So, those are the, the types of videos. So, they're just like 45 to one minute snippets of information about the Charter Review Commission and what it's together. It's available and it's for us to, so it's just informational. So, tell us what it just basically says they're in existence. We're going to. This has something to the effect of basically what the, this top paragraph on the building document is. So, reaching out, we're saying that, that here's the Charter Review Commission. It is meant to come back every 10 years. This one was brought back, I believe, after three. And it is going to ask you questions such as the questions. For more information, be on the lookout for the sessions in your district. They're free and open in all district to everyone. And if you want to hear more information, I'll be back soon. That's basically a public service notice. This is what's happening. This is what's going on. Okay. That's what you're talking about. That's just basic information. I see no problem with that. The intention was to do more of those expositions about different pieces like the, the, what does it mean, the separation of powers and things like that. So, basically they're small breakdowns of every, like the questions that we're asking. So, those infomercials, like now that that general large one went out, the next one would be what is separation of power swimming? Does the city need to adopt a plan of strategic planning? Like each one's its own small little piece. They're teasers to be able to get people to show up to the thing and have the conversation, but they're only going over the same questions that were proposed to us that we're taking to the community anyways. We're not taking liberty outside of that to invite other parts. Now, if community chooses to show up and talk about those pieces, that's a choice community makes. Us as commissioners have the responsibility to stay on task of where those pieces are going. We were just breaking them down into smaller sections of communication out to the community so that I'm not hitting you with five questions at once. You're hearing one small piece of what we're talking about and people may hear different ones and get excited to come and go. I really, really appreciate that information, that additional information. You're basically announcing the meetings, telling who we are, getting them curious about what's coming up. To me, that's informative. That has something to do with this is what they're thinking of doing. And this is the direction they know. Okay. Thank you. Well, that's, that clarification is helpful. So, if that's the direction you're going, I personally, as one member, don't have a problem with that, and I don't believe that we need to put that to a vote unless the rest of the commissioners feel like we need to. Xavier has your hand up. I just wanted to point out that Commissioner Vadriel had her hand up again. Commission. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Commissioner. I forget to look up there, but please weigh in. I just wanted to before we wrap up and, thank you, Commissioner Vela for outlining all of that for us. It would be helpful to know with our budget if we can use the budget for radio ads slash PSAs as well as ad space. There was no clarification on that about telling folks about Charter Commission meetings and I still was unclear if we can use our budget for child care and interpretation services, which I recommend. That question was answered earlier. Child care was not part of that list. The list we were told that it could be used for would be for newspaper publicity, for surveys, for food for the events, and for event space. They did, I asked about child care and they said that's not an allowable budget expenditure. So, that's why I asked for the letter from the attorney to explain the budget so that it's clear for everyone and we don't engage in procuring or getting, setting up expenditures that are not valid. the attorneys to speak. Jerica, I thought you all had meetings where you provided childcare and interpretation services and other public meetings, city meetings. I'm sorry, Commissioner Vera, could you please repeat? I'm sorry, Daniel. I was looking at it. It was to staff. It was just needing clarification because I thought other city meetings you all have provided childcare and interpretation services. Whoever wants to respond, please. My reading of Marcos's email was that we couldn't provide gift cards, sort of like ad hoc kind of payments, so to speak, to individual participants. But if they were services that would be provided to all attendees, i.e., food, childcare, interpretation, I think that is totally reasonable. Yeah. So, even though it wasn't one of the ones that Marcos enumerated, I think childcare and interpretation, be it sign language or Spanish, whatever is necessary, should be fine as a use of the budget. Okay. So, thank you, Commissioner V. Anything more? I just want to make sure we can check about radio ads. If he could get back to us about that. And I'll also, if there is a request for an interview on a radio station about our public meetings or about the commission, what is the protocol for that? Because we were thinking about Kisses and 505 Omatic wanted to do a little snippet about what this charter review commission is doing and when our meetings are going to be held. And I'm not sure where to direct those if we do them, or the chairs, or I don't know. I'm confused about that process if we could get clarity. Any clarity from the staff, any guidance? Just to clarify the question, Chair, is, well, I heard two questions. One, is it permissible to use a budget for radio advertising? And I think it's analogous to print. I think fine. Second, who would be the presenters in the case of more of like a public service announcement, but out of a different media form like 505, oh, interviews? I'm not sure from your standpoint in terms of. So far, radio, radio, social media, and those kinds of things, those styles are about the same. So radio ad space was approved. And then the interview style with commissioners with 505 Omatic also, it was just y'all's deciding which commissioners will be a part of that. Okay. Yes. Radio space. Yes. Okay. So I guess we're going to have to figure that out about who would want to be on the radio just to talk about the commission process and the upcoming meetings. So, if anyone has a deep interest to be on the radio, let us know. Else we'll end up picking somebody from the subcommittee. Rod said he wants to be on the radio. So, Jer. Right on, Rod. Sorry, one thing I forgot. Also, the radio space, with y'all's interviews, it would also be with, like not scripts, but it will also go through the same channels that the copy for the videos go through. So you guys have talking points that everyone is good to go on. So, anything else, Commissioner Vera? Two comments. We need to sit down with the staff and make, perhaps the Vice Chair and I can sit down with the staff and come up with a budget because I don't want us to start spending and then find out after the fourth hearing that we've expended budget. So we need to, if that's okay with Vice Chair, we need to do that in the next couple of weeks. Sit down and develop a budget. Number one. And number two, kind of a tangent with the question Commissioner V I'll ask. The letter should be signed by, rather than just the name Charter Commission. I think all of the commissioners' names need to be on that, not just Charter Review Commission. No emails, no phone numbers, nothing, but just the names of the commissioners on this letter. It's the dear community partner. It was the second motion that was made. Yes. And so I asked the commissioners to, it wasn't in the motion, but I think it just makes common sense that all of the commissioners' names are on that. Oh, and probably put the district that they're representing on that. What districts they're coming from. I think that makes sense. The name of the commissioner and the district they're representing. That way the community has a better connection. And in terms of the question from Commissioner Val regarding the face of the commission, the former charter view commission did no publicity. We didn't even send a letter to the community. The redistricting commission had the chair do the conversations, whatever. So, this commission can do whatever it wants. I think that anybody who wants to be on that's on the commission that should do it because we're all a collective and maybe each one can do a small snippet. Like just because we're doing the subcommittee part, maybe Rod, you would really want to be on some part of it, or Madame Chair, or everybody gets a part and we're all doing our community outreach. Anything else? I agree with, I agree with Commissioner Gee on this point. I think that if we can all sort of, anybody who wants to be a little bit of a face to this, I think we all, we all are residents of this city and we all reach different constituencies. I think it would be great to lean into the 21st century and have like a little bit of like spontaneous presence from the commission as a face of what we're trying to do. So, Vice Chair Pettis, I really like that idea. I think in your development of this process and as you roll it out, I think you should include every commissioner in something and have their face on something that we all are part of this. And do you need for me to make a motion? I'm kidding. That is my suggestion that you include every commissioner in something so that we have the voice of all the commissioners and that that way they're signing all the letter. Anything further, ladies and gentlemen? Question. Yes, sir. Commissioner Gold. We send our suggestions on the questions to be asked at these listening sessions to Commissioner Perez. Is that the procedure? Let's see. I was just going to say we need to, we need, yes. You're okay. Thank you. Yes. If anything you want to share with commissioners, please send to me. I'll serve as the conduit to the other commissioners to get that information out within the confines of the Open Meetings Act. Thank you. Great question. Thank you for asking that. Yes. No. Send anything to crossways, all to Xavier. Anything further? Any further questions? If not, I will entertain a motion. Oh, we don't need a motion, do we? Oh. Oh. Oh, jeez. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Where is my agenda? I can, I can be quick. Much more. No, exit. Thank you. Let me, let me find my agenda. It's here. I had, I had my notes on mine as a thing. Thank you for reminding me. I'll be quick. We have no matter from the staff, I was told. Are there any matters from the committee? Matters from the chair. One of them we already talked about in terms of the budget. We need to sit down and develop a budget. The other issue I had asked our attorney at the last meeting about who would be staffing the commission because the resolution clearly says there will be one to two staff members staffing the commission. And he indicated, Mr. Martinez, that he would be checking with the, to find out with who the person was going to, he was going to check with the city manager to find out who, what staff was going to be given to us. The other issue was the public meetings. We needed to have attendance sheets. We need to have reports on committees. And I'm just wondering if the attorney can include that in the outline so that the committee, the outreach committee has that in writing and we don't have to have a conversation about that. Yes. Okay. But if it can be put in a memo, what needs to be done for those community hearings, meetings, whatever we're calling them, so that the resolutions committee is, I said resolutions, the outreach committee is consistent about what they're doing. The length of the hearings, are they, is there a set time? I saw somewhere where there's six to eight. Okay, they're all going to be that same time. Okay. So then that should be part of the process. Or so the next meeting is incorrectly on the agenda. It's not July 16th. It is July, what is that? 23rd. That's going to be hearing and that's going to be from six to eight. No, it will be the NEA, the National Education Association. Okay, that was all I had on the matters from the chair. It is 8:16. And I call this meeting to an end. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. It was a really rich conversation. We got what we needed to get done and I think we did it in a very diplomatic way and we got to where we needed to be. Thank you for all the work. Thank you, Madam Chair. See you everybody.