Charter Review Commission
Mon, Aug 31, 2026 · Charter Review Commission
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1565-charter-review-aug-31-2026

== Executive Summary ==
The Charter Review Commission met on August 31, 2026, to discuss its public engagement strategy, marketing plan, and budget. A significant portion of the meeting focused on concerns regarding the scope of the Commission's mandate, with some commissioners feeling restricted by the six questions outlined by the City Council and advocating for a broader review of the city charter. There was also considerable debate about the effectiveness and timing of public outreach, particularly a proposed six-week communications plan and a public survey, with many commissioners suggesting that the Commission needed to solidify its own positions before engaging the public extensively.

The Commission approved its marketing plan and budget, but expressed strong dissatisfaction with the format and low attendance of previous public input sessions, leading to a decision to redesign future sessions and promotional materials. A special meeting was scheduled for September 8th to address the design of these sessions and the overall schedule. The Commission also established a formal process for submitting research requests to city policy analysts, requiring majority approval from the full Commission for all requests.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the agenda and the June 30, 2025, minutes (as amended) by unanimous roll call votes (6 Yes, 0 No).
- Approved the Charter Review Commission Communications Marketing Plan (8-0).
- Approved the Charter Review Commission Budget (7-0), which included line items for room rentals, security, refreshments, and publicity.
- Decided against using pre-existing promotional material for public input sessions, requesting the Communications and Marketing team to create a new, general message.
- Established a standardized process for submitting research requests, requiring formalization and majority approval by the full commission before submission, with requests coming from the commission as a whole and research delivered back to the full commission.
- Scheduled a special meeting for September 8th at 6:00 PM to focus on designing the second round of public input sessions and to decide whether to maintain or adjust the current schedule.
- Reaffirmed the decision not to spend significant time on the topic of council vacancies.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Approval of the agenda — Passed (6 Yes, 0 No)
- Approval of the June 30, 2025, minutes (as amended) — Passed (6 Yes, 0 No)
- Approval of the Charter Review Commission Communications Marketing Plan — Passed (8-0)
- Approval of the Charter Review Commission Budget — Passed (7-0)

== Public Comment ==
A request to allow community members to attach research documents to online comments was agreed upon.

== Topics ==
- Public Engagement Strategy
- Charter Review Scope
- Meeting Schedule & Logistics
- Commission Operations
- Minutes Approval & Corrections
- Communication & Marketing Plan

== Full Transcript ==
Okay. Whenever you're ready. Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Charter Review Commission this evening at 5:07. If I can please ask for a roll call. Commissioner Duran? You're muted, Commissioner Duran. She's muted. Present. Sorry. That's okay. Commissioner Villareal? Present. Commissioner Ray? Commissioner Perez is excused. Commissioner Gold? Here. Commissioner Chavez? Yes. Commissioner Granillo? Present. Commissioner Bella? Present. Chair Ortiz? Present. You have a quorum, Madam Chair. Thank you. Shall we move on, ladies and gentlemen, to the approval of the agenda that you have before you? And that outlines the matters you will discuss this evening. Absolutely. Under the motion by Commissioner Gold and a second by Commissioner Granillo. We need a roll call for this one. Since we do have people on Zoom, I would advise on our roll call, though. Roll call, please. Commissioner Duran? Yes. Commissioner Villareal? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Yes. Commissioner Granillo? Yes. Commissioner Bella? Yes. Chair Ortiz? Yes. The motion to approve the agenda has been approved. Thank you, Vivek. Okay. Number nine. Approval of the minutes. And these are the notes that were in your packet. These are a request for approval from the minutes of the June 30th, 2025, Charter Review Commission. Do I have a motion for approval? We can have this discussion after we get a motion. Hold on. We have a motion by Commissioner Granillo for approval of the minutes. Sure. This is Roberta. I think there may be an error in the minutes when we're Yeah. Okay. Did you So what I'm going to address, Madam Chair, was there a second for this motion? No, not yet. Not yet. Second. I'm sorry. With this Okay. Because you need a second before you discuss. Okay. Yeah. I just did. I was trying to get a motion and a second. I got one for Commissioner Granillo and a second from Commissioner Granillo. And now I'm going to open the floor for discussion. And Commissioner Duran has some corrections. Commissioner Duran, if you will share those with us, please. Okay. I'm trying to find them in my documents. There's one on page eight. They have Commissioner Perez twice. I think when they say Chair, they put Perez when it should have been new Chair, Chair Ortiz. Okay. And so that happened. I saw that twice on page eight. Okay. And if I might chime in, three times, actually. Yes. If I might chime in on that point, it's also on page 11. And on page 12, there are two votes on each of those pages, and the vote shows the last vote on all of those is for Commissioner Perez, when in reality, that is Chair Ortiz. I'm the one to vote last on all of those. So page eight, page 11, page 12. I caught four of them. I caught one of them. So we need to make sure I apologize. I'll fix all of those. No worries. Thank you. Commissioner Duran, you still have the floor. I don't have any more. Thank you. What's this on him? I would have gone through. What's that? Mmm. I don't have. Mmm. Okay. No, there's nothing. Any other any other corrections? And one of the commissioners just indicated to me that there's a page 11 on their copy. I was looking at the PDF online when they broke this out. Oh, okay. Why, it showed me page of the meeting. So there are two pages that have four votes that need to be corrected. Thank you. Okay. Should we that, or do you feel like that correction could be made? No, I think it could be made. It's on the vote. Okay. Any other items for discussion on the minutes? Okay. I have a motion and a second for approval. As amended, does that does that work? Yes. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Before I do the roll call, may I just ask who will second it? Oh, do you have the Commissioner Villareal? Commissioner Villareal. Commissioner Granillo made the motion and Commissioner Villareal will second the motion. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Villareal? Yes. Commissioner Riggs? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Yes. Commissioner Granillo? Yes. Commissioner Bella? Yes. Chair Ortiz? Yes. The motion to approve as amended. Thank you. Thank you for that. And, Commissioners, we're going to move on now, and we were joined by leadership channels also. Thank you for Thank you. Meeting in person. We're going to item number five, presentations. And if you look at any of your package under the tab meeting dates, you will see a summary of the full commission meetings. Ten of them so far that are listed on there. Some have already confirmed, and others will be are scheduled to look through. And then you'll see a listing of eight public input sessions with the dates and the locations where each one get deferred, and there are some tentative dates that still are in the process of being secured. We put this together for the purpose of you having one complete listing of them so that we can get them on our calendars and make sure that we're we're going by ahead of time when the meetings are held. We will need to, at some point, decide on January and February meetings. I didn't put anything in there for that yet. I think we're good late, so we got further in the calendar here before we decided what those dates might look like. But for now, the place that you're seeing, I think, for the first time, are the November 16 and December 14 meetings on Monday. I want to get an idea if we'll have quorums for them. I know those those months of the year are challenging and difficult for people because of the holidays. But at this moment, and I know it's hard to tell, do those dates seem feasible or problematic? I'm just kidding. Do you have any idea now? It's not both. So our September is sooner than later. Right? It is. It's in a Monday? In two weeks. It's in two weeks? Yes. Yeah. I'm in. Madam Chair, at the appropriate time, and I'm not sure when it will be, I'd like to discuss maybe a different schedule, a different approach than what's laid out here. Okay. For regular meetings? I'm sorry? I was just getting clarification if that was for for regular meetings or for Yes. Let's let's finish this, and then we'll entertain your comments because if we're talking about meetings, unless it's something that needs to be put on the agenda for the future. Yes. So just a quick point of order. This is a presentation. This is strictly informational. I don't believe you can take action on this at this time. That's why we have the city staff there. They'll keep us organized after our appreciation team's day. Okay. Commissioner Gold, we're going to look at that later and put that on a future agenda. I haven't network will know what the issue is. But so we're just getting information now. Correct? Yes. This is No action. No action on this item. The only thing I'm curious about is those days are feasible for the majority of sixteenth and the fourteenth. I have no conflicts on this item. No conflicts. Okay. And I know you may not have your full calendars with you, but but let Xavier know, after this meeting, there's some issues. We're trying to get us to get any commissioners to all of these sessions. We're trying to keep moving forward so that we, time is moving quickly, and we need to be prepared for January to come start come in for the foundation. So and the different sessions are listed below. We've got the two tentative in October and November. And, Jerrica, as far as you know, those those dates are still being looked at. The, okay, the Fobelton Library and Main Library. Okay. Any questions about that, the meeting dates? Okay. Let's move on to item number six, discussion and possible action item. So we'll have presentation and discussion as and as we're moving forward in the presentation, so if as a result of what is being discussed within an offer, there Yeah. Anything that she feels they need to make a motion, general discussion on this particular item relative relative to that subject matter. I'll certainly just say the motion of the presentation, but let's get with the presentations that's it's driving at the first. And I just want to know, we have Commissioner Duran online and Commissioner Duran, I'll I'll try to be very mindful of you being there. So we don't have questions that you will let us know so that we can acknowledge you and let you ask any questions that you may not have asked. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Okay. Charter Review Commission 6A, communications and marketing plans. Jerrica is going to presentation information for us. And there's a lot of information for us. There's a lot of information for you. Come here. Come in here. Get up here with me. Get up here. Get up here. Lots of rain. Elizabeth, can you please give me your call? Crazy. It's all right. But I'm worried about Gavin. They're probably going inside somewhere. Give me one second. All right. She's getting you. All right. Okay. Please carry on. Okay. Jerrica, do you have the floor? I know that I was saying there's a under the outreach campaign. Is that where it is? Yeah. In your package, that's what Jerrica's going to be. I will not be presenting on this as a different thing. I believe that the other item hasn't included in the packet as well. Which which which tab do you think I'm in? I don't think so. Oh, do I not have that in the What's the marketing plan you have? Not that outreach tab. Oh, marketing plan. Got it. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Good job. That's for virus. Yeah. For this. Okay. So you need to put what you're in here. Right. So the item marked 2026 Charter Review Commission communications and marketing plan, I'll be presenting on on behalf of Chris Peralta, our Comms and Marketing Manager. So the first, he wanted to establish the campaign purpose that we'll be laying out here in the next couple pages. And the goal is to increase public awareness, understanding of what the commission is, and provide accessible and factual information about the specific items that you all have been tackling so that when these folks are heading to these public sessions and adding their public comment and participating in the survey that we'll be rolling out, they'll have more of a base understanding what they'll be discussing and what they're providing comment on. So there is layout here a six-week campaign, phase approach to the marketing of the remaining sessions and the interactions of mission with the public. The goal first is to inform and establish awareness again on what the commission is and its purpose, educate, and introduce the individual charter items to the public, provided the context is using approved messaging that's been through you all, as well as the different departments at the city, participating in this commission's processes. Encourage residents to learn more, attend meetings, and provide public comment, and participate in the survey during the engage phase. And the goal is to amplify using multiple channels, both the cities and a third party being brought in, potentially, and audit audience response data to increase each, reach and engagement overall. And then lastly, the goal is to evaluate, so we'll have ongoing monitoring of the campaign's performance as it goes along, survey participation, and adjust as needed going through these next six weeks. The objective is to build awareness, to increase understanding, drive traffic, increase public participation, and have a steady, understandable way to measure and optimize how the communication efforts are doing over time. The core messaging framework is to highlight three main things. One is the commission itself. What is it? Why is it here? What's its role? The second thing is items under review. So the for those specific charter provisions that you all are taking under as you've been meeting and as you continue to move forward. And then thirdly, public participation.

So how can residents learn more, provide input, attend the meeting, submit public comment, and participate in the survey? Every communication should be framed as the opportunity to learn more, stay informed, and participate in their own way. The target audience is Santa Fe, but here in the presentation, they specify what the different roles are of people that are engaging, and we hope to engage with the commission and to be able to target them specifically.

So, of course, we have city residents and voters. Then we have residents who may be directly affected by the provisions under review. Then we have residents who are unfamiliar with the Charter Review Commission, residents who regularly participate in city meetings and public comment, residents who do not typically participate in city government processes, community organizations and neighborhood groups, businesses and civic organizations, local media and city employees, and facility visitors.

The strategy for consideration is reaching residents who are not actively engaging with the city and its communications through radio, physical flyers, QR codes, community organizations, and strategically placed informational material that can complement the digital channels that a lot of our engagement as the city leans on. We're wanting to provide some supplemental stuff since we're not currently having a lot of participation and engagement in our public comment space on the website and at our meetings. Any questions so far? Am I talking too fast?

You're fine. You're at a really good pace. Nice. Good job. Great job, team. We're doing a wonderful question. Go ahead. Go. Yep. You're doing a great job. Are you on a six-week deployment now? Yes. So, starting with week one, starting with week one, which we hope would start September 7, so that would be next week. The goal is to transition from general awareness, which is where we currently are, which is a flyer. Here's the next meeting. Here's where you can put public comment. And shifting to a more education approach about the individual items under the charter.

Here, what I've marked as specifically important is the development of copy for a survey, to hopefully be deployed in an initial framework on how to structure it. So we already have the dedicated Charter Review webpage on the website, and it has the space for the public comment. What Comms is recommending is to also couple it with a survey that they would develop and deploy during the six weeks to get additional information from the public. So they have more ways to engage. We have more information to go through after these sessions are wrapped up and you're doing the hard stuff.

The channels and deliverables that the city will be looking at are city and facility complex flyers, social media graphics and copy, press releases, radio advertising through the third party, Hutton Broadcasting, informational videos, city and Hutton newsletter content, website placement, QR cards, and public meeting promotion. The focus would be to establish baseline performance for the social reach, impressions, engagement, webpage traffic, and other available campaign metrics.

Week two, you will get the same rundown as week one, but in addition to that, there would be a start of A/B testing. So there will be one version of a graphic and information that will be drafted. A second one drafted with different messaging in a different header. They will be about the same item. If it's about the budget, it will be about the same thing. And instead of them going one and then the other, they will go out at the same time so that Comms can judge and see through the metrics which one is performing better. So we see what kind of things people tend to resonate more with and start to engage with. So that way, it can drive Comms to using the ways that they're proving as we go along, work, and are working for the public and work and does the best load for you all.

So, when you say Comms, you mean the Comms and Marketing Department of the city. It will also, that's Communication and Marketing. Is that what we're saying? Okay. You have to get really basic. So Chris and his department. I do. Yep. I do. Week two would also be when they would finalize the survey draft, build it out, and submit it to you all for review.

Week three, hopefully, September 21. The key primary objective will be to strengthen the high-performing messages while completing the survey preparation. The key activities, again, would be continuing to utilize that A/B testing method and keeping awareness on the commission generally. And also the public meeting and public comment promotion avenues. This would be the week that the final survey would be prepared for launch.

Week four, that would be when the survey is now out to the public for use. That would be where the survey call to action is added to all of the materials that's going out. So currently, it would be, this is what the Charter Commission does and who they are. These are the key topics that they're discussing, what will be added. And week four is also here's the survey for an additional avenue to participate and interact with the commission. That will also be the week that weekly reporting would start, and it will go over things like this: the survey starting, the survey how many completions, so how many people have opened it, how many people have finished it, what are the traffic sources, so where are they clicking on it from, QR code activity, website traffic, social engagement, and content performance. It should operate through the funnel of awareness, information, website, and then the survey and public participation avenues.

Week five, the goal is to maintain the momentum while increasing survey participation. A standout from there would be adjusting underperforming content. So actually using the information we get from doing the A/B testing of graphics and messaging types, this would be the week that you adjust to these are the things that aren't performing well. How can we boost those more or go to it in a different way to where it's performing better? And this is where you will start to have some review of the survey participation so far.

And then week six is the final push and evaluation week. What's different there is that's where final campaign adjustments will be put in based on the performance data and a final encouragement of the survey participation. The different channel strategies that exist are the social media of the City of Santa Fe. So there, the purpose is awareness, education, and engagement with the things being used, being general commission information, item-specific posts, and the survey.

There's a city website, which is the central hub, so everything follows back to leading people there. That's where you can add your public comment. That's where you can engage with the survey. That's where you can see all of the previously recorded videos. That's where you can see the minutes from previous meetings and things like that and the upcoming schedule of any remaining public input sessions. There's physical flyers. There's QR codes. There's radio broadcasting. There's the informational education videos. There's the two newsletters, the city's and Hutton's. There's press releases, and then there's the meetings themselves where the public can directly participate in discussions with you all and provide their comment in real time.

Social media strategy is hoping to work through the flow of general awareness, education content, item-specific content, engagement content, participation content, and then you have the A/B testing that would be the way in which Comms is trying, Chris and his team are trying to measure how things are doing. The headers that they'll be using as measurement are specifically awareness, which is the reach impression. So people, just it has gone through their social media. They've seen it. It's been placed in front of them in some way. Video views, radio exposure, and media placements.

Engagement is shown through social reactions, so people adding a like versus a dislike, people commenting, people sharing the video to others, people saving it for them to be able to refer back to at a later time, which I think is particularly cool that they'll be able to save the education components beyond you all meeting. So as people come to later ones, they'll be staying abreast on what you all have been presenting to them to discuss. There's information seeking. So, the Charter Review webpage visits, how many people are scanning the QR codes, how many people are downloading the resources, public participation being folks using and finishing the surveys, people coming to the meetings, and people adding their public comments.

And there at nine is an example on how Comms could be tracking what all of those things look like week to week. So the reach, the impressions, clicks, so you'll have hard numbers to be able to back up the direction that you all are performing better in. And then at ten, we have the strategic recommendation, which is focusing and reinforcing the same three things in each touch point that we have with the public, which is why does the commission matter, what is being reviewed, and what residents, what they can do about it. And then you have the breakdown of the previous pages, just with them as headers by week. Any questions on that rundown of lots of things?

There's also a presentation of what Hutton could provide as supplementally to what the city is doing. They will be running those same materials through their channels, and that's outlined in your packet. So before we go to what Patrick is doing, let's let the commissioners have some conversation about this. I was just going to say, if you want to take a look at that presentation, it's under the outreach campaign tab in your package. Yes. Okay. And then I wouldn't be going over that. I'm not going over that. So, well, let's talk about this since you're in person.

Who is Hutton? They're a third-party broadcasting service network. Are they affiliated with a station or something? I can't help. Stations. They're the umbrella that many channels are under. They are the radio station. They are most channels. KSFR? No. KSFR is Devon and then Swabe. Swabe. Yeah. KSFR is the college. Uh-huh. Right. They're by the LSIPs by the mall. That's how you name it there. They're big old town. They own a lot of companies, like radio stations. Couldn't go on the red. Yeah. Yeah. But in New Mexico. In New Mexico version. And to add to permission to raise, the city regularly contracts with them for information? I believe we contract or we use them every single year for different information from payments. The safest tip. That's a lot to follow. Good. Wish you're right. Okay. That's good. This should help. Thank you.

I find all the material very interesting, especially because we've been talking about it in the outreach community. I wanted to try and distill it with this group by a couple of preventions versus timing. So it looks like week two lands the same as our, as the beginning of our second phase of public engagement meetings. So it's just generally still looking as a sort of phase two influencing phase two of public engagement. The other thing I wanted to sort of narrow in on was the communications objectives. From those five bullets, this is what was your point? The first page of the report out. I think it's important just to be aware of and to be able to weigh in on some of these tactics if we want to, but I think the fourth bullet is really the one we care most about, which is going to be the material input to our conversations.

and please probably participating through meetings, public comment, and the survey. And that also, as part of this summary, the survey is an additional data point or data source that we haven't had or we haven't talked about in the past. And so we'll weigh in on the survey, but I think that's that was my takeaway as to what pertains to the decisions we make here. Does that sound like a reasonable summary? A lot of additional words. Yeah. It was a lot. I said a lot of stuff. That sounded about right. No, I'm not trying to minimize it. I'm just saying all of that is to the end of feeding us public commentary and input. Yes. So I was, I think we've been building my attempt to boil it down. I think the timeline perspective, there will be messaging going out by the week of the fourteenth, which has our public input meeting on the seventeenth. So I think this will hit in time. It was also a commission meeting, which is good. So, basically, we can have the survey at that meeting, September 14, and have that survey to the commission for review. The last goal, we did the fourteenth of two activities, which is a perfect timing. Yeah. Sorry. That's it. No, it's not that that was what I was hoping to get at was, is this happening in time or with maximum benefit in terms of timing? I think it ends. And I like in the reporting, it would be interesting to see this reporting in time, but I think, again, a little bit boils down to what's the meeting on public comment and maybe survey activity. I think that's the reporting output that we might be most in early one. Is it by that Uber? Yeah. So, at the end of the reporting on number nine. Right. Yeah. So it may be interesting to us to know how the individual assets and channels are performing, but I think it's good for this commission. Again, going back to that original output, the meeting public comment next to the ends, and I would add survey. Well, I guess survey is about that. Other things that Where are you? Yeah. Where are you? It's number nine. Yeah. Recommended you. Yeah. The last page. The inside of the last page. Are you looking at these numbers? Yes. Inside of that one. They took the bottom. Do I prefer you the phone? And I guess the only feedback is correct. Oh, okay. Jericho, the only feedback that I would have is on the last page where it talks about the progressively more action-oriented campaign. I would try to move participate up as early as possible because we do then only have four, five, and ones. Say it one more time. So on the last page, we have this final calendar, if you will, which described itself as becoming progressively more action-oriented. I think we want to try and drive people to action as soon as possible or feasible or reasonable because we're in the latter half of our events. They can always submit comment and survey the meetings. So that's just the thought there. But, otherwise, I thought it was very clear. I think that's a very good thought because it occurred to me that waiting until, like, the fifth week out of six weeks to get results, that's results from the survey. So the survey wouldn't be out prepared and ready until about midway through because it has to be developed, approved by you all, and then deployed. But the entire time the public comment section on the website will be active. And will we be receiving and processing that information to the public comment? Yes. Okay. It's actually currently open. Yeah. I had questions about what the status was. Last time I checked, there were four. Yeah. There was about four comments. We haven't really received a whole lot. I can send you a spreadsheet of what's been submitted. But, yeah, it's not very not very much so far. And, hopefully, this will pertaining a little bit. Wrap that up. May I just Yeah. Could you please send the spreadsheet to the commissioners on a regular basis so that we know what's occurring? Appreciate them. I'll call you as soon as they finish. Okay. Commissioner. Oh, sounds good. Unless it was on this particular part. No. Good to follow up then. Okay. Sure. Those should know. That's all I have to say. Oh? It's all right. I have my September 1 brain right now. So I apologize. It's all good, and those should know why I noted that. I'll be right. I'll be right. I'll be right. I'll be right. I'll be right. I'll be right. I'll be right back. Mission. May I make it as a popular comment? I think this is too much. Personally, I think it's like this looks like maybe something you guys, the comms team, used for something else that was bigger, and then we backfilled this charter into it. It feels like a lot of work for both the city and for the for the commission. And so that's my gut, my crass, like, again, August 31 reaction to this. Like, I don't think we have time, and is it really necessary to do AB test results? And it's like I'm struggling a little bit with that. I think we could pair this back, and it would be as impactful. This was the this plan was developed specifically for the charter review, and it's more than what the comms was already doing because no one has been coming to the sessions or participating in the public comment. Yeah. So it's a ramp up because you all are already about to be halfway through. Yeah. We haven't had much engagement, so it's like an aggressive six weeks specifically for the interact. I'm just ruminating on the I mean, Krishna Gold, you sent some materials to review. I didn't read all of them, but this is a very specific subset of people that are going to be interested in this topic. And so I just want to caution. I know we're all our community-minded, and because of what came through the last charter that there's a deep commitment to being in community, that's critical. And this plus the Hutton, it just feels like potentially too much is my initial, maybe unpopular opinion based on what I'm reviewing right here. Yeah. So the negative is just be working with these days. I don't think probably not. It's my, again, crass, my crass just, like, review of this. It may be more work for the city than work there and more work for us than The AB testing wouldn't be something that you all have to do. It's just which graphics they would use more to establish. Yeah. But in general, this is it's for a we're almost halfway through. We don't have a ton of time. I'm just struggling with whether this amount of work for you for the city, for the comms team, is going to be worth it and for six, seven pages of content for a few weeks ahead of us to try and get, you know, maybe a dozen more people involved. Feels like a lot a lot of work. It's just my I'm happy I don't have to do it. That's great. But, somebody does have to do it. Yes. I'm done. Question following up on what she said. On calling. So this is a lot. Is some of this what the the contractor's going to do? This would be developed by comms, and Hutton would put it out on their channels as well. Okay. So yeah. You probably know more about it, Mr. Chesson. I do. Just trying to understand. So this is going to support the work that the contractor does for the servant? Is in addition to The contract just I'm going to introduce the survey. The quantity will be the survey. Oh, okay. Thank you. I didn't know that. I I couldn't know. This is this is part this is the survey that said he's doing that. The contractor will be doing redeeming information about. Okay. Thank you. But that's part of the question. Okay. So so my team, oh, Commissioner. Go ahead. What year? No. No. Oh, okay. I said move on. But no. No. Yeah. Okay. First off, I want to say very ambitious, and I like the planning around it. And it's a big jump from what we've been doing now, which has been hard for the outreach committee because we're trying to do, like, what we can as volunteers. And, you know, there's been some actually good things that have come out of it. And then interview on the radio, you know, having five o five o matic actually do a good charter. It's so good, y'all. Just to let you know. I hope you see it, or I can show you the link. And I think that it may be needing to be tapered down just because of what we've experienced already. And and I'm like, what has changed in your schedule that has actually allowed you for more space to to do this? It's not because you all meetings have finished for the year and you have extra space to do this. So I'm a little I'm a little worried about capacity, and I want to be realistic about your capacity to do that. And I actually like the plan. And I'm wondering if maybe the weeks is it every week you all have something? So For six weeks. Yeah. So I'm okay with it actually being, like, somehow cut down to be realistic because of what we've experienced already. And I'm just maybe you could share, like, what is the commissioner's role in this plan? That's what I don't quite understand. And, also, how you all have more capacity now to do this. I'm not just saying you, Jared. Well, it's not me. It's it's Yes. It's not me. I'm not doing anything different. So yeah. Since we are you don't know the comms people, people, we've never met them. You're kind of our conduit to them. If you could just help us figure out yeah. What's our role and then also, like, how they've had increased capacity prior to what we've experienced in the last couple months? So the your role is these add-ons. Would you like me to go through this first? I just you got it in one packet? Yep. It's the after a catch. I'm sorry. I won't see it. I just want to They're not in the pocket. Yeah. What are they Wrong is the top. There's three loose documents. Oh, yeah. I've heard of This is the stuff that we've been kind of involved in. It's just so we did their access at some place. Outreach stuff. Oh, this oh, this is. So this is, three documents from Stable two, Yes. Well, share that. And Well, he's I guess they did they get No. In it. Well, they don't He's done. Oh, I think we've all done it now. Oh, okay. So we said the faithful documents? Sorry, Erica. We're It's all through. Yeah. There should be a pretty separate document. If anybody else needs copies, I have it. So so this is the response to your Brandon question? Yes. Of the commission's role. Quantification on there or additional question? Yeah. Clarification. Okay. So I just want to give a little bit of time on. So I developed these Okay. Based on roughly the formula I will have first video followed. I shared it with the outreach tech committee, and Jared shared it with The legislative team under the city attorney's office. Thank you. And so this And we did words like this. Just we just said, oh, okay. We looked at it. So I'm just or and then But this is done. But then the legislative office shared their feedback. It has not been incorporated. So this packet does not represent the changes recommended by the legislative office. And I'm not sure what this page does. I'm going to tell you. I'm going to tell you. I'm sorry. I'm just going to say, like, how these things are are is this. The Palmer Anderson provided this information based on let's just from who? The stable packet. The information that the outreach committee put together, this is the response. Okay. And then this Charter Review script is Yeah. It will tell us. Okay. And the question. So this packet that Brandon prepared, separation of files, is that the one that the attorney has looked at and approved? I will let you know. Yeah. But this is the one we're tracking. What's the other one? Yep. They're all connected. Right. I think because I haven't responded to her.

She said, "What the commission's role is in the marketing plan." Okay. So the messaging that the plan talks about would be from approved scripts for the informational videos. So that will go through you all. So Commissioner Bell was saying, this first stapled packet is the first draft of, I believe, six potential scripts to go out on city channels about the different items that you all have been working on. I sent these to the legislative team under the City Attorney's office. The second document that's labeled, the title is "Commission, Charter Review, Commission Questions, Clarification Regarding Congruence with Charter." So what the City Attorney's office did was go through the draft of the scripts and look at it through the lens of, "Does it align with what the Charter says?" Like, factually accurate, check through. And this document here is recommended opportunities for revision of the script, so it's more aligned with what the Charter is stating.

The last document, the one with the highlight, "Charter View Script One," this is a video that's been recorded and is ready to drop because the "Resign to Run City Vacancies" script didn't need any adjustments. So what I did was go through, because I write the copy for the videos that I do, so it's in my voice. It takes less time of me messing up all the words. So this one is just an adaptation to make it more conversational for the video itself. Just to give you an example of how the "Resign to Run" was edited for the copy of the video itself. So it's a little bit clearer and simpler. Just one of the recommendations that came out of the Outreach Committee about them, that they were a bit too high-level for the format of the videos to go out on social media.

Okay. I just realized Commissioner Duran is on the line. Did she just, and she does not have copies of these, is that correct? I emailed copies to her, so she has. Yeah. Okay. Just want to make sure. It looks like she might be having some technical difficulties. This is the second time. It looks like we've lost her. I'll keep an eye on. I'm sure she'll log back in, and I'll let her back in. But I just want to make sure she got this. Yes. So, report. Please.

Madam Chair, Commissioners, I just wanted to add on to this. So, as Jerica pointed out, this is the role of the commission is to approve what outreach you want to send, and then my team will do all the footwork to promote it outside. So I have a full comms and marketing team. They're fantastic. They're genius. And they'll be, this is like, this is just a work for them. They do this all the time. They do this for all sorts of departments. I don't think it's going to be extra work for them. I have gone to them and asked them, "How can we promote the Charter Review to get more participation?" And this is what they presented me. This is what we're presenting you. We can do it. You guys just need to give us the thumbs up and provide us the okay to do it. And this is how you're going to do it is give us the approval to get these scripts going, and we'll promote them outside for you. Because the language from the approved scripts that's gone through you all, City Attorney, City Clerks, and all that, would be the messaging that will be used for the radio, will be used for the flyers, will be used for all the things. So it's you all presenting the messages. And the messaging is the specific items that you guys are working on and how you want to present that out to the public so that when they're coming to the discussions to discuss the different aspects of the Charter that you all are doing research on, they'll have a framework of what they'll be walking into. Chris is already also has a floor of members of industry.

Yeah, I think that's great to know. And then our role is really to look at the scripts. This was just Commissioner Vela's attempt to get us moving, which I really appreciate. And also, there might be some, like, the consequences section is a little bit too leading for me, and I think we need to massage that. But I'm willing to, like, have, especially on the outreach team, to figure out the best way to try to at least give you some draft scripts. Mhm. As you move forward. So those scripts would be the determining factor on when the six weeks would start. Got it. The other thing, okay, that helps me. The one thing I just want to mention, I got feedback from somebody in the community that told me that they appreciated the ability to have to submit a comment and that there was no way to attach anything to it, and they actually wanted to attach some research that they had done. And so I'm like, "Oh, I don't know." So they ended up sending it to me, and I couldn't find their email. So you all haven't received it, and I need to get that. We can make that filled. Yep. I'd appreciate it. Attachments. Yep. Okay. And so thank you, Patricia. For sure. Then for now, we're, thank you, sir. Hello? Yes. So I just want to clarify that these are still in work. So this doesn't have to, this isn't representative of what we would ship. They haven't been shared with the commission because we haven't met since we, yeah, put them together. So this is not meant to be shipped before it was reviewed on the commission. Yes. So just bringing it to you all so you know what we're working on. The other thing I want to say is that there is another admission input, and that's on the survey. Correct? Say it again. So there's another ask of us, which is input and approval of the survey. Of the survey. Somebody got approval. Mhm. So it makes two asks of the commission, which was your original question as I understand it. And the third comment I want to make is that, generally, I appreciate the plan. I think it would be good for us to be able to show that we've committed maximum effort and resources to reaching out to the community when this comes back around in March and April when people start noticing. Yeah. And so I think if you all think or have confidence in the team and being able to do it, then I'd say take it off our plate. Please say what? Take it off our plate. Good. Good. Depart the potion. Yeah. That's all. Did you have your hand up or your, no, I'm, I'm your fine teeth. Because he was, he had his hand up with my brother.

Okay. Madam Chair, a few reactions here. Yes. First, what Jerica has proposed here is comprehensive. It's aggressive. It's labor-intensive. And if the purpose is to try to pump up the volume to get more people interested in this whole topic, I understand that. And as Chief points out, the communications team has plenty of resources and expertise to do this for us very well. But my impression is that this cart is a half mile ahead of the horse. Mhm. We are not together as a commission yet on what we are asking and what we're trying to get from the community. And one of the salient principles of civic engagement is you don't go to the public until you're really sure what you want, what you're asking of the community to do. We have a fundamental issue here, and that is most people don't know what a charter is or how it would possibly affect their lives. That is a huge, huge barrier. And although some of the stuff that was done that tries to explain what a charter commission is all about and why you might want to care, we've got a huge shout ahead of us to get any representative sample of the City of Santa Fe involved in this question. So I, to do that, we have to be clear as a commission, as nine members of the commission, what it is that we're about, what it is that we're trying to do, where we want some feedback from this community. And when we can do that, then an aggressive effort like this to really get people involved makes a whole lot of sense, but we're not there yet.

And I have two major issues, and I'm going to raise them now if it's all right with you, Madam Chair. You're free to speak. Thank you. The first is part of the problem here is we've been divided into three committees that are working separately without input from one another. So if you're on one committee, you have no idea what the other two are doing, and yet they're all related. And here we are. We're five months into this commission. And if you ask me, "What have we accomplished? What, where, what have we agreed on? Where are we as a, as a body?" I couldn't answer the question. That doesn't mean there haven't been meetings. That doesn't mean that the committees aren't doing things. It means that we haven't had the important discussions at this table with the whole nine members of the commission about the salient issues facing charter reform in Santa Fe. We have not. So it's time to do that, and I suggest that we do that together. When I see Commissioner Vela putting these documents in front of us where it appears that the Outreach Committee is trying to figure out what are the governance issues that we want to get at and how do we explain them and frame them to a public that is distracted and mainly not care all that much, I think you're doing our job, but that's the Governance Committee should be talking about that, or we should be talking about it together. And some of this business about putting into the Charter whether we do strategic planning and how we do budgeting, that strikes me as a big question is why we would put that into a charter in the first place. Why would we tie the hands of the city on how we do these two important functions in a way that they couldn't be changed without a vote of the people? We haven't discussed this. These are good topics. And if you're on those two committees, I think that's great. I'd like to hear that discussion because it's very important to the future of this city.

But my, my last four parts, so I think we should, needs to get away from these committees, Madam Chair. I think we should disband them. We should start meeting as a group and focusing down. She talked about the need to get the message out. We don't have our message. We don't know what our message is. These discreet questions that show up in the resolution, I don't know that there's real messaging there, and I'm not sure how to make that important to people, you know, in order to justify bringing them out at night to talk about this stuff. I don't think we've made that connection. I think we need to have that conversation. And further, and here's the biggest issue, I don't think these are the right questions. And when I tested this with the Mayor and a leading councilor, I was told, "No. We want you to look more broadly. These aren't the only questions you're confined to. We want this commission to look at why the current charter is so full of conflicts, is so full of dysfunction. We want you, these nine people we've appointed, to give us some ideas about how we could fix the charter for better outcomes for the residents and businesses at Santa Fe." That's what I was told. Now maybe I misheard them. Maybe they changed their mind when somebody else asked them, but I really think it's important that we take a quick time out and ask the Mayor and Council to clarify, "What is it that this commission is to do?" One of these questions here makes a fundamental change and says that we assume that this, that the Mayor continues to be the executive. I've asked both of these elected leaders, "Is that your wish? Can we not even talk about an executive that isn't the Mayor?" And the answer is, "No. We want you to talk about those things." So I think that we need to do our work now before we kick in something like you've put together because it's time-intensive, a lot of resources because in marketing.

Thank you. Because we aren't at a place yet as a commission. I can't judge the experience yet because we haven't discussed them. And there's a lot involved in this stuff, and we haven't had that discussion as a body. Now I'm suggesting that we set aside future civic engagement until we do our work as a commission, and we do it as a body. That's my proposal. Thank you.

I have a question for you. When you say questions, are you talking about the resolution and the viewpoints, the kind of the defenses that are there five or seven? There's six. Six questions. Have to determine. And we've been told by this, thank you for clarification. I think we heard from the City Attorney that those are the questions you're confined to unless someone in the public has something that's a little bit broader. I brought that up, which opens the door for a lot more. But when I asked these two counsels, and I could ask more and then double-check my understanding, you said, and I, well, it may violate the serial meeting law, and then I don't want to cause any problem here.

Well, that's an important question on that point because the previous commission, if I may, had a conversation about, do we contact the city councilors that sent the resolution to the Charter Commission? And the decision was made not to because they had formed a commission that they wanted independent review and independent research and independent information looked at and independently provide their recommendations to the Charter Commission, to the councilors. Subsequently, it was a short period, it was about four months. Subsequently, I can't remember parties involved, but that's not important. A councilor was invited to a commission meeting, and that councilor provided information to the full commission meeting, which caused an issue because the other councilors were not invited. And so we were very clear. We were very clear about missing that in the pool de novo. That conversation probably needs to be held, but it's not on the agenda, so we should have that. Yes, conversation.

And I hear, but the person is following the rule. Good. So that the person makes that decision knowingly. And I respect that history. And to me, these are two different things. Asking the governing body about the scope of our inquiry to make sure that we aren't artificially limiting it and that we aren't focusing on things that aren't that important to it is one thing. Asking the council to tell us what to think about the discrete questions that we do choose to address, that's another. And I think the first is where we need to be now. We need to go back and ask the mayor and council, can we talk about things like a form of government? How important is it whether or not a councilor steps off his or her seat on the council to run for mayor? Do you really want to talk about putting strategic planning into a charter? I'd like to know from the council, is that really the most important thing? Because I think what if we ask the question of the council and the mayor is, we want you to look at charters writ large. Look at the one we've got now. Look at the contradictions and dysfunction that's embedded in it, and then tell us how to straighten it out. We want better outcomes for the residents and businesses of Santa Fe, and we want you to be able to look broadly. I think they will give us more leeway than we currently have under this resolution. The City Attorney was right. The resolution says, here are six questions. And so he gave the conservative answer, stick to those, except if somebody in the public wants to have us talk about something else. But I really think we need to ask the elected leadership now whether this is really what we should be working on because I think it's broader. I think they want us to look deeper than what is currently in these six questions.

And I think anybody else, Commissioner? No, thank you. But I also said you had a poignant thing about the subcommittees that we sat down and have those conversations as well. So one thing is getting clarification from the governing body, but also disbanding the idea of subcommittees so we can sit there and focus as a collective and have buy-in on everything that we are going to talk about.

You're right, Commissioner. And that was the first recommendation that we disband the committees, get to work as a full commission, and do the work so that when we do have comms and market pump up the volume for us, that we are together. We're clear on the messaging. We're clear on what we're asking the public to opine on, that we've done the thought work ourselves because we haven't.

Thank you, Commissioner. I may summarize in my mind what you think and believe, and I agree with you both in the position about the commission needs to come together and make some decisions on these as a whole. Yes, ma'am. The reason this presentation by city staff, well, I tell you half the time that they're working really hard and putting a lot of information together, as you can tell by the handouts in the packet, working to do some work for us to get us the survey going so that then they bring that and lead to this commission. And this commission looks at that draft survey, and we decide, yes, that's the direction we'd be going or not, so that the commission makes the decision of what that looks like. I don't know what it's going to look like, but we have expertise in the field, in the trenches, that have done this for years and are going to provide us with information. And we, as the appointed individuals of the City of Santa Fe, can look at that and say, yay or nay, and make some adjustments. So we have that opportunity, and we have staff that will do that for us. I like the idea that you need time to discuss this together and to do that, and that's part of what I'm hearing said. And the plan is the six-week blowout.

The second point that I thought I could just say was regarding clarification, more clarification on the resolution. In my mind, I think the resolution is clear. But the commission may decide if we need to do that. That's the other intention that was going to be kind of on this meeting. If we want to have that on the agenda for the next meeting, we certainly can put that on the agenda and have that discussion then. Does that make sense in terms of our, because we really can't make any decisions on that. Did I miss any of your major points, Commissioner?

Well, tonight. Not tonight. The second point, I understand procedurally, you want to wait until our next meeting to discuss whether or not we ask the governing body. I think that's the process that we have to engage in. Is that correct? We can't take action. We can't take action on any items, Madam Chair, that are not on the agenda. It's not my call. It's the percentage. It's open meeting. Can we ask to put it on the agenda for next meeting then? We can ask. Okay. And asking the governing body for clarification is an action? The commission moving in that direction would be an action that we would have to decide. All right, fine. That's, push that. I got it here. Hold that aside.

Yeah. I did not get it. And thank you for your fine summary of my first comments. But on this matter of putting together a survey and the expertise of Derica and staff, no argument there. Okay. But they haven't, let me finish. They can't read nine minds. They don't know what questions to pose because we haven't had the discussions. They don't know where the commission's coming from because we haven't done the thought work. This is an arcane subject. Very few people in the world know what the charter is, and I think less than 50 people in Santa Fe know what the charter is, much less what's in the current charter, which has been dramatically changed in the last election. We've set up conflict and competition in ways that I don't think anybody had thought through. So it's time for us to do that thought work. And until we do that, I don't want these folks spending time coming up with a survey until they know what we're surveying. We need to be clear on what it is that we want to hear about.

Please. Do you have more? Never mind. Okay. Did you have another? No, I just like what you say. I just, what's your job? I wanted to ask a clarifying question. I mean, you are wanting to, with the commission, develop a position that we could then give feedback on. Because so far, we have been doing education generally on the charter, which I don't think is harmful. No, the public input meetings and the public input mechanisms we have right now are open for broad input. I don't think that there's any constraint. We are directing them towards those six questions in the education, but I don't think, I guess what I'm trying to get at is I don't think that there's anything working against us that's been deployed. But it sounds to me like, do you prefer we arrive at a position, a stance, or something close to a proposal that we then survey feedback on? Is that accurate?

Close. I want us to begin to debate the issues involved, get the facts and information, do some analysis amongst ourselves, debate and deliberate, and then decide what are the key questions that we want to put to the public. And then let professional staff put them in survey format. I'm not suggesting that we have to come up with our formal recommendations before we go to the public, but we haven't had the discussions yet about what's really important here and where we need some input and where we don't. We have not done that work yet, and we're five months into this. So my, I'm suggesting respectfully that we take a time out, that this group start meeting more regularly as a full board and working through the issues on the six questions and at a later date decide whether or not we want to ask the council whether we have leeway to consider others. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Was there Riley?

Yeah, it still sounds to me like that is taking a position to some extent, which is to say, this is what we think is important. Because without that step, we have what was proposed in the resolution. Okay, well then. So this, this script? Yeah, this script is an attempt to take one of the six questions, boil it down to its essence, and then decide what's most important. That's what you're doing here. We haven't had that discussion. I'm suggesting we do. This is a good first step. I'm glad you put it on paper. But out of how many people are on the outreach committee? Four. Four. So four of nine have had some to say about your follow-up work here. The rest of us is not. We're in the dark. And there's things on this that I want to discuss. I want to explore, but we have not had that opportunity.

Actually, in the event of our community leads, that particular, I just looked at that. That particular question has been brought up in the reports regarding the resignation. If they decide to work. And there were parts that were presented at the last commission meeting. And so those are opportunities to ask questions and have conversations. But I think they're very, they can choose to. So the door is open, but you're right. Maybe we need to be more direct about putting a particular item on the agenda for discussion if that wasn't a place to bring that dialogue together. So we can certainly look at, in the agenda, dealing with one resolution at a time that is something we should want.

So we can structure it however we choose to. I'm not convinced that a survey cannot be developed in the process of us having this conversation because we have to have those conversations. The idea with a committee set up to do some research and then the lead of the committee presenting data to the full committee was the first step in looking at what might be a direction and what might be options for the commission to go. So that's not working well. Let's readjust as the agile lawyer and move in a different direction and start putting on the agenda those matters, those six issues, maybe two a meeting or one meeting, and get that discussed.

But I don't believe that we could not still, in addition to doing that, which I think is important, it's a great idea. We need to do this as a whole body. I believe that we can still have a survey running that would give us some idea of what the community is thinking if we, as a body, could come up with a couple of options for each of the six areas and say, in a survey regarding the strong demand, these are two options. Rank them one to five. Regarding vacating a position, these are two options. Rank them one to five. Something basic and simple to give us information while we're doing this other work because our time is limited, ladies and gentlemen. It's running quickly. And if we don't get a lot of meat and deep conversation into these six items before December, we're going to be hard-pressed to come up with a really good report, I believe, and have it completed for presentation to be canceled. So that's my position on that. Yeah, gotcha.

And so I still think we can still do what you're suggesting as a whole commission and have these deep conversations but still have a survey. One of the things I did after the different input sessions, I would talk to these folks on their way out. And one of the things that I heard from a couple, we've had very limited participation, so we didn't have a lot of people voicing their analysis, was they wanted a survey. Give us something to react to. We don't know anything about the Charter Commission. Tell us what you're thinking of doing. Give us something to react to. Give us something to vote on, and we'll tell you. But tell me this is the issue, and these are the two options or three options you're thinking of, and tell me how to rank them.

So I've spoken to subject matter experts in this area, some pollsters, and they say the same thing. Yes, get a survey out. Make it brief, but give them options. People will tell you the road needs to be paved, but they are not how thick it should be paved or we're totally terrible. And so, in my thought process, I think both things can continue. This work by different committees can have these deep conversations about each of the six items, but still have our comms team, because they're the experts, and through their contracts with the broadcasting organization, get information out there. So that might even promote the survey being developed a little bit more. So I gave my two cents there. I usually wait till the end, but that was a good time. Thank you.

And, Commissioner? Madam Chair, sorry for interrupting for a second. I think what, and correct me if I'm wrong, sir, is what he's saying is, well, yes, the survey may go out, and we can do a very broad and general in the meantime. But in the long term, going back to, are those the seven questions that we only stick to, was the first part of it. And, yes, this was brought up in the report, but I don't think it's just this one question. What I think the point in the end of it was there are other conversations in different areas, and it's a lot to hear four reports in a row and then say, well, let me pick these apart in that moment and figure them all out rather than sit and have a deeper conversation. Because I'm trying to memorize what somebody said and don't say, okay, I like to work this one thing right there and then jump to the next person. So if we put it together where we have more time as a collective to really go into each individual one, it could be more beneficial.

Thanks, Sherry. The only thing I'll add is back to Chris Gerbold, if I heard you correctly. I think part of the issue with running the survey now is that we haven't had deep conversations about what the options are. So we are taking a position either way if we're putting potential solutions in the survey. And so if this group hasn't decided on what the options are, there's issue number one, which will require deeper conversation. And so back to Commissioner Gerbold's recommendation, this month, maybe we meet twice. We just focus on making the container for the deep conversations. People have to come prepared, and we go one by one through the questions. And then at the next meeting, we also vote on whether who would be the contact to connect with council and the mayor about their consideration for the broader scope. Because until we have those two things addressed, we can't run a survey, is the way I'm looking at it in this moment. We can continue, and I manage a constant marketing team, and they're busy. So I know you guys are busy. And not you guys, because you too much. You're busy too. But you can still get the format ready and the template and all that, but we won't know the content until this group decides on it. So, yeah, good. Can we switch out? Great points. I dropped them down. Thank you.

Luca, we're not. I'm just making sure that Commissioner Duran doesn't have anything to add since you're on Zoom. Don't want to leave you out because sometimes Zoom is hard in a meeting. Thank you. No, I'm good for right now. Thank you. So I appreciate all the things you're bringing up because I think there is a disjointed aspect to our work and the subcommittees. And then, you know, we had got, we, as our governance subcommittee, met more often, and then we had to stop because we some of us had to pivot to looking at the outreach. And so I do feel like there's not a cohesiveness of or not just learnings, but our options, I guess.

One thing I do want to say, though, is that I disagree that we don't have clarity. We have a resolution, and I take that to heart. Like, I'm not going to stray unless if counselors are saying something different than what the resolution is, that's problematic. And maybe those are just two people, and maybe there are others that feel differently. But I take seriously what it says in the resolution. That's our guiding document. And if you all have side conversations with counselors or mayors and they don't feel the same way, that's on them. Mhm. I'm sorry. That's on them. We have a specific task at hand, and we were given parameters. I'm not saying they can't stray from that. And I want to acknowledge all the work that the subcommittees have done. Mhm. Because the people that are on the governance, sorry, the budget and strategic planning, I'm excited to hear about what you're up to, and I can let things go because there's too much on the plate. We've done so much with the outreach that my head's spinning. Like, I can't, it's unsustainable what we've been trying to do to try to create a, what would you call it, a space for community members to learn. And, actually, with the few participants that we have had, it's been enlightening. Those few that did stay, we actually asked the questions about what people thought, and they did have opinions about our six questions. Mhm.

And so I'm with you. Why is the strategic plan and a budget part of the, why would that be something that we amend in the charter? I'm perplexed by that, but there must be some kind of logic around that that I wasn't there or privy to when they had that meeting and they created the resolution. Doesn't mean we shouldn't push back. Maybe we say, you know what, that's out of the scope. We are taking that off the plate, but I would love to hear from the subcommittee folks to hear what you all had learned. And if you think that's maybe that's not the question to ask on the charter change, or Verdi change. So, I do think we know about our messaging because the things that we have been asking, the few people that have participated have told me after, I've learned so much just about governance 101. I never knew about the charter, like you said. And the last meeting we had, which was bilingual, which was really cool, and we, you know, didn't have a lot of people, but it was very cool that we had a different type of folks actually participating or different part of our community. And one thing I heard was like, wow, we really like this kind of format of having a community meeting. Yep. And it was great to have that kind of validation. So I like that that's happening.

I do feel like the survey depends on what we want to ask. Are we asking the six questions? Not necessarily. Are we asking them, like, do you know what a charter is? No. We're not. I mean, it depends on what we're asking and what information we want to get out of the survey. Mhm. So that in my mind, I'm not sure what is on that question. But so I'm like, I understand where you're coming from, and I agree. And I'm also like, we have this document that very clearly doesn't know what we're doing. And if the council doesn't or members don't think it's exactly where we should be going, well, we should probably know. So we don't spend our time doing this. And also, the last thing I'll say is that I appreciate Commissioner Vela putting together something. I don't think these documents should have gotten to the greater group yet because we are still trying to figure out, like, does this even flow? Does this even make sense? Like, we didn't get to that through it as a, yes, as a subcommittee. So, and I welcome feedback on, like, anything we do. I'm just like, it's taxing, y'all, and I can't, it's not sustainable the way we're rolling now. That's why I'm like, oh, good. Help. Help. We have a plan here. And, also, the missing piece too is, like, when do we do the research? When are there things that we ask staff to research for us? I don't feel like we've had that time. And that makes things a little bit nervous. Five months in. And you can't, okay, listen, I'll stop there.

Okay. I heard you say that you feel we have clarity with the resolutions. Well, that's what we understand. We need to have a tab. We need to give them parameters. So is there any other major points that you're just trying to capture? No, just like the time we need for learning together and the time we need for staff to actually help us do research. We're running long on that. Mhm. Great. And, Mr. Chavez, you talked about providing options to the committee so that we then can decide what is needed on your survey. And we haven't done that yet. Yeah. Survey and correlated comms push and even potentially community meetings until we have a good sense of what we're doing. Gotcha.

I'm trying to capture all the great points that you all are bringing up, and they're making a lot of sense. And I will just give my two cents in terms of I agree. I don't feel like we need to second-guess. I agree with Commissioner Grady that we can give them clarity. It's clear to me what we're supposed to do, and I suppose we should second-guess the counselors to start having conversations with them individually or as a whole because they've told us what they want us to do. We wanted them to go back and say, oh, change the resolution, and that's more. I don't think that's where I would have the first to go. I want us to honor what they sent to us and take it seriously and work on it and move forward because we don't have time to start from square one again and add more to the back of the slide.

That's my personal two cents on that particular point. Just make sure that you write down this piece about strategy and budget. If we don't agree that that's something that we change in the charter, then that would be our recommendation. But I would love a deep dive, though. That's one of our recommendations. Okay, so that's where you can. That will help.

I got one last thing, so I apologize now. But my last part of that, we're having a good conversation here. I'm pretty in one point here, right? We were tasked with it, but I was going back. But even to the attorney's point, the attorney told me, "Well, you can't go off to seven unless a community member." So a community member can add on, but a councilor can't re-look back at if that's exactly where they want us. So if a community member can do it, I think community members can add on, but it's still this commission to decide whether we take that issue on. Just because one individual says one thing, this whole commission is going to change its direction. So we have to be mindful and realistic about that. But you're right with what you said. That was told to us by the truth.

Madam Chair, I have a point, but I want Jerrika to go first. I just wanted to circle back and answer a question you asked Commissioner Burrell about where did Comms' increased capacity come from. It's not they've been ready the whole time. They were ready to roll out something, like, had a plan at the start back in May. So what this plan is, is just reintroducing what their capacity is. So it wasn't presented as a full presentation. It's just been us speaking to what Comms is good at, what they're experts in, and what they have the capacity to do. But because we haven't had a commission meeting since a few months, so they just gave a condensed version that is a six-week rollout. Six weeks is six weeks. So the start of it comes from you all having a collective voice that you want out, so it doesn't have to start next week. The goal is to show, give you an example to react to of what they can accomplish in six weeks whenever you all are ready with the information that can be fed through that machine. And know that it's coming with your voice and in your voice with your all's collective research showcased. Because what's happening now is you all are doing a lot of work. The city's doing a lot of work, but it's not having any impact because we aren't able to give those targeted touch points to the public on, "This is why this specific item can affect you and why it should be something that you would want to learn more about, and here's an opportunity to come and discuss it." So it's not an increased capacity. They've just been waiting on when they have a collective thing from all nine to then roll out. And this was brought because, like, here is an example for you all to see of you all are doing the work, but we, from what is coming to the city, we don't have a solid thing yet to roll out. So here's an example of here's something that has already started and is a rough, rough, rough draft. Take what the idea of this is, polish it, and give it to Comms, and it can be shared so that you have all the opportunities to get input. If there's only 12 more people coming to the meetings, that's dope. A survey reaches everyone that has access to the survey, which is why there's the separate push specifically for a survey in case public input, I mean, public attendance doesn't increase to a capacity that would be worth it, you still put the option in front of as many people as possible to give you impact. Because the goal ultimately is to give you all as a commission as many data points to mess around with and go through as you're trying to mix your research with the public's input. So how can we get as many opportunities of getting public input to you all as possible? Right now, the public's comment section has four entries, and none of them have nothing to do with the charter. One of them is just saying that there's no information on what to say. By someone that came to two meetings. Someone who came to two meetings?

Oh, yeah. Who do you think it is? Oh, hold on. May I? Thank you, Mr. Travis. Thank you, Jennifer. Great comments, and thank you, Mr. Travis, for focusing on the confusion. I appreciate you doing that. She gave us good information. And what I heard you say is that it's actually the capacity of the commission to get Comms. Comms polishes. You still need the content. We need to know what type of stuff we get. Capacity concern.

Commissioner Gold, can you clarify something for me? When you say broaden beyond the six questions, the examples you gave aren't new discrete topics. They're actually the same topics but bigger picture, more global than what I'm hearing you say. And so that's kind of, that's different from adding new topics. Yes. So can you just kind of explain that a little bit more for me from my understanding?

Can I respond? Yes, please. I appreciate the question. A charter is the 30,000-foot level statement about how a city is organized to make important policy decisions and then carry them out for the benefit of civic park. And there are certain questions that ought to be very clearly answered in any charter, ours, anybody else's. I've offered some of those questions two months ago and then again over the weekend, questions that I think should be readily apparent. And anybody, do we need in a cursory read? I agree with you that I think almost all of them could be shoehorned into the six that we've been given, but we haven't had the chance to even discuss that. I would very much like and ask that you all take a look at those questions and ask yourself, are they worthy of this commission's intention, discussion, and deliberation? Because unless we answer those questions clearly and definitively, I don't think we've done our jobs. I think we're going to wind up with a charter, like again, that has problems with it that then councils amend various ways, and we do it piecemeal. When you amend the charter piecemeal, you create all kinds of ancillary problems you didn't anticipate. You have to look at it in a holistic way. You have to look at how it all works together, and that's what I'd like to discuss when it's time, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Appreciate that clarification. Can we share chat this? That's it. Thank you, chat. And I will say I'm not seeing the most recent questions. I understand there were some sent today. I understand. And I was busy this afternoon. I didn't get a chance to look at my computer. Well, so I've not had a chance to look at them. Were they, you sent some previously? Are they similar? They're the same. Okay. They're the exact same. And I was hoping you'd get some response to them at some point when I was. Okay. Well, we probably should just put this with any kind of information on the agenda because you don't, you don't want to get response emails from commissioners offline as if you want to appropriate it. Okay. But I'll look at them. Make them, make them, make them once, put that on the agenda for the next meeting. Yeah. Yes. Would that be someone with your idea? Yep. Okay. What would be the item specific? The questions? I don't see. So the questions that Ron's asking? First, Commissioner Gold is, let's see, what would be the best way to do this? We probably should all look at them and add to them anything that we feel is missing. Yes. So that Commissioner Gold presents his questions. And then if any of you commissioners can send to Xavier any additional questions that you want discussed, and then we put all those questions on the agenda for one agenda item. So I'm trying to remember the questions. Does that make sense to those of you that remember the questions that are on the, Mr. Vigil?

Madam Chair, I was just trying to, is this the one about the disband the committees? You've got the question? No, that was a memo. Okay. There's a second memo that was sent out today that are a series of proposed questions for this commission to address, and I broke them into primary questions and secondary ones for your consideration. Does that come from Xavier? So, so let me ask Xavier, the staff. So how would this commission and City Clerk, matter of City Clerk, develop a listing of questions without violating open meetings? What would be the best way? We have one set of questions already. Are they, should they all be sent to you and then pull them together, and that would be one agenda item for the next meeting? How would we do that? Yeah, it would be through Xavier. Okay. All right. So, so let's look at doing that, and then Xavier will work with the chair to get the agenda set up to include that as an item. Thank you. All right. So if I want to get us back to making a decision, try to make initial communication plans. I've heard a lot of good comments about that you like the, that you like the idea of the survey, but that it's very ambitious and that we want to do all of the pieces to it that are outlined in it, and that we need to give staff clarification as to what those questions could look like if we're going to be asking for the community to vote yay or nay or vote one option over the other. And we need to give the staff that guidance before they develop questions. Does that generally summarize where we're at for this agenda item? Okay.

And it's the survey, and then it's the broader Comms plan around the survey that also is supporting the meetings in general. So there's the survey, and then there's the Comms push for the survey, and then the Comms push for the meetings. Is that fair? Yeah. But pushes. Okay. So, so based on that and, clearly, there was some statement and some agreement that the timeline should and can change, and maybe to push it out a week or two. I'm not sure. But the sooner we get some information to the staff to develop the survey, the sooner it goes out and the more feedback we'll get. So any tips on that, please? I don't think we can change the public input sessions. They've been advertised since promoting. But yeah. So and I think that we need, we would benefit from the extra communications around those. So I would recommend we don't slow down that part of the marketing plan. If we want to pull or push rather the survey later, it's not tied to the public input sessions. So I think we should continue marketing the sessions, continuing to get public input whether it's through the form or through the sessions themselves, and potentially just isolate the survey element until we feel that we have questions and options that we feel comfortable with. That would be. Okay.

Jessica? I just wanted to say that the basis of the six-week push, the basis of it is whatever version of scripts that you've come up with. So I don't know. We'll be looking at what you all want to say, because otherwise, they don't have anything to push out to promote the videos other than the flyer. So it'll be the, to the, yeah. It'll be the same. We can't do that and this until we have the data. Yeah.

So, Madam Chair, if I may, so there was one that the City Attorney said was a go, had already been recorded. Is your direction to stop any communication going out right now until the commission meets as a whole to decide what the, I guess, what the commission wants to be put out to the public? That's a great question. Go ahead. It's going to respond to you, but go ahead.

Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. I'll go after you. I apologize. That's a great question, and my question to you is what has been provided and reduced based on documentation that this commission has developed. The subcommittee. The sub- The sub-domain. Yeah. Not the commission as a whole. It was developed by the subcommittee. The attorney reviewed it and found it was appropriate, and it's already been filmed. I've not seen it. I've read it. It hasn't been, we haven't pushed it out yet.

Good. My question is, I want us to hold on that until the commission as a whole can agree that this is what they want to push out. Okay. So, but it's ready to push out. Yeah. Okay. So, if the attorney, if our staff, if our commission is doing it, then the attorney approved it, I don't have a problem having it go out. I listened to the first interview that was done by three of our commissioners on Wood Station. Hiswada. Hiswada. I don't know if you all heard it. It was excellent. These three, these three commissioners, Ryan, did an excellent job. You're welcome. You're welcome. And so if that dialogue was based on this information, it was right on, and it was basically providing background data to the community about the Charter Commission. It wasn't speaking at all to any direction we were going in. It was saying this is going on and we need your input. So personally, I don't have a problem with that, but I'm now going to ask the commissioners because, do you all feel that we're okay to have them push that one out that's been based on verbiage from this commission, from one of our committees? And to clarify, it's the one with the highlighted, with the title. Yeah. This is the one that was filmed. One script that was filmed. Okay. Alright. So, so it's the, it's the version. May I thought it was by administration. It's a different version. It's an adaptation. It's an adaptation. It goes through the actually, you have, let me ask you. You're the author of this. Is this for I haven't, I haven't compared them. I want to say first that we didn't pair them with the city staff with the intention of sending them. We did not have a, a plan to ship them with the plan to review them. Okay. So I just want to clarify that the subcommittee did not propose that we send them out before for the deliberation. Okay. Then there's, there's my affidavit. All the way till the commission. If it approves the, if the subcommittee is not recommending that it go on, then that's where the, to the commission, then the commission will not over us, overstep their process. Okay. Is that correct?

Well, it's a, it's a matter of precision. I just want to make sure that the other commissioners know that our intention was not to send these without. Yeah. No. No. No. No. No problem. In terms of whether or not this is good to be sent out, I think it's a different question. Well, that's what they're asking. That's what they're asking about this one. They want to know if they should send that out, and I'm looking to you as the author to get your perspective, and then I'll ask the other commissions. I always need to compare them, so I'm not ready to speak on that. This is Okay. Very second. We should go. I'm sure at the risk of repetition, a majority of your commission has not seen this, has not discussed it, and would benefit in the thinking of the outreach to believe that drafted this work. We're thank you for the work that's been done here. But before we get a green light for staff to start taping this and putting it out to the public, the whole commission needs to weigh in. That's my essential point. Do we have consensus too on that? Do we, we don't need to vote on that. It's not an action item. Yeah. But you asked us the question that on city clerk, and I think you've gotten some direction. We have one more comment. No. No. Chair, if I, I, I'd say that's a good question. Sorry. That wasn't, I was mumbling. If there's any general content that you can all have created, either through video that doesn't hit to the specific question that is general, that's new that we can push out. I mean, that's, I want to propose that, that we green light that. But things that are specific to the six questions that we still need to do deep dive in, we put those on the back burner until we make a decision as a, as a commission. Do we have any new content for The city does not have the, we're, we are not creating out of nothing. Everything that we create is from that we've gotten from you all. Back to the So nothing is, yeah. Okay. Can you confirm, commissioner? So to, give an inventory of what we have, we have a single video produced that we all, I don't actually know that it's for. The one that was posted in his on this, Charter website? Yeah. We have an inventory of one item, and we have the, the ask, which is to, to send these proper template sessions. So there are those two things that we can new date, they'll use the new date. But I think that's the extent of your marketing inquiry. Is that right? Yeah. This one was filmed in the, the, in the, the close. It invites people to come to the one on Thursday, September 3 at the, the mentions. And, and this one got the green light more easily because this is something that the city just taught people about last year with the last election. A mayor had a city councilor having to mayor may not vacate a seat to run for mayor is that one. So it wasn't any, like, leading anything. It's like, here's what happens. Here's what it could be different. Would you like to talk about it potentially on, on Thursday to talk about it? So I think commissioner, that was to your point. I think what we have, that's already been sent out is limited, and, and that was of that general scope. Mhm. So we did potentially ask to repromote that with an updated call to action, which is this newest or this nearest public input session. Mhm. But that's the material we'll work for. Anything else? That's all. So I'm hearing things as to hold off on any specific information on six questions between them at this point. But whatever has been sent out to, we promote that if it's promoting the info session. We're not voting, but I just want a consensus if that makes sense so that we're giving the staffing a bit of sliding direction that they are, are doing with commission wishes. Can I ask you a clarifying question? Yeah. Permission on hold. To. Is this an accurate representation of what your concerns are? For example, if we run one of these that though it's in the resolution, it speaks to the budget, and we determine that the budget is disqualified from being in the charter because of precedent and maybe best practice, is your concern that we are asking for input on something that we ultimately won't move on? That's possible. But as our professional staff at Tusk, how we frame each issue, how you ask the question often explains the answer. So we need to be really clear in the most neutral way as we can what it is that we're asking. But, as you say, the alternatives are it before we ask for staff to actually craft the questions in the description. This is an inside baseball political question. It, it does not hang on whether or not the city of Santa Fe was successful as a municipality. This is a tiny, tiny question that has politics ripped all over it. I, I want to discuss that with us and, and see how we frame it. There may be some questions where we, we think this doesn't belong in a charter, and that could be our recommendation. We, we may or may not ask the public whether or not a certain item deserves to be in the charter. Yeah. Because to me, that is a technical question. Oh, is it? But if we decided it the charter should address a question, then let us have the discussion about how we explain it, how we frame it, what's at stake, and, and then let our staff form some questions around it. How's that?

So I used the term position earlier in the discussion. I think maybe a precept might be qualification doing, you know, qualifying the language, whether or not it's pertinent, do a charter amendment. And then later in the year and into next year, we'll, we'll begin taking positions as to what we'll recommend. But it sounds like you want to do this. You're recommending we take this time to qualify the communications that we want to send out and the questions and how we're going to orient around them. Before we spend time, effort, and money putting out a survey, let's be clear that what we're going to get is going to be useful. That will help this commission ultimately help the council. Mr. Brown? That helps. Thank you. Thank you. There's some really good comments. I appreciate that dialogue. Clearly, we don't want to ask leading questions, and I'm sure the staff knows not to do that. And I also speaking to subject matter experts, they reference what you talked about is you didn't say they were prioritizing what questions we get out there. But they did look at our six resolutions and say, you don't need to put all that out there to the community. Just those areas that you're not sure how you want to move forward. There might be some that you decide right away should not be part of the charter, and you don't even want to ask the community about that. So prioritizing questions, I, I think it's what, what I heard you say, and that's what I have been, allegedly that is a good way to go so that we focus on the, the meat and the, the tough questions, of those six items and, and decide early on which are the top priorities and then develop scenarios for that. So I appreciate that information on the survey, mister. I think that that also boils down to breaking up the subcommittees so that we can do the meat and bones. Yeah. And really sitting down and saying, let's get to work. So not only is it, like, not putting staff into action and doing the stuff, it's like, Renee can't hold everything. Brandon and all the commissioners and everyone, even in finance, can't do it all. And then just have maybe that worked in the last charter because we were so crunch time. But I think if we had, it didn't work as well. But my personal opinion is a, a new approach of us just being in one space and having those conversations and, and separating subcommittees. I, I know it's easier when smaller tasks are to be dealt, but when it needs to be larger decisions on where we're going as a collective, we all need to sit as a collective and do that. So I think all of it goes back to just are we going to keep those subcommittees and what's our next one if we choose not to? How do we hold up that, like, today? Because we're at five months. There's Oh, I'm done. Great. I mean, great. On the, I mean, great comment and, and probably an appropriate segue to us talking about moving from where we're at to the next phase. But that's not, that's not on the agenda, so I need to get a stack to the agenda. And I'm not going to put a hold on what you said because I think we're there in terms of, of moving from, the subcommittees. And I'll just say the subcommittees have done a lot of work. Right? You know, our subcommittee, Rosanna and I know the other subcommittees have done a lot of work. And that is the first step in pulling the, in putting the information together and putting it on the table for the board commission to look at. So I think we're at the transition of the leads bring in. You'll hear a little bit about that to see who the constituents are going to share in terms of what their committees are doing. And we'll pull that, put it for the full commission to start looking at. And, and you're smiling. Yes. That was good. Smile. And so, and I'm at that point, but, but and, and let's proceed in that direction. But let's get back to the agenda, ladies and gentlemen. Charter, you commission communications and marketing plan. We've had conversations that, it's a good idea.

We need the survey. We need to, perhaps, be flexible on the timeline, but we need to give a yea or nay to our staff to start working on that, and time is of the essence. So I would open it up if we had a motion to approve that marketing plan with the ability to make adjustments on the timeline as we speak better at the next meeting, once we've digested some of the questions that are going to be looked at and some of what the survey might look like. But I open the floor for motions on 6.a., Charter Review Commission Communications and Marketing Plan.

Question for staff, Madam Chair? Yes, sir. The survey. Commissioner Goh. If we held the survey for the time being, because we haven't had our fulsome discussions yet, what would staff be doing on the marketing plan in the interim? They will be just posting flyers, the flyer, which is it would just be staying where it is now where there isn't the educational aspect going out. It was just flyers. Thank you. With that answer, then I'm comfortable with your suggestion, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Goh. I have a motion to approve the marketing plan with the option for the commission to adjust the timeline as needed. Do I have a second? Do I have a second from Commissioner Daniel? I think there's something resolved. I just had a question. So this is approving that there can be a six-week rollout whenever the six weeks starts. Okay. Oh, yeah. I figured that's what it was. So the motion will include the timeline change on the six-week rollout. Thank you. Thank you. With that clarification, I think it's still important for us to have a plan to promote the public input sessions. Yeah. The material that they have prepared, we seem to have agreed that we don't want to send out because it speaks to a specific issue. So my ask would be to create an alternative message that is general, with the exception of being precise about the next thinking process. You're asking who? The Communications and Marketing team. What is it? In a less formal way. I think we still need to generate a buzz about this public input session that's coming up, and we don't feel comfortable doing it with the material that you've created. So the request would be to create an alternative promotion that speaks just to the things we've already talked about in your first video and point people to the call to action that is the public input session. Where will we get that from? Well, can you try to put out your stuff as opposed to drafting it? No. So, yeah. So, I mean, one option could be because if someone were to write it, I would be the one writing it. Which one would you like me to write? No. No. No. I understand. So one option would be using the material that you've already created. The red is the Charter Review Commission? Correct. And update it just to point to this new call to action. Just come Thursday? Yeah. Okay. So just reuse what we've used. Is that clear? Can we get to everyone in the group? Can we get fried chicken? Well, we got meat the last time. Yeah. We can do it. It's such a No. We're waiting for a response to their any of the testing. No. So we get to send that request to Comms to see how they want to handle it. I can speak to a year and a because I'm not that team. Yeah. I think the conflict that I'm trying to resolve is we don't want to send out the material that was planned, but we need to send out something. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. I make the call. Madam Chair, if I can. Yes, ma'am. I will speak with Chris and the Comms team and see what they can modify off what has already been done to include the call out for them to attend the meeting, the input session. Okay. And that'll have to be fast-tracked because that's coming up real quick. Yes, sir. I just don't have the ability to get there. Okay. We just got it. Thank you, Madam City Clerk. Okay. So it will have to come to the office. Commissioner? I'm not part of anybody. Okay. Sorry. I have to apologize to my fellow commissioners. I have to leave. I have to go home. It's like a nice sundown. So thank you. And I thought I would email Xavier, but also the next two dates on here, I will miss. So if you guys do, we need to schedule a date between now and the 14th and or after the 14th to go back to the deep dive, making space for the deep dive conversations. I'm happy. I can do it over text to share if you just if you guys go over dates, just let me know how I can offer my regular dates that work. Bigger meetings. Well, we discussed having more frequent meetings at least for the interim as we work through some of these bigger picture policy questions. Thank you. What I'll what I'll do is when I sit down with the staff to look at dates, I think Xavier previously sent out a memo with these dates. We're thinking about them. We all responded to them. So we'll do the same thing. Okay. As soon as we figure something out, Xavier. So I just wanted to ask, since we have a motion and a second, should we have a vote before Commissioner Chavez leaves so she has the opportunity to vote? Yes. Thank you. I just want to make sure you and everyone's done. You guys are clear. We have a motion and a second to approve the Charter Review Commission Communications Marketing Plan with the ability for the commission to change the timelines on that six-week rollout. Motion by Commissioner Golden. Second, I think. I think Graniell. I think it was. Oh, roll call vote. I've been doing all the big work. Commissioner Villareal? Yes. Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Aye. Commissioner Chavez? Yes. Commissioner Vanille? Yes. Commissioner Bella? Yes. Commissioner Duran? Yes. Chair Ortiz? Yes. The motion to approve the marketing plan with the option to adjust the panel has passed. Yeah. On the oh, on the I got both of these. All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Devant. We're going to Yes. Sorry. I just want to, one one more thing, while you're still here just to think about, at the last meeting, you all discussed the first phase of the public sessions looking different from the second phase. So just be thinking about what you potentially want the next one to do. That's phases of them to look like because currently the public input sessions are a 90-minute activity. I well, sir, can you? I'd like to first one went for questions instead of the We did take questions. I don't know. Not on the agenda. Not on the agenda. We can't have this discussion. Thank you very much. I'm plugging it. Question, but another time? No. Not a question. Just plugging it to be thinking about it before your next meeting because the 14th is the third. From the 10th. We'll we'll debate the last time later. Clarify what you're meaning. We'll discuss that. We can discuss it. Absolutely. We can have this discussion during Matters from Staff. Ah, okay. We're good. Thank you. And and, again, thank you, Stephen, for keeping this contract in terms of what we should be doing. We're going to move to item 6.b., Charter Review Commission Budget. That was a budget that we've been trying to get together for approval sooner than now, but here it is. We need to have an approved budget by the commission so that the staff knows what they are on. This is a draft that I typed up based on the information that was given to me from the city staff regarding actual expenditures. So what you'll see on that chart are all the items that have already been expended to in the actual column, totaling $1,844.07. Then we I developed a proposed expenditure column based on input, and I sat with Madam City Clerk and Xavier put this together. What we added, proposed expenditures. Some places require room rental costs, so we added a projected amount, proposed amount, $400. They also some places might require securities that we put in. It's an exact amount of $500. And we're looking for refreshments. We figured a couple hundred dollars for the sessions, so the remaining six sessions, and that's where that number came from. And the publicity, this is the organization that Jerica has been talking about that does work for the city, and it would push out a lot of what we're looking at. Their proposal their proposal would be I think it was $181,515 for first five or six meetings, and that is just an estimate. So that's all there. These proposed expenditures allow for those expenditures to be made, but it doesn't mean that they will be made. So don't assume that because it's proposed and projected that it is going to be done, it just allows room for the staff to know that now the commission looked at this. You have to go into a place for whatever items, and they have to go ahead. They just call me or call anybody else. They have to go ahead to do what they need to do based on what the commission does that commission needs. Questions? Oh, the question. I thank you for the work, and I move that we approve the budget as shown. Yeah. The motion looks so. I have a second. Any discussion? Yes. I'm just concerned about why we're paying for rentals or space for meetings. I just feel like the city has connections, and we have our own meeting spaces. And I know we already committed to this one, but, like, moving forward, I'm like, I would rather use that money in a different way. And then I was just curious about security. I don't remember seeing a security person at the Chavez Center, but is there a reason why we thought we needed security? Security is required for a convention center, so that's the one that's this Thursday. And the one space that we had to pay for was District 2, and we don't have any city facilities there. Which was the NEA. So this input session So it's $400 for the July 23, and it would be $400 for the September 17. Which is the NDA? That will be at the NDA again, District 2. Because the remaining spaces proposed, we wouldn't have to pay for. And the Hutton, that's kind of a regular package deal that they give us, that $8,500? Oh, $1,500 per month, and then she added about how many months you have left to utilize that promotion. So that that could change. Right? Yes. Okay. That's just the maybe high end of what I mean, potentially? Okay. Yes. I I spoke with Mr. Chris Peralta, and he indicated that Yeah. I have a great done so much per session, and we weren't sure, you know, how many we're going to how many so much per month and so on. And then we weren't sure how many of it would extend to that. It's going to go back to the marketing plan, how long we keep that. So so that is, we believe, a very high comfortable number. We may not need all of that, but it gives us room to use that. And just to note that it really helps our refreshments. I think pizza was our biggest hit even though there's a lot of people there, but people I just think, like, real that's not the right word. Food that's prepared, that's made fresh would be great to continue having, like, the pizza. Yeah. Anything else, Chris, you have to do? And and no more drinks of the like that cranberry juice Sprite. Yeah. I know people love the We have so much of it. I know. I've been dropping cases every I don't mind us adding to the mix, but if we can have something else. Water's great. I think that is the most important, but I know people are like, what is this? Well, anything else? You have to go there. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Gru. I appreciate those insights. There you go. Now Shout out. We have the motion. Not for a week. Any further discussion? Oh, I'm sorry. You guys are good. Situation. You like to kick me if I'm not feeling That's all right. Of course. I wish never. I I wanted to second Commissioner's comment about just making sure that refreshment includes food as well. Pizza. And as I understand it, it breaks down to about $200 a session, which, Jerica did a great job, frugally providing food to it.

So I think that should cover the session requirements. My question was, and I couldn't find it in the resolution or in the charter, what is our, what's the budget we're actually working with? It's $3,000. Okay. So this for the year, there's room, there's lots of space. Okay. We felt we needed to do, and when we made out in another manner. Yeah. Consultant events. That's just a very annoying question. Yes. Well, that's, that's all I have. I have it, and I, I'm just going to, it's, I think food is food. Some of us don't eat pizza. I don't eat pizza either, but I know, I don't. Anyway, I'm, I'm just, I'm just, it seems slightly done. So we have a motion. We have a second for including the budget for the term, which there were no changes to it. I'll roll call both, please.

Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Gold? Yes. Commissioner Gagneux? Yes. Commissioner Bella? Yes. Commissioner Duran? Yes. Commissioner Villareal? Yes. Chair Ortiz? Yes. The motion to approve the budget is passed. Thank you very much.

So we're going to move to item number 6.c, guidelines to have the Charter Review Commission submit research requests, and that is under the tab labeled research request, and there is a memo. Is someone here to present this? I, I can present this memo. Thank you, Clayton. So this memo is coming from Palmer Anderson. He is our policy analyst in the Legislative Services Department. The purpose of the attached research guidelines is for the Charter Review Commission to have a standardized process to follow when submitting formal requests for research to the city's policy analysts located within the Office of Legislation and Policy Innovation. This process covers how the Charter Review Commission will submit requests for research, a communication between the Charter Review Commission and the policy analyst to take place, and the research, drafting, and delivery process.

To provide some background, Article 10, Subsection 10.1 of the Santa Fe City Charter states that no less than two employees shall be identified by the City Manager for the purpose of assisting the Charter Review Commission to perform research and drafting functions for the commission. Interim City Manager Moya identified the city's policy analyst who works within the City Attorney's Office's Office of Legislation and Policy Innovation as the person who would be available to assist with research purposes. To ensure that research topics are undertaken in an organized, efficient, and streamlined fashion, a standardized guideline has been created for the members of the Charter Review Commission when they submit research requests to the city's policy analyst. If you go to the next page, those guidelines are laid out. So I'll kind of just go through the guidelines. So these are the standardized guideline, Charter Review Commission research request.

Number one, the Charter Commission formalizes the research question by majority action of the Charter Commission. Two, a member of the Charter Commission submits a request for research through the provided Microsoft form. Three, after this request is submitted, the policy analyst will contact the requester in a timely manner if any clarification is needed among the research question. Document drafted, number four. The policy analyst will begin the research process and periodically update the requesting member of the Charter Commission on an as-needed basis. The policy analyst will also reach out during the course of research should further guidance be necessary. Document delivered. Five, the policy analyst will deliver the completed research document by the date requested. Six, if the Charter Commission requires the policy research to be presented to you and or wishes to discuss the research with the policy analyst, this presentation and or discussion would take place during the Charter Commission meeting that takes place on the nearest date to when the research has been delivered. So Palmer Anderson in our Legislative Policy Office prepared this document. I don't have a lot of background on it. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to relay those to the Legislative Policies Team and provide you with answers as I receive that.

Okay. So these are a couple of questions. I, I received a few hands up, and I had a question. This should go outside. This is an administrative procedure that's being offered by the City Attorney's Office. Fine. But if, if we put every question that requires some research and analysis through this process, we're, we're going to blow the rest of our schedule. So there's nothing in this that prevents us from doing our own research and then having Xavier share it with all of us so we can all see what we're coming up with and, and work from it. If there's something that is so demanding, so, so rigorous that we need to put Palmer Anderson or somebody else from the City Attorney's Office, fine. This is how he wants to do it. I have no issue with it. But we're already behind the ball, folks. And so, I, I think, you know, if you're asking us to approve this, I, I would say fine. But this does not preclude us from doing our own research and moving ahead. Anything else? No, ma'am. Very well said. Thank you. Thank you. I was going right where he was going. Okay. The same point, but I also have to leave for getting my son. Okay. Just, it's, but I'm with you on an understanding that. Thank you. Stay for the point.

I think that having something clear is helpful for folks, and the way it's worded is saying any member can just ask for staff support for research, and I think that's unrealistic because if we all have different, if we weren't united in what we wanted clarity on, it would be a waste of staff's time. And I, I know how that is. And councilors are asking you all for different things. So if you have commissioners, you know, sending this, and there's no kind of clarity on what we actually need as a group, then it will back up and just add too much of a layer for your staff, and it's not going to get to where we need to go. So I would suggest a member does not ask staff individually for research. Okay. Unless it's either research, it comes from a subcommittee or the entire group. And I don't know how to word that differently. I guess you could say that. Like, it's either it comes from a subcommittee, yeah, or the entire commission. Because I, I just think your time is valuable. Staff's time is valuable. Okay. And we want to be more streamlined about our requests.

Commissioner, can you repeat that? So just to respond to that, Commissioner Villareal, Chair Ortiz, so I believe the way that this is worded that the Charter Commission would have to formalize the research question by majority vote altogether. It's number one. Yeah. And then one, one member would submit the request on behalf of the commission. So that's the number one that I was, like, trying to figure out. So this should, should say something. Thank you for that comment because I have the same concern. Right. So the Charter Commission formalizes the approved question by the commission. Correct. Okay. So the, so the first step is whoever has a question brings it to the commission, and we say, oh, that is where, and this could be when we get to the point where we've already decided what direction we want to go on, but we want to validate and, and make sure it's researched well enough, so we may send that. So it should come from the commission by a vote of the commission and sent to your staff, and then the results should come back to the commission. So it should be submitted by the commission after our vote. Yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah. How we need to word that? So it's not submitted by an individual. It is submitted by, after approval by the commission. Yeah. And that will limit the, the information, the research that needs to be done. And you're right. I think that, Mr. Gold, the committees are already doing a lot of research. I know actually Brandon's through major research. So, can that be, adjusted and then or do we need to come up with a language now and then approve that?

So, I mean, I think it's kind of already there. Could you, I think we can probably clarify the language. I can work with Palmer to do that. I can ask him if he could clarify, like, the steps so that it's, you know, it's clear that the commission has to take action before the request can be submitted. Submitted for approval by commission. That's what that study should be. Fine. By, by commission. And then, then you go on. Once that's approved by the commission, then the other steps will follow this. They draft it, and then they present the deliverable to the commission because this doesn't say who it's delivered to. Right. Okay. Yeah. We, we can get that clarified. Do we need to see that final form before we move back? Or no. We want to approve it now. Approve it now. Stuff. Yeah. This is, these are more technical fixes. I think the format is the way it's going to work. I think it just needs to be technically clarified a little bit better. But it's on our agenda for actions. So commissioners, am I hearing you said you don't, we don't need to act on it. We just want to let them, give them guidance as to what we want to see and let them do that. Yes. Yes. That's the consensus. Yeah. Yeah. Would that work in terms of our process? Madam Chair, I believe that would work. Yeah. Consensus to draft for full commission approval first. Okay. And that was no vote. It was a consensus. Okay. Let's move on. I just move on to, oh, let me have. Well, we should have subcommittee reports. I'm going to leave now, which is, no, not a little bit. I don't know. Form. We're going to go through the sub, thank you. We're going to go through the subcommittee reports, and, high level. High level. Thank you. Well, well, the information in the reports will also let us know what direction those subcommittees are in the next meeting when we start talking about. Governance Subcommittee. I'm assuming Commissioner Ray is going to be presenting. I'm going to present something. I'm going to present something. Well, thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to do that. I, really have nothing to present. Okay. I do. Okay. Good. We did. Renee has something to do. We did actually for feedback. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you. At our, at the last review, at our last Charter Review Commission meeting, we did give an update. We had met after, actually, July 7. Right. But we have nothing new to report other than what you sent through, today. I, I did that. Yeah. There was a whole lot. I, maybe you have to share because I haven't looked at all of it. Well, I, I sent just to the committee. Oh. No. I didn't have a copy of it. Did you get a copy of it? Well, I got your conclusions. I did not get a copy of the data. Oh, I don't, I don't know how to do anything with a computer. So, I think it was just what Xavier shared. Oh, okay. So maybe you just have to get him additional info. So if you could provide maybe the source of where you got the data from. I think Commissioner Bella did email me today and asked for, oh, I got it from the Municipal, the New Mexico Municipal League. And it was structures of government and, how many cities in the state were under each structure. Mhm. And we have 100 and, I think I'm doing this from memory now. Although, I think I've got it in my phone. We have 107 different municipalities, and 60 of them have council, mayor forms of government where the mayor is embedded in the council, and they may or may not have a city manager. I think six of them have a city manager and accounts or sit under the City Manager Council structure. And Santa Fe is separated out with seven, well, actually, it's probably 11 total. 11 home rule communities. And so they're not included in the first 70 cities. And but Santa Fe is included as a still as a council, a council mayor form of government.

It's not considered to have a strong mayor. The only strong mayor is considered to be Albuquerque. So, anyway, that's the way they divided it up. Anything else? Maybe we can look at it. I need to take, I'm looking for it now. I can share the email you had sent up on the screen. Oh, okay, great. I don't know if we should, I don't know if we need to go into the details now of that email. I think people should read it. Yeah. And it was just additional information for people. But we've gotten that, you said, at the very same time. So, I'd have to take care of this for you. So we need to look at the time. Yeah. And I want to apologize for not sending it much earlier because I've had this information since, like, July 20 or something like that. The reason for that is, it's okay. What's the order? Yeah. You can leave the pen. Okay. Anything else, sir? No. This is your brand. Yeah. I know. It's on the report. But if the commission wants to delve into this, we need to discuss it a little bit further because the nomenclature is important. There is no such thing as a mayor-council form of government. And any government that says that the mayor is the chief executive is by definition a strong mayor form of government. These are accepted terms in public administration. I don't know how they're applying them here, but I'm not sure it's germane to our discussions. But thank you for bringing the data. Well, yeah. We don't have a picture of it, though. You don't have that? I can pull it up if, do we want to just, let me just pull it up. Time. And we're way over our time area. We can save that to the next meeting. Yeah. And I will just alert you because we're now going to get into the real meat of conversations. We may not be able to hold to the two hours, so just be mindful of that. Right. Because we really do need to go through the full agenda, and, so just as long as I have a quorum at all the meetings, we're good. Okay. Anything further? No, that's fine. Unless somebody, okay, wants me to gather on.

Strategic Planning and Budget. Okay. So there's two things included. One is just a, we talked in the past about distinguishing a strategic plan to a general plan. There's a document that says this, they are in fact distinct plans. So this, for your reference, I'm not going to go through it now. But, again, if we determine that it is something we want to, that is appropriate for placement in the charter and we want to communicate that, this would be a good reference for that, distinguishing what we have already from what we might want to implement. As it pertains to, again, there's three buckets in this committee: budget, strategic planning, and vacancies. I'll just go through quickly. I'm happy to answer any questions. This information, I have some thoughts, but most of it is just for your consideration as the data that you shared. So, generally, we've continued researching the current state and scope of budget planning and council vacancies. We also have plans to learn through our peers. So I have a call with folks from Las Cruces this week. Thank you for the connection, Commissioner Villavial. I believe Commissioner Chavez also had the conversation with Albuquerque this week. We're going to try and sync up and ask similar questions so we have apples to apples from them. And this is specifically in with respect to the budget and planning. We're not, I don't have intention of asking them about vacancies just because I don't think they can share anything with us that we can't find on our own.

So in terms of strategic planning, this first bullet just talks about what I just mentioned, current strategy analysis. So, I did some sifting through, it's the first time I actually opened the new budget, and that was an experience. But, did some analysis on the current budget that was approved back in July or implemented starting in July. The results, so a point, something that I learned was that there are actually goals and KPIs implemented in the budget. The different departments set their own goals, and there were 138 goals set across the 19 departments. 40% or sorry, 40 of those, which is less than 30%, include a measurable definition of success. Six departments that are listed there have zero quantifiable goals. My conclusions were, at a minimum, there's room for improved traceability, transparency, and accountability within the current budget, or current planning mechanisms, which is the budget today. Ideally, a strategic plan and a dashboard like one that Las Cruces has, which is also missing some key measurable elements to it, can be implemented to drive continuous progress and improvement towards city goals. Now I think, I don't know if I've listed this later, but I think the question is, is this something done through the charter or, or to what extent? The general plan is not mentioned in the charter as far as I have read. So I think that is probably the primary question. Yeah. And then we can decide how deep it goes. So I'll speak for myself. I think it's a good idea. A strategic plan, I have questions as to whether or not this commission and the charter are the place that that gets put into, that put into action. You have a question. And Francisco? I, I thank you for the research and the thought that you've already put into this, and I look forward to discussing it as a whole. The basic issue here is that our organization is without basic performance measures, and that no one is held accountable in the city government. No one receives a performance evaluation. The departments are not held to goals or objectives, not even held to maintaining their own budget status. And there was an attempt last year to begin to inject some of this, but it was rough because this is new for the organization. Never done it before. And, yes, what you saw here is in the document. Unfortunately, it is not being tracked by anyone. There is no reporting back to the council or anybody else about progress toward any of these. So it's foreign to the organization. This will require tremendous culture change. Now a strategic plan is a different thing. A strategic plan in the industry sense is 10, 20, 30 years into the future, looking at the highest level threats and opportunities facing an organization, public, private, or nonprofit. Most cities now are doing strategic goal setting in a much shorter time frame. What's happening in the next two to five years? Because the future is so wild that going any farther than five years is pure guesswork. It's very important that at some point, this city begin to do strategic goal setting. It's very important that the city move to performance budgeting, not just adopting a big fat budget with lots of numbers and then ignoring it. It's very important that the departments understand that they have to work within certain budgets and accomplish certain things and that the department directors be held accountable. All that's really important. I don't think it belongs in the charter, so I'd love to have that conversation when you're ready. The full, the full commission will have that conversation. So, yes, ma'am. Anything else? No, ma'am. I think no issue with your supervision or any comments. I will say that, I've included the general plan versus the strategic plan. By this definition, the strategic plan is that three to five year or near-term, right, time horizon. But, otherwise, I would love to see some more coming from, coming from the private sector. Yeah. You know, nobody likes a performance review, but they do have a role. And a $500,000,000 a year. Yeah. So, just to move us through, the next is the budget process, and you alluded to some of this. I want to point out, I'll start with point two, the question of scope. That's the same as I've been expressing. I've included a couple of allusions to the budget in the charter, but the majority of it is in section 11 of the ordinance. So there's that same question of, yeah, what belongs in the charter with respect to the budget. Before we decide that though, if you look at figure two, there's a timeline that isn't, the color coding is sort of lost in this reproduction, but, there are milestones set out for this year that have, for example, December 2026, special meeting on FY27 goal status. So this is a step towards that accountability that we're talking about. I just wanted to bring this to y'all's attention. I welcome corrections to this, but, the one thing I want to point out about this process is optimistic as it might make us. It is by resolution. And so it is not permanent. It could change, and there's minimal accountability to these things happening as they're intended. So that's all I want to say about the budget for now with the same question of scope. And then the last piece on vacancies, resigned to none. I just put in a reminder that we sort of asserted that this wasn't something we want to spend a lot of time on. I think they agreed in the last meeting or aligned on that in the last meeting. We do get minimal but tangible public input that they did not feel like that was something that they found valuable. In terms of vacancies, looking at the top five cities by population, they all handle this about the same way, and it's the same way that we do today, which is that the mayor makes the appointment. In most circumstances, the council approves. The timelines vary a little bit, and the ability typically serves until the next regular election. So the two questions I outlined from that were, is there motivation to change from the status quo? And if, question two is, if not, is there a desire to add steps or specificity to the process? Question. Councilwoman Gonzales. Is how do we fill vacancies in the council one of the six questions we're supposed to be talking about? It is. Yes. It is. Okay. It is question E. Okay. Yeah. All right. Which to your earlier comments, we can decide if that's something we want to bite off. Personally, isn't it Ted? Sorry. Go ahead. Personally, I think that there's some trade-offs to this model, and so I, I'll share those thoughts next time. But, it's very clear to see that it is the status quo or the established best practice. And I think I didn't include you in here, but I think if there's not a stated process, there's a state level process that isn't essentially this that the mayor makes the appointment. So, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Good work. I'm a great office. It's stuff I see. Outreach subcommittee, anything to report? Well, all I'll say is that you all had a very concise report, and I appreciate that. And I feel like the majority of, like, what the outreach has been doing has been action versus meeting, just to check in. I think it's our meetings have been try out a design that, that we want to see how it fits for the first meeting and then reassess. And so the first time we did the structure that we used, we realized, it takes too long to do two different activities and then, get, start asking more about the questions that we have in front of us. So we modified. So we met, I would say, just going back to refresh, like, what, what worked, what didn't, and, and then structure the conversation a little bit differently. So I feel like we the last two times, we've used the river model. And while it, it's a task, well, let me just back up. We actually have three different, three different parts to a meeting. We have the governance 101, which I've gotten a lot of good feedback on, because a lot of people don't know what is a charter and also, like, the structure of our government. But I think just having an activity to for people to reflect because people are at different places, and we have to meet them where they're at.

So we have some people that go to all City Council meetings, and then we have some people that are new to either Santa Fe or new to just what city government is and what the Charter is. With the few people that we have had, I feel like we've had rich conversations, and we've been able to get the information we need. I think there's still a little bit distilling of the river activity and maybe consolidating some of the questions we're asking. But the last time when we get to the actual Charter questions that are at hand, we actually get some good feedback from folks.

I know not everybody could stay to the end. The folks that have been participating, it's very helpful to have everybody's, I guess, pieces of the work, including staff being there. I know that at first, we had too many staff, and you all decided how to maybe modify. So I think, in general, we're just trying to—there's still room for improvement, and that we could probably consolidate some things so that the discussion is shorter for even people and ourselves, so that we're not there. We don't necessarily have to be there two hours just because we've allotted that time. So I'm saying that just because I think we can modify it for even on Thursday.

But I would just—I think the only thing I want to say is that, what was my point? Oh my god, it just went out of my brain. That I'm—I think we're open to more suggestions. I just feel like the feedback we've gotten has been good from the people participating. But if there's another way to consolidate, especially those that have been at every single one, it's really helpful to get feedback. Is there anything else you own? Or I know it's—we don't have—but before you go into questions, did you want to say anything, Brandon or Mr. and Bella?

I think moving away from the subcommittees or committees, or whatever—it doesn't matter what we're going to call them if we're going to get rid of them. I think if we come together and work through some of these things, we can move more quickly and more confidently. So I think, but in the work that we've done, it has been very action-oriented. There have been some committee meetings and the public input sessions, which the outreach folks, mostly Commissioners Perez and Babel, have run, and charities. I understand it's been to many of them. All of them. All of them. So it has unconditional. I haven't been to all of them, so I can't say.

But I think our body of work is maybe ready to be integrated. The copy, the marketing outside of it, was part of our body of work. The public input sessions were another. And then we have the sort of partnership requests that we've sent out to many organizations, and I think we're ready to move on that. At least I've got a couple of organizations who want to understand how we get that deeper. So I think a lot of what we had set out to do initially, we've hit a milestone, and it might be a good time. It might be convenient for us to bring it all together and start navigating that as a whole commission.

And what I think we're just to add what Commissioner Vela was saying about these different groups or different stakeholders that we've been outreaching to. Some are receptive, and some are like, "We don't really know how we fit in." Not about learning about the Charter, but how they fit in to either co-host something or attend. We did have a group that was connected to Earthcare that came, and that's why we had that really wonderful bilingual conversation. I think what is missing is just follow-up to keep asking folks and trying to figure out how we can get other community groups, not just individuals, but community groups to participate. And that's still a work in progress.

I do want to say that just the time that we've spent to try to do outreach with media groups, I think, was helpful doing the radio interview. And I really would encourage you all to see the 505 Omedic blurb they did on us. Not us, but what the Charter is. It was so—it was very helpful. And that's what I would love the city to do, something similar. Obviously, it doesn't have to be all the things, but it was just—it covered it in a very fun way about what's the Charter, what's our role, why it's important. And we can use that. I don't know how we can keep using that. They sent it out. I can repost it, but I just think it was good. And it was not biased. It was like, "This is what it's about." They did do interviews at that interview at one of the listening sessions that they were going to release later on. But I think just them capturing what we presented and regurgitating it in a fun way was really helpful. Good. And we got—they got, at least I saw the tracking for their social media, that there were people that were interested. They didn't necessarily go to the next meeting, but there was a protest that night. So we were competing against things happening in the community. So that's all I'll say too.

Thank you. I appreciate that. You asked if there were any thoughts about how to change. I just have a question. What would it look like, do you think, if you did your presentation about the Charter Commission as you do? It's a great opening. And then ask the questions before you go into the—and the exercise. Because as I've seen, I'm struggling to see how the exercise helped them form their answers to the questions. I think they had their answers to their questions before they had the exercise. I'm just curious if you did your presentation about the Charter Commission, what we're looking at, and then ask those awesome six questions. We actually did ask the questions, but you're saying—I'm saying that. No, I'm saying ask them before you do any of the exercises because, just like I've sat at all of them, I've sat there wanting to take notes, and I've gone to the different tables. But where I get my most information is when you ask the questions, and they start saying, "I've jotted it all day." Not that there's that much, but I—that is where I, as one commissioner, got information about what community members thought in terms of the issues I've had. So that's just my thought. Okay. You guys can use that as helpful. Just one person.

I also just want to make sure someone asked me, Commissioner Chavez asked me, "How does the information, all the note-taking, actually get to all of you that weren't necessarily there?" And I would like to know the answer to that. There's been copious notes taken, handwritten, and then how does that actually get transcribed to actually show what people are saying? And that's one worry of mine. And I will just say this on that. My concern and worry, as one individual, the information that has been gleaned from the questions regarding what do you call it? The river. The river. To space. And I've taken pictures of them all, and I've listened to it all. It doesn't really help me make a decision on the issues at hand. So having said that, just from my perspective, I would hate to put someone in charge of transcribing and putting all that together because I see that. I see the stickies. I've read them. It doesn't help me. So you guys need to think about that.

Well, that's—that's my question because Commissioner Chavez hasn't been—I think she was at one, and she was like, "Oh, I'd like to see what people are saying." "Who's capturing that?" And I'm like, "Well, they're physically capturing it." Then how does the rest of the commission actually get to hear it? I actually think it's good to hear what people's experiences are, and I think we need to do a better job relating it to the Charter question more directly. So I think there's work there. It's just that there's some rich—and actually, Commissioner Duran is not listening intently. Well, no, actually, yes, I am. So I think I would just—I would like to know how staff was planning on doing that. Oh, because you all wrote the notes, and I thought there was, like, a plan to actually—yeah. And that was agreed that it will be the commissioner, I thought, but it's Commissioner Perez that has been capturing all this stuff at the end of the meeting. So she assisted. Right. She's taking pictures of the notes. Right? So she has—she has all of them. Staff doesn't have those. Does she have a plan for—has she already done it? The what's on the sticky is also written down by staff. Not everything, though, but a lot of it is. Well, our transcriber wrote everything down that people were, for the most part, weren't putting on the stickies. So, yeah, it's captured. It's just that how do you all actually get to see it that weren't—that, you know, weren't physically there? That's my concern. Well, that's—sure. Oh, Commissioner Duran, please.

Hi. Thank you. I agree with your recommendations about asking the resolution questions prior to going into the river activity. And I also agree, and Commissioner Villareal, you just also said this. It's hard for me to imagine how the information we're collecting in that river exercise is going to help us inform those resolution questions that we're charged for answering. Some do connect, and some don't. Yeah. Right. I just think there's some good information the city should know that is—well, I agree with you. I agree with you, and I put this in the memo, I think, or I've stated this at a previous meeting. It says when we are collecting a lot of information from the community, and I get—it is good information. But as the Charter Commission, what are we going to do? What authority do we have to make any type of changes based on what we're receiving? What does your reality mean? Oh, I mean, I guess it's more of an exercise. Like, I think it's good for staff to hear. It's not—I don't see it as authority to make changes, but based on the stuff that people are necessarily bringing to our attention, the issues, I think we just needed to do better about connecting what issues they're bringing up and actually how it relates to some of the things related or what the Charter actually can do related to those issues. And there were some connections, but then there also weren't. You know? They were just people wanting to share some of the things, grievances they have about stuff that actually meant just grievances. There were actually some good things about what people shared that they thought were going well, that city staff does, that elected officials do, that our community has as a whole. But, yeah, I think there's something we probably need to think about the time we spend with our own time and also the public's time and staff's time. So, yeah. Anything else we can do here. I appreciate it. I wish I do run anything further? No, thank you. Okay, thank you. Did you mess up the information?

A compliment, a question, and then two suggestions. A compliment, a lot of work went into these sessions. And a lot of thought work, creativity. I commend you all for it because it was a very sincere attempt to try to bring people around an issue that most people don't know about, much less care about. So congratulations there. Second question, if you took out those people that have attended more than one meeting, how many people in total attended the three community VAs total? Around 15. 15 total? Not counting the frequent flyers? Exactly. Two to five. About 15. So about five a week. Okay. From a civic engagement standpoint, I don't need to tell you that that's not significant, that we missed the mark here. And so two suggestions. I'm with Commissioner Vela that we've advertised that you're going to do four.

We've got to do four. So do that. Market it. Tell people that it's going to come. But I strongly recommend to you that you step back and look at the design a little bit and look for hooks in the marketing to try to make this real for people because getting five people a meeting, it's not worth the staff time. It's not worth the commission's time. I'm sorry. So, look at that.

The Mountain Stream River thing is creative. It's beautiful. I couldn't understand it to facilitate it. And I noticed a lot of others were having difficulty explaining to the residents that weren't sure what you're looking for, what was going on there. So it's too complicated, and it's too far removed from the questions that we ultimately are going to have to answer. And it takes a long time. So I'd suggest that you decide whether or not to either modify it dramatically or drop it.

And lastly, I looked at the sticky notes from the first one. I saw what went up in the second one, and I agree with the sentiments that we generated comments that were all over the map, distilling them down. And we asked this chair, "Tell us what the themes are." It was really hard because it was so diverse. Let's think about refining the design a little bit to get feedback that is a little more helpful to this commission as we go about our work. But, again, a huge amount of effort. I don't dismiss that in any way. I just think we have to change the way we try to get people there and then what we do with them when they show up because this was not terribly effective. Any other comments?

I understand. Hear from people that actually were there, but all of them. Trying to be an optimist. I think we're going into that second half of those sessions. We have had a nice sandbox and testing ground, a safe space because we haven't had the turnout that we might have hoped. So I think, two meetings ago, we spent a long time deliberating with this. We have data now. We have experience now. I think it's reasonable to leverage that, and we still have 50% of our public engagement, planned public engagement, to address some of those things. That's right. I think in terms of opportunity, we still have quite a bit before the end of our...

Agreed. We do. That's right. Thank you. And I appreciate your feedback. Anything further?

I was going to say it for matters from the community, but I think it's relevant. I found, I'll speak for myself, I found it was the first opportunity that I had had to hash out some of these thoughts. And so I kept, I find myself participating more than I should have as a commissioner in these sessions. Is one of the fun... I didn't do that too. I didn't do that. This is, you know. And so speaking for myself, I learned that it doesn't serve our purpose for us to contribute to the conversation. And so I wanted to encourage folks to just listen as hard as it is. Yes. That's exactly. So that's all I have to say about that. Listen to Rick.

I think that this is a really valiant effort to be creative. And it strikes me that I think throughout the whole thing, I was thinking, "Oh, this is a generational thing." And, being probably one of the oldest people here, I didn't buy into it quite as readily as Maria maybe had. You know? And it was, but I think that it was an experience for me to see that level of creativity. I mean, she was trying to get people to participate on something other than an academic lecturing level. Something. And I don't think it worked, but I think that she gave it a try, you know, and it was really, it was worth seeing if it would work. So, I don't know where to go from here, but I think that we're going to have to tighten it up a lot and make it a lot less...

Indirect?

Well, not just indirect, but also fantastic. That's true. It's true. As it's one moment, it's fantastic. Yeah. You know, more to the point. Yeah. I don't know how much that helps. But it's all, it's all good information that we're sharing our insights and then go back and kind of mull it over and see what might make sense to do whatever adjustments that maybe determines. But, I did see value in the tail end. Last half an hour, when those six questions on the easels were asked, I wrote everything down. That was valuable. Yeah. So, in my mind, I would love to see that front and center and then, and then, get that data, right? So, anyway, anything else on this issue? Was that helpful to you, commissioner?

Yeah. Yeah. And it's, it would, okay. I just, the one comment would be it would shorten the meeting a lot if we, if we did it that way. And I appreciate you saying that it's a very valiant effort because I think it, it was. Yeah. I think it was. You know? And I was, I was happy to observe it. Mhm. But I just, I don't think that it hit the mark. Anything else?

I'll, I'll add is that it, it's also not our experience as, as commissioners. Like, yeah, we all want to get to the points and get to the right questions. Well, not everybody's there. And what I heard from the group that was bilingual is saying that we wish we had more meetings like this when we actually talk about issues, and then you have something specific to chew on, which were the Charter Commission, or sorry, the Charter questions that we have. So that's a different point of view, and that's coming from people that do not necessarily engage in meetings the way we, yeah, it's, or, or that we typically have the structures that we have. Those structures of just how you put Q and A, we show you something, you respond back is not necessarily the way I think you really get rich conversations or have people thinking about what, what is happening in the city that works for them and what doesn't. And then you can feed into the charter and make it relevant. But I think there's a better way to connect it. I hear you all saying that. And, and I also don't want to assume that just because we want the information right away is how other people experience facilitated meetings. Thank you, commissioner.

Right? But I, I think what I'm hearing you say when you say that that group really liked the, getting to the questions at the end. Well, they liked the engagement of asking. Like, what do they think? Did so well, did they like the, the process of going through the earlier, procedure, you know, that...

They did. They like, they like the...

Yeah. The mountain and the stream and all of that?

They didn't complain about it. However, like, there's other people that didn't want to do that at all, right, in other meetings. I sat in that session. I listened to them. Mhm. And I understood what they were saying. And what I, I believe daylight was at the beginning of Friday, someone asking them different questions about the city. And I think they liked the ability to share what was going well, what wasn't going well, what they needed. They wanted parks. They wanted playgrounds with the kids. Anyone would love that. Unfortunately, we would have no ability to change that or move, provide that information as part of our recommendation. So, that kind of leaves us not being able to do anything with the information. But I can see why they like that because no one has asked them that, and now they have civic people listening to what they're saying. Right. And I'm concerned they're going to think we've set them up for failure because we're not going to do anything about all that wonderful stuff they want to see. So, anyway, but, but it was a very rich conversation, and I think that group, more than any of the others, really got into it because I bet you they've never sat in a city meeting to have those questions. Yeah. Right. So, anyway, that was, anything else, ladies and gentlemen, we've got a...

Yeah. Before I'm trying to wrap this up. Okay. Public comments? We don't have anybody in person. Let me just check the Zoom. Any more questions? Checking. We're going to reach the Jericho. We've never met it from the staff. We do not. I, as far as matters to staff goes, I have nothing, so I will defer to Jarek.

You're going to Jarek. You actually have been talking about it. That matter from staff was just, that, this is around the time when you all said you wanted to start seeing what the second wave of sessions look like, so just be thinking about it. The next time you will meet at this is September 14. There's a three-day turnaround to the following session after that one, and that'll be the, the first of the round two. So if it's still going to be river activity or if it's going to be something else, it's between now and the 14th, be thinking about that. And maybe that'd be it. I don't know if that's what would be an action item to discuss what the next one looks like, but this is around the time, right, you wanted to be thinking about what the next phase looks like.

Question. Ago. Are the dates for the second round of these meetings set?

Yeah. They're in your calendar fee. Okay. September 7. It's all, they're all set. Yeah. That, that again, I go along to where I started. Until this commission gets further along in its own thinking and deliberation, having more of these meetings, I think, will risk doing the same thing over and over. We'll get five people a meeting. It'll be staff intensive, and, and we won't have much to show for it. I suggest that we hold off the second phase until we've come together as a commission on what we really want to ask people about and not just duplicate this over and over.

I, yes, sir. I think we're constrained a little bit for a couple of reasons. One is that these have been communicated, well, through the website anyway. And second, because we don't have time to keep pushing them because we will run out of time in this window before the end of the year, and then we had, and my understanding is we had intended to spend January, February, I guess, March, working on the actual recommendations. So I'm concerned that we don't have the flexibility to pull them off, unless we do them more frequently across a, the two-month period.

Okay. Anything else?

Can you say that? I just, I would just like to say it would be, it would put an incredible burden on staff if we put these meetings off. You know, Marcy's team needs time to work on things. You know? These, you know, the all the work you ultimately will do, will end up on a ballot. That takes time for the legislative team to work through and process. I understand the need, but I would strongly discourage pushing it, putting these meetings off.

Okay. Thank you. The commissioner, did you, did you have...

No. I, if I...

Oh, you were just pointing it out. Okay. So let me weigh in on this as well. The, the next city, full commission meeting is September 14 on Monday, and then the next hearing is, well, other than this Thursday, but that's already going. It is September 17 of that, of the same week that we're able to commission meeting. Commissioner Vigil, I'm glad you asked the question about what our thoughts were and our experiences of the different input sessions. I guess it would be my hope that you would take that back to your committee, and you all have a conversation. I think, you know, we all have a conversation about what you want to start doing for the, because this week is set for the 17th. Yeah. And that you could report that to the commission on 14th and tell us what adjustments or what you've done differently. Because I, I agree with the state that the dates are set. The staff has been working on it. The public, public information is out there about the dates. When we're required to be, required of all these hearings, we would have to have eight of them. And pushing them further in November, December, I think we're going to even get less than five people.

So I, for one, would encourage us to keep the dates, but to have our committee look at how to restructure if, based on what you've heard, they come and tell us on the 14th. We'll start that. Maybe have that early on the agenda so we can have a considerable conversation about that. Does that make sense?

Madam Chair, I think that was always the plan to shift the structure. I think we were going to start with the first four as info and learning and getting feedback. And then the next is still learning and education, but more focused. I don't think it's a bad thing that we focus on these six questions that we're given through the resolution, because I think it would be good to hear what people think about them, and that they could share other aspects. So I don't think it's bad that we don't have, maybe there's more questions you'd want to be answering, but we have a guideline right now, which is resolution. So, yes, I'm that's the only thing I'm unclear about. We have this guideline. We want to look at other potential questions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't inform people and explain what the Charter is and what it does and get some feedback on the ones that we're focused that we actually have tangibly to look at because of the resolution. I don't want to stray from that.

No, I think he's very focused on that's a charge. Right. That's a charge. Anything else? Okay. So does that make sense? Make sense to have a report to the full commission at the September 14 meeting or what you all have determined instead of changing the direction? Is that a reasonable request or are the commissioners' time in? I know commission will have different entities. It looks certainly valuable to anyone else.

Chet, can you repeat what you said?

I was asking if it makes sense to have the committee look at the past input sessions and to refocus, I think someone said refocus the input sessions. Look at that, have that conversation, and report to the full commission on September 14 because they can't change the one that's coming up on Thursday at this late date and report to the commission on September 14 what they're going to do starting September 17, October 1, October 15, November 12. I'm asking if that makes sense and I'm wanting input.

Yes, thank you for repeating that, and that makes sense to me. Thank you.

Okay. You got a commissioner there. Because of the other concerns about the sort of siloing and the decisions being made in the subcommittees, I might offer that a working group be put together just as a distinction of folks. I know Commissioner Perez, Commissioner Gold, Commissioner Villarreal feel very strongly about what shape this takes. And so if we want to put a working group, non-quorum working group together, of those who are most concerned or most passionate about it, I wouldn't mind stepping back for that conversation we had in time so that that can be hashed out in a way that all, you know, all interested parties feel like they've had a chance to keep it easier. Great option. This should be a wrap. What does that sound?

Well, Madam Chair, if there's Commissioner Granio and you're saying step back, we still have a quorum. We can't do that. So, like, having a working group. So I'm trying to figure out what that I'm welcoming more feedback. I'm just trying to figure out how to meet these needs. So maybe not figuring out the details here. Just looking at having three people of the commission need to have a conversation prior to the fourth. Prior to the fourth. Yeah. You can have up to four of them, I think. Prior to the September 14. I think I think we'll let Michelle work with the other three people that she feels would be appropriate and who are willing to because it sounds like Commissioner will may want to join that. And we'll let you, Commissioner Villarreal, if that makes sense to all come up with the renames it, come up with the Commissioner Perez, and you're stepping away. Is that what you're saying?

If there's room, I'll participate. I don't feel as strongly as I feel like some others in the room feel. So I would just like for us when we meet next time that we make a decision because it will go into go into action three days later. Yeah. Yeah. So is it okay if we just go ahead and finish it right after that ops and so we can move forward and come up with some presentation for us on the 14th? Yeah. Yeah. I'm not the chair of that committee, so I'm not going to make a commitment to try to figure it all out for everybody. But I will. So then Commissioner Perez is not here, so I feel uncomfortable that I'm going to be the lead. But I think people can we can figure out a way to, I don't know, get feedback somehow additional for the next.

Well, you've got one, two, three, four. We have five commissioners put us stuff that gave you feedback. So, yeah. Just offer it. So, any suggestions, Xavier Vigil, on how this push you can move forward with that little conversation and initiative?

I mean, it's kind of difficult to say, Madam Chair. I think it's very hard to get nine people on the same page, and I think it's a conversation that has to be had by the whole commission. I know we're constrained by time. I think Jaretha has an idea of that.

Okay, Jaretha. There is always the open avenue of X. So if you have recommendations on what you think is a possibility on what the next phases look like, you can send it to them. So whoever is on the outreach committee that is starting to think about it in more detail as a group of four, then they can just be sent. What other commissioners have done? Wasn't that done in terms of phase one and not phase two? Okay. So if you want to change it or you have an idea of what you want the change to look like, send it to X and you can send it to the people that are going to be playing around with it.

I mean, I do have, please. I have one recommendation. As the chair, you do have the ability to call for a special meeting. So if you wanted to call for a special meeting before the 14th and just focus on that issue.

What kind of time do I have time and how many days before? So I would need to know. Let's see. At least 72 hours. Right? Because, yeah. Yeah. So we have to publish the way we publish agendas is typically everything gets published the Friday before the meeting. So, yeah, we'd have, like, these next two, hang on. Looking at the wrong one there. So we're going to meet on Monday the 14th. So if we were if you were going to call a special meeting, it would have to be sometime next week. This should be a gal. We're waiting on the app. It's going to be doing one. I mean, I'm kind of at the point where if someone wants to facilitate the meeting the next four, go for it. I hear. I'm tired. It took a lot of work to do those. Yeah. And, yeah. So I appreciate that. I so appreciate that. It's a valiant effort. I appreciate you saying that. So.

Because people have a lot of ideas, but actually doing it, we're not having staff facilitate. It ends up being commissioners, and it's a lot of work. And I think there's definitely ways to modify it to make it, you know, simplify it, having it be an educational experience and while also getting feedback from folks. And, also, I would love to hear from Commissioner Perez. She's not here, so I don't know what she thinks about it.

I appreciate that. I mean, Commissioner, as I recall, Commissioner Perez had outlined what she thought should be done in the second half of those meetings. And so she already has something in mind. So I think that that, you know, she's put so much effort into this so far that, you know, I think that we should go ahead and do it. Unfortunately, I really do feel like we need to get more people to show up. So that's the bigger issue. And so that's what with the marketing campaign that we talked about today, that's one of the goals of this is to reach more people, to inform more people. So that way we can increase that turnout. But it's not going to match. I mean, they're not going to overlap very well. We need to push this to expect to an unknown time. We're having this conversation because we're talking about matters from the staff and. It is a question. I totally agree so much effort has been put in this, and I'm not and I think you're totally right. We don't have permission to put a situation. And this is where she took the lead and has done a great job. We're not making decisions. I think we need to put the faith in the committee. They've learned what went on the first four sessions, and we see what just needs to really need to make. And just let us know the next meeting what it's looking like and continue that. And then we just need to work on the survey and try to get to reach people that way because, at this point, that's the only other option I see on the table unless someone else has other options. So, I'm just going to, I think, move from matters from the staff and move on. Does that statement work for you?

Yeah. I'm just putting out if people had suggestions about how to how they would like it structured and they want to actually facilitate, then why don't we meet about it? I think that would be helpful.

And I think that that's a very valid and honest offer for someone. So I appreciate you saying that. That's yourself. You're offering staff. And we should go to your chicken bed. Yes. Thank you. We've come full circle. We still have the chicken and egg problem. Now we're talking about moving forward with the second round of public input, designing those meetings that have to happen right now, and we haven't had discussions as a commission about what is most important, what do we really want to hear. So we're going to be relegated to asking the six questions of the five people who show up at each of the new meetings. I know this is what's going to happen no matter what magical marketing you do. And it's not going to be that helpful to us because we haven't had the discussions yet of what is the most important, what are the salient questions, and what do we want to get from the public. We skip that step. We're going right into public involvement. And the last point, and I'll get off this and realize you guys were moving ahead anyway, is if you're talking about trying to get the public to comment on our work as a commission, you would deliberate as a commission. You would come up with pretty good recommendations after hearing generally from the public what's on their mind, and then you would expose those recommendations to the public before giving them to the council. This way, we're going to do we're going to jam all of these public engagement sessions back to back. We're going to get a smattering of information from a handful of people, then we're going to deliberate for three months with no public input and then go to the council with our recommendations. I would suggest that we didn't get this right from the start. I hold myself partially responsible because I didn't understand that that was the overall plan, but I just think it's flawed. And, Madam Chair, you're going to go ahead with this. Go ahead. Do the second round of meetings. Do the survey. Come up with that, whatever you think. But I I'm just dubious that it's going to come up with much of value. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Commissioner Gold. And the direction of this commission is the prerogative of the commission, and all the commissioners make that decision. Is the I'm sorry. Use the prerogative of this commission to decide what direction we're moving into.

I accept that fully. So we're all in this together, guys. Like it or not, we need to make the best of the situation and move forward and deal with those six issues that are outlined in the resolution as best we can, based on the time that we have. So I appreciate everyone's effort and work on this and comments.

Commissioner, thank you for calling. Madam Chair, I think it's because I'm tired and maybe everyone else is, but I actually agree with you. I think there's a missing piece here. The biggest piece is, I don't mind having more sessions, but we will need people to weigh in on something more tangible that we come up with so that we actually get community or we get feedback on that piece. It makes a stronger case. It makes a stronger case. Yes. It's a little, it's more tangible for people to chew on potentially. And then there's still this education piece that I'm still facing is important about what even is the charter. So I don't know how to structure this because I do feel like we do need some just general, what's the charter? Yeah. Governance. Like, what is the governance structure of San Fe right now? What it is? So do we need to socially, yeah, to just have that conversation. Because I think we're looking at, hard. The timeframe is hard. Even if we do have it, like, big timeframe, we don't really. Because we have our own meetings. We have our research to do. We have, we want feedback on what we're actually recommending on some level, and we don't have any of that for next year. Unless we think about coming to the outrigger meetings in 2027 at the beginning. So here's just for two weeks to do what we call it. For tonight?

I move that we have a meeting to work the issues as a commission, and we do it as soon as possible. I move that right now. Okay. I'll second that. This section of the agenda is not for action items. I don't think we can. That's why I'm asking. That was the idea. Then we need a special meeting, I think. Call it straight. Okay. Let's take a day, and then we will work on what that might look like. What date makes sense for a special meeting to discuss? It couldn't take more than an hour. Right? Well, I'd possibly go back. No. You all being here have the opportunity to look at what might work on your calendar. And somebody said something that has to be next week. Is that what somebody said now? I mean, if we're wanting to have a special meeting before the next regular commission meeting, which is on the 14th, it would have to be next week. But if you guys want to meet again in September after the next regularly scheduled meeting, it's really up to you. Ultimately, it's your call, Chair. So sooner is better than later? So, Commissioners, what it looks, Monday is Labor Day. Ninth or tenth. Friday is a half day for the city. No. Friday, 11th for people is a half day. So next week's the eighth. Yes. Labor Day is Monday, the eighth. Do that. Or the ninth. Not the ninth. Ninth is governing body. Eighth. I could do the eighth. I could do the eighth. Eighth. Choose the eighth. I can. Eighth. Going once. Going twice. And eighth. September 8, special meeting, and the title of the special meeting, ladies and gentlemen, will be Special meeting for the purpose of, I thought it would tell you, tell me. Public engagement. It's just design. All we need is just special, special charter review. Well, I know it's pronounced, but that's all we need. But I'm because we're developing an agenda, and we need people to come prepared for something. So we're looking at public engagement period.

Commissioner Gould? Madam Chair, you keep saying we're going to only focus on these six questions. Could we at least discuss those six questions at this special meeting? Well, I thought we were discussing the input sessions. I thought that was the emergency chicken and the egg. Until we figure out where we are as a commission, it's hard to decide what questions to ask the public when we go to have public meetings. The idea is for we see if there's some consensus about what we want to be asking at these next meetings. Design the meeting after we're clear on what we ask. Is that okay? Does the commission want to do that, or we just push that off indefinitely? Well, that is the ultimate direction we're going in. I don't know that we can do that in a one-hour special meeting, to be very honest with you, with the Commissioners. Well, I think to the point that Commissioner Villareal reinforced, if we want to, I mean, we can always do more. But if we wanted to save these last four public input sessions for, say, January after we've had an opportunity to get into the meat of it, that might be something we decide based on if we feel like we've got the content we want feedback on. Is that a possibility? Is that a possibility?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Gould, I think pushing the public input sessions back would put a strain on staff and the work they have to do. But if you're not gathering input from the public that's useful in developing your recommendations, then, you know, I would question the worth of having these public input sessions in this format. It's really up for you to decide. I do just stress the thing that it does put on staff. Okay? Even on the Commissioners in the committee, I can truly see that. I've been in all of it. It is a lot of work for all of you, and I appreciate that. Let's make it meaningful. Thank you for that. So we have to be mindful of that. All right, Madam Chair. Commission, let's focus the special meeting next week on designing the second round of public input and deciding whether or not to keep the schedule or to push it. And we would like to hear more about how that adds more strain if we're simply pushing it out into the future. So that would be the focus of the meeting. Is that all right?

Minister Reynold? Yep. I agree with that. And also, I wouldn't want to, like, necessarily take any of the or all of the next meetings off the table because we could potentially either use them that are already scheduled. Or maybe we take a few off and they become more shorter info sessions. And we add more to 2027 when we have more details. So I could, I would like us to talk about that. Okay. Give me the schedule. Keeping some of the schedule, but that's just because of the appropriate. Yeah. After we, okay. And other Commissioners can help you. This isn't all on you. What if they need, so some of us are going to need to step up and help facilitate and be at them. Yeah. So we need to know that because our small committee has worked really hard, and we need to be appreciative of that. And then we need to be able to, if we're changing the direction, step in and help them out. Yes. Please be mindful of that. And I don't think that, I think that we have to really tell Commissioner Perez that this is not a rejection of her plan, that this is, we just have big questions that need to be answered. Yeah. That's good. I mean, that we really, I really appreciate all that she's done. And all, all three of you, I mean, I don't, is there a fourth one? Yeah. We start calling you. Right. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of work. Okay. So, we are at, that was matters to the staff or back, we actually went into matters from the committee. That was matters from the committee. We just jumped right in there and asked for matters from the committee. I just have one quick. It's a question that I've asked. Yes, sir. We are by the charter and dealt with no less than two staff individuals, and I know that Derek has taken on a lot of that work. But I don't know that it was, I don't know who those people are. So what's the second step of the? Are you formally the, the first? I got locked in. Okay. Yep. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I'm the. So are you the first? No. Is that, is Palmer? My role is only to serve as the liaison from committee. I build the agendas. I take the votes. So the two staff designated are Jerica and Palmer Anderson. Got it. Palmer's, Palmer and the legislative team will be taking on the research estimate. Got it. Okay. Yeah. My role as a staff is actualizing the public input sessions. So, also, to jump back a bit to concerns from staff is, the set moving meetings are having more in January. It's like the same, really tight constraint that we started with in May, which is venues. Because they're the, at least eight have to be in per district. Beyond eight, I think, doesn't matter where they are, but it was, it's been a claw every step of the way to find somebody to do these. It doesn't quality over quantity. Or just having it versus having it. There, there is a requirement in the established legislation, or I think in the charter itself that two meetings will be conducted in each district. So we have to abide by that. Yes. We will. We'll be doing exactly what we're charged to do. Thank you very much. Anything else, doubt, or maybe anything else around matters from that. Just a quick clarification. A moment ago, Madam Chair, you said we're only going to talk about these six questions. Earlier in the meeting, you said on a future agenda, we would have a discussion of wider questions and whether or not to ask a clarification from the governing body that these are the only six lanes we're to talk about. Have you foreclosed that, or is that still? I'm not sure, Mr. Gold. I have to go back and listen to the tape to see exactly what I said, but it is my position that our charge from the council is very clear of those six questions. And it's very clear. It is not my position that we put on an agenda whether or not we ask the governing body to clarify whether those are the six questions. We, I have that note earlier when we mentioned it for potential agenda item for next time. We can't really have that conversation right now. I think I know. I'm not asking that. I'm asking, have you foreclosed it? It's not my decision. In total, I have an opinion, which I share. Yes. So whatever this commission chooses to, good, vote on and move towards. Then I'll, I'm not, I'm not trying to impose my opinion, but I have one, and I can share it. But then you all are absolute members just like I am. Very good. Okay.

Madam Chair, the only thing I want to say is thank you to all committees for working so hard. You know, so we're staff to work so hard. I have seen with all the meetings I've had, you know, the clerk and the staff getting ready for these meetings. How hard you all work, and I really appreciate that, and I'm thankful for that. Our next meeting will be September 8, special meeting to discuss, at 5:00, to discuss public engagement, the public engagement and succession design, and that's what the agenda will be. Xavier, are we going to be meeting in here? Does the time? Let me take a look at the calendar early. 5:00 was, yeah. It will be better. A little bit more challenging for each of them at this evening. This will do work. Wow. But whatever works on the calendar. So we do have a water conservation committee scheduled for that day, but I believe they're meeting. Yeah. You guys are meeting virtually right now, right, until the new facility is ready? Yeah. Okay. So we can have, we can have that meeting in here then. The water conservation committee will be that room. Oh, you're welcome. The ground ready. So the time? They, so, yeah, we can do 5:00. We can do earlier if you want. So, no, not earlier. Yeah. I mean, or, yeah, I'm, I'm flexible. It's really up to you. Commissioners, well, obviously, I have an opportunity for time. It, it doesn't matter. 6:00? 6:00? Okay. 6:00. And we're going to do it for an hour? I made no promises. I just affiliate things. I do my best.

That's all I can do. Okay. Next meeting is September 8, special meeting, 6 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 8:29. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Oh, good. I got that late. And I hope, good afternoon. Thank you.