November 7, 2022 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] Thank you very much. Um uh chair, kinsman. Would you be able to start the meeting and your convenience? Yeah, um. Hold on. Let me get you the right window up here uh welcome to the November version of the City of Boulder's Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board. Uh, we shall start with a virtual meeting and our rules of decorum. Thank you very much. Um. I am going to share my screen, and I will read aloud the rules of decorum. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:05] More about this vision and the projects. Community engagement process can be found at Bolter, Colorado, Gov. Slash services, Slash. Productive atmospheres Following our examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder device code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impede to the ability to conduct to the meeting are prohibited. Participants are required to sign up, to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, audio testimony is permitted online.

[2:04] We do have under agenda. Item number two public comment for the board. Uh, when it reaches that time, and you are a member of the public, you're welcome to raise your hand when called upon uh to begin the process, and you will have a three minute timer to make your public comment. Also. Um of note for the uh for the cloud meeting for today, and from here on, out, we've received notification of a procedure change for how this meeting is recorded. But currently we have um with every meeting we record the audio, and the audio is put into our laser fee a website uh at the conclusion of the meeting. Um, usually within the next day. Um! And that will continue to stay a procedure. Um, But they are adding that the video recording of this meeting, beginning with this one will also be uploaded to the city's Youtube account. So just as an fyi that's um. This meeting will be uh posted to the City Z page within the next upcoming days.

[3:03] Um, also note for the board that um Kathy Haddock is currently traveling, and she will be joining this meeting at a later time today. Okay, thank you, John. You want to do. Roll call. Um, yes, thank you. Um. Continuing with Member roll call. If I speak your name aloud, please mark your presence. Known Member Anderson member, Evan Anderson, You're mute, Evan. Let me see here. It probably was because your code's permissions went away. For some reason you should be able to unmute yourself now.

[4:05] Okay, I can come back. I I'm here. Okay, here, there we go. It was me ask to unmute. I apologize. Thank you. Remember Green, Awesome. Remember Keegan, present present member of the loan present Member noble, I think, uh Member Thompson present, and we receive note that a Member Bailey will not be present today. So um, we do have um a quorum of of seven voting members and one uh ex official member. Do you have additional information that she's going to miss the whole meeting or just parts of it. Okay,

[5:00] Um, continuing um with uh agenda. Item number one is the approval of cannabis licensing and advisory board meeting minutes from the October third two thousand and twenty-two meeting. All right. Any discussion on the minutes from October, if none, then maybe a motion to approve right Brian motions to approve, and a second on that someone. Ten second. I guess I can second it all right. I'll second it uh any one of any one of host or abstaining on approving the minutes from October.

[6:03] Okay. So next we'll go on to a general public comments for the board. You want to read the rules? Um! If there are members of the general public who wish to uh make a public comment. Um, please, in your reactions. Um a bar at the bottom of your screen. Please raise your hand, and we will add your there we go. Thank you, Caitlin. I appreciate that. Um once again. If you are a member of the If if you are a member of the public and you wish to make public comment, please click on that reaction button at the bottom of your screen and raise your hand, and you will have a three minutes to make comment.

[7:01] I currently do not see anyone wishing to restart it to chair, just to reiterate that the comments do not have to be three minutes long. You can make a public comment without having taken up your whole three minutes of time, I see a couple new at least I don't know if the people are new, but the names are new, The Health Center and L. Parker. I don't recognize. Okay? Well, then, we'll officially close of a comment. Okay, Thank you very much. Uh moving on to agenda. Item number three uh the Bolter Marijuana Hospitality City provisions Continue discussion.

[8:00] Alright, so we have um plenty of time to be working on. This. This is in your reading packet starting that page nineteen. Am I right there? That was right to me to okay draft recommendations to city console and and there's it's been some new stuff added. In fact, I notice that, uh, under each item there is sometimes information for support and a pose, and i'm wondering if those are correctly labeled, and are more um accurately described as the majority and minority opinions,

[9:03] and I guess i'll use uh the concentrates on. I think it's on page twenty, one. As an example uh the motion was recommend that marijuana concentrate. Shelby, one of the permitted types of products with the support appears to be more. The um opposition to that and the opposed is supported. That am I correct in my reading? That's correct. Um! It's just that. You know we we're trying to use parallel formatting in terms of the way that the um being accurate with the way that the motions were awarded Mhm. What about changing it to majority and minority. Or maybe, Brian, you could speak to that. I know that was your suggestion for support and oppose. Versus

[10:04] Yeah. So I have a similar kind of response, that I think it requires a little bit extra work just to triangulate the like support opposed into sort of um Shelby. Kinds of things going on in the statements. Um! And so I would say again, if you have a majority of minority kind of statement. Um, I think that might track more clearly. Um! The other thing I just wanted to raise is the process thing was um, and our plan to Median or Kristen. If you wanted to introduce the shared drive uh at this point, or you plan to use it some other point it was going to be today. It looks like sure I can um provide just a quick overview. Um. There were instructions in the meeting package. Just kind of tips and tricks um on how to edit the shared document. Um, just a few things to keep in mind that. Um.

[11:07] You want to make sure that you're not deleting any comments that are made. Um, comments are made really similar to the way that you edit a document in in Microsoft word Um, if you're familiar with that process. Um. So if you're If you're leaving a comment or applying to a comment, please make sure that you're not deleting any of those so that we can retain them for public record. Um. And then also just another note that there's three ways that you can um like three modes that you can choose from when you're editing the document. Um, there's an editing mode that you can use to actually make changes and multiple members can all um log in and make changes at the same time, which is great. Um! There's a reviewing mode, if you just want to add comments and suggest changes with the actually, without actually making the change in the document. And then, lastly, there's a viewing mode where you can just um view the document without making any changes or suggestions, and members of the public will have access to the viewing mode. Um, they will not be able to edit, but all of the Cloud members and City staff have the ability to actually edit the document.

[12:14] It's It's really similar to um. Microsoft word. Does anyone have any questions or um? Has anyone had any issues making changes or reviewing the document. So again, I just want to reiterate something that Kristen said that we don't want it. We want to make sure we're number reviewing mode uh so that all the changes are being tracked. We're not just like making the changes directly, so that we can perhaps decide as a board or in some other capacity. We're not to approve or reject changes that might be too fine. Brand of control. Um! This document is a products of both work that um where you go. No problem did as well as I did. Uh. It's not complete. Uh, It's not to be authoritative. It's meant to just kind of be this kind of first draft. So we definitely want to sort of um engage with this,

[13:08] and then the last point that I would add would be: um. I just forget it. I'll stop talking. Thank you. So you don't. You want to stop short of suggesting that people mostly do reviewing mode and not do editing road, or, I would say, stick to the reviewing mode and or leaving comments. So the last point I was going to raise was that in this this is new for us. So a suggestion or something that I would maybe want us to consider is if we did have a chance to read this, we could all be this Now this also might be a moment where we work as a board like in a document, rather than necessarily talking to each other, and that's a good something. I want to think through and work through with you all as well as like. How do we want best? Uses time? Is it to sort of interact with the document, or is it to sort of um interact with each other in some kind of sequential way,

[14:10] Lana? I was just wondering if there was any record of the kind of guard rails we put on this to jog that numbers memories of like timeline um length contributions. Um, just any additional parameters and guidelines on drafting this together are we, for example, Um, the timeline, like what is our collective goals for different um versions of this and and finalization? Is it by March? And then are we only to touch the position that we voted?

[15:04] Or do we all have access to the full document, and it might be hard to um define all of that without emotion. But I still am curious what the understood parameters are. Um before. And I, Robin, do you have further questions, or do you want to comment on that, or I to comment on that? Go ahead uh? The idea was that there would be the opportunity to express so a support, position, and an opposed position, and that the people who fell in those categories would author and have attributed to them that portion of the document, and so that we wouldn't re debate some of these things unless there was a question about accuracy. I think um,

[16:04] you know, in terms of what was discussed or what transpired during the meeting. That was my thought process on it. The other um limitation on here was that the um paragraphs are two hundred and fifty words or less. Um! And then, with respect to the timeline, i'm not sure I have that question as well. Okay, Thanks for the word, count. I I forgot that. So two hundred and fifty words or less, and then it sounds like you don't want substantive, or you would recommend, not substantive contributions to the position we didn't. Take, but potentially like fact based comments. Or, yeah, for instance, if you saw something there that just seemed completely wrong. I think that's worthy of the board taking some time to debate, you know. So we're not putting things through that are actually incorrect. Um. But in terms of and yeah, you got it. And then do we think that will

[17:01] make a motion to finalize it? I think that what might make sense actually so that it has all of our sign off or majority sign off Stacy. I have some similar questions, but I kind of was wondering if somebody could help me rewind a bit that maybe catch me up if i'm not understanding. Did we vote on using this format like it. I'm having a hard time, remembering that right now, or finding it so like, did we vote as a board that we should present this document this way Is that necessary? Would be my follow up question to that like, did we need to? If not, and if we did, i'm sorry that I somehow. Space that i'm gonna call on calling. Oh, Brian, go ahead,

[18:00] Robin can correct me if I was wrong. But I think this is meant to be an effort to communicate. Uh um! Our arguments backing up the recommendations Uh. So just like you would have like opinions, and like a Supreme Court, any kind of judicial body that you sort of like have to sort of the pros and the cons of the both cases. Both sides can make their case, and then for us is what you're saying like. This is more for our use here. Together. We're not planning to submit this, or we are. I think this is intended to be submitted to city council as an appendix to sort of like outline our logic for how and why the Board voted in these ways again. Keep in mind that. Yeah, that's kind of why, I guess I wanted to step back for a second and find out like, did we need to vote on that, that we all agree to use this format as it stands that this works for us all was that like, you know, just as far as um I don't know staturely. It's probably the wrong word. But is there anything about that that? We would need to like to have voted that we agree to use this format, I mean, like last meeting, I think, became clear that there was

[19:03] this format just brought in a lot of um. I'm going to use the word emotion from people, as I think, is naturally attached to all this. So you know, given all of the if sands or butts and we're here discussing how to now formatted. Um, I guess I just wanted to find out if we needed to have voted on that, and i'll agree first that this would be because if we're all presenting it as a board, and therefore our names are kind of attached to appended to it right, each one of us separately. Um! And yet together to board them. It seems like maybe we need to first agree that we're going to use this format, and you know enough of us agree that that's the way to go, and maybe we do already, and that'll be super easy. But I wasn't sure if we needed to do that, or wanted to do that. I'm not aware that I was making any sort of foral motion on this. I think this was an experimental uh approach that was brought forward by Robin that I was supportive of um. And so I think it was something that we sort of want to get some ideas down and get you all to react to. But if this is not a productive

[20:09] way of capturing consensus or sort of providing evidence to back up a recommendation to Council. Then I would certainly entertain other ways of approaching this. I'll see this because I know there's a queue stacking up here. Okay, Yeah, I was um um wondering the same thing whether or not if we did have um format recommendations for this or different format ideas that we could just add it in a comment, and like put like a little outline of what maybe another another option is, or um, because I I mean I also have some ideas of of what I think that the general idea of of putting both sides, if that's how everybody feels that that that we should do it. Then I think that that totally works having the motion. Um, you know. I think that we may, wanna you know, have it as a recommendation. Um, and maybe separate out the things that didn't pass into separate places. You could have a recommendation Section another section, and then here's the recommendation. Here's the comment for the supporting of that recommendation. And then here's the other. And then here's how it differs from State law, or you know there's a lot of different like variability to like how we could do this. But I just My question was, How do you want those those thoughts or recommendations on potential changes to the format

[21:20] in this particular document. I like a lot of what you just recommended real quick, but I want to hear from Kathy. It's like what a few of the things you just said Kate to me would make it feel a lot more comfortable and fitting to what I understand our objectives to be here as this board, Kathy. Thanks. I'm going to shut up from the airport, and so we'll be in my car soon. But the um the you did decide to to say he did It didn't want the format that I had done, which was just the recommendations, and so there was a discussion. I don't have the minutes in front of me to know which part was voted on, but that you did want to have the reasons why the people voted, and all and the people,

[22:04] and the reasons that people voted yes, which I think will be very helpful to counsel to include, that if you want another format, I would recommend, and I think this is consistent with what Kate said, that somebody suggests another format. Um, Right now I know there is a motion to have the public hearing, and it's in February, which means you have to agree on the language that you want the public hearing on by January. And if You can't even figure out the form at this that you want at this meeting. That's going to be a hard deadline to me. So maybe talk about the format. You do want um and decide that if you want more emotions on that, Alana. Well, the January deadline just gave me pause. Um, because that makes me feel like we're gonna have to review

[23:03] ordinance language from Kathy and draft and edit this document. Um! And for all of us to do that by January. Just trust me out a little bit. The ordinance language won't be going to council at this point. What we'll go to towns is your recommendations in order for the ordinance to be drafted. Council would have to do it. Not a five on the parts of the recommendation that they want Staff to spend time on drafting. So the only thing that's going to counsel at this point is the memo that you got the the recommendations that you all are doing so. The document you're talking about. So it should be the format that you want, and then there will be a cover. Memo from the staff, explaining kind of the process of why this is being done. Why, you guys are recommending this and what their next steps are under the code.

[24:01] Okay, Thanks for the clarification, Kathy. So I guess I was referring to the memo that you were beginning to draft um on September seventh. But it's dated September seventh. Um were you gonna complete that? Or was our exercise as Board members going to replace that? This document that you have in front of you is going to replace. The memo that I drafted is my understanding of what the Board wanted. Thanks. Go ahead. Yeah, um, just to quickly clarify Kathy. You said February. Is that is that a self-imposed date, or is that something that is actually fixed by by council,

[25:10] which I assume? And then, if you're going on, I mean you can always as a board. You can do a new motion if you want to supersede that. That's not. I just want to make sure that I understand that we are not. We are not actually bound by February. If we're not actually ready to do it, yet absolutely do those that have expressed concern have an alternative method to communicate our discussions to the City Council. I thought the basic idea that Kate was describing could at least in my mind, be useful. I'm. Used to reading reports more that way, Tommy probably are in the past two. Where you see, you know page one. Here's the plan. Here's like

[26:06] the important highlights, if you will, and then, if you need to, or want to explore further in the back story, you can, and this all would be there. But as I look through it, and I really do come at this from a more neutral standpoint, if you will, it feels to me like a really I I keep using the word emotional, but that's what keeps popping into my mind document as opposed to like a very, a more pragmatic one, and I think it's really important to accept. There's emotions on every side of this, and, like all of us, have our own emotions coming from our backgrounds. You know that are involved here. Um! And so we want that here, of course, like we've already worked on doing. But I think we also need to add that front piece of like, Okay, here's you know the facts of the case, if you will, and we can, you know, say page twenty-two is the discussion, or whatever you want to call this part. So I would personally feel more comfortable in that

[27:09] format. Um, The only other thing while we're just kinda on the formatting topic. Uh, and I think we were starting to talk more about this in the editing is anything that's unknown as far as like Not really research. I think we need to like say that right like, rather than making statements. And I know, Robin, you had open the discussion just a few minutes ago to this idea of, like, you know. Let's be clear on all that stuff, and I really appreciate that because I want to make sure you know that it is clear that this isn't settled science. There's tons of debate, and we don't know. But here's our concerns from all these stakeholders. Um! So I think you know, having that more clear like references, even if we can. If we're going to say, Yeah, there's science behind it to maybe reference that because I think

[28:02] I at least, if I was a Council member, I would want to see that, you know, beyond just the discussion of the Board numbers. So Those are kind of my formatting thoughts more, but that kind of jumps further into the document, and I guess we were still on the first part. Problem. Um. Would you be willing, Stacy and and other people who kind of have some of these thoughts to go ahead and engage with the process and use that function that Kristen set up like. So there's three functions. There's an edit function there's a comment function, and there's just a view function. And through the comment function. You could go into a particular phrase that you found to be just emotional, and you could suggest something else. So I think that's what we've done here is to create. We started with the draft, and we now have the mechanics for everyone to go in and make sure that they, you know, especially if they see something they think is factually incorrect

[29:01] or stands out, is just emotional. To go ahead and dig into the document, do the work, and Then let's come back and see what we have. I mean. Sometimes you have to get off a blank piece of paper to get going, and what I hear is like a lot of um worry and concern, and I I get that sometimes. You just have to get off the blank page. And again, if people can take the time between now and the next coordinating dig in and do some of the work through these mechanics that Kristin set up. I think we could move this issue along. And yes, that's kind of my second point I was making like, you know. I appreciate that we now have that ability here. I think that's great like we said. I absolutely will be excited to engage um. But I think we need to first finish talking about the overall format right, which I still, that's really where my concerns are more than the other stuff. I was actually saying, I appreciate that since our last meeting there's been this new system put in place, and it seems much better on that point.

[30:07] It's more the well do. We want a cover page, or you know something like that. That was kind of, I guess, where I still feel questions and concerns Michael. Before I go to you I wanna go back to Alana's first question when she started this discussion, and as a question for Kristen and Brian, i'm assuming that in this format uh when people make comments, those comments are labeled, or you know, if somebody does edits even the person doing the editing. A person doing the commenting has an attribution right? There. Is that correct? Is it just like word? Where, if somebody changes something, you can, it's easily to figure out who said what? Theoretically Kristen can correct me. But that's my expectation. But again, if people want to

[31:00] for it to the document, we can experiment. See what happens? I don't know we need like a training session, everyone right one bird. So So then, to go back to that um a lot of question about what the people could edit, or what Robin kind of just answered it. But other people can make comments about things that they actually didn't vote for. Uh that they were in opposition to. Well, of course they can. They can. And just like Robin just said, If somebody doesn't like the or if somebody feels something factually inaccurate or the wording is wrong, then you know It's an opportunity to go in there and put a comment Um! And then, lastly, to answer Stacy's and Stacy is concerned, echoing Kate's suggestion. Um! One could go in and make comments at the beginning. Uh, and I and I would be all for a summary page, and, in fact, a summary page that then refers you to some place else in the document where you can look at the details just as you suggested Stacy.

[32:05] Um, And the cool thing about you know this is that you could be a hyperlink, and it could take you right there. Um! So, Michael, it seems to me like, Excuse me like we've already had this conversation about the formatting, and my recollection was that we were going to put together a document of recommendations, laying out what which issue we were discussing, we would give the position of the majority on that particular issue, and then give the opposition on that particular issue with, and each side was limited to two hundred and fifty words. It seems like now, with all this discussion, we're making this much more complicated than what at least I think it needs to be, and I I agree with Robin like let's start with the document that we have, and um

[33:01] for those that want to contribute. Go ahead and contribute, and then let's take it from there and see what we can do with that document. And I I also think it's important to remember that we are. Um, we're just an advisory board. So it's. It's Council that will ultimately make the decision on these issues, whether we support them or we oppose them, and I think, as long as each side feels comfortable, that their position has been articulated within the two hundred and fifty word limit, or if we decide to expand that that we shouldn't be going much further than that. Otherwise, I think we're creating a document that's way too complicated. Alana: Yeah, I don't think anyone should make any mistakes about how complicated of a task this is to try to accomplish across nine diverse board members. Um! So I do think that because we are being asked to spend considerable additional time.

[34:06] Um, it's gonna take me hours to work through a document like this, and then somebody is going to change everything I do, and i'm gonna have to go back and spend more hours again. And then it's gonna have to happen again until we ever, maybe get somewhere that everybody can agree to. Um. So I think this because it's demanding an incredible amount of time at the worst time of year possible for families and business owners, and probably everybody else in the world. I think we need a vote and emotion to prevail in order to actually demand that all of us set aside the amount of time that's going to be required. Um! I will have to comment on pretty much everything, because to Michael's comment. Um! As to those who want to contribute, we haven't come here every first Monday of the month for years, because we don't want to contribute um. This is above and beyond. So because of all that, I think this needs to be put in a motion by the people who want to support it, it needs to prevail.

[35:08] Um, it's going to like, I said. Demand hours over the next couple of months to get this over the finish line. Um, even just looking at the very first comments and the very first to pose um. I think I pointed this out on the last meeting risk of licensing marijuana consumption businesses that way potential benefits. It's an entirely speculative and um unproven, and even something like that. I wouldn't be able to support on a factual collective basis, so those are my additional concerns about it. Um. And as Michael said, we are just an advisory board. We have a staff who's been super gracious, and um is here to support this board. And so I just want to note that this additional ask of the membership isn't the design of the board, the design of the Board is for us not to do this

[36:08] right. So my suggestion would simply be that we use this meeting as a working time to work through this document, and maybe it is the case that we say we're going to spend twenty minutes on the first matter here, and we're gonna all go from get it. We'll leave our comments, and we'll have a discussion about the document. So, rather than talking about it, and then sort of going into over time and doing the phone work outside of class. Um actually use this meeting to like work on the document rather than just talking about the document would be my suggestion. I think that's a good suggestion, Michael. Yeah, I I agree with Brian. I think that's a really good suggestion. I think we need to be very careful, though, because you know to to your point a lot. You know you made the comment. If you, if you put together your um your articulation of a position, and then you're going to have to go back and edit it, based on what people say within our board. Um, I Don't. I think that's a very slippery slope. I don't think that. Um,

[37:13] for example, and I hate to to be this divisive. But if the majority has a position that is articulated in a way that they are comfortable with. I don't think that the opposition to that should have the right or the authority to go in and change what the the majority's position is, and vice versa. Um. I agree that what in the earlier discussion, if there's something that is absolutely, factually incorrect. That needs to be corrected. But we are um, I think, going down or going up a very slippery slope if we and we are not being realistic. If we think that we are going to um at the end of the day, compile a document where we are allowing the majority to edit the minority position, and allow in the minority to edit the majority position.

[38:02] I don't think that that should be allowed Stacy. So I appreciate all of that, thought Michael. I'd like to add that there's more to it than that from my perspective, and i'm only speaking for mine. Other people can speak from theirs if i'm signing my name to a document, even if I am part of the for position. Not that again, if it says something like the sentence, Alon. I use risks of licensing outweigh potential benefits. I don't want my name on the document, not because I don't necessarily agree with it. I don't think my opinion matters as much of this moment as not wanting my name professionally appended to a document where there are statements that I don't agree with. So for me. It may. I'm not sure I can be comfortable with this format like it. It really does concern me, and I I appreciate that that's beyond many other people's concerns, but that is a concern for me. I I don't want to be cited in documents right especially once for a city

[39:12] with my name attached to statements that I cannot fully support. I I just don't. I don't believe I ever signed up for that um, and that's why I was saying, Did we vote on this format? Because I I don't really it's not as much an issue of like. Do I agree or disagree with this format so much as there's a lot of extensions of it that have to be considered. And as a fun it just said, I mean, that's an immense ask of people right now, like I I honestly I don't have the time to go through this with it like fine tooth, comb and catch things that in like five years. Someone's going to tell me I was once quoted in a document saying the following: I I can't take that on um, so I personally feel like I'd either have my name left off of it, or like if we have to go forward with this type of document, or let's just make this more simple. We have spent endless hours debating these things. We have votes, we have recommendations. We could list those really, clearly and simply in a summary statement lacking all of this background. Now, if other members of the Board wish to submit documents explaining their opposition with their names appended to it fine.

[40:20] But I. I just don't know the added value of that, Robin. You know. One thing that might help a little bit would be. We could add a state, a a phrase, and this is used often, especially in legal documents. That is, we believe, or you could come back to the majority believes where the minority believes, and salting and peppering. Some of that stuff through here might make it a little more clear that not all Board members are of the opinion, and I I think another confidence builder about doing it this way.

[41:01] Um, that might help members who are feeling uh nervous, or, you know, are unhappy with this format is. This format is used by high courts throughout our country, and I think where we made a little mistake, And, Brian speak up if you disagree. But instead of using the um words support and oppose, we probably should have for the minority and for the majority. That also put some more weight into the majority's position on the votes, but gives the minority a place to comment, and um express clearly what they, what they were thinking, and I think Stacy, if we went through, for instance, on that very first sentence where we say risks of licensing blah blah blah, the minority believes risks of licensing blah blah blah that can be very helpful throughout the document. Again, we have a two hundred and fifty word limit.

[42:00] Everyone on the board has shown up and debated all of these issues I feel that the Council needs the full breadth of our conversations. Um! I realized that the majority of people felt a certain way, but the minority did show up, and the minority is not necessarily not putting forward information. That's not factual. Um. This is the position we've taken. After listening to all of the different arguments that guest speakers all of those things, and we want an opportunity which is two hundred and fifty words on each motion, to present that information to council. You feel like that something Council deserves, and that's certainly the voice that we deserve. Okay, we're not a court. I think that's really important. We are an advisory board, I I mean, we're not meant to function as a court when the court rates those opinions, the justices on each side are very clearly labeled as such. Right. In this case it's not so clear cut. I have opinions on both sides of

[43:02] every one of these things, and sometimes i'm sure that the way that it would be written by some of the people who disagree would be different than others, and so back to a lot of It's an immense amount of time that would be required to do this, I mean, maybe we should go forward like Brian just said and see like. Let's try it out. But I at this point would say, it's unlikely in this type of format that i'd be able to be comfortable, adding my name to it like that. I had part in this document, I Not that I don't think a lot of hard work's gone in, and that it's a really important type of document and useful. It's more, you know. I don't know if it can be done in a way that would remove all of that Coi, as far as i'm concerned. So, Michael, Yeah, Stacy, I mean to to your point. I I feel like um. You know we are striving for the same objective, and that is

[44:05] you. You're making the comments that there are certain things written in in this draft that you don't want your name associated with, and I feel exactly the same way. So I, to me at least this preliminary draft addresses that issue because it identifies which members voted in the majority, and which members voted in the minority. Um, and to me that that is of the utmost importance in terms of at least having my name tied to this document, and I believe if i'm hearing you correctly, that's what you're saying that there are certain things that the way this is written, or the positions that are taken. You're not comfortable signing off on, and I think, if we can at least identify who sadden the majority who sat in the minority, and that at least gives that person some level of comfort that hey? If you're in the majority and you like the way that's written great, go to, you know, and and if you don't like it, then go to those other people in the majority, and who drafted that opinion and work with them to edit it,

[45:05] That, I would hope would give you some level of comfort at least, having your name tied to this document. Um, at least that that's how i'm looking at it, and and I do feel like if you look at the precedence that's been set like this is our first stab at doing something like this, and I certainly feel like looking at the way the High Court deals with their decisions. Having a majority having a dissenting opinion. Um, we're using that as a benchmark. If that works for us great, if it doesn't. Okay, then we can come up with something different. But to me again, Um, I. I want to see that those in the majority can have their name assigned to that majority position, and let those folks in the majority in the majority work together to come up with a comprehensive two hundred and fifty word articulation on their position. Um, that's that at least that's how I see it. Our our names on it now, because my the one i'm looking at I don't see that. But so are you saying that would be added?

[46:05] Um! I thought that we had added the names, and maybe that was just something that I was working on offline. Um, but but at least because I agree with you. I I felt like well wait a second. This document doesn't identify who voted for this way on this particular issue, and I will tell you. I mean. There's I think we all can recognize. I'm. Probably from the much more conservative side of some of the boats we've taken, and and I do not want my name associated with voting in favor of some of these positions that we're passing, and it is it's? It is very important to me that my name is identified with the positions that I've taken. I agree with that. I that would at least remove. I'd say half of my concerns with it. Um! I'd still want to know that there's nothing blatant

[47:01] right? Because we are an advisory. We're not a court right that is written on the other side. And So then once again, I think we just have to circle back to the question of how much time is that really going to take? And if that's to ask, Is it an appropriate ask? Or is that not the intentions of this for right like I don't know that's not something I have an answer to. So maybe someone else does, interrupting those who have their hand rates. But I think it's important that we take the time to get the document right to Evan's point. This is an arbitrary timeline that we set up for ourselves. If we're not comfortable collectively as a board submitting something in January or February, then we just extend that deadline to to get a document that we are all comfortable with. Um that that is, you know, at least, for as a whole for our board, something that we should all feel positive about that. The document that we are submitting we can all sign off on.

[48:05] Okay, i'm just gonna check back in with you because you did have your hand up before Evan. Did you want to say something? Um, i'm gonna wait. Okay, happened? Yeah, Thank you. Um, i'm kind of reviewing a lot of these documents. Obviously. I'm a relative new beyond this court or on this board, and looking back over a lot of these recommendations. I apologize this this for for whatever reason, was shared with an inappropriate email for me, and I just got the chance to review this right now. So i'm actually looking at it for the first time. So I've kept my mouth shut here for a minute. Um! One definitely need to have our names attached to this to I think that this is an effort that can be edited to something that I think most of us could probably stand behind, but as it stands right now, it's. If we want to make declarative statements, we should probably making references to scientific information. Um, I feel compelled to identify quite a few things in here that are not defended by um settled science, to say the least uh in kind of looking back at everything

[49:12] We I I was provided by person who's actually here as a as a guest to this meeting right now. The document that was created by Kathy and the Shawn back in March as a summary document for all of the motions that have existed up to that point. I believe it ran through March of this year. Um! It was a very, very objective document. It stated names and positions on every motion that we made, and provided a appendix of details related to the minutes about who was saying what um, I think there's some ownership in the comments that are being made there, and there's a lot of emotion, or a lot of opinion being presented in the document that we're reviewing right now, I think it's probably appropriate for us to not impose a self-imposed number count on some of these subjects. Some of these subjects are not controversial. We're damn near unanimous on some of them

[50:08] that does not offer the same. That is not as important as a sufficient conversation over something as controversial, as what will be seen as very controversial. Our twenty-five year old limitation, or our prohibition on the least least impactful secondhand smoke product, I believe, from my reading of this. We've now outlawed bait inside of consumption lounges that's going to create a ton of problems. Uh that being, said I, I don't want to rehash everything that's on this list, but there are a lot of things here that need to be considered, and now that we are seated with a full board, I think it's an appropriate thing for us to entertain the idea that some of the stuff we had five members voting on, and no members representing the industry.

[51:00] It's pretty difficult to make an informed recommendation to city council when you Don't have a single person on the board voting who actually works in the industry. Um! It presents Major major concerns to me that we would make recommendations as a board without actually being informed by operators in our space. Obviously, some people are on this board for certain reasons. Some people are on this board, because they are in favor of this industry, and some people are on this board because they are not um to not have a representative sample of those individuals, and to make recommendations to council as though it were a voice of the board, is very concerning to me, to say the least, uh lot of this stuff we we we have, we had it. We had a system. We had a we had a memo style that Michawn and Kathy put together. That was extremely objective. It was simply the comments that we made and the votes that we made, and not

[52:01] this level of emotional discussion. And I know that i'm the one who recommended that we do this. I'm. Not i'm not that's not lost on me, but seeing it in action, I feel like this is this format is going to be really hard for anybody to embrace on the opposing opinion. So I think we need to. We need to make a We need to make a little bit of consideration that this is a long time coming. Perhaps we should revisit some of these subjects that are currently so divisive. I mean obviously I one to four vote eliminating thirty- of the market, which is concentrates without a vote from anybody in the industry, and then calling that the recommendation of the Canvas Licensing Board is a that just doesn't make any sense to me. If we want to vote on that again, and it loses again, then we should at least have a representative sample of this board, and I'm. Looking at a lot of these, and we don't have that on a lot of these subjects. So I know we're about to have a we're about to have our retreat, and we're gonna have a chance to sit down. But having had about thirty minutes to review this document.

[53:09] I have a lot of things I need to say about it, and I think this goes to further. Alana's point that this is a time. This is a time commitment. If we're going to make the time. Commitment, We're asking a lot of this board, but I can't certainly stand behind this formatting with these kind of references without substantiated actual peer-reviewed references. And this is this is like this: reads like a uh prohibitionist document, and it doesn't sit well with me. Um! I actually raised my hand just because I wanted get in the official line here. Um, I I got it. I want to go back to Brian's point. Is that right now we're spending a lot of time discussing how to are discussing the how. But we could be spending this time discussing the what um the reality is is that

[54:05] if if we do what Stacy suggests, and just give a you know, like a one. Page is kind of summary um, and present that to city council. It's going to be backed up by, if you know. If they want to look at it. They can look at all the minutes that for all the meetings, and have all the information, including this document. Um! And so you know it's already there in the public. Um, if we did a one-page summary, and then those that are supporting a proposition or or posing a proposition list their own things directly to city council that takes it away from a public form. This is supposed to be a public forum. Um, you know it's supposed to be a place where we can all discuss it. This was the opportunity and the um

[55:00] uh the method created to try to do this publicly. Um! So we again go back to what Brian said that we could be spending this time moving forward. I guess the city I mean we all it to the constituents that are representing to move forward on something like this is approved two years ago. Uh, by the State, I mean. All right, Michael. I feel like like we're moving forward. I feel like we're moving in the right direction. Um, you know, admittedly. The direction that we're headed is not the direction that I would have chosen. But I respect the vote the vote of the board. Um! And I think that you know again, it's it's important like to know to your point. We we have a duty to the community to be doing the job that we were tasked with, and I believe that we are doing that I I feel like we're going to continue to go round and round and round on this debate as to Format and and Evan to your point. I'm. You know I would appreciate it if you could provide the Board with the votes that you feel um you didn't have, or the industry did not have adequate representation. Um, i'm not aware of that. Um, i'm not saying that that's not the case. But I I would be curious to see what which of those votes in which you feel that the industry was not represented,

[56:26] because in essence, what you're asking us to do is to go back, and for every vote that the industry is not happy with. Let's have a redo, and I certainly will not support that right. Oh, you're mute, Brian, whatever you just sent. Alright, Thanks. Thank you. Alright, So I do want to sort of move this issue along. So I do want to propose a motion and all entertain friendly amendments, but it would be something to the effect of um.

[57:02] The only recommendations to city council shall be the uh, the the of the motions themselves, with nothing else. So uh other. I think it was. Evan and others have sort of mentioned that, you know they like a previous memo uh, or agenda, so like, outlined, like just all the motions, and all of a sudden the people who voted for it against, and so that maybe it's the only thing we can report to city council. So if you want to have this sort of deliberative style, pros and cons for the majority against the majority of you, don't know for my function. I'm going to vote no one my emotion as well. Uh, but I will entertain friendly amendments. I'm not sure that you carried that to the point where you're actually making a motion, or you're willing to entertain um amendments and comments to your corrections to your amendment or to your motion at this time. Is that correct? This should be a second. If there's not a second, then we can move on to other topics.

[58:06] I would second that. Uh, I would second that motion, because even though I won't support it, I'm. I'm i'd like to see what the vote is on that did people have a chance to offer friendly amendments, or just I mean that we didn't get a chance to talk about it. Um! So let's keep our comments to them to that motion, I guess. Yes, thank you. Um. The only recommendations that should be reported to city council will be the content motions themselves and the uh side the the votes uh who is Ca: And A. So only the motion, the content of the motion, and only the years and days will be the only things reported, but the baseline deliverable is the memo that Kathy drafted that That's It's not the

[59:08] simply the list of motions and votes There is context in the memo that Kathy draft, and I think that's the baseline, and we're being asked to consider an exception which is the member drafted uh court style, so can the moat can we be? Would our friend wouldn't a friendly amendment, or wouldn't the motion be the baseline that the board was the the default option of the board which is having staff draft the recommendation to City Council. That's what we're debating is, Do we want staff to do it, or do we want to use this? Whatever is left of this meeting next meeting and the next to continue this alright, I accept. I want this friendly amendment, and i'll, i'll amend my motion to something like the only thing that will be reported to City Council is the staff memo, as well as the motions and the years and days

[60:11] to enumerate that. Can you? Can you tell us what page or where exactly we can find that in either the meeting or a reading document, and from which month it's. Page twenty-four of the Pdf. Page twenty. If you're looking at the pages on the dot on the page. Um, it says: Memorandum to Cloud, from Licensing and City Attorney Staff subject, draft, Recommendation City Council. It's. We would all also have the opportunity to edit this the same as the other. But this goes on when I'm, seeing in front of me goes on to um show the support, and

[61:02] that's It's two separate documents. The one that has highlights is Kathy's, and then it just moves right into Robin and um brian's Okay, um dated September seventh, two thousand and twenty-two correct So I think what a lot of this point to is, I guess model where the pro for my motion would be to have this memo, and then only the composition of the the bolded statements of what the motions are, and adding but the years and days where the as and days were an opposition, would be to explore some other kind of model. So we're really just. Do we want to proceed with the city staff like uh the staff, like memo with the the motions and the years and days? Or do we want to engage with another kind of process? So yes, keep the city staff Memo

[62:03] uh, and the the list of motions in the years that would be. We're going to do another process. And again, Sorry for I just like I always like to know what i'm voting on. So this would be from page nineteen the memorandum until the bottom of I think it's page twenty-one, or it says draft with the highlighted. Is that correct? And the Pdf. It's page is twenty, four and twenty, five of the reading packet twenty, four. Yeah. I don't have the Pdf. Open I it's it's on It's open on a web page right now. So it's the two pages of the letter draft and watermark in the back, and it's right. After that document Cape made with the it's called the Hospitality Resource. The Cloud Hospitality resource like right after that is the memo or memorandum.

[63:05] Yeah, I think we're talking about the same thing. Okay? Uh, I mean, not really sure where. When I raised my hand on this last one um motion, either to Yeah, Michael. Uh, yeah, just as a comment. Um Brian, to what you're proposing. Um, i'm trying to go back to the document here. Me personally, I have no problem with that format that staff drafted. Um! But I feel like we are failing as a board. If we are not providing contacts to these issues.

[64:01] Um! I I felt like again. I feel like we're We've had this conversation before. I feel like we're now debating a conversation that we've already at least preliminary, decided to take a stab at, and that is, lay out the issue. Lay out in context why the majority voted this way. Why, the minority voted this way. If we just provide the content that is listed on pages twenty-four and twenty-five it's, not giving context to council. So in essence we're just saying to council, Here, here's the issue. Here's the vote. Here's how each member voted, and here are some bullet points to each. To each of these issues. I think what's important is that we lay out for council. Here's what the majority was thinking, and here's why they voted that way. In my opinion Only then can Council make an informed decision from our advisory recommendation to help guide them in making their decisions, I think, with providing just the staff memo we are missing out on an opportunity to truly advise council. It's just to me. This is just um

[65:16] it. It's a skeleton without any meat on the bones. I think I I think we're failing as a board. If we, if we use this format, I think we need to provide context for the majority position and the minority position. Okay, I got. I just got your message that you could not mute or on your or can you unmute? Now, Okay, I can. Now I just got it from a host. I got kicked out. My Internet. Went out. So um um, So I I was also like, there's another option. I mean, I know that you um. We're talking about the one that's in the packet. Um currently. Um The one that I think Evan was talking about is the one from July. The July um meeting packet that includes, like the date, includes motion, not the full motion text right, but it also includes what the vote was, and who voted each way, and who upstate like um um,

[66:12] who either, you know, like was abstaining or recused. Um, And so there could be a you know um, an in between in terms of you know the k the Kathy document? Um, that's currently there plus an old memo that they had if we were looking for, you know, format that did include um, so that people could say, you know what they voted for, what they didn't, so that there was a little bit more ownership and understanding of. Of of that I know that's been something that we've talked about. So But yeah, I have more things to say about them, though i'm gonna let it let you guys decide and talk about it. Um, because I don't a lot of um,

[67:01] so I appreciate what everyone's trying to do right now. Um! But I still firmly believe that if we're going to affirmatively, try to go ahead and for it compel everybody to do the document. It's still going to have. It's not going to be its own vote. It's not because we don't vote in favor of the Kathy one. We inherently are all now subjected to it. Other process that. Um. So I would if I were you guys um wanting this process. What I would do. Um, which I think would be more efficient and effective, would be to craft the motion with the guardrail. Um This process that you want, and that you think would um be best based on the feedback and conversations that we've had on this topic, because just because it doesn't, Kathy's most Caddy's version doesn't prevail still is not gonna rise to the level of compelling seven volunteer members on an advisory board to draft a court.

[68:00] I great little honest interpretation. Robin, you say that again, Brand. I'm sorry. I just repeat what a lot of said or I Um, I just want to clear this motion. Say like, if we want to use the Kathy memo with the amendments, then we should use that, and we should stop the discussion of this court style document. If we don't want to proceed with the Kappy memo with the amendments, then we should do something else, which I think a lot of them is clarified, and and I do want to clarify that. No, on this motion does not mean that we're committing to doing the court style document. That's another motion to be made. I guess we you visited. Perhaps we made that in the past, but I just want to maybe get this issue off the table if we're only going to do the staff memo with the the um um motions. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I just have one quick comment, You know. I would say to everyone on this board that if you think about the big picture and the full breadth of our mission, and that there's different people here representing different experiences with cannabis.

[69:05] Um, and we all hold um our positions quite strongly, and I would suggest to you that it it's undermining to our board to provide incomplete representation of what our our conversations and debates have been. But it's actually quite strong for this board to come forward with two hundred and fifty words on each particular issue that we debated and dug into, and had guest speakers come and speak with It's a very strong thing to present the whole of our conversation attributed, so that the Council these are smart people. They can. They can see the attributions they can make their own calls. But again, putting a two hundred and fifty word to my mind, quite reasonable. Limitation does not take away any advantage from the majority.

[70:04] In fact, it adds legitimacy to the entire argument. Um! I would just urge you to let us come forward with the full picture of our conversations. If you have a very specific problem with something that's been asserted in a minority viewpoint. Speak up, Let's do the work. But let's give this council the benefit of our full conversation. Um, Yeah, thanks, Stacy. So I appreciate a lot of motion, and just like the clarification that because I that was my point earlier, that it felt like we needed to go through that process and make sure we're all agreeing to that. And what format to use first um as far as Michael and robin your points. As I understand it, our meetings are recorded

[71:00] for anyone to look at whenever they wish. We also have minutes that we all approve every single meeting, so to try and say that you know there's no you know place that a Council member could go and look for more. Information is factually incorrect. In fact, making a court style document, as far as I'm concerned, especially because we do want to limit the words. Two hundred words can be two hundred rhetorical words full of opinion. Two hundred words can be succinct and full of science. But to come to a document that we all agree on in that way is an immense tab. I would sooner just reference and say, Okay, here were the votes. Here's the people who voted that way the way we've been talking, or the Kathy document, or something you know, similar in they. You could even put a link to a video, a recording of the meeting right? And or the meeting minutes, I mean they can go and gather information. We sat per meeting and debated every one of these issues in a way that I can't imagine two hundred words for any one of us who has more strong opinions about this is going to feel good. So it it's. Not that it's doing a disservice, I think just the opposite trying to, you know, distill this into two hundred words, that all of us that are

[72:26] like. I've been set representing a lot of different stakeholders or not. It it's almost an impossible task. We're not a court, So why are we delivering a court style document? We're an advisory board that is spent endless hours debating this recorded for anyone to see. They could go on there and hear the experts speak if they if they're like curious about the indoor air issue. For example, maybe a certain city council member worries more about that. Well, they can go do that due diligence because it's available to them. And so I really disagree, and it it actually feels like it underlines all the work we have already done to say that not making this court style documents somehow, does it a service because I really I couldn't disagree more,

[73:08] I guess. Just to clarify, though. Are you saying that providing counsel with a succinct uh summary of a minority viewpoint is less helpful to them than pointing them to a video or minutes of our meetings. I'm saying what I said, that they have access to that information and the best way. If a person wants to use an advisory board in an objective way, as far as I can imagine, would be to go access the actual information themselves, read studies, listen to the expert who spoke, listen to our debate if they wish. But most of these issues really Don't, have a factual, you know, final answer, or settled science, or something like that that can be stated. And so it. It's just too convoluted, as far as I'm. Concerned, to distill into two hundred words that's going to represent all those stakeholder opinions that do go into it, including our own. And so I I just

[74:06] as much as it would be nice to create that document. It would require an immense amount of effort that I can't imagine is appropriate to ask of any member of this board, and I would worry that even at the end of that process it still would be the same, you know. Set of concerns we're sitting here talking about right now, Michael Stacey. I couldn't agree more or disagree more. Um, you know I certainly respect respect your opinion, and i'm not laughing at your opinion. But you know I I really feel like the big question is, why why did you both this way, and if we are simply going to say to council, here's the issue. Here's how the majority voted. Here's how the minority voted. If I were a council member, I would want to know what. Why, what was it that caused you to be persuaded to vote this way or that way, and we are not providing that will the Why for Council, and I think that we are cooling ourselves if we think that a Council member is going to take the time when every Other Week they're reading through it

[75:18] five hundred to eight hundred page document to try to brush up on every issue that's affecting the city to go back and do their own independent research. They depend on us as a as a board and on staff, to make those recommendations to them so that they can make an informed decision. So they don't have to go back and do that deep dive. I I agree with you, Stacy, that what I think would be helpful is, I mean, I personally like this memo-style or court document, whoever you want to refer to it where we lay out, Here's the why, in a very short paragraph, two hundred and fifty words. Why, the majority voted this way about why the minority voted this way, and then provide a link. If you want further information, or you want to go, do your own research

[76:00] and go and spend, you know, an hour or three hours, whatever you want to do, and we provide those links to council if they're so inclined. But I would be really really surprised if they're going to do it, and frankly, you know what. Yes, I would expect the majority to do the work. You want to support your position. Take a couple of hours and write a two hundred and fifty word paragraph laying out why you supported that decision A lot of yeah. I hope we move forward some some way soon, because this is getting pretty uh onsightly. Um! I just wanna remind everybody that there's like twenty boards and commissions in the city of Boulder and the drama around. What would happen if we went with the default process is hilarious. Actually, because you're insinuating that every other board and commission in the city of boulder and city council themselves doesn't know better than

[77:08] this particular idea. Um. So just like a a minor dose of humility and Context city council came up. There's an entire ordinance governing our existence as a board. How we come together, how we vote, how we record everything, how we submit things to council. So when you say that we're failing them, and we're failing ourselves to not take on additional hours outside of this, just at your behest. And nonetheless it's sounds pretty. I would just caution like political one would buy somebody. It buys them. Don't just give them a yes or no vote and tell them to build the way you want them to vote. Tell them why

[78:04] are they like? If let's say we submit Kathy's document, and they really don't get one of our you know votes or recommendations? Can they ask us for a follow up document or information about that? Or is that going to be part of this process? Yeah. And the only way to advise as a as a volunteer board Member isn't to pretend that i'm a Supreme Court Justice Michael. I i'm glad that you have time to do this, and i'm glad that you want to. Um. We're in different positions. I think a two hundred and fifty word paragraph is not asking a lot to support a position. One Is it just one, two hundred and fifty word paragraph, and it's not that simple, Michael, like I could write a two hundred and fifty word paragraph about my opinion, but that's irrelevant that then it Stacy, get together with the people in the majority who voted in aligned with you and figure it out Well, let me ask you that we can't do that. We're not allowed to get together and meet with people, you know. And so we're insinuating. We aren't willing to do the work. This is just such a nasty, and i'm not insinuating You're i'm going to be the board chair for a moment down a little bit.

[79:21] I've been one second before I uh I I see your hand up. There was a a vote proposal quite a while ago, and I know this all um prompted by, or this prompting all this discussion. But it seems to be going far a field, and we still have a motion on the floor that was seconded. Um! So I would invite those that want to discuss the motion. Please comment on the motion, and then let's take it to a vote, Then we, if if it passes

[80:00] well, then we can all go home early. Uh, if it fails, then we have further discussion, I mean I I I I believe that the motion specifically pertain to whether or not we were going to use the previously distributed structure of motion. Yes, versus nays, and then references to minutes. Um! I would. I would not support that motion. I believe that is a cop out. I think we need. We need more than that. But I think we also need something different than what has been created, and I, I do appreciate that. Robin and Mike will have put together this this document. But I think the emotions are flaring right now, because one we're not making references to anyone's names in this document. We're We're making generalized statements as though the entire board we're making it, or the entire supportive or opposition group in the in the board. We're making singular statements. I think

[81:04] I I I will be as impartial as I possibly can, which is not really impartial, so i'll be honest. It It feels like both the support and opposition summaries. On each of these motions were written by the same person, or at least written from the same perspective, and I think we need to have some accountability in these in these documents. If we're going to limit it to two hundred and fifty words, then somebody make a motion and say, we're going to cap it at two hundred and fifty words. But I can tell you I would never support that, because some of this doesn't deserve two hundred and fifty words, and some of it deserves two thousand five hundred. The implications of some of these different recommendations could not be more profoundly different. So to equate every one of these recommendations to be the same thing. To have the same weight with counsel. The same weight with parents in this town is just wrong. Um, so I think it's. It's dangerous to limit ourselves to two hundred and fifty words on subjects that will inevitably take up a hell of a lot more time at Council level when they're reviewing it than others. I mean some of this is not very controversial. Some of it's extremely controversial. So I think we need to. We need to be acknowledged. We need to acknowledge that maybe this is the best structure. But if this is going to be the structure. I would say we need

[82:17] references to scientific works. We need acknowledgment by the individual authors. I mean what we're talking about with with Supreme Court opinions and briefs, provided. Yes, you have the you have the presiding judge who makes the who writes the opinion, and then everybody else cosines to it, I think to say that each one of these opinions is being collectively agreed to is impossible. Um, I think I don't support Michael's motion, but I also don't support, throwing away the court style Approach to this. I think there needs to be some more work done on it, but I think it's possible for us to identify who is claiming what opinions and identify what is opinions versus what is settled Science And most of the references in here are two things that are

[83:08] at least controversial, if not well misunderstood. So I I don't know if that helps too much, but let's let's acknowledge that these the the document is written, certainly doesn't represent the minority opinion in certain cases, or the majority opinion, and others it's. I don't think it's particularly representative of the deliberations that we've been through. So I think, with some improvement here. And I mean, Robin said, let's do the work, Robin. I know you and I will end up having a lot of the conversation. But if we want to go back and start talking about what the content is in these recommendations, then for, or the summaries of the supporting and opposition opinions. Then we can go back and do that. There's not a lot of paragraphs in here that i'm not going to have serious pause with. So perhaps we should propose a way to approach this, that there can be some written time given to this, and I can do it, and i'm not asking everyone to. But I think that there's

[84:08] this structure I don't know that gets a lot better so long as we're making references that can be references that can be claimed by the individuals who are making them, and references to research that can defend the positions that are being taken right here. This doesn't just doesn't read like the scientific recommendation. It reads very opinionated. So the structure is okay. It's just the content is not going to be supported by either side very readily, Evan. I'll reserve those comments for the future discussion. Uh well, everyone will remember them. Stacy. Do you have comments about the motion on the floor. Yeah, I'm wondering. Is there any set protocol like Alona? It sounded like you said maybe there was some sort of set way guidelines, whether that's statutory or not, that we're supposed to submit this with that Advisory Board. Submit this type of document to council is does that mean is that something that exists? Is there a set protocol or guideline? Whether that's stat story or not

[85:11] that exists? Because then it seems we should be following that for this and that would remove a lot of the debate over how to submit it as far as i'm concerned. But if that doesn't exist, Then there's a different debate. Well, we could ask Kristen and our Kathy, and or who else is in the room? John and Caitlin? Uh, are there accepted guidelines on how um advice from a board is supposed to get to city console. I'm not aware of any specific guidelines that have been provided, but what we can do is look at what um previous advisory boards have provided to city council in the past, and use those as examples. Um, But outside of that i'm not aware of any

[86:00] specific um directives from Council and um i'm not sure if kathy's on. But, Kathy, please correct me if i'm wrong, Christian, you're right. Um, there isn't anything set forth by council, and we can pull out some examples. Um, frankly. Um! I agreed with you all when you decided that the way that I had originally drafted was not the best way, because there are reasons that there was people voting on one side and people voting on the other. So the process that you agreed on last time uh, or let you know when when this was all started. I believe it was in September made sense to me. Um! The reason why Staff didn't do this draft is not because Staff decided that. But the Board did. If you want to give staff direction to take another shot at doing a draft that follows the um, the procedure or the outline, the framework that you have, and we can do that if you want it by a different framework. Um, just let us know what you want. But you know, after my version,

[87:12] at least, my understanding of the discussion of Cloud was that that was not enough; that you wanted to give the reasons for each side's vote um, which I think makes sense, and will be very helpful to council, but that at that time Cloud members wanted to draft each side. Not have staff do it. Um, if that's changed, we're happy to do what would be helpful. I'm just gonna make one short comment uh, And then I think i'm going to call for a vote unless there's necessity to um change that process. Uh, I want to emphasize that we want to make it as easy as possible for city council. As Michael said, they read between five hundred to eight hundred pages

[88:04] for meeting, and they earn two hundred and thirty-nine dollars and forty cents per meeting, uh which over a year's period of time adds up to twelve thousand four hundred. They're not. They're not getting paid a lot of money to do this, so you know the easier we can make it for the city console who ultimately makes the decisions. I think, the better. Um, but I guess i'm also. I'm. I'm suggesting a vote in know of Brian's uh motion. Evidence is about the motion Here we do It's a it's two hundred and seventy-four dollars more than we make for being here. So it's true, but it's you're right about that. I will not. They don't call in public servants because it's a high paid job.

[89:02] Yeah, they they chose their bed to sleep in. They did. And what if we give them a long, I I can tell you, as a as a principal taxpayer in this in this city, in this industry. If I give them a thousand pages to read, they better read it. That's their job as as the guy who's funding their two hundred and seventy-four dollars a meeting. I can say that i'm not concerned about giving them a long document by any stretch of the imagination. They want to do their job. Well, they're going to read the whole document. This is important, and it it is. It is something that both defines our city internally amongst each other and in a statewide and national scale, and the the recommendations that we make here have ripples and their job to review. Everything we provide is is unimpeachable. They must do it. It's what they need to do. It's why we voted for them, so i'm not. I don't feel bad for the City Council, because they have a lot to read. Welcome to the smart city, smartest city in the country you're. You're on the City council. You're going to have to do some work,

[90:02] John. I Your face came on the screen. It looks like you're ready to take a vote uh the motion is to uh presents to counsel the contents of the motions. The motions themselves with Va arena votes along with the um along with the staff. Memo. Okay, everybody understand what? How they're what they're voting for. I'll take that as a Yes, all right, John Roll call uh remember. Hold on, Hold on! Sorry, Tom. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what i'm voting for. Um when we say along with the staff. Memo, what does that mean? And we're just using the format from Kathy's memo, the two-page document that's at page twenty-four and twenty-five in the

[91:08] that was my attention. Okay, Then I know what i'm voting for Thank you. Thank you. Sure uh Member Anderson. Nay, remember, Kristy, remember Green, No Member Keegan, no remember. Queensman, no member. Malone. Um sorry. Can you come back to me certainly member noble. No member of Malone.

[92:00] Um! I'll go to favor of it. Thanks. Oh, motion fails six to one. Okay, Brian would, since you were the motion maker, would you? I'm not asking for a motion. Uh, I just want to triangulate on this, so I think it's good to sort of get a sense of the board so on in. Why, of that motion that we want to do something more than provide. And then, uh submit the motions, the Memo and the I want to the next floor like what we should then do, if not that you. So we we rolled out the easy, easy mode, so we're not going with easy mode. So then we started at this discussion. So maybe we can bracket this that, like, we want to proceed with the format that's been played out. Uh, and robin the document. This may be the start of a motion, but not a formal motion yet. So I would solicit your input on the strategy about how we want to bracket and proceed with this to be um.

[93:00] We don't want to go with the easy mode of people to do something else is my sense. I want to figure out what this, what we want to do instead. And is it to do? This kind of court style is the term that many people have used uh uh sort of uh recommendation instead. Can I ask um in the recreation for this week or this some months um pack it. The posing or the supporting and opposing for different um topics. Who wrote the the one that wasn't present last month uh Robin circulated the draft last month, and then I took the other side on so there several issues that she read. So uh, I probably responsible for some like thirty of the content in this document,

[94:02] probably for the concentrates I wrote the Yeah. So Robin wrote for issue she was supporting. I support her on the issue when I tried to sort of give an example what the other side might say, and i'll just argue that this is not a very strong case. I mean what will be the case. But it was a first draft. Okay, and then in support of Evans statement. Our position is, if city Council is going to read all this stuff. They're going to have this stuff, whether we augment it or work on it or not. Um, it's going to be in the information that's available to them. So i'm all for trying to improve upon it. Robin. Thank you, Tom. I I think we're so stuck, and I have a suggestion that I would respectfully submit for your consideration, and that might be that we have the Kathy type memo, and then we have a Uh um,

[95:02] Maybe we limit it to two page uh support for the majority, and then a separate document. But it's included in what is officially given to City council, that is two pages for the minority, and that we don't have to challenge or go back and forth on these things. Um! But we allow the attribution to stand, and for the arguments to stand on their own merits and their own references to whatever data, or, for instance, much of the document. I reference people who came to us and shared experiences, for instance, or reference some of the things that the people who are concerned about endorse smoke brought to us. You may not hold that view, but it was a part of our deliberations. I do feel like counseling deserves the full the fullness of our debate, and so maybe people would be more comfortable with two separate documents. But,

[96:05] uh, you know, a a cover bit by Kathy with the votes, and then the opportunity for two pages from each, you know, supporting opposing uh opting in. And how would you all feel about that? I guess i'm not putting forward emotion just yet, but I wondered if we could get some feedback on that idea. Oh, one problem with that, I would say, is that we did not all vote the same way each time. So if you're asking for one, it it would be less of going through each specific motion, I guess. Um and more of it, you know, overall uh opinion piece on those you know different elements. But again, two pages to support or defend your position. And

[97:02] um! I think that that's a good start. I I guess I still have the concern. I I think it's, an it's an important. It is an important part on our task to let Council know why we voted a particular way on each specific issue. Um, you know, to to Evan's point about, you know, sending Council a thousand page document. Well, I don't agree with that. I do agree with his comments earlier about the timing, if we need more time to hash this out, so that we we are able to compile a document that we all feel comfortable with. Then let's take the time to do that. But I I again. I think we will continue to debate this issue and go round and round, because if if the intent is that the majority can edit what the minorities position is, and the minority can edit what the majority position is. We will never come to an agreement. We will accomplish nothing.

[98:02] So I think we need to warm up to the idea that, however we do this, the majority can say what they want to say about supporting their vote, but in the minority should be able to say what they want to say about supporting their vote. Um, you know another idea that I had was, and I hate to put this on staff. But I think because you know, we all well. I think most of us tend to be emotional about the votes that we've cast on these issues. Maybe an an alternative would be to have staff. Do you? A summary of on each of the issues What the majority said, and what the minority, said I. I don't think that that's the best alternative, but it's an alternative that maybe we can have a discussion on Stacy. So that last idea, Michael, that you just said was something that's kind of been in my mind. But I also like really guilty, suggesting something like that, because I know that would take a lot of work, and I would hate but that on staff to do that. Um something else that's floating through my mind, because I do understand what you're saying, and it sounds like we do share a lot of the same feelings as Evan has also echoed in here as well, but just from our different places.

[99:20] And what if we didn't go with, say, two hundred or two hundred and fifty words, But each one of us made a short summary statement of our opinions on one of you know each of these issues and fewer words than that, and then add that to a summary sheet that Kathy, similar to you, know that one. We could refine that more, of course, puts together, and then it's very clear. Okay, and sure, like your staff could organize it where it's like. Okay, Here was the majority and all the people, and each one has their thought there and then they could go back to the meetings if they really are more, you know, curiosity. And you could reference in your statement. Okay, this, you know, I I thought this way because of the guy who came to speak about this or that right, whatever it is that was important, and you could always link to it if that would be useful to, and if it's something that you know everyone can access. So that was something that I feel like

[100:19] like you're saying, Michael, in order for us to put together this format in the way that we're totally we're talking about It's almost an impossible. Ask is what I've been saying all along. It's just. I don't even understand how it could happen, and so, maybe, if we break it out further, then we get together as a majority in a minority and right an opinion, because, even though I may have voted some ways on certain issues, the other people who voted the same way, and I may not share the same reason why right? And then it becomes a really difficult task of putting that into a distilled way into a document, and it it's not that I don't think Council should have to read a longer document. I don't think that any one of us really wants to dedicate the time to arguing about this forever. It just feels futile when we could each make a pretty short statement,

[101:08] right? We could decide how many words on our opinion that could be organized in a document by staff, so it's not rhetorical or emotional, or whatever other words we want to apply right. I I like the consensus, the tentative consensus that's starting to emerge. Um, I also just wanted to clarify return back to at his earlier point that I don't I share a lot of concerns. I don't think that this, whatever this document becomes, should be homework that we're doing outside of meeting time, We should be using this time to work on this document. This is what I said at the outset. Um, So I mean, you can imagine like pushing out that deadline and spending like an uh if we wanted to follow this kind of format. Now leave that aside. Coming back to this new kind of consensus, that if

[102:01] we wanted to have each of the motions, and each member. This Council uh had an Opportunity Council Board. Each member of this Board had an opportunity to to give a rationale for their support or opposition. One hundred and fifty words. I don't know what the right number is. Um! I like that suggestion that came from Stacey and or uh Michael, so the two hundred and fifty words would not be per topic. It would be overall over Archie. It could be for each motion. Each member has two hundred and fifty words to say. They're give a rationale for their year or day, or fewer words. If we decide that two hundred and fifty is just getting too long, and then it's also an opportunity, as I see it, for people to put as much or as little as they want. Now some of these issues we like, I think, Evan said earlier, we're unanimous on. We don't really need to like. Write much if it's unanimous. Maybe we can have a quick, summary statement of why it was so easy for us to all agree on something. But this is an opportunity for every one of us in. You know the

[103:16] board is set up, like Evan said earlier, to represent different groups and make sure there's these voices heard. I just don't see how you know whether it's during our meetings at work, or you know, whatever it might be. If we have to schedule another session to work on this, I can't even imagine getting it done in a way that's going to feel good to everybody in the way that we're talking about trying to. You know all craft together, the people who were part of the majority. A majority opinion it just it. It's not always consistent, like, you know. Brian may vote one way. I may vote another, even though we're both in the majority right. It like for different reasons. I mean so that doesn't seem like a worthwhile exercise to sit here and try, and you know. Put that all together, and some su succinct way when there's going to be feelings like well, my voice wasn't heard correctly.

[104:06] So this way. When individually per vote. We have a statement of you know why we voted that way. There's no, you know, confusion. And likewise, if Council or any member of Council wants to reference, you know. Maybe they think Evan's opinions more important on a certain issue, like, he said, because he represents a certain stakeholder group, so then they could look. Okay, Well, here's what Evan is voting. So I I just think it allows for more representation of our voices in a more accurate way to do it that way. Uh, Brian, Your hand! It's still up, but i'm I've been all this this before. If I think it's like a really concrete case. It's where it is sort of really a justification for why I want to remain committed to some kind of rationale document. So the concrete case is this is that we use a board, you know, brought forward and sort of this document in this version sort of makes arguments about sort of Eric quality, for one example. And then there's another part of this document, another kind of motion

[105:11] where we say we're not going to support or recommend uh edibles, which are sort of the smoke-free consumption option. And so, if I have a city council members like, why are you like? Why are you voting for consumption, but like worried about smoke like not only for, like the most like like it's like hard to track all of that. So in that kind of specific case like, How is it that we're sort of reconciling like no edibles? But yes, to uh um having concerns about air quality and h back, and things like that, I think, like there are different reasons why we why we vote in those kinds of ways. I think counsel deserves to sort of like, have those things out and explain versus trying to spend going to minutes. And uh, uh, I don't think that necessarily came to be really clearly minutes. Anyway, I am in sport, this idea that Stacey's continue to elaborate that for each motion uh every member has it has an opportunity to provide again, just making up a number two hundred and fifty words for their y or name

[106:08] Robin and I would also uh remind the board that we're approaching five o'clock. Uh we can take a break sometime soon. Thank you, Tom. I just wanted to say that, for you know, as the originator of this document. For all the reasons that Stacy just expressed. For the reasons Brian expressed, I could totally get behind each person offering up their rationale for their vote. Um. We might need to be a little less than two hundred and fifty words. Maybe it's two hundred words um, just to make you know things a little bit more succinct. But maybe that's the way out of this. Well, before we go to break one alternative to consider, and I know that maybe I should hesitate to even suggest this, because some people did not like the um attempt to make this like a court. But I mean the the reality is there's hundreds of courts across the country that do things daily, and what they do, as I understand it, is that they like. If the majority was a

[107:15] five votes in the minority was two votes. The majority decides who writes the um, the rationale for the majority, and that person checks in with the other persons to make sure the other people can weigh in on that, and the same for the minority that one person would be designated the person to uh, or at the minority opinion, and uh correct me if i'm wrong. But um, I think that's how it works. We're not in court, Tom. We're not a court. But i'm trying to find a model. I mean, would you want to write something on everything? Then? Yeah, it. Why not like you? You made a vote you had an opinion, hey? How hard like Michael and Robin were saying, like, All right, it's gonna be a little work like

[108:06] I I Personally, I'd rather do absolutely nothing. But I agree with the statement that that doesn't seem. You know the best way because of what Brian just said that there's too many areas where it's like someone's going to scratch their head looking at just a summary. So if my concern with this document and format has been, I don't see a way that all of us can feel good about what you're describing. Having a majority sit together, minority, or as a big group. However, we do it. I just don't see that paying out, or here arguing for hours over this, and if everyone's willing to put forth, we could decide how many words. If we don't like long we can go short. It done fine, but it's just a way for Council to see. Okay, and then it would be broken majority minority. But it would be like, let's say the majority was Uh, Michael Robin, and myself and Brian. Each of our statements would appear next to our names in the document under the heading majority, and then under minority likewise for those people, and so it's just It's still broken up that way. But as far as i'm concerned, it honors our role as an advisory board. More, we're not a core, so we don't need to be having a Chief Justice, you know, or majority. I'm sorry I don't know the right court thing, but you know we don't need to set it up like that, and it's clearly creating a lot of

[109:25] problems among us if we're still in your talking about it at five o'clock. Um, Robin, do you have something crucial to say before we go, which would break because I it Well, I think to think about during break is, should Kate and Allison get a say they've They've had a chance to influence our decisions and influence the discussion. Perhaps they should have just as just as much opportunity to give their opinions I I would advocate for But

[110:01] haven't something before break. Yeah, I was just gonna add that. Um. Well, I would love to be able to write some of these majority or minority opinions having not been a part of the conversation. Yeah, having a lot to offer to the subject matter. Uh i'm, i'm hesitant to say we need to say, Hey, opposition you have. You have your opportunity to present an opinion and majority. You can do the same. Um! Some of these it's going to be hard for us to be able to pull that off just reading back to some of these some of these conversations there. Um, they don't make a lot of sense. So I it. I I would like to be able to provide an an important opinion, and be able to represent the conversations that were had; but I don't think it's entirely possible, especially in like Michael mentioned this earlier, like, Okay, majority versus minority or post versus in favor.

[111:02] Well, my vote is pretty predictable predictable, and Robin's vote is pretty predictable. There's a lot of fluidity in the in between there. So being able to just get into your corners and say that we could make arguments from either side is not going to be easy, especially when the people, The majority of people on this call actually voted in both directions pretty consistently. We were more consistently crossing the middle line than we were in our corners, so we should at least be proud of that I think, Evan. Sorry I I didn't mean to jump in. But, Evan, I think what you said before is important that your opinion is important on these issues. Now, that's not to say we could add it to the majority or minority. However, we set this up, but I do think it is important for you to have an opportunity to also write your number of words, whatever we decide and say. Here's my feedback, but I didn't get to vote, because I wasn't yet on the board, or or whatever I think I think really what I was getting at is that I I think i'm gonna want to write a little bit for myself on some of these, especially the ones that I didn't have an opportunity to provide to. I didn't have an opportunity to participate in the debate that I think there's There's some pretty critical things that did not get discussed, so

[112:16] I want to at least have the opportunity to present that to you guys, before we before we stamp this and send it off. Michael. Yeah, just also as an as an option, you can. You know I hate to reference back to the court, but I have no problem whatever. We call this document as a court document or whatever. But um, it's also not unusual for a court to have more than one opinion, so you could do, for example, the majority opinion. And then, if you wanted to provide additional comments as an individual. For example, Stacy, because you felt you were not aligned with the thinking on the majority. You could certainly do that. I I was hearing some complaints from members of the Board about the time commitment to have to do this. But yet we're still talking about two hundred and fifty to two hundred and fifty words per issue. Now it's per person as opposed to happy

[113:09] one opinion for each issue. It seems to me like that's gonna take more time. I have no problem doing that work, but in terms of trying to save time and being inefficient, that one might also be um a way to do this, and I would also um would like to get Kathy's opinion on whether or not Evan should be writing an opinion on issues for which he was not um a voting member of the Board. I just from a like efficiency standpoint. I can't like For myself, I can very quickly and easily write my summary statement of the way I voted, but then that I can imagine how much time it's going to take me. I can even predict it. It's completely unpredictable, and likely a vast amount of time that's going to be required for me to sit here and talk to the other people who voted the same way as I did, and convince each other Why, enough to distill that to two hundred and fifty works

[114:01] Sounds to me horribly inefficient, and i'm all. I'm saying Stacy, is that you could have a majority opinion where three people agree, and you want to add in your own two cents you can certainly do that. Yeah, I just don't know the value that I'm setting up that way. Why not just have our individual? This is how we voted. And Why, okay, yeah, um. I was just going to say that if if you know, the Board is is willing to allow, you know, um exit Theo members to to provide an opinion, then I would think that Evans would be provided, or somebody that wasn't able to vote that day. Um, if we decide to let them offer an opinion if they weren't able to be a part of the vote. Um! That could be just like I, that that just needs to be discussed right if you weren't there that day, and you had an opinion, Can you so write an opinion? But it's obviously not the the majority of minority. But it would be this other opinion right where the ex officio lives, where the potential Evan lives when he was not a part of the board, and we're non-present members, just just trying to like get the full scope of the potential

[115:13] that we're talking about and I thought you were going to make things easy for us, Kate. Come on. That's a good point, though inclusive. I'm just trying to be inclusive, Tom. Yes, I know, but it creates additional controversies. Uh Alana. I just wanted to quickly respond to your comment about the you members. I would really support it. I know that we can't officially count their vote. But as you said that I was like Oh, I guess we could always just ask them that, you know, either, before, like maybe before we vote um it. It is kind of a weird item, but i'm in support of whatever you're thinking, Tom, on in in regards to being inclusive with our. So that's all happy. Break

[116:07] everybody good with that all right season.

[117:37] And while we're waiting for everybody to rejoin the virtual room, can you hear me so? Yes, Hey, Tom, I'm: Here, I'm just gonna have my video off for a second. Okay, Kristen: Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you now. Thank you.

[118:04] Uh it's accomplishing the jam board. And then when we, when we talk about the retreat later. Yes, i'll put a reminder for the jam board when we get to that agenda. Item: Okay, Um, let's see. Just waiting for I'm on for sure. You might just have our camera off. But yeah, sorry. I'm here. Okay, i'm in a cold, lonely office. So I just been sitting here. Well, Kate, augmenting my suggestion, creates some additional thinking. Um,

[119:01] which makes it interesting. It's not that I mean Evan should be able to to express his opinion. So how are you in the room? Sorry you're down in the bottom corner on my screen, so I didn't see that. Let's say one more minute. Did anybody have uh any difficulties to? Oh, there you are! Anybody have any difficulties getting in and uh seeing the jam board Kristen, I believe that jam board was actually shared with the same account that I was letting you know about earlier that it's the wrong email address. You could share that jam board with the renewable that I have an email and make sure I get on that. Okay? And is it, John? Right now? That will be able to do that? Or who who do we ask, Kristen? We can certainly make notes, and we will get it taken care of. So thank you for that clarification.

[120:08] Yeah, Um, we'll have to. It was another individual that set that up for a seven, so It's not something I can do immediately right now, but i'll definitely send them an email and get you access as soon as possible. No worries. Thank you very much. Um. So that creates another interesting issue, Kate, and that should people who are no longer on the board be able to contribute, especially if they were there for the boat, or even if they were, boards, are considered the makeup that they exist at the time they take action. So the memo should be by the people that are here. Now, with respect to your question about Evan um

[121:06] making comments, he is on the board now. Um, and you know to remind you that the votes were taken at the time are not set in stone. I mean some ways I need to say this because you could open up everything if you wanted to. Um. So you know, to the extent that you want nuances in any of your decisions or clarification, or whatever on previous votes that are taken uh board is dynamic. Um, it's not like things are set in stone Once you vote, I mean, obviously, when things start happening as a result of it, changing your votes after recommendation is sent to the City Council Doesn't really do much good, but up until the time the recommendation is sent. Um! It's the Board's decision about what to do, and that includes new motions.

[122:05] Thank you for that reminder. I I appreciate that, Kathy. I I will, I will limit my uh new motions and rekindling of old conversations to what I promise to be a very small handful of specific subjects, I think, need to be reconsider. Okay, so um, we do have other items of business later. Um. But this conversation is ongoing last. The flavor of the room, I think, before break was that each person was going to have the opportunity to write their own comments on each issue. I'm. Assuming if some people

[123:02] pretty much ended up writing the same comment. They could group together, or they could say what he said or what she said. Uh, right, yeah. I started going to this path, the slime reasoning that you're starting to go down over the break as well, that like maybe we like, assign people to each thing like right. There'll be the opinion, and other people can like, as Michael's kind of moving to. You can like Co. Sign it, or have their own sort of concurrent opinion. Um, because I am mindful of honest concerns. There's a very legitimate one that, like, you know, asking if there are, I don't know, make up a number ten different motions here. Uh ask each person right, you know, up to two hundred and fifty words. It might be enough to say that you see someone else writes and say, I concur with X um might be sufficient. Um! So I started to go down this sort of line of thinking like, Oh, we should assign people to motions like either lead writers and things like that. But, um! That might just be too much work. Um! I spent about two hours writing these, so it's not an untruely amount of time. But um,

[124:10] I would definitely so i'll just stop talking. Not sure what i'm saying when trying to protect the over achievers in the crowd, whoever they might be, that feel they have to write on every single issue, whether it be ten or maybe even twenty, I mean, it seems like for those that we're concerned about the time frame. It seems like ending together when one had similar thoughts with another individual or individuals for fourteen. I I knew it wasn't ten that include time,

[125:00] our time, decisions, and are the most recent decisions. Michael. Yeah, I mean to, for Brian's point. It seems to me like we should just allow each individual board member, if they wish to add something to what's already been written, or If there is a consensus, they can just say, You know Michael Kristi occurs, or um you know I can current concur, and here's why or I just sent in Here's why I think that that should be left up to the individual. Yeah, Robin. Yeah. I mean, I think in the time we've been sitting here debating the document. If we had more uh substantive written words Um, we could. We could work through something. So I you know, in the time we've been talking it through just to have more on the page would be helpful,

[126:01] Right? Uh. So again, I think just to rob this point right there also a lot of concerns, you know. Would it be possible for us to use the December meeting, and maybe even like a portion of the remainder of this meeting last twenty-five minutes. We've allotted uh to try to get into this document again. My main concern leaving tonight's meeting is that people don't have access to the document, or they don't use it, or they're doing something wrong. I know um that again. Kristen put a lot of plot to like how this was set up. So it sort of satisfied all these kinds of requirements. I want to make sure that everyone has access. They can get in here. They can make changes. And so, um! My suggestion going forward is that we make a motion to formalize that we want to do um this kind of individual opinion model promotion, and then following that motion if it passes to, then make sure that everyone can get in the document, and actually edit this in a way that we are all building on top of each other's work.

[127:08] Okay? Um, I'm. Just processing what Brian said. Now, so Stacey. I likewise. So i'm trying to understand. If I am seeing this correctly, you, Robin Michael, I would be willing to, though I haven't formally contributed text, are cool, because you've either already done a lot of it, or are willing to do more wrong by saying that you'd be willing to also contribute. But you're not comfortable with the document the way. It stands for your own reasons, like the way the format. But maybe if you had this more individual approach that would be better for you somehow, or I want to be more clear how you feel, too, because it seems like we're close here like to

[128:16] all agreeing that this meets our needs. But I. I just want, maybe, to hear from the people who Haven't already written text, because, like Robin and Michael, you guys taking all this time already. Then you already know what it would take to maybe add a few more sentences of less words on some of these topics. So we're not even that. Far from everyone offering their opinions, and I'm still just stumped, and over the break. That was what kept striking me was like, Well, what if we just say a hundred words, right? I mean, that's really like when I fill out contact forms online, I struggle to get it down to one hundred words. So it's like really short right? Two hundred words really isn't long like that might be hard to. But if you don't have much to add on a topic you can just say

[129:02] I don't really have much to add, but, like I still am struggling to understand why we're trying to like group together and offer this as like a joint document that feels really hard to me, and it feels like in doing so. We're also leaving out what I think Kathy said should be in a pan. We at least consider at this time. So I I guess i'm struggling to understand Why not? Just all right, Something, you know, like, Why are we really trying to make this like collusion between us? I I don't get it. That's the response. Just reply that I don't didn't me to attend or to convey that, like we're all trying to author opinions together anymore. I just say that um, if someone said it better than you could ever say you could always just concur with them and say nothing more. Um! Concretely. I just want to make sure that everyone can get in the document sort of my overarching goal. What I said from the outset two hours in I don't think we've been any progress on that.

[130:01] I think the most important thing that we do leaving this meeting is making sure that everyone can open the document. They know how to like check the reviewing box, and that they can make a change or make a comment, and if everyone can do that, I would be thrilled to close at the meeting on that. I couldn't at first, but I emailed staff and was very graciously helped. So I am in Michael. Uh, yes, So Stacy to to your point. Um! My understanding was we were trying to do it sort of majority minority just in terms of trying to reduce what we were actually presenting to council, which is why we had a word limit on it. I I agree, Um Brian, you made the comment that you know you just want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to to get into the document. I appreciate not only getting into the document, but I want to make sure, if you feel so inclined to express your opinion and your voice that you should have the opportunity to do that if you're not so inclined, and you just feel that, whatever the paragraph is that is

[131:15] aligned with your position on a particular issue. You can simply write, I concur, or um. Here's one sentence as to why I was thinking differently on this issue, but I supported this issue so long as we can each have a voice. I think that's all that matters. I think everyone needs to say something right like. Whether it is I feel the same as Michael and Robin, or and I don't have anything else to add fine; but I I think every member should have their opinion represented. If they don't have one beyond their vote, they can just say that I don't have anything to add me on my vote. I just think writing it from the perspective of some sort of grouping that represents all of the majority. I don't see how that's gonna work in. This. This is a really weird topic, right like we can all agree on that. Like as as I've been pointed out, it, there's a lot of this like convoluted voting beyond those of us who are more clearly, you know, polarized. So I I just

[132:15] i'm personally still struggling to see how i'm going to figure out that out, and I don't think it is it doesn't? Represent the board the way I see the board intended, like our intended purpose, to have a statement that suggests, you know, a grouping or a majority makes this statement, and then, if I want to add something, I can, then it's like emphasizing my voice or anyone else who does that; whereas if it's just really, pragmatically like listed out like Michael Stacy, Right, Brian, like we go forward. If that is nothing to add fine, but it's I just. I don't like the idea of having this like summary that we've agreed to somehow, tacitly or not. I I just it doesn't feel right to me, and it doesn't feel like it really like the way we're set up. If you think how we're supposed, this board is actually supposed to be structured is to have all these voices represented equally, and so we should present our document that way.

[133:16] That's how I see it. It does. It's not like, you know. Michael and Robin's voice should be always represented together. If you have the same opinion great, then just say that right? Right. So you go to the document. I've come to you and started making suggestions that for the things that I wrote I don't think anyone's edited since i'm like writing Brian for the majority for the things that I think Robin wrote um, i'm changing It's like Robin for the minority, as far as I know we're the only two ones in this document. Um, but that might just illustrate. We're trying to do here. Stay through your point. I think we're just trying to like. Lower the overhead, that if you have nothing to add, you can just sign on to other someone else's statement. But there's not this kind of forced consensus kind of process that we started off with. I think it's just that, like if you don't have the time or band with their interest in that particular topic you can just sign on to someone else's.

[134:06] You're muted like ten per item. We just list all of our names and our role like ex officio member right like that way, you know. If at part of this document, and whatever way i'm not making any suggestions, we wanted to include those voices, too. We could, you know, and it would just be a way like, you know, the board's designed to have exit issue members. Obviously their opinions are valued. They wouldn't be here otherwise, and so we should have that represented to, if they wish to share an opinion, even though they didn't vote, and That's as I see, this document being like equal representation. If you don't have anything to add fine, you could literally, there could be a word like deferred, or I don't know whatever word. If you don't want to say anything, and I just don't see why we need to like start crafting other styles like that to me is like super straightforward, and every motion it's just listed out to remember.

[135:18] I've just gone in the document. I'm like just wrote like Brian for the majority, Robin for the minority. K's ex officio, like Evan, as you know. Uh my joiner will come with a better name or something. So I just went into the document, Brian and I I see the edits that you made, and but I am having trouble figuring out, and I see Kate's comment, but I cannot figure out how to i'm in the readability mode. I don't know how to get out of the readability. Would it be helpful for Brian to share his screen, so everybody could see that same thing or somebody. I don't know if it's Brian or Kristen is the proper one, and maybe that will help everybody. I think that sounds like a great idea.

[136:04] And can I throw out one more question As Brian starts to share a screen, So I was able to get. You know I can click on the link, and then I get this Microsoft login thing, and then it wants to send me a code. But no code ever comes through. Did anybody else have that happen? I just thought that for the last three hours. Okay, see it Now I can see your edits, and that looks great like, you know. But like we'll add everyone's name. I zoom right right? So i'll just do for an example like spacey you can you share screen. Is that allowed? Okay, Whichever who you ever think is the best person,

[137:00] either One's fine with me, All right. I'll try to share screen, choose the right window, and I mean, I don't know that we really have to keep the for the minority or for the majority. Because again. That's an that's implies too much. I I think it could just be Robin's opinion, and then let's pretend Evan agrees he can just say agree with Robin's opinion if he doesn't want to add anything or something like that. I just you know, because again, that's to me it's politicizing. It. It's like trying to like. Convince the reader that there's more support for an issue than there might be or support in a different way. I just don't see that that should be the intent of this document. Well, for another viewpoint. Normally, what happens is when a Board acts by voting that people support the vote, even if they don't agree with it. Or, in a case like this, you agree to have two opinions. If you want to have three to seven opinions

[138:08] or nine opinions. You can do that, but it is very common to have a consensus, and have one or two opinions, and people sign up to agree to it rather than everybody listing their own way to put the same thing totally agree. But what I've been hearing, and I definitely would fall into this. But it sounds like a lot of people have similar concerns for just different reasons. But this document that we've been working on creating in that style that you're saying right, like the original idea is like, Yeah, just keep it straightforward recommendations. Nobody like that. We all voted against it. Okay, fine. So then, here we are trying to say majority minority. But we've been really struggling to find a way. It Everyone has issues with that for different, for so many of us have issues with that for different reasons. And so then one problem is that everybody's being really global and not specific.

[139:05] So I think somebody suggested going through the comments, and seeing which ones people really did agree with or disagree with. I think you might handle some of the comments very differently than others. But right Now all the discussion is has been, Is I disagree with everything, or I agree with everything which isn't getting you very far in your discussion tonight. Could we do it like as a mix where the document could like. You know, there's some issues that it doesn't sound like there's any real need to write much of an opinion on it kind of speaks for itself. And so could you do a mix of the ones that really do have so many different stakeholders that are trying to be represented here. Can we separate it that way more rather than majority of minority, even though it's not traditionally done. This is a really non traditional subject matter, and I think it's important that Council understands that there's a lot of viewpoints, but they're all viewpoint. So mostly all viewpoints, with a few exceptions, not,

[140:10] you know, real solid science fact. And so I I guess this topic does feel like it needs maybe a different model, like, you know, just in unless i'm wrong. And everyone's like, Yeah, we can easily agree with the way it's written right now. But I haven't heard anyone say that we've been just to answer that question, Stacy. Anyone can write whatever they can say. It could be Stacy Green, uh commenting for herself only, or commenting, for, you know, on this topic. Uh, but, Kate, you've been waiting patiently. Yeah, I just think that we I mean, we. We started this piecemeal approach of deciding how we wanted to go about this with the format. And then suddenly, we like got away from that, and I I know that we're trying to adjust it with different people's names. But I feel like, why not? We go back to that piecemeal approach of like, Okay. Now we have the format. Now Do we want opinions to be added or not right like that? Hasn't been a question that's been asked like just because Kathy's demo was not the deciding one that people wanted. I just think that there's other questions that, like

[141:17] we're we're working off of this document because it exists, not because everybody agrees that this is the right format. We still have an agreed on that, and i'm not, and i'm not trying to go back in time and make this harder. I just feel like we're starting to work on a document that we haven't, and I know that we're trying to do something and move forward. And this is what we have, but I just feel like it. It makes it really hard when I like, as somebody who's trying to be more like diplomatic in some ways is that I I don't feel like we're starting from the same like the same point. Right? Right? We're. I just feel like we're like we really we were going towards this like, what's the format? But all we did was say, not this we didn't say, this is the front we're going to use. And now we're going to change it.

[142:01] So it just for me like like i'm struggling with how to how to interact with this conversation, because I don't feel like you all have decided how it's supposed to look. And right now we're adding people's names. Does everybody agree that we think that should be everybody, or you know, two or three opinions, or you know I I I just think that if we're gonna go about it in a logical and in like a very like um, You know one thing at a time, or one topic like like the the format gets decided. And then this, and then we talk about? Okay, Well, is it all, or is it three to four opinions? Are we going to include State law or we not? Are we just going to do the recommendations first, like you know, like I mean, Robin recommended earlier. We do the recommendations, and then these are appendices like I I just feel like we're back to the document, and I understand that that's what we have. But I feel like we skipped this step when we were already talking about it. I i'm just trying to follow the conversation. Figure out because we're we're doing this, and we're putting effort into making this document better. Why, Don't, we start from scratch,

[143:07] and that these things can be added into them. But if there's a different way to I, I just think that is working on this document hard because of this document, and we should just start with a new format and a new structure. Um, I also want to say, and this is the side point. I do think that there should be whatever we decide today for this document or a new document. I would recommend that yeah like to Brian's Point. We spend an hour at the December meeting, just writing whatever we want to do, and editing whatever we want to do in the meeting. In an hour of that meeting. The time that we have reserved. We are doing some work in that, and maybe that saves some time, and maybe people can do it before if they have the time, and they hope that they do; but if not, we reserve some time, instead of having a three hour meeting with us, just talking about whether or not we want to document what we want it to look like. We can actually like everybody's been talking about. Let's do the work, but give some time to do that

[144:03] in the meeting. So those are my two Lana. Yeah, I mean this document as it is taking over the entire agenda today potentially the future. I still think it. We still get through the motion um to figure out how we're going to do this, and I just want to remind everybody that there's still significant agenda left for tonight. So and I I hear and agree with you, Michael. Um, Kate. I thought that we thought that we were making progress, but based on your comments, I guess we're not um, but more to um Stacy's point about saying you're in the minority or in the majority. Can't we just leave it up to the individual member? As to what, if they want to make a comment, they can make a comment, and they can say

[145:08] in the minority or in the majority, and I assume I don't want to assume. But I my hope would be that for each issue. For example, Brian down below. Um, it says Council will know whether you're in the majority or in the minority, because we're going to list out into again. My hope is that we would list out individual names. Um, I I guess it's to me. It's semantics, whether you say you're in the minority or the majority. But if you don't wish to say that you don't have to say that uh, just my comment, I, there's progress being made. I just don't want it to end up where we're. We come to the December meeting, and people don't like this document again, and so that's my concern is that like, have we gotten past that part of it to know that this is what we're actually doing? And when I also saw this this happening. I thought we were going to do. Here's the motion. Here's the majority Here the names of the majority that voted that way here, the minority here, the voters, and then they can list. They don't have to put because i'm a majority member, I mean, they voted that way so they can put in what their comments were, and they don't have to say, Kate, for the minority or Kate for the majority. They just say Kate

[146:16] and I voted this way and that's fact. And then we have, you know, the minority, the the minority as a header. And then you have those people listed underneath, and they list their things, and then you have other opinions, and I can was fine. Alison can listen to his if we're going about it in this, you know every single person. Also, if somebody says, I agree with Brian, and I don't need to say anything else that doesn't have to be the final thing that we submit to city council. So I mean, this is part of the process. But I just wanted to clarify. Okay, our time is running out on this topic. Uh, Brian, do you have? Yup. Sorry I' to unmute myself screen share should know better.

[147:01] Um. So case points are extremely well taken. I think that uh we did sort of you still need sort of commitment like doing it in this kind of format. My hope is just to illustrate how it could be done so that we are to have something to think with versus talking in the abstract about court cases, and being the court not being a court which is brought up some strong feelings. Um! So I agree with Kate. I think we should commit to sort of like pursuing a document. Uh, if we do want to pursue this kind of document, we should commit to that have a motion to that effect, and if there's another suggestion of how this could be structured. Maybe we leave that to the next meeting, but I think that if we wanted this so a rough draft of a motion not ready for a second. Yet it would be for every uh motion that passed, every single member, including exit to your members, including late joiners like Evan, have an opportunity to write

[148:00] a statement articulating their support or opposition or indifference to the motion. Uh, Evan, before we go on to. I just want to hit or note that, robin you, you still have no access to the document. No, everybody explained it to me, Tom. I think I know how to get to it. My My access is through Gmail, too. I think we'll be able to edit. I just have to try to figure out where this is going to sound so dumb. But where my junk holder is, and try to find the Microsoft, and they'll It'll typically ask you if if if you want to request permission to, and I was able to use my company email It doesn't have to be Gmail, and then it it. It gets you that late that code to whatever email you enter. So use any email. Well, it's just that I have access to Microsoft word through the University, not through Gmail.

[149:02] It's just so. So. So it doesn't matter which email it. It's fine. I can't. I can't get into the way you see it on your screen. I I can only get into viewable. But Evan. Um: yeah. What I was going to add is that I think I kind of wanted to further Brian's effort uh formulating what this motion would be. Uh, I I believe that we can. We can somehow come to a motion. That kind of acknowledges this format that says there will be an opinion in the affirmative, and an opinion to the negative, and any member, or whatever. The additional definitions we want to use for members like me, who didn't get a chance to vote, have an opportunity to provide a signing statement and say, I mean that's what the courts call it. If you want to have an a a a differing opinion from your vote, then from the vote you made, then you add a signing statement, or you just sign on to the majority or minority opinion. In that other situation every person has an opportunity, if they choose to; if not, they can just

[150:13] cosigned to the vote that they made, and the explanation that was given by the the member who's writing that opinion. I think we're We're getting closer. I think it's an opposition versus approval, and everyone has a chance to write a signing statement to add or detract from the side they voted on. That's a relatively simple approach to this. I think more simple than everyone writing their own opinion that certain. Okay, um. Do we want to come to any conclusion before we move on to another topic? Do people want to formally make a motion and commit to this? Or do we need more discussion?

[151:09] It seems that I I don't think you know the old phrase. So the baby out with the bath water, which is a stupid phrase. But I don't think we should throw the baby up um, because if everyone is able to craft their own addition just highlight. If they have that option, then i'm all for keeping this format having you still have your hand up. But oh, Robin or Brian, I did you say that you were putting forward a motion or no? You you asked. If only if motions can take a while with this board. So I mindful of the time. But if i'm also mindful like, want to come to a consensus and a commitment to like sort of pursue this or not. So we can leave this open

[152:07] people. Can. We can revisit this? I do like the idea like actually spending an hour working on this. So we don't have homework. We have to take back with us. Uh, i'm mindful that as well. Um, I would appreciate having that closure and commitment that we want to pursue like this kind of format. Um, for all the reasons that Kate and others have articulated, I also would. I mean, I don't think we want to come into the next meeting with the same questions right? And we may not need as much time for some of the other issues. But we can't discuss this Wherever um Is there anybody who's required to make a motion?

[153:01] We'll help you craft it wherever it is? I mean, I mean, was there any interest from anybody, and letting staff draft this, and we would be able to edit it through our standard, board, format and process, like in between meetings, and we're editing something that wasn't from a charged, you know. Um different member. I heard a couple of people kind of piggyback on that, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't still an option, because i'm just really struggling with end of your bandwidth. Then um figure out how it can be the contributor that I've been, and I am. But during like just I can't tell you how tough this time of year is

[154:02] across the household, and the business. It's just like I just think Staff is gonna have a hard time capturing both points of view, and one point of view is going to feel like Well, that didn't really capture my point of view. Well just like to try and make things a little more simple. I think somebody had mentioned early in this meeting that that is like a soft deadline. Technically, we could move it if we all agreed to move it. And I mean I totally hear what Alan is saying, and I I personally couldn't agree more. I mean It's a real tough time here, because I want to dedicate and show up for that,

[155:02] you know. Perhaps we do consider, you know, not trying to push this through at a time of year where some of the members might be challenged by that more than others, you know, or everyone the same uh Kathy um! And just to follow up on alona's thing. Um, i'm happy to do it if it would be helpful. I Sometimes it is a lot easier to change words that are, I mean, may not get it at all. Which one but um! Sometimes it's easier to change What's there than to draft new or seeing something there. It gives you ideas for what's new. So if it's helpful for me to take a shot at something for you guys to work from, or add to this, or whatever i'm happy to do that I am going through and adding the votes, because that has been one thing that's been brought up several times. I'm sorry, adding the people for each of the votes.

[156:17] So just to um I a comment about, you know, response to to Alana and Kathy's um statements there I I do, I do think, just from trying to be as objective as possible. I do think that it would be very different if we started from a document that was um put out by the staff, and then we could make comments to that. Um. And the only reason why is that I feel like based on what i'm hearing. There's a lot of Um, I don't know. I think, that this document is is. I think I know, Robin, how much time and effort it goes to put into something like this, and I really appreciate that you did it. I I do think that there's sometimes a reason why Allison and I did it because we aren't voting members, and I think that that feels a little more objective, and so people can get down with that when it's from one member it. I think that

[157:15] the document was charged before the like. It It it in in inevitably is, and I think that that's hard for people to to digest, and so I do think that it's starting with a document from the staff. And then we edit that I mean you're you've already done the work, you know, like. So So it's really just. It would be you adding context to whatever Staff wrote. Um, I do want to just acknowledge that it is a lot of work that you put into it, and and I don't want that to go and notice um you as well. Brian. Um, I want to say that, and I do think that you're ahead of the game, because, no matter what we do from here on, out you've already put in that um that effort and that will be used in whatever format we may moving forward. But I do think that the the board should consider um.

[158:03] If we're struggling with this document, then maybe. Do you ask Staff to to draft something differently? Right? Thanks so much for that, Kate. I appreciate it, and you know I I guess I would say I have no problem, considering a staff authored document, none whatsoever. I i'm really happy to look at that. I um. I'm sorry this document feels charged. I just. I want everyone to understand that we all hold positions um strong positions based on our experience. Um, And we've all experienced uh legal marijuana in this community differently. Um. And it's okay. And we can stand on our where our positions are. There are not lies in this document. Um.

[159:06] But here, there, if we go forward with the staff off author document. I'm really happy to look at that, and and have the debate about if that's representative of what our conversations and deliberations have been, I think we owe it to the Council to give the full picture of our conversations that I'm. Open to looking at a staff author document. Right? Oh, Brian, you took your You're in mute. Thank you. Sorry uh i'll be the Contrarian, and say that I don't. I think that a staff author document would be a productive re uh path forward. For all the reasons that I think that we are all struggling with the sort of majority versus minority approach that. I think that Um,

[160:02] we're going to want to get in and sort of needle around, and the other side statements that like. Is this an accurate reflection? We want to like, add our own like, and it's gonna I think it's like a like a like. It feels like It's a big ask for step to kind of go through. Try to summarize all these things. Um, which is maybe not a reason to pose it, but that. I just think that we're just getting back to a situation where we're still a majority. We have a minority, and it's going to inaccurate cap capture sort of the reason why we did this, and so I think that the best, most efficient use of our time going forward is to get these individually authored opinions. Um versus trying to um by commute uh committee like these majority minority statements. Uh, Michael, before I go to you I I had the same thought, Brian, that people will, you know, not like the way something is written, and and you know,

[161:02] on each opinion or in each thing, it's going to set us back further. Michael, Tom, I I agree with you and and Brian. I agree with you. I I feel like um. You know as much faith as I have in staff, I I don't think that um any of us will be satisfied that our positions are um represented the way that they should be. I think that's that. That staff would probably take a more diplomatic approach and try to water down um, and I don't mean that in in a disrespectful or negative way. But um! The the reality is this is a charged document. These are arguments on both sides, and the arguments should be made, and let Council decide, based on the arguments that are presented to Bill side from both sides. Let Council decide what they're going to do. Um, I think that we're not being hottest with ourself if we're trying to kid ourselves. If this is not a charge document,

[162:01] this this is this: This is an emotional issue. Um! The votes are all you know, for a lot of part are emotional. Um! And I think that on both sides we could all argue that our emotions are supported by the facts as we see them, and as we believe that Um, so I I agree with you, Brian and Tom. I I don't think that relying on Staff to accurately capture um the The intent and the um emotion behind all of our votes is going to do us justice, and I i'm concerned that we will wind up in the same place. We are tonight debating and debating whether or not Staff accurately got it right, and maybe those in the majority would say, Well, Staff got it right on the minority side, because it's sort of watered down in their opinion. So they like that, and maybe those and the minority would say, Um, they got it right on the majority side, but the majority stock going degree because it doesn't have what the majority wanted in it. I think we need to stick to the format. That is

[163:03] at least as a skeleton that is, for the board, and if you want to provide an individual comment, then you should provide an individual comment. Oh, Stacey, are you going to make a motion? I'm really bad at that kind of thing. It causes a lot of anxiety. I was just counting on you somebody else who's more uh eloquent with those types of things should do that. But it sounds like we're really close in that. This is, you know I agree with my goal exactly how we just set it, and that's what I was trying to say earlier, but on the version of us trying to come together and write the equivalent of what we're saying, staff and same idea. It sounds really hard and like just too much confounding factors. So that's I agree. Why, it makes a lot of sense to do it the way, you know, as far as using this document, we could clean it up quickly. I think so. It doesn't feel like this is the original document from Robin, because It's simply going to be anything. Robin wrote it that fits into her word requirement she can have here with her name on it, and that's it. If other people want to add opinions. They can, and I think that

[164:20] makes a lot of sense. So somebody who is good with words should make a motion um have it. Oh, you're mute! I was not going to make a motion, but you said that right at the end, so I apologize. Thought it was uh what I was gonna say is that I now just have gained access to the editable version of this document. Um, Obviously I I I agree that the there needs to be a little bit more spectrum of opinion expressed in here, and I think at the end of the day there's a lot of emotion about this document, because it does feel that it's expressing one side more more succinctly than the other. And I I I don't want to make an official motion against this. But I i'm going to say that i'm i'm going to

[165:13] um express my opinion as evan um, I think if we have some some counter arguments to some of the stuff that's being summarized in this document, we may have an opportunity to be able to kind of. I hate to call it, tribalize this. But I think if there's some stuff for the more affirmative legalization side to sign on to this conversation, maybe a little more efficient. Next time an attempt to have it. Um! What I will say is, I I would like to make a motion that at the very least we push back our targeted date for submission to the city Council by a minimum of one month. I think the reality of the holiday season is set in now, and where we hoped to be today two months ago has not been achieved. So I think it's appropriate for me to

[166:03] make a motion to push back our deliverable date to City Council one month for the recommendation document to, I believe, uh uh approval in our March meeting. So, Kathy, if there's one motion on the floor that has not been seconded yet Another motion be made. Um, yeah, if you um yes, because that it dies for lack of a second. So it's dead for lack of a second. I mean, Brian, did you have a motion that you wanted to make before that motion? I will second Evans motion, so we can push this back by a month. It address the real concerns that we have around timing, and that we can actually dive in and work hard on this. Okay, I can follow up with it a motion for the document once that passes or whatever happens to. Okay, Kristen, you have your hand up. Um! I just want to clarify the current timeline that we're on right now. So previously the Board voted to have a final version completed for January,

[167:09] a public hearing on that version in February, and a presentation a city council in March. So we're pushing it back one month. That may be February instead of March. I just want to clarify that. Yeah. My, My intent was that we we vote internally in February and provide our recommendations there whenever we have to do the public hearing. We do that in in March instead of February. Okay, Any further discussion, or what I we're we're running of time. So i'm gonna call a vote in my system. Somebody really needs to comment on that motion. John, are you still there? Certainly you can get my mouse working. Sorry about that. Um, yes. So um. I do have the current version of the uh motion proposed by Member Anderson to uh push back the the document. Approval. Uh to the march twenty, twenty, three meeting

[168:11] and um I have that seconded by Member Key in and for a vote. Um! A member. Anderson need to clarify something uh in in reference to what Kristen just said. I believe our I believe our original motion was to make our approvals within this board. To then announce the public hearing for February. I believe the timeline that you just detailed, John would actually push it back two months instead of what I have intended, which is a single month sure. So I think what Um Evans proposing is to have a final version in February, the public hearing on that version in March

[169:02] and the presentation to City Council in April. Yes, that is, that is my intent, wonderful. Thank you. So I have added that over to the motion and thank you for that clarification. Um, With that, said Member Anderson for your vote. Hi, uh Member Christie, support the motion. Remember Green for it. Remember Keegan support. Remember, cons me, i'm gonna vote. No, because I was. I think we could have done it. But that's my hope. Member Malone. Um uh in favor of it, and Member Noble. Yes, thank you very much. Motion passes

[170:03] okay before we need to move on to another topic. Brian folks ready for emotions, alright, I would motion that uh, we proceed with a model where uh for each motion that's been test uh by this board that every current voting member and exifico member be allowed to write a up to two hundred word uh statement uh, just to find their vote. I would like welcome friendly amendments. I would second to motion. Did that include a way to uh get Evan uh some sort of line. Item on this in the way you're wording it. I wasn't sure as a as a current voting member, he'd be able to leave a statement, I think, for every single one of these issues, even if he didn't, and we would just indicate that under separate section

[171:10] uh Evan um, not to complicate. But I have a little bit of an issue with the way that will phrase Brian uh in the case, that there is a a large group of individuals call it three to four who agree entirely. I don't think you should be limited to offering two hundred words summaries from each individual in the way that public comments can be pooled. I I would suggest that we allow. If three or four or five of us want to have a common opinion, I I believe we should. You should yield the yield to space to be able to have combined opinions that multiple people are signing their name to. I think it would be if some people don't want to make a comment Cool, Then you give your two hundred words to the person who has a lot to say about it, because I think some of these deserve a lot more than I certainly know. I'm going to be very, very, very hard pressed to summarize my opinions on some of these in two hundred words

[172:06] I would say. Each statement can't have more than two hundred words per signatory thing. There you go. I like that. I can fully support that case statement. Yeah. So a statement could have multiple signatory. Sorry if this is like getting too much in the weeds, but the intent being that people could sign local statements, a statement could have multiple signatories and their budget would be fooled. Okay, uh, I was just gonna I don't know if the motion needs it, but at the end of it. You said vote, and I was just wondering if we change, or you might want to change it to perspective. Um, just because it's going to be if it's including, like Evans or uh, to to further complicate that one um signatories equal voters.

[173:00] Members have not voted on any of these subjects. How do we want to account for their allotment of words? And myself have not voted on several of these? So I would say, start with two hundred words. If you find a friend who wants to give you there two hundred words, you can take the two hundred words phone a friend. So I would say this, everyone start with two hundred words. If it's not enough, we can address it in the next meeting. If you really want to kind of move this motion forward and get to other mid business. Have to raise it. Really good points. I think those details can be worked at a future meeting. Okay, Are you okay? You were through Okay, Having in your hand is still up. No? Then everyone gets to the words, We're not worrying about this, like I get borrowing someone else's words right now, like we're just straightforward, for now we're green two hundred words per person, and we could always work on that later Is that am I understanding that

[174:02] my my ten is that everyone gets two hundred words, and that if you don't want to use your two hundred words. You can give that to somebody else, and those details we can work out in the future. I guess it just that i'm starting to wonder is that going to leave room for, like I don't know, like more confusion than we need, like the the borrowing words, or given your words like I I don't know. I just think that's starting to really unnecessarily complicate this again, and it felt like we were like, really. Yeah, it but it does. And it like it doesn't feel necessary. It felt like the motion was pretty clear, and that part, Anyway, I don't or up. We're getting a little. We're trying to. We're trying not to be on time here.

[175:04] So let me try this one. Last time i'll respectfully uh decline events, friendly amendment. We're welcome one in the future. Maybe in the December meeting, if we have time to think about how we want to allocate these board budgets. But let's just stick to two hundred words, a person. Okay, yes, I was gonna say thank you. Um uh Member Keegan, If you could please state your uh motion for the record One more time, please. Uh. The recommendations to council should include each motion, and each current member and ex is your member, will have a two hundred word budget to provide their perspective on the motion. Thank you very much.

[176:03] Thank you. And for voting uh Member Anderson. Does he need a second, or who seconded it? Heaven, you're on mute. I'm going to vote. No. Remember, Kristy. I support the motion Member Green uh Member Keegan support the motion. A member concerned support Member Malone. I don't support and member noble for the motion

[177:01] um motion passes. Is there something that would have made it more palatable to the two of you voting against I. Since the beginning of four meetings ago I've been about as few words as possible, so it's It's just sending one thousand eight hundred words per motion to council. Sounds crazy. Sorry to use a another bad word. I shouldn't have said it sounds crazy. It sounds but Anna's no uh the opposite. Yeah, sorry I I I think that some of this deserves a lot of words, and very particularly my dissenting opinion on a couple of these things, is going to be more than two hundred words, and i'd prefer to be able to offer it in my in my role as a cloud member than as a an individual speaking in public hearing during the city council deliberations. But some of the stuff needs a hell of a lot of background that we're not going to be able to get in two hundred words per person. So um not sported motion.

[178:15] Okay, Um, Mine's gonna be very easy, because Kristen and I, working behind the scenes have not been able to get me into an editable or reviewable, or anything anything other than a reviewable mode. So I won't be making any comments unless I actually can make comments. But oh, well, uh, next time i'm looking for the agenda uh policy suggestion forms. I thought we had done this Kristen or Kathy. The Board asks us to continue it to this meeting

[179:01] to provide some additional time to comment on the forms that were provided. In that case. Is there anyone who wants to present a point of view since Jeff missed his public comment period? Because there's someone that can comment for Jeff? Are you guys talking about? Chef card? Yeah, um. I can certainly speak to what he was going for, what the what? That document was related to. Essentially a grandfathering provision to allow for businesses to get re-licensed in the case that the license expires or an application issue is brought up. Um! It would have preserved the station as it stood. There are several other businesses that have been impacted by this. It's a

[180:00] I think the courts have ruled that Jeff's provision is definitely important, so it's not not exactly a cut and dry situation. I'm sure Kathy has an opinion on this also, but I think more more than anything. Just proposal was a procedural issue. To make sure that businesses don't get shut down on a on a on a yeah lack of grandfathering because they're in what the city now considers to be an unlicensable location. It it's it is complicated if i'm not suggesting that anybody take my information as why they would vote one way or the other, but it will, it will streamline what will inevitably become um expensive and difficult fights for the city to uh further rules that were created back in two thousand and twelve, two thousand and thirteen. A lot has changed since then. Recreational has come in since then, so um Jeff's proposal will preserve legacy businesses in the city

[181:03] should they run into any issue. If they can get there. If they can get their things rectified with the city to the satisfaction of the licensing group, and I know you came in after the fact. And, Kathy, do you want to comment? Uh, i'll? I'll just comment that the um the information was in your packet at when when this was brought up in two thousand and eighteen, with the responses of Council and the city staff all that information in your packet already. Um! And the another note that notice that somebody turned off track changes on this document, and I've turned it back on. But please be really careful not to turn off that changes, or we won't. See edits that people make. Yeah, I didn't realize you could turn it off for other people. Yeah, to clarify. You gotta make sure that you are not editing that document. You are just suggesting.

[182:06] No, you can edit it. It shows in red line who does Who did it? It was that you have to keep. You can't turn off that function. Well, it's gonna be in the reviewing phone if you're doing it based on the reviewing or edit, don't do it in the editing function, do it in the reviewing function, and then there is a track changes as well. But it depends on which platform I think you're using. Somebody turned it off for everybody. They accepted all the Stacey thought she did it. But I can tell you I didn't do it, because I haven't been able to not surprise me honestly, like I I worry about that because i'm definitely not good with these types of things. So if it was me, please tell me how not to do it again. The good news, Kathy, is that I think, using this platform, we can still um. We still record of any changes that were made through version control. So I don't think that that that information's been completely lost.

[183:05] It's not completely lost, but it's really hard to go back and figure out who did what comments it will be easy for everybody to see. So it's. Say, don't hit any of the buttons on the top, two ribbons, three ribbons. Okay, Kate, your hand is still up, you can still click. You can still click on the the the comments that are underlined which are part of the changes, and it'll tell you who made that suggestion so you can still click on those things. But when somebody turned it off and some changes you can't, So if nobody you can. You can right click on the underlining or the comments and see who made them. But please don't click on anything and the ribbons above the document. Um. I was just gonna add context to the conversation about the the policy form. There was something that we had talked about last time that that I think we were. We were talking about it, and I thought we were getting to the point where we maybe getting towards emotion. And um! There was a conversation about. Does it depend on what type of

[184:09] um reason that um the the business was shut down, if it's for like tax purposes or payment versus um selling to a minor or whatever it was. Um, there were different. That was the conversation that I remember that we last spoke about before um. We kind of close the discussion. Um, so just wanted to remind people that that was part of the discussion that was going on at the time that we were talking about this policy. This is just some form, Alana: Yeah, thanks, Kate, for drawing our memories on where it ended. We had a pretty um active conversation on this when Jeff presented it at our last meeting, and I do want to make sure that it gets its due attention. Um! So that if that's tonight. Great um! But if not tonight, that it stays on the agenda. This is,

[185:01] I think, in my opinion and my perspective, some of the more important uh groundwork that we can do for the city. I think I remember I don't. I don't want to test anybody before you do that I I don't want to test my memory. I think I remember what what was the reason The business was shut down again. It doesn't matter in this. It doesn't matter in the situation. It's just the procedural approach that licensing takes when a business is put into a situation like that. The if they rectified their their ills with the city they should have been allowed to reopen, and they weren't because of a technicality related to the grandfathering of their license. It had nothing to do with what they did wrong. They they untimely filed their renewal applications, but initially precipitated the issue. So

[186:00] I think I think this deserves a conversation in a much fresher segment of our meeting, because this is really important. People lost a lot, a lot of money, and we lost a business that was really good in the city because of something that did not justify the the outcome. Obviously, that's my opinion. But I think, looking at the details this, there's a reason why Jeff has spent as much time as as he has going after this, even when there was no path to rectify this for the business that was affected. So yeah, and in as much as I represent this as a topic that we should take on it's as the like the non-conforming use, and the grandfathering generally to the industry, not as much specific to a certain case. Yeah. So do you want to Do you want to put this off to another meeting, and and if nothing else get Jeff Jess talk next time, because we're we're tied on time.

[187:01] Yeah, I don't think we have enough time to really bring this one back out, and I would motion that we move this to a conversation towards the beginning of our next meeting. And do you want to frame the discussion in a wider for the grandfathering of not conforming uses. I think that is the subject that we need to make a recommendation to Council on whether it be the recommendation that we adopt Jeff's proposal is written, or something Further, I think it's a the the grandfathering of not conforming us to specific to this industry is a very important subject. It bankrupts or make a lot of businesses, and we need to make a We need to make an informed recommendation to council on this. Would it be wise to have Jeff reframe a new policy Suggestion form, I think, given that the City Council has already had an opportunity to give their opinion on this, but it was a council that was formed four years ago. Uh, I I I would feel comfortable, asking Jeff to to reformulate and re-summerize his motion or his his request. Um,

[188:08] get a new opinion because while I do appreciate the captain, Kathy's reference to the fact that there is an opinion in there from four years ago. It's an opinion from four years ago, so I think we need to reconsider it in the light of the current industry. Okay, I don't think we need a motion. Well, I don't know. So we have a motion on that. I would I would I'm going to make a mo. I'm going to ask that we we. We discuss this at the next meeting, but i'm going to specifically ask Jeff to submit a revised proposal before the comment period is over. What I believe is ten days before our next meeting, fourteen days before our next meeting and Don't Clarify that for me, John, when how early do they need to just Jeff? Me to have a revision to that into you for it, to make it to the reading packet.

[189:05] Um, John can provide that to Jeff directly. It's on the web page. Okay, i'll second your motion. Anyone need to discuss that before we vote on that motion. All right. And, John, do you have concept of what that? No, she is? Yes, um! It is to move this discussion uh, uh, earlier on the agenda for next meeting, and and Jeff Guard will resubmit an updated version of the policy suggested for Oh, that's up to Jeff. We can't. We can ask ask Jeff to to submit. I am actively drafting a message to him to redress this so that we are forced to Red discuss it. Okay, all right. We are on to matters from Senior console.

[190:02] Oh, sorry we did. Oh, you're right. We didn't vote. Uh Is there anyone who. Why, why do you do your roll call, Tom? Um Member Anderson? Yes, remember, Kristy. Yes, remember Green. I think her moth moved. Yes, we need verbal confirmation for the um Member Keegan. Yes, uh member, remember Malone, or and thank you very much. Remember a motion passes before we go on to matters from the Senior Council. I want to be noted that that was a Nanos. But look at look what we can do.

[191:05] Um, I don't have anything specific, and I don't want to take Kristen's, I mean, I didn't have anything specific to this, and I don't want to take kristen sunder. I just do want to make sure that the retreat next Monday accomplishes what you all want. So thank you all for things that you have put in the jam board. If there is any, I guess the question i'd really like answer to is, what would need to happen next Monday for you all to feel the retreat was worth your time, and I don't know if that's something that people can answer now, or if you feel like you've already got it on the jam board, or if you just want to send comments to Christian or me, but we will be meeting with the Facilitator on Wednesday to do the final planning for it so really want to make sure that it um is worth your time, and is

[192:01] hopeful for the board going forward. So if there's anything that ideas that you haven't given, or want to give, or whatever please do send them to us um before Wednesday at noon, or include them on the jam board, or tell us Now, does the retreat start with some kind of getting to know each other? The type of thing we want? If that's if that's what you would like. Yes, if I can paraphrase our conversation. You and I conversed, and we talked about how valuable that would be. Uh, because we have not ever had a chance to do that in person. It would be interesting to like, reintroduce ourselves in person two years later. Thank you. But I don't know if I would recommend I mean, you know I've been to

[193:00] retreats where you do some kind of gamification or game. You know some of them are pretty lame I've been to, and I don't want to lame one. Right? Not your choice, man. You have to retreat. Monitor. I think it's Slide Number seven. There's a there's five that says, Please identify whether you want to. The following topics address by cloud and rank those. But there's nothing there. Oh, wasn't there an attachment. Oak Kristen. I had an attachment to the Gm. Board that maybe didn't go out with the link, but I do remember it was so. Thank you for that reminder. We will get that taken care of

[194:01] any other comments about uh what you're gonna What I like. Chris is going to talk about detail or the mechanics of it right now, Right? That's all I had. Yes, go you. You got the flower kristen or so. I'm just gonna go in order of the agenda. Item: um. So agenda topics for feature cloud meetings. We did include a list of suggestions that we've received so far in your meeting packet. Is there anything else that Board members would like to add to that list? Great, All right, Christine, Which list um. There's a the last page of the meeting packet is a list of suggestions for future meetings. Um, And we kind of put this list together, based on our notes from past suggestions. So it's just kind of an ongoing list that we were keeping, and members asked us to put that list in the packet going forward.

[195:03] Um, so that's what we'll continue to do, and then you know it in this agenda item for each meeting. Just provide an opportunity. If any members want to add to that list. So once we get through a hospitality and everything else you'd like to talk about, we can um focus on other topics as well, Robin. Thanks, Kristen. I would just clarify on that list that the educational resource that's there that was specific to um the Colorado Department of uh Public Health and education. And uh, the the sort of educational resources given out with every concentrate purchase in the State. Now it would be specific to that particular handout. Thank you. We'll clarify that, and and to clarify, Are you adding those to this, the seventh, the seventh slide on the Okay. So then you could add, we could add some there,

[196:05] and then the ranking would be based on what's been added, and we can add more topics to Yes, and we're just two articles today, because this week is the tenth anniversary of I'm. Sure, you all saw the same articles I saw about uh tenth anniversary of cannabis being approved in state of Colorado. Yeah, It's sixty, four, but not the market amendment. Sixty-four. Sorry. Yeah, My store is thirteen years old. So a little longer than that. No, My story is thirteen years old amendment sixty-four. Sorry I stand correctly. Um also wanted to um. Let the Board know that the meeting that's scheduled in January for the first Monday of January actually falls on a city holiday for the years.

[197:05] Um, So we'll be moving the January meeting to the second Monday of the month, which is Monday, January ninth. So just to heads up about that schedule change for next year, and you'll send send out a uh meeting change. Sure. Yeah, we can send out a meeting invitation to the Board. Okay, on the jam. Are we on the jam board? I just have a question, some questions, sure. What questions do you have? Are? Should I? Should we add our name? I see people doing that, and i'm happy to do that. But it was made to you can be anonymous if you want. So add your name. If you don't want to be anonymous. Okay. And everyone has access to this because it due tomorrow.

[198:01] Right? Correct. The deadline for the jam board is tomorrow. Is that end of day? Make sure People can see my comments because I can see I can. Okay, all right. I see some good stuff end of day. Okay, if it's like ten. Pm: Yeah, we'll do them on um Wednesday morning because we meet with Heather in the afternoon. Seven, fifty-nine am. How about that? Okay, Sure. Kristen. Um. And then just a couple of notes for the retreat. So I think you all know, but the retreat is going to be held at the Fire Training Center, which is at the Reservoir, and i'll be sending out some instructions for how to access the facility. But one thing I really wanted to highlight, for the board is um. The main entrance through the reservoir is going to be closed, so everyone will need to access the facility through the side entrance, which is, which is off.

[199:03] Excuse me, top of diagonal, so like I said, i'll be sending out um instructions. But if you're using your Gps, for example, make sure that it's not taking you to the main reservoir entrance, because that's going to be closed. You'll have to turn around and go back through the side insurance so just to heads up about that um. I also wanted to mention that we will be providing some food during the retreat. Haven't figured out the exact money, yet it'll probably be something like Bagels or Brutos, or something along those lines. But if you have any dietary restrictions, please email those to me. So we can make sure that we have something that will fit everyone's diet. Um. So uh two things. So um in order to access the if you're coming, if you're going north on the diagonal, don't cross over the median, the uh police, uh, whatever the place where you're not supposed to cross over to get to the

[200:01] it's supposed to go up to the satellite and come back down, and then um for Kate. Kate's not going to be able to make it in person. Do we have a way to have some hybrid hybridity. I'm making up a word, and in just to be clear like I don't expect, like I don't expect any of that. I plan to to attend, and they were just some extent who's good circumstances, and I couldn't do it. Um, but um! I would never think that there would be any virtual kind of um video aspect of that. But if you all had a um a like a conference room, one of those conference call things that I could just calling on. I don't even have to like, obviously like comment, but it'd be nice to know what the conversation is about, and I do apologize that it didn't work out, so I will miss seeing you all. So we we originally weren't anticipating, setting up the room to be virtual. But let me check in with um my point of contact over at the Fire Training Center and see what options we have. Kate and I'll send those to you when I have a little more information.

[201:06] Yeah, thank you. And I don't want to make anybody anybody's life harder. So it doesn't work out, even if it's the day of, and we're like It's not working like it is what it is. So Thanks. And before we do that, let's make sure it's not violating city policy. If we have it remote. For some we may need to have a remote for the entire public, since it's open to the public, and so we need to do some checking for internal city procedures before we can do that. Okay, thanks, Kathy. That's all that I had, unless anyone has any questions. Um, And let's go on to members from the chair and members of the Board. Uh Brian. Do you have any other issues that you want to present

[202:03] uh Alana? Do you want to. Uh at least bring up a topic. Yeah, I miss the um submission period, but it'll be on the next packet. Um, I got some legal advice on how industry should look at and handle the topic of conflict of interest and recusal. Um, and I thought it would be a good resource for the board and the membership um, even just to kind of have and memorialize um, as there are two dedicated industry seats on the board. Um, and I know that there's questions around leveraging our expertise while um navigating that we're part of the industry. So i'll provide that for the next packet, or it's already been provided, and then um! I'll just stay on the agenda for um the next meeting after we have that document. Thanks, John.

[203:08] You're on you. Sorry about that? Um. Just a reference question when you allude to getting legal insight. Is that just your lawyer? Is that it's like an industry You're like, I mean Jeff Guard. He's been involved in the industry since the beginning of time, and I thought he'd be it's ordinance space. So I got his council on the matter, and he wrote up a memo. See? That makes it interesting, because Jeff might want to comment on two different things. We would be allowed to to comment on two different things. Yeah, you don't need to have Jeff comment on it. Um, Specifically, the advice is to say that industry members are allowed to have an opinion, if the opinion is not one that would benefit their business exclusively,

[204:07] It would be impossible for Alana and I to present opinions on this industry that could benefit our businesses or hurt our businesses if it were. If if we were. Every single thing we voted on has an impact directly on our businesses because we are operators in the city. Uh. The reality is that where we to be excluded from voting on anything that impacted our businesses, we would have to refuse ourselves from every vote, and the the basis and purpose of us being involved is to express the opinions of industry. I think the The clarification that Alan is referring to is the recusal of yourself, or of of herself or myself from any vote that would benefit us as an operator in the industry. It is not the same as us Having to recuse ourselves like the example Jeff used for me was, I would have to recuse myself if the vote was, You can only put hospitality businesses between twenty, eight and thirtieth on Mapleton. Well, obviously, that would benefit me exclusively, and I would have to recuse myself, but

[205:10] making a vote about where hospitality businesses could operate if it were to coincide with where my business could operate as well as everyone else's. I do not have to recuse myself, so I think fundamentally, the vote of for a lot of recusing herself on a vote related to everyone being allowed to have concentrate on the hospitality license Wasn't made appropriate what might be interesting. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted you guys to have the background document, and I think that's a better springboard for the discussion, and um look forward to it in December and look forward to seeing all on Monday. Okay, So is there any other items of business? I will send these to our and everybody catch? There was a

[206:05] I can't remember where I saw the two articles. They came across my screen just summarizing the um i'm sixty-four in the past ten years just to clarify. Jeff just got back to me and said that he's already working on it, and he will submit to council, or he will submit to the board the modifications to his proposal so that they can be re-reviewed. Okay, he's on it. Thank you. It is forthcoming just just in there, as is thank you motion. To Adjourn anyone motion to adjourn. Oh, second one, and any uh opposition to that. Our extent. Okay. See you all next Monday. Thank you all. Thank you. Steve.

[207:04] Wait! Is Kristen solo. She got a guided me through uh John.