Speaker 6: Sawyer, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 3: Council President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Resolution 185 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you could please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilmember Hines, will you please put Resolution 186 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Mr. President, I move that council is at 186. I move the council resolution 20, dash 186 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Council Member CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And just for background on this change. This rule in particular caused a lot of disagreement around keeping or getting rid of the word impugn, because I personally believe that we have a job to question the decision making of our colleagues. And so in order to mitigate the the contention, I think it's important for us to operate from common definitions. Therefore, what this is doing is adding a common definition of what impugn is to mean, so that we're codifying that definition and have something to look back on and stand on when we believe that somebody has inappropriately impugn someone.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: I thank Mr. President. This is one of those items that had been amended out of the proposed resolution for further discussion at committee by agreement of everyone there. So I was again surprised to see that it was moved to the floor with some changes. But I think those changes, Councilwoman, should be discussed, particularly the councilwoman, which had some issues with it as well, and she had to leave the meeting here tonight. And so I would make a motion to refer this to committee so that we can discuss. I believe that your changes here are going in the right direction. After you and I had a conversation about one of the common meanings of impugn that would seem to prevent us from questioning a person's set of facts or data. And certainly we don't want to inhibit that. But I think we do want to maybe be a little more thoughtful and intentional about this new definition that you've put in when you filed this on Thursday. And we have not had a chance to discuss this should go back to committee so that we can discuss it and make it right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. All right, so we have a motion on the floor to refer which has been seconded. So we'll do questions and comments on the motion to re refer. Council member said welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to respond to Councilman Flynn's request to re refer. I actually incorporated the discussion that we had in committee to define impugn. And so that is why it says for the purposes of this section, impugn means to verbally assault, threaten or harass another through a knowingly false statement made with malice to unjustly that unjustly harms their reputation. That took into consideration the definitions discussed the first time we voted on the rules, as well as the concerns and definitions that were thrown out during committee. This is to say that this is what this means, because this is not the definition. I believe this this is not the definition of impugn that I understand or agree with. And so in order for me to feel like this is a rule that I can follow, defining it is very important to me. And I feel like if we could get this on the books tonight, I would be happy with someone coming forward in committee and bringing a change to it. Because I asked during committee where we're supposed to do the work if anyone would propose a definition themselves. And I got no proposal of a definition, and so I'm forced to define it in the way that I've heard others define it and put something forward and allow somebody else to respond to it the way that I've had to respond to these rules as a whole.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Flynn thing, Mr. President, comes from what you've what you've laid out. There is a fantastic case for having this discussion in committee, because I think people did want to react and doing it here on the floor on Monday night, particularly with one of the members who had a particular problem with this. Not being present is is not the best place to do that. For instance, in the definition that you've proposed, you you wanted to limit impugn to making a knowingly false statement. And I have been the object of statements that were unknowingly false. And so I do want to refine it further and have a better discussion on it. But I agree with some of your concerns about the broad definition of impugn and how it would seem to prevent us from questioning another member's statements of fact. I'm fully on board with that. I think we can get there, but I think it should be in committee and we can we can work that out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. The only additional comment that I would say is that we're we're a council of 13. And and I recognize that at that committee hearing, we didn't we didn't offer a definition. I know I was concerned because I had a meeting immediately after that committee meeting. And so but I, I am interested in hearing the discussion as opposed to I think that you're making a good a new definition for that, for impugn. But I would like to have this consultation with my colleagues. And because it's a consultation about policy, it should be in a public forum like a committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. All right. See nobody else. I'll just add number one again. I really want to thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for being willing to come from where you started to take that feedback that was provided in committee and come back with it. You know, I was one of the people was very open to definitions and the definitions section. I really appreciate that. I think just the piece that was missing for me was that opportunity to provide feedback on the definition before we're here doing it. And so I think, you know, it's something as simple as sending out an email, not for a group discussion, but give me feedback back on, Hey, this is the definition I'm thinking, do you like it? And then you could come report to us, Hey, I sent out an email or got feedback from the 13 of you and now here I am with the definition that everyone got I was on board for. As part of that, I think that can happen in committee. I think that you could solicit feedback, you know, on this proposal, lots of proposals that lead up to that, but allow that to happen before we're here on Monday night. And so I think, again, I like where we're headed. I don't know that we're there quite yet and I'm eager to hear that. So I think committee is a great place to do it. And so I'm supportive of the motion to refer now to Secretary Roll Call on the referral. FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 6: BLACK Hi.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 3: GILMORE All right.
Speaker 7: Herndon I.
Speaker 3: Can't.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 0: Cashman I.
Speaker 3: Can eat. Sorry. Ortega Sandoval. Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Council President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please cause voting announced the results.
Speaker 3: Two nays tonight.
Speaker 0: Two nays. Tonight's Resolution 186 has been referred to committee. All right, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilmember Hines, if you please, put Resolution 187 on the floor.
A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure.
Amends the City Council Rules of Procedure to clarify the definition of “impugn.” Councilwoman CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 2-20-20.