Cindy, do you see that Charles is on and it's recording. It started recording as soon as I click start the webinar. Okay, thank you. Charles, I'm going to go ahead and put you into or keep you out. I'm going to put Pablo into the Spanish Channel first. I'll go ahead and do that now. I just got an email that Abigail will not be at the meeting today. Okay, thanks. Charles, I believe we have a quorum now if you wish. Great start the meeting. Okay. With that, I'm going to go ahead and call to order tonight's meeting of the charter review committee and ask for roll call please. Thank you, chair.  I'm not hearing you. Can you hear me now. Yes. Okay. Committee member weeks. Here. Member Walsh. Member Villalobos. Here. Member pits. Here. Thank you. Member minor. Member Miller. Member Missy. Here. Member Martinez. Member link. Here. Member close. Here. Member Goudinho. Here. Member Diaz. Here. Member Cunningham will be absent today. Member Condren. Here. Member Byrne. Here. Member Bartley will not be at the meeting today. Member Badenford. Member Barber. Here. Member Arizon. Here. Okay. Let me see. Member Walsh. Have you joined us? Member Minor. Have you joined us? Member Miller. Have you joined us? Member Martinez. Have you joined us? Member close. Have you joined us? Yes, I'm here. Thank you. Let the record show that. Oh, I'm sorry. Vice chair. Oliveris. Are you here? Yes. Here. Let the record show that all committee members are present with the exception. Of committee member Bartley. Committee member Cunningham. Committee member Martinez. Committee member Miller. Committee member minor. And committee member Walsh. Great. Thank you. And do you have some comments that you want to make for the Spanish channel? Or should we move to a public comment? Yes, please. Thank you. For those just joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish is available. And members wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel to do so. Click on the interpretation icon in the zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio. So you only hear the Spanish translation. Interpreter trials. Can you please restate that? Interpreter trials. Can you please restate that in Spanish? For those just joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish is available. And people who wish to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel. To change the channel, click on the interpretation icon in the zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. Once you join the Spanish channel, we recommend you shut off the main audio. So you only hear the interpretation. Thank you. I'll go ahead and put you in the Spanish channel now. Your sister, would you like me to go over any housekeeping? Yes, I think that would be helpful. Okay. Before we go to public comment. Okay. So we ask that committee members, please keep your audio mute on mute unless you're speaking. And as members of the public during the meeting via zoom, you'll be participating as an attendee. Attendee microphones and cameras will be muted. If you are calling in from a telephone and choose to speak during the public comment portion of the. Agenda for privacy concerns. The host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number. The city of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and inclusive phone number. The city of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption. We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions. And our well staff to monitor that. Everyone is participating respectfully. Or they will be removed. And if necessary, we will also. Immediately. And the meeting. Public comments will be heard after each agenda item is presented. And after each agenda item is presented, chair Cisco will ask for committee member comments and then open it up for public comment. If you are participating from zoom or by telephone. And wish to make a live public comment on a specific item. At the time public comment is opened by chair Cisco for that item. Please use the raised hand feature. If you are calling in via telephone, you can dial star nine to raise your hand. Throughout today, today's agenda. When chair Cisco calls for public comment. An interpreter will be prepared to assist anyone needing interpretation services. For those using interpreter support. Will be afforded additional time for your public comment. As required by the brown act. We ask that those listening on the Spanish channel, but wishing to make a public comment. To turn off public comment. At the time your public. At the time your name is called. So that you can join the main channel to make your public comment heard and translated into English. This icon may now look like a circle with an ES in the middle. And the word Spanish underneath. You can then rejoin the Spanish channel at the conclusion of your comment to continue listening. And then for those listening. Yes, speakers who are on as attendees at the time that your presentation is. Ready to be made. Our host will promote you to a panelist so that we can. See your screen in here in your presentation. Thank you. Great. Thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and move on to public comments on non-agent. Matters. This is a time for any member of the public. To address the committee on matters that are not listed on tonight's agenda that are pertinent to the committee. So with that, I'll go ahead and open public comments. And ask our host to let me know if anyone is. Waiting to speak. If you caught, if you're calling in.  If you're calling in. If you're calling in.  If you're participating by zoom, use the raise hand feature, please. Thank you, chair, Cisco. I don't see any raised hands. Great. Okay. Thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and close the public comment on non-agenda matters. We don't have any approval of minutes tonight. And so we'll move to our schedule items. Okay. Our first item 4.1 is our standing item of equity principles. We don't have a presentation on that. So I will just ask the committee members if there's any other. Comments or questions that you have on that item. And so I am not seeing any. So I am going to call for public comment on this item as well. I'm going to call for public comment period for item 4.1, which is our equity principles. And same drill. If you're participating by zoom and you choose to speak, please use the raised hand feature. If you're calling in dial star nine. And I will ask our host to let me know if anyone is waiting. And chair Cisco, I don't see any raised hands. Okay. So with that, I'll go ahead and close public comment on item 4.1. Our main item this evening, 4.2. Direct elect at large mayor and. Sue Gallagher is going to give our presentation. Thank you chair Cisco. As you know, this is the continued discussion. Of the proposal to provide for election of a mayor. By citywide vote. We started this conversation at our last meeting. And continuing it this evening. So next slide. I just like to start with just an outline of how the meeting is going to go. We are going to hear from a couple of. Mayors with experience as at large mayors. That's Mayor Teresa Bart. Barrett at large mayor of Petaluma. And then mayor Kate Collin at large mayor of San Rafael. Second, we'll be addressing questions that were raised at the last meeting. There were three primary questions that were raised and then three additional. Questions as well. We'll address those six questions. And then lastly, we'll identify decision points and the committee can discuss the item. And we'll be asking that you provide. Provide us direction as to next steps. So next slide. As I mentioned, we will be hearing. From two current at large mayors. That's Mayor Teresa Barrett from Petaluma. And Mayor Collin, Kate Collin from San Rafael. To accommodate their schedules. We will start their presentations at about five 30. And we've asked them to talk a little bit about their experiences. And then I'm sure they will also be happy to. Answer any questions that the committee might have. So instead, we'll start now with the remaining questions. So next slide. This is a turning to some of the questions that were raised at the last meeting. Three primary questions. First, very briefly. We'll give a little bit of a clarification of the mayor's current power. Powers and positions. We will then do a quick outline of the voting right. Voting rights. Act implications. And then finally, the. A little bit of an outline of the voter turnout by district. A question that was raised. By some of the committee members. Really trying to get at what we might expect. In an at large election of the mayor. We'll then touch on three additional related questions that were raised by committee members. The procedures for removal of the, of a mayor or a council member from his conduct. Second, the ability to allow voting by undocumented individuals. And then third potential to revise the charter to allow for more frequent revision. All of these are interesting questions. We're not going to have time to delve into them tonight in any depth. If the committee wants, we can always place them on a later agenda, but we will touch on the three later. In this presentation. So next slide. So toward the end of the meeting. Our last meeting. I did hear some concerns expressed that. There may have been some lack of clarity in terms of the mayor's current roles and responsibilities. So these few first few slides. Simply try to provide some clarity. The council as a whole, of course, as we've discussed is the legislative body. It acts as a single body. And the mayor is part of that single legislative body. Next slide. The mayor cannot. Again, we've talked a little bit about this before. Cannot set city policies or priorities on their own. That is the role of the council as a whole. The mayor also cannot hire or fire employees or direct their activities. And indeed. Section 40 of the charter prevents any of the council members from directing or interfering. With staff. The council as a whole does hire the city manager and the city attorney. But beyond that. Directing the activities of particular employees is within the, the, the realm of the city manager. But the mayor can and does preside over council meetings, sets of council agendas in collaboration with the city manager. So the mayor establishes and appoints council subcommittees. With the council's consent. And does appoint city representatives to county, regional and state bodies again with the consent of the council. And the mayor acts as a city spokesperson and as chief negotiator with county, regional, state and federal agencies. So somewhat limited powers, but a credibility to help shape. Some of the discussions that go on at the city. And this more limited role for the mayor is reflected in our charter by charter. We have a strong city manager system. We've talked about that before. We, you have received two letters. First from Peter Stanley and then to today. From Julian Peterson, both urging that the city move to a strong mayor system. We've talked about the strong mayor system. We've talked about that at our last meeting and what that might look like. Next slide. So again, to clarify where we are and what the issue at hand, the question that was initially posed by the council is whether to move. To simply to move from an appointed mayor, that is the council member selected by the council itself. Move from that to an elected mayor elected by citywide vote. And then we've talked about that. We've talked about all the elements of the mayor's ship. Otherwise the same. But you have heard suggestions to move to a strong mayor system. That is. A fair question. It is separate. From simply the selection method. But that is something that if you want, we can agendize and talk further about. In a more limited way. That's also a separate question and a fair question. Next slide. So hopefully that gave a little bit of clarity on the mayor's roles. Second questions were raised about the implications of the California voting rights act. The short answer is that the voting rights act does not preclude a hybrid system. With district based council members and an at-large mayor. The city of California, the city of California, the city of California and the city of California. The city of California impressively permits a hybrid system. And in fact, numerous cities have settled CVRA litigation. By agreement for a hybrid system. But the voting rights act will impact how districts are realigned. And the city of California, the city of California and the city of California. What's the essential rule from the California voting rights act? The act prohibits an at-large method of election that impairs the ability of a protected class. To elect candidates of its choice or, or its ability to influence the outcome of an election. And next slide. We'll break it down into the four essential elements. Next slide. We'll talk about the election system. And that is an at-large election for all members of the governing body. Second is a presence of a protected class. A protected class is a class of voters who are members of a race, color or language minority group. As defined by federal law. Next slide. The third element is a presence of racially polarized voting. A racially polarized voting is when voters in the protected class. Prefer candidates and electoral choices that are different from those preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate. It's usually not a bright line, but any kind of a suggestion that there is a preference among voters in the protected class are different than those preferred by the rest of the electorate. And then the fourth element. Is the impairment of voting influence. The votes of those in the majority non-protected class have the effect of defeating the preferences of the protected class. Next slide. So how's a violation established? It's established if there is evidence of racially polarized voting that that has occurred in elections for members of the governing body or in other key electoral districts. So it's important to recognize that no finding of racial animus or any intent to discriminate is required. It's simply the fact of racially polarized voting. Next slide. So the necessary elements, evidence that the protected class generally votes in a politically cohesive way. And evidence that the non-protected class vote sufficiently as a block to enable it to defeat the protected classes preferred candidate. Again, it doesn't have to be intentional, but just that as a practical matter is the result. So next slide. So the question was raised at our last meeting and why did the city shift to district based council elections in 2017-2018. That all stemmed from a threat of litigation. We received a letter from a law firm asserting that the city of Santa Rosa did have a racially polarized voting and that that racially polarized voting was resulting in the dilution of Latinx voting. We undertook a city undertook an independent review of elections in 2012, 2014 and 2016. And that review did indicate potential evidence of racially polarized voting. The data from those, from that review was included in the PowerPoint that was prepared by Marguerite Leone. And that was attached to your agenda. It's kind of later in that PowerPoint on the voting rights act. But that independent review did see potential evidence of racially polarized voting. That evidence as I note here is not conclusive, but the law was evolving unsettled. We were watching what was going on in other jurisdictions, and we saw that the financial risks of litigation were enormous. Next slide. So kind of at the end of the day, what are the implications for an at-large mayor? As I mentioned, it does not preclude, the voting rights act does not preclude us from moving to a hybrid system where we have these council members and an at-large mayor that is expressly allowed by state law. But the voting rights act will require care and how and if districts are realigned. We will want to ensure, ensure that any new system does not result in the improper dilution of votes of a protected class. So we'll want to be careful at that next stage. Next slide. So now we turn to the question on voter turnout by district. Voter turnout generally. Voter turnout generally is reported by precinct or by citywide. So we were able to only get some general numbers at least this point. We'll continue to look at the committees interested in further data. We're happy to continue to look on that. So we'll report out on two elections, November 2020. Obviously that was a very hotly debated presidential election. Citywide we had 80 to 90% turnout. There were a few districts. Isolated district, I'm sorry, isolated precincts in districts one and three, where the turnout was lower around 68 to 78% turnout. In March 2020, it was a primary election. Overall less voter turnout. Districts one and seven had generally the lowest turnout, 45 to 50% turnout. District three was at the other end of the spectrum was. District three is in East. Santa Rosa. Oakmont and the Eastern part of. Lincoln Valley and. I think some of Bennett Valley is including that as well. That's 80 to 90% turnout in district three districts, one in seven are in the. In the western part of the city, Southwest part of the city, that was where the lower turnout was. And then the remainder of the city was about 55 to 60% turnout. Next slide. I'm going to now kind of walk through the, the three other questions that were raised and not going into these as much detail, but just one slide per question. And again, if the committee wants, we can. We can move back and, and, and re-agendize these for further discussion at the council at the committee. So desires. So question about removal of mayor or a council member from his conduct that would require a charter amendment. Does require that we establish some clear standards for when an individual might be removed. In general might be looking at criminal activities, serious misconduct. We would have to establish some clear standards. We'd also the, the system would have to ensure that the individual receives due process. Fair notice opportunity for hearing. There are a couple of models, most local, most close locally is a San Francisco model. San Francisco does have a version of this provision in its form. And we could use that potentially to work from if the, if the committee ends up being interested in pursuing that. Next slide. The voting potential for voting rights for undocumented individuals. Basic framework, federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections. State law prohibits non-citizens from voting in state law. California state law does not contain an express prohibition against non-citizens voting in local elections. So it is possible. And there are, most states are similar. There are a few states that expressly prohibit non-citizens from voting. And there are a couple that have adopted that prohibition in recent years. And there are a number of jurisdictions across the country that do allow for non-citizens to vote in local elections. A list of those jurisdictions was also. Attached in one of the. In one of the attachments to the agenda. So. Again, the closest example to us is San Francisco. San Francisco allows non-citizen. It was a ballot measure and allows non-citizen parents. It allows non-citizens to vote in local elections. It allows non-citizens to vote in local elections. It allows non-citizens to vote in school children. May vote in school board elections. Again. It does not allow undocumented individuals. But does allow non-citizens. Similarly. And Rob can correct me if I'm wrong on this. I don't recall seeing any jurisdiction that allows for voting for. Non-citizens. A documented. Residents. May. May vote. And I'll note that in New York. It was. The measure that's gotten a lot of publicity. It allows non-citizens who have been lawful, permanent residents of the city for at least 30 days. And those who are authorized to work in the U.S. To vote in city. So. If we were going to go that way. Look at allowing either. Legally documented non-citizens or undocumented individuals. It would require a separate city ballot because it's a different voting population than would be for the. County elections, state elections, federal elections in any regional. Measures. And then the next slide. And then the final other question that was raised or suggestion was raised. For to allow for more frequent charter amendments. In particular, I recall there were some comments that we have. Just moved into. Into district elections. Maybe we want to wait and see how they play out before we move forward with an at large mayor election. And I think that. That I had already. Been planning to add to the list of. Elements in the omnibus. Charter amendment for the committee to consider. And at that time, when we come back with that, with the omnibus measure, we can look at, you know, do we want to just simply allow for more frequent? Do we want to require more frequent? All of those elements we can consider at that time. And I'm going to end with this slide. This is just a key decision points. So after we hear from the two mayors this evening. We'll, we'll loop back. We can follow up with any questions. Additional questions, general questions. And then we can start talking about the key decision points. Obviously the first one as. The second one is the threshold question of whether to move forward with drafting a ballot measure. To. To establish an at large elected mayor. And then we'll walk through these other terms. If, if the answer to that is yes, then we'll walk through the remaining elements. I will leave it at that for, for now, we will have slides that go through those elements, but we don't need to do that now. And then we'll move on to the next slide. And then we'll move on to the next slide. Just five 30. So I think we are in good time. To move. To. May mayor. If. If the. Chair thinks that's appropriate. If you'd like me to answer. In the meantime, I'm happy to do that. So. I think I'd like to have us leave questions. When the. Two speakers are done and definitely I want to make the best use of Mayor Barrett and Mayor Collins time.  I don't know is mayor Barrett going to be on. Visible on camera. Yes, we will promote her right now. Okay. Great. Great. Yeah, I just. We can then take down. I agree. I think that's the, the best use of our time. And so then you can take down the PowerPoint and, and. Promote. Mayor Barrett. Thank you. Great. Yeah, it would be great to be able to see her as she presents. So if that can happen. And as that's happening, I definitely want to welcome you, Mayor Barrett, wherever you are. And appreciate the time that you're allotting to us.   Our charge here from the C council was to. Look at all sides of this issue. As to the potential for. Directly elected mayor for Santa Rosa. And your key to having us look at all sides of that. So we're definitely interested in. Your experience and how that might influence. As we take a look at whether to put this on our ballot or not. So whenever you're ready. And again, thank you for taking the time to do that this evening with us. Well, thank you very much chair Cisco for those of you who don't know me, I'm Teresa Barrett and I'm the mayor of Petaluma. And just by way of background, I will say that I was on the planning commission for six years. Before I became an elected council member. And I was a council member for 12 years. And now I'm finished. I'm entering my fourth year as the mayor. Three starting the third year in captivity, but hopefully it will go back to being actually at large. And I think it's important. However, I can say that even under COVID circumstances. Being the mayor is a very different position than being a council member. And I think. It's important. Especially as cities move toward. District elections. And I think it's important to remember that the mayor is really seen differently or become in your case, a, an at-large position. There's several reasons why I think about that. One is that the mayor is really seen differently perceived differently. By the community at large. Even though as a weak mayor and having equal voting power as a council member, I think it's important to remember that. I think it's important to know by that I don't have someone from the public reaching out to me personally. Who's not sending it on to all the other council members. I am. It is just, you are just perceived as being the person. Who I can reach out to when I don't know. How, how, how do I get married? You know, which is like not a city issue. And I think it's important to remember that. That it's important to know where to go. To tell them where they go to get married. So, you know, that it is just differently perceived. And I will say that as a person who considered myself. A, a very active and community, community oriented council member. It's still more work and it's more community involvement. As the mayor. So, so again, I think. Um, it in the, um, in the, um, the revolving mayor role, I think just by the time you're probably getting used to how to do it, you're gone, uh, so, so there's that as well. But I will say there's a couple of things that I would, uh, also recommend that's important to me, uh, looking at this question is that when you move to district elections, if you have a revolving mayor, you basically have one, uh, one-fifth or, well, yeah, one-fifth or one-sixth of your, uh, population, uh, electing the mayor. You know, the rest of the people aren't electing the mayor. One of the real downsides from my perspective about district elections is that it allows you to pick a representative for you in, in your city once every four years. And the rest of the time you're not really voting in your city. Um, so if in fact the mayor is elected at the same time that you're elected, that reinforces being active once every four years, if it is on the other cycle, the, um, let's say presidential versus the upcoming gubernatorial cycle, uh, you have to be reminded to get out there and vote for the mayor. Uh, so that if you really want to maximize community, uh, involvement, I think it is really important to have everybody voting for that mayor, otherwise, you know, it just really is one, one area, uh, representing everyone and in, in the way your city works, that mayor has the power to be, uh, selecting representatives for the city at large. And they've really only been elected by a very, very small group, a very small minority of the city. So, again, I think that's a real argument for having the mayor at large. I will also say that I have come to believe that as we're moving toward district elections throughout the different jurisdictions, that I think it might be worth thinking about having a two-year mayor rather than a four-year mayor. And I know that Santa Rosa already has that in place for their revolving mayor. And I think that that has been very effective for Santa Rosa, much more so than the other cities who have the mayor for one year. It does allow the other cities to have a working relationship with the mayor that, you know, you, you get to know that person and then you're dealing with them on different committees and commissions, and then all of a sudden they're gone with Santa Rosa. At least they're there for two years. So that, that has, and it was very effective for the city of Santa Rosa during the period of the fires. And I think Mayor Schwedhelm really was very effective dealing with a lot of the homeless issues that he continues to be effective with as a council member. But, you know, when you have someone as the mayor, it is just seen as different, even by those who are very aware of the fact that it is, it is not a big difference in terms of our power, let us say. So those are, and if you don't have a two-year cycle, if you choose to go for a four-year cycle, I would also recommend that that four-year cycle coincide with the presidential election because you have a bigger turnout at that time. So it, again, is much more democratic and getting more of the people who district elections are supposedly reaching out to in order to get their voices heard. So that is the main thing I would want to say about that. I would also say the parliament is also moving toward district elections, but we are keeping the mayor at large. And in order for us to move the mayor off the gubernatorial cycle, we also have to have a charter amendment. So you guys are ahead of us on that one. So that's very good. I don't think I have any other arguments or comments about why I believe what I do. But I do feel like I would like to stick around until after the mayor from San Rafael speaks, so that if anyone has questions and your committee allows for that, I'd be happy to answer any direct question. That would really be great, Mayor. One thing that you might address for us is we're looking at everything that we're doing here through an equity lens. And I hear that you see that this really brings out, maximizes community involvement. But do you have any thoughts on whether this mayor at large system could either enhance or hinder diversity as to those that might run for a mayor at large? Actually, it would just be a guess or an opinion at this point, because we haven't experienced it. And I'm not even sure in Petaluma how district elections are going to work out if they're actually going to achieve what is intended. So I really don't have a position on that at this time. So sorry about that. No, that's okay. And I realize that Petaluma isn't utilizing districts yet. So this question is a little, you're all elected at large in Petaluma. But because you're the mayor, we have some issues or concerns here that with our at-large system, I mean with our district system, with a directly elected mayor that there might be some issues of getting along, working together.  In terms of getting along? Yeah, yeah, coming to decisions, working together, collegiality. Absolutely not, but that has happened in the past. And it has happened in an at-large format. And actually, it's been very divisive at certain points in the past. But it has not happened for my tenure and for that I'm very grateful. But I don't really know if that has anything to do with it being at-large or district. So what do you think contributed to those difficulties? Is it just different viewpoints or personalities? Or do you have any ideas on that?  Because the other thing about a mayoral election that's different is that it's one against one usually. I know there can be multiple candidates, but usually it's one or the other. And if there are two camps in your town, like a more progressive wing and a less progressive wing, those, that might be the division. It might be the division between a more pro-development and an anti-development. If those are the candidates, then your outcome, depending on if the mayor happens to be one side of that and everybody else or the majority of the councils on the other side, then you're going to have discord. But we're supposed to be able to get beyond that. And at times we haven't, I will honestly say that that's true, but that has not happened. You know, either when I was elected or in the by-election at the presidential election, you know, it was a changeover of two of the seven people and that worked just fine. And I don't recall this being a problem in Petaluma, but have you had issues of one council member leaving their seat in order to run for directly elected mayor and then you have a seat that has to be replaced? I don't recall that in Petaluma, but you would know better. Yes, we have had that in the past actually.  I don't know how your charter addresses that, but basically if you have a district election and you have someone from let's say district one who runs for the mayor and wins and then their seat is vacated, then basically in our town, what you would have is the other council members, the other six council members would be electing the person to take the remainder of district one seat. Well, none of those people come from district one. So how does that work? I mean, that doesn't seem to me to be right either. I think that the once you move to district elections, you should rewrite the charter so that they're either the number two voter goes in or you have another election or something. But it really shouldn't be a decision of all the people in the city other than the people that are going to be represented and get to choose who's going to take that seat. Great. And then I know Petaluma is one of the lower paid city councils. But one of the things that we're looking at in conjunction with having an at-large mayor is the issue of increasing compensation. You know, do you have any thoughts on that, given that you know how much work there is involved? And how lowly you're paid? Yes. Yeah, how little you get paid. I actually, this is another issue that came up in our while we were talking as we were going to district elections that also cannot be addressed without a charter amendment. And that is changing the pay because I actually think changing the pay of the council members and the mayor will give us more diversity or at least augment the diversity that district elections may give us. Because I do think that that's an issue in terms of who has the ability to run for office, especially when you're getting in Petaluma five or $10 a meeting. But so I do think that that's another issue. And you're not asking me, but I'm going to just throw in rank choice voting might also be something that you want to consider in terms of getting the vote of most of the people that most of the people are behind in their district. Okay. Well, I definitely appreciate that. And Mayor Colin isn't here yet. So we have the opportunity. I am. Oh, you are here. Oh, good. Oh, good. Great. Welcome to your Zoom room. Sorry. I didn't get the message that you were here. So great. Well, welcome. And like I said to Mayor Barrett, we really appreciate you're taking the time tonight to do this. You know, our charge from our city council is to look at all sides of this potential amendment to our charter. And again, your, your contribution is key to giving us some information as we make that decision. So thank you for your time and welcome and go ahead. Okay. Thank you. And hi, Rob Jackson, who I think put it together through our city attorneys. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and speak and being that I'm just zooming in. I'm kind of not totally sure what you want from me, but I'm thinking of pro and con kind of talking about it from that standpoint might be helpful. And then if I miss something or if you have further questions to follow up on, then we can do that. So yes, I'm Mayor Kate. I've been the mayor of the city of San Rafael for the last year. Prior to that, I was on the council for eight years. Prior to that, I was a planning commissioner for eight years. So have been around the local city hall for a long time. And I think I have a unique perspective having been on the council and then in San Rafael, we're charter city. So the mayor is elected separately. And we did switch to, or actually I should back up. So we've been doing that since our charter was incorporated 148 years ago. So I can't tell you about the process or what that felt like, because we've always been a charter city and the mayor has always been elected separately. So it was interesting when we switched to districts. We have the four council members that were all at large, obviously prior to being district, as well as the mayor. Now we have four council members that are district, which we went through the whole district and now like you all doing the redistricting process. And then the mayor remained at large. And it was interesting, we talked briefly, very briefly, when we looked at our charter and we were going to districts, well, do we go to five districts and not have the mayor be at large? We did not want to unpack our charter that way or open it up. So it was a very short discussion. When I, so I reflected upon this a lot really through the district lens. And as I said, having sat in the council member seat and now having been a mayor for a year, it is very interesting. And because Marin's really small, I know the mayors of the other cities and I know what I've gotten a sense of what their experience has been. And to me, having a separately elected mayor makes all the sense in the world. When I did pros and cons, I came up with four or five pros and one con. And so maybe, and definitely I'm probably biased. So we'll all just admit that up front because this is the process and this is the system in which we work. And so I'm glad that I'm supportive and excited about it. And it's been interesting. And I have a great example. So the mayor of Sausalito and I have been working a lot on homeless encampments. I'm sure something that none of you ever ended up talking about. I'm kidding. We are all talk about that. So she and I worked really hand in hand on a lot of that, both with each other as well as with the county. I spent a lot of time, we texted, we called. And now she's not the mayor anymore. And so now I have a new person and she and I are going, going to go for a walk tomorrow and trying to get her up to speed. But from my perspective is like, okay, kind of back at square one. And these are brilliant smart women. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with getting familiar with the issues. And I see that throughout Marin County. And because of that, I am actually able to have relationships with. So we have Marin County. And I think it's similar to where you are. Marin County has county supervisors that are overlay on all of Marin. And in San Rafael specifically, I have three different county supervisors that have a piece of San Rafael. And so for me, I'm able to get into deeper connections and relationships and working over multi years on these huge issues. You know, if we could solve homelessness in one year, climate change, economic recovery, racial justice, any of those in one year, it'd be really different. But these are multi year, probably decades, issues that we're working on. So it was really interesting. For me, having the runway of four years on a year into my term has been great because in the areas we're working on, I have a really clear picture and I can communicate to staff. This is what we're going to do the first year. This is where we're going to go the second year. And it's actually very calming for them, right? Because they have a plan. They can see that vision. We have a shared vision where if we were rotating, okay, here's Kate's vision for a year. Oh, now we have the next person's vision. So I think for that, it's been fantastic. And we've really been able to focus on where we want to move the needle on some key policies. Okay, I wrote myself some notes at me. Look, I wrote. So the way that it's manifesting here in San Rafael is my colleagues are like the district experts or the resident experts of those districts. And I wrote that I'm the unbiased glue that holds it all together. So I do think the one con, and I'll kind of insert it in here, is what we never want to have happen is, and this is with districts anyway. So this actually isn't the mayor district thing. It's really more districts. You don't want to have people that become siloed, right? You always want people to be the expert of their district and have the greater community in mind, right? Because when you start to get siloed, things start to go sideways, I think, when it comes to projects and making decisions. So I have that they are all their experts. And really, I'm the one that can see what's going on in all the different districts and making those linkages. Let me see. Talked about that. Yeah, and I think the one con that I would have, this placed my skill set for sure in that I have a huge capacity and I love checking in with my colleagues all the time to have that ability to know what's going on in each of the districts and being that I know I'm here for four years maybe more, they know I'm here for four years maybe more, we're putting in systems where they keep me in the loop on things. But it is definitely a part of job. And so if I was the type of leader who maybe didn't reach out as much or maybe just made decisions without checking in with other people, I could see it might be problematic. I'm not that kind of leader. I check in, as I said with my colleagues all the time, really community oriented leader. And so it works really well. And my work, and then I'll stop and answer any questions, really is I look at the four years and as we transition to districts, I'm really glad I have four years to create that ethos for the district council members.  So we don't have the fiefdoms and we do have that ability in the way that we want to collaborate across the city. So I think it's great, I enjoy the role. And I was thinking as I was writing this up, it'd be so interesting to ask my colleagues, but I'm sure you're actually talking to people in similar situations as they are. So I'll stop there and happy to answer any questions. And again, Rob did send me the deck of information. I couldn't open it when I went to go open it this afternoon. So if I repeated something or if it wasn't spot on, I apologize, but I did do my notes earlier today. So hopefully it was helpful to you. No, that was very helpful. I'll ask you a couple of things that I did ask Mayor Barrett. And the first one is really about equity. You know, we're really looking at this at all of our items through an equity lens and concerned about whether or not a mayor at large system with districts would actually enhance or hinder diversity. Do you have any opinions on that? Great question. From the district, having district elections makes it, I'm going to say easier because it's never easy to run for office, especially in this day and age, but it makes it more accessible. So I do think that the districts do enable that. So I feel in San Rafael to have people that look, and I should have started, I'm the first woman to ever be elected mayor in the city of San Rafael. So 147 years. So, you know, I do think having districts because you just need fewer, a fewer area, a smaller area, it does make it more inclusive and it does make it more accessible. And I'm watching what I had to raise for an at large. So there is some considerations at large election. I had to raise more money and it's obviously broader. So San Rafael, for those who don't know, is about 60,000 people. And then our districts are about 14,000 or 15,000. They don't need to go into the big campaign, war chest type of thing. So I think it does make it more accessible. I think from a community standpoint, it is really to be inclusive and diverse across however, which way you want to look at it, because there are a lot of different ways you can cut it. It is continuing to build those community leaders to make that step. Like that's a really crucial thing. Being in office now, and I don't want to overstate it, but I don't want to understate it. Having been a public servant now for over a decade, it's hard right now. I receive a lot of nastiness, both through virtual, through email. It's pretty daunting. And I say that because it's both building up the community leaders and the capacity and the support. I think that's easier to do for districts. I really do. I think the rotating mayor, you already heard the pros where I think it's better to have a mayor who is there, who is at large. Oh, you know, the biggest reason, I didn't even say it, is that people get to vote for two people versus one. That was like my number one thing. I just realized, as I said that, I think I'm a little hungry. I had lunch a long time ago. I think that's really crucial. And I actually, the nasty emails, I can always tell the nasty ones because they start out, I voted for you, but I'm like, okay. Two people to send that to. So yeah, to just finish off, I do think that the district gets at that, casting a wider net. And I do think there's a community responsibility to provide the support and capacity building for those folks. And then also what I asked Mayor Barrett is, we're also looking at kind of the conjuncting pay for the council members in May, increasing the compensation. Any thoughts on how that works and what San Rafael's feeling about that? Well, so the pay that I received was set in 1970, which you know, no inflation, no adjuster. So we were laughing. My son graduated from college and he had like an internship. He made more in his internship than I did for the year. But you know, I'm not bitter, so it's fine. It's totally fine. So there is a different amount. I get slightly more as a mayor than I do. I think I'm between eight and 9,000 for a year. And that's a whole other subject because I can afford to do that, right? And it is basically a full-time job. I have the capacity and the ability to do that. My council members, all four of them work full-time. And so they get paid, I think it's between five and six. That's not including a thousand. That's not including any benefits. When we've looked at the payment, it is very hard to have it. Actually, that's not true. I think the pay that I received is way too low. And just so you know, one of my initiatives for 2022 is to actually increase the compensation for the council members and the mayor. The way it works though, it starts with the next term, right? So it's not like I'm paying myself unless I decide to run and win. So I think that's really important. I think the amount is way too low. And just as an aside, we are going to start paying our planning commissioners. It's a decision-making body. I volunteered for eight years. That babysitting money came out of our family budget, right? So I think compensation is a huge part. Having said that, it will never be enough compensation for I think what the job should be. But we can add to that teachers, nurses. There are a lot of professions where people don't get paid their worth. I think this is one of them. And I think you're smart to be talking about compensation. People don't do it for the compensation, right? You've got to have that public service gene. But I do think it shows a value. It shows a community value in that the city is willing to put additional funds towards those roles. And then just what about collegiality of, being you're directly elected, working with the other council members that are districts? Have you run into any issues with that or have any thoughts about how that has worked in San Rafael? Great question. So part of what I did in 2021, one of my key objectives I worked on was exactly that. I think it can go really sideways. I'm not going to name names of any other cities. Luckily, I don't know the cities up there. I can only name the ones down in Marin. And I've seen some of that go sideways. I really have. So we've actually worked with a team facilitator. We've met twice and done personality assessments, whatever you want to call them. But it's really showing how do you show up? How do you make decisions? How do you lead? And how do I do that in relationship to the other four? I've been really, really deliberate about that. And I wanted to set an ethos from the beginning. And we were already, San Rafael is very, very highly functioning. Not going to, we have been for a really, really long time. We haven't had any issues. But I don't want to assume that we never went. And so I've been proactive about that. And I think that's something that, even when I'm not in this office anymore, I hope they continue for it. That's a real thing. It really is because it ends up being, then not about the policy or the community or whatever it is you're deciding. It ends up being this personal thing that detracts from what the people should be doing on the diet. So that is really insightful of you to be asking about that. Well, thank you very much. And we have some time. I'd like to open it up to the committee if you have any questions of either Mayor Barrett or Mayor Collin. Just, well, that one, Karen Weeks. I think it beat it. Was it beat? I think your name was up first. I'm not sure if that was for before me. Sorry, I'm just pronouncing your name. Yeah, I saw you with that. Okay. Thank you for that. That was one of my concerns was the diversity on the council for both of you. And when I kind of just peruse and look at some of the people that have been on council, I don't see the diversity. So are there any steps that you're doing to make sure that equity lens is going forward? So that's the first question. And then we'll have several questions. And one is, when do you do your mayoral race? And then for non-citizens, is that something that you guys are considering or doing? And then also, how do you handle the demographics? Because here in Santa Rosa, our population is shifting and changing. We have new numbers that came out from the portrait of Sonoma. And so that's going to tailor what we're going to be seeing coming forward in our city. So those are my questions. I think I got the first two or three. Maybe Mayor Barrett was right faster than I was. I'm happy to take a stab at them. And then is that fine, Mayor Barrett? So in terms of the equity lens, so right now on our Seraphil City Council, for the first time in 148 years, we don't have a white man who has been on the council. I told you I'm the first female mayor. I'm actually, as a councilwoman, I was the fourth woman. And I serve with the fifth, sixth, and seventh. We have someone who self-identifies as Chinese American as well as a Hispanic woman. So we are making progress there. When I talked earlier about capacity, if you want your elected officials went to reflect your community, you have to build capacity. So that's through your other boards and commissions, as well as school board, things like that. If you look at our planning commission, I'm really proud of our planning commission. It's both racially diverse. It's socioeconomic diverse. It's age diverse. And so, but that has been very deliberate of talking to people and saying, hey, would you be interested in this and then having them apply and then putting themself in the public eye. But it is not something that happens overnight. I don't think. I think there's a lot of mentoring and conversations that happen to make that happen. Those are the, those are the, I forgot the rest of the question. So I'll go to maybe a Barrett and then I'll answer everyone's question. Okay. So, you know, I haven't had the experience yet of having district elections. And that is the purpose of going to district elections is to give non-representative voters more of an opportunity to get elected. I hope that that happens and I would work to help make that happen. But I agree with the mayor from San Rafael that by putting people, appointing people to our boards and committees and commissions who reflect the community in a more real way, we're building up those leaders in that way. And we have been doing that for quite a while. But, you know, some people just don't choose to run because the mayor of San Rafael said something and it's, she said it was true for her and it's true for me. And that is that, you know, we can do this job without getting paid for it. But some people can't. And if they can't do that, they're never going to run for this job. And they may not run for the compensation, but they may, some of them can't run because there is no compensation. So I think compensation really is important. It may not be enough, but for those who are in a relationship with someone else or who have roommates, they can cobble together their existence as if this were a part-time job, although as the mayor said, it is not a part-time job. So that is, you know, a long-winded response to, we don't have the equity in our city and we're looking to get that. And we have had more equity in the past than we actually do now. And by the way, I'm the fourth mayor who's a woman in Petaluma and we go back to what, 1858, I think. So, you know, it's been another domain. Do you want to repeat your other questions? Yeah, I think we missed one or two. Yes, well, when do you hold your elections and what about non-citizen voting? Okay, thank you. I'll jump in on this one, but thank you. We hold our election in November of 2022. We'll be the mayor election. And that's what I consider an off-election because more people come out for the presidential time. And I think that is the preferred time to have the election of the head of the city. And we do the mayor and three of the districts and then there'll be three other districts in 2024. And the other question you asked was? Non-citizen voting. Oh, yeah, that has not come up at all. Although something related to that is we're having a very big discussion in our community on the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, which is a Petaluma city-owned property of 60 plus or minus acres in the middle of our town, which is leased for $1 a year for the last 49 years. The lease is up in a year. And we have many, many people who want to serve on a board for that who do not live in the city of Petaluma. And they are very obsessed that we feel that the people who should make this decision should be the people who are paying the taxes in the city of Petaluma. So I have started to equate the question of non-citizen voting with non-resident voting. I don't know how people in Santa Rosa would feel about people who don't live in Santa Rosa voting on the elected officials of Santa Rosa. I think it's part of the mix of questions. So it has not come up, but I don't think I favor it. And I'll just add our mayoral election was in 2020. So the same thing. It coincided with the national election for turnout. Great. Apologies, event, for not seeing your hand raised. I didn't have my screen pulled down far enough. Karen. Thank you, Patty. So I have a couple of questions. The first one's for Mayor Barrett. You talked about with the title of the mayor, you become the person that is contacted. Like you gave the example about getting married. Wouldn't you still, even if you were not elected at large, wouldn't you still be getting those kinds of emails because people see you as the leader of the city, even if you're not elected at large? Absolutely, but they have much less opportunity to perhaps even know who you are. You know, in our, when our city, our city is as large as San Rafael. So and, but we don't have five council members. We have seven, one of whom is the mayor. So we're going to have fewer than 10,000 people electing each person to the council. And they may not have even heard of someone else who then is going to be the mayor for a year if it were rotating or, you know, if you had the mayor just elected as a district. So I, everybody at large has had an opportunity. I've run throughout the entire city. So everybody's had an opportunity to hear from me or about me, which is not necessarily going to be true with district elections. It's Santa Rosa. We have a two year mayor. So that's a little different than the one year mayor that you were talking about. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. And then for Mayor Cohn, first of all, what are you as a member of the planning commission?  Oh, great question. So we are looking at what are the, I don't know, what are the, I just need to say what are their jurisdictions? We're looking at what other jurisdictions are paying. Even anything is going to be better than zero. And that brings up an interesting question and I actually hadn't thought about it until you just asked it. Do you do it per meeting like I'm on the smart board, for example, that's a per meeting. So if you show up, you get paid or do you get the stipend regardless, right? So that's a really, I hadn't thought about it. So I just, no, no, it's great. Hey, send me your email, email me your ideas. No, I just started to talk to the finance director about it. It's going to be something that it'll probably cover the sitter and maybe a dinner out once a month, but it's not going to be anything piggyback breaking. I don't think. And then I have a more serious question for you.  And I know every council member and every mayor puts in different amount of times. They all do the job differently. But for you, since you've had both of those experiences. Yeah, so I'll answer for myself and actually all the previous mayors are that I probably know three, they're still alive. So I probably know all the mayors going back to 1970, they're still alive. And for all of them, they had jobs or the opportunities to put, to basically, I'd love to say nine to five, it's not nine to five, but to put in all the massive amounts of hours. When people ask me just what you did, what's the biggest difference? It is the amount of time. And part of that's because I am at large and I have made a commitment to really connecting with each of the districts. And so that has been amazing to me, how much time it is. And to your point, as I mentioned, my colleagues all have full-time jobs and some of them have young families. So they're trying to balance the family, the work and the council. And I'm really clear with them of, hey, let me sit down with you in your district and figure out what the priorities are. Because we can't be on all the time, none of us can be on. We all need to have our boundaries and our work-life balance, right? But I'm being really deliberate about that. And so meeting with them and saying, I know you want to do this list of 20 things, it's actually not possible. You don't have enough hours in the day. So working with people to prioritize, which by the way, it's kind of a good thing for government to do anyway, right? So because when we start to prioritize, instead of doing a bunch of stuff kind of, we can actually start to move the needle on the things that really matter. But yeah, that has been the biggest surprise to me. The massive, this is a perfect example. I told my husband, oh yeah, I'm going to have dinner. Oh wait, we're going to have dinner when I'm done with this. So yes, I think I answered your question. I could, I could sit here and think of the actual hours, but then no one would ever want to run for mayor. I'm sure Mayor Barrett would agree with that. Okay, Chris. Yes, thank you. So I'm interested in the mayor's comments on the voting or non-voting role. Do you find that the mayor's vote in any way whatsoever is perceived or treated differently as the vote of a council member? And also, do you have any thoughts or comments on if there's a non-voting mayor, saying Santa Rosa, if we leave the seven districts as are and layer on an at-large elected mayor non-voting, any thought you have on that position? So can I ask a clarifying question? So a non-voting mayor, so you'd have seven, you'd have eight elected, but the mayor, I didn't follow. The mayor, right, so you leave the districts as are, as they are, seven districts, which we have, and then if you have an at-large mayor, so that you don't have eight votes, whatever that means, the mayor has the mayoral powers, except for voting. Oh, I wouldn't run for that. Thank you. Thank you. I thought it was being the prom queen. Who cares? I mean, that's just a personality contest. There's no reason to be the mayor if you haven't got any power.  I don't know who came up with it, but it is, it's useless, you know. Yeah, you know, and I don't mean to be cheeky either, but so as I started out talking, it's like I have four years, I have things that I want to do. I have a very clear vision. If I don't have the ability to vote or, and my vote is equal to my colleagues, but there's a soft power there. I mean, because I'm elected at large, because I set the agenda, because I have the view of all of the districts, which I think is really important to achieve the things that the city wants to achieve. Yeah, I agree. Sorry, it made me laugh. I've actually never heard of that. Okay, Logan. Thanks, Patty. Thank you to the mayors for taking the time to do this. Mayor Barrett, it's good to see you outside my day job. So, and for those that don't know, my day job is a legislative employee. So I want to talk kind of what Karen, my colleague Karen was on about that focal point. So I know at the state capitol that a directly elected mayor is a more obvious focal point. They get listened to more. It's just, it's just the honest truth. But I getting, so that's like kind of the 30,000 foot view. I want you to go back to what you talked about with like the average person, Teresa. So when they talk about how you think it makes the average person more engaged, like you said, they know who you are. We're talking about normal everyday stuff, big stuff. Can you expand on that just a little? Oh, absolutely.  I had no idea there was some 72 hour limit. My car got towed. You know, I totally don't know what to do. You know, then I'm on the phone with the, you know, the chief of police. I'm, you know, I kind of run interference with people, you know, that otherwise wouldn't know. People in mobile home parks who's the mailboxes, the joint mailboxes got destroyed somehow. And they, you know, the manager of the mobile home park wasn't doing anything. So call the mayor, you know, hey, we're not getting our mail.  So they don't know who else to call. They really have never heard of Peggy Flynn who's our wonderful city manager. And they should know, but they know me and, or they have heard of me or they must be a mayor and they'll look that up and they can find me. And so it really helps that, you know, you just get all kinds of people. And some of these are very serious issues, people who have stalking issues. And that people who have a neighbor who's doing, selling drugs, but they don't feel comfortable calling the police because they think they're, that the neighbor is going to come after them. So I get to be the one who calls the police and does kind of the middleman, the go between the fixer, you know. It's just something, you know, I didn't do much of that as a council member for 12 years. You know, I did a little bit of that every night, but usually for people who, you know, liked my particular platform or something, but, and I guess as you go to district elections, it'll be my, it would be my direct neighbors. But as a mayor, you hear from all kinds of people and of all levels of issues too. And then the people who have the solution for everything that's wrong with the city and want to call you and let you know how to fix all these problems. Yeah, so there are a lot of examples or they want me to call Senator Dodd or they want me to call Jared and get something done. And, you know, luckily I do know them, so I can do that. You know, it is real and imagined. Yeah, that's helpful that they're gonna, they're always gonna take your call. Thank you. Mayor Collin, any thoughts on that too? Yeah, no, I'll chime in. And you started out by talking at the macro level. That is something I should have mentioned beginning has been really interesting. I'm involved with the U.S. Conference of Mayors. There's a women's mayor network and those are throughout the United States. And I was able to help bring a grant into San Rafael because of that network for one of our nonprofits. And so I actually have an access where the rotating mayors don't have access to those. There's both technical expertise as well as right now with Build Back Better. I'm attending a federal webinar next week. So that macro level is a real thing. I'm putting myself into that space, but to your point, the ones that rotate through when I talk to other mayors are like, how do you even know about that? I'm like, well, I'm part of this group and you could be too, but so I did want to talk about that macro. There is something there. And in terms of the micro, I mean, Mayor Barrett had some great examples. I think the way that I would say it is if you are trying to decide between two doctors and you have a brand new doctor who's been there for like a week or you have someone who's been doing it for a while, what's the one you ever feel like, oh, I want to go to this person that has a longer, more experience. And I really think with the mayors, I build on the experience that I've been having. And I do think there's just, you learn on the job. And I think there's a, I think that both the, just the lived experience and the examples that Mayor Barrett gave, like having done that once is like the next step, it comes up, I know how to deal with it. Oh, okay, it didn't work so well last time when I was dealing with trying to deal with that parking ticket thing. So I learned it this way. There's your, that's real. I mean, and so what happens if you're rotating it's, and maybe it's not the same person getting a parking ticket, but there's not that level of the knowledge being gained, right? And it's not so much that the community would notice, just to point this out, it's the staff, right? So now they have a new mayor who doesn't know how to deal with the soccer. And so now they're going through the whole rigmarole. So it's really, I do think there's an efficiency there. You learned the ropes as it were. That's really helpful about the national network you get to plug into. Thank you. That was it for me, Patty. Thanks. Karen, do you have one last question? I do and I'm sorry. Mayor Collins figured something in my mind. Have you either in Mayor Barrett or Mayor Collins have had, have you had experience of a directly elected mayor who has never been on the council before? So how, how did that work with, you're learning the job in your mayor? Actually, we had a someone run for mayor who had never served on the council. He had been on the planning commission and he was elected and ended up serving for 12 years. So it, so it can be done. I don't think I would recommend it, but people have different skill sets. You know, I agree, it can't be done. When I think back to all the mayors before me, I think they were all council members prior. And the way that that translates to be totally frank, the way that that translates on the campaign trail is if you're campaigning against someone who's never been on the council, you just have way more information. You have a handle on the issues. You can speak to it in a way with a confidence that people react to and can relate to. When I ran for mayor this last time, it was someone who actually hasn't even been on a board. They haven't been involved in city issues at all. And there were some really interesting ideas he put forward, but it didn't resonate because it was a little bit too far out of what our community was looking for. So part of that's just what you learned from doing the job. But that is interesting. I do think it would be very hard to step it if you weren't at least a planning commissioner or on a board or commission. Just if nothing else, you know, how do you run a meeting?  Anna, how about you? Hi, I just wanted to thank both of you guys for speaking here tonight. Very inspirational that you guys are mayors and females. I just wanted to get your guys's honest opinion about being mayors for your guys's county or city. I'm sorry. Can you elaborate on our opinion about whether we're glad we ran for mayor? I just want to know kind of more of the background of being women and the differences that you guys have seen throughout generation. Well, you know, the woman thing, you know, that hasn't been a big problem in terms of being the mayor because, as I mentioned, I'm the fourth woman mayor. And the one before that, the third woman mayor was only like eight years before me. So that's in everybody's sort of living memory. We have gone from having a majority of women on the council to now we're down to two women on the council out of seven. So that has been an issue. You know, I think we have a lot of really good men on our council as well. And they understand working with women. People have now had, you know, a lot of years of working with very accomplished and capable women. And I like to think that our city wouldn't vote for a man who wasn't able to work well with women. You know, and we don't seem to have been doing that. So it really hasn't been much of an issue, which is a good thing. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I want to say it was an issue, but the reality was there was no female mayor until I ran. And so for me, and you and I can watch coffee and talk about identity politics, but for me, it was a really important thing. I actually thought it was important to our community. And I heard, you know, I heard from most were parents that had daughters that were in junior high or high school and they were thrilled. And so it was a big deal in terms of, I think, leadership style. I've been talked over my whole life by other people. And so as a mayor, I think a lot about stepping back and letting other people take the space, right? Because I know, and again, I've had a lot of privilege in my life. I'm not saying that I haven't, but I understand what it's like to not be listened to or to not have your ideas. I can tell you so many stories of putting an idea forward and it doesn't go anywhere. And then a man says it and everyone's like, that's the greatest idea. It actually still happens by the way, but now I use it to my advantage. Now I actually try to say it and I get them to say it and I actually don't need to have credit because I want the policy changes I want. I want us to our community to grow the way that I want. I actually don't need to have credit for that. But so to me, it is an important thing and I think about it a lot. And I believe that it's my responsibility to open that door and to keep it open for other women to come in behind me. So I do a lot of mentoring of women both on my council, but I mentor women who aren't on my council, who are other electeds than Marin. Because I do have to say that and then I'll end with this, is that I'm probably, I don't think men get, when they get their nasty emails, I don't think it talks about what they look like. But I can tell you that the nasty emails I get sometimes sure do. So. Thank you. Christine. Thank you. I will, first off, thank you for sharing everything that you shared this evening. And I hope I'm not overstepping myself, but I'm curious if you'd be willing to share kind of like a ballpark for what it costs to run a mayoral campaign in your cities and don't feel like you need to necessarily like say numbers from your campaigns, but kind of in general, if you have a ballpark number. And then I guess this follow up question that that is if you have any advice about making mayoral campaigns is equitable as possible to allow for representation from people from diverse backgrounds in order to run. Well, I will say a couple of things about that. And I believe the mayor from from San Rafael, Mayor Collin hit on it earlier that running in district elections is much more democratic in that you don't have to raise a lot of money. So that is a real plus. Running at large is more expensive because you have to, depending on how big your city is, you have to get out and reach people which usually involves mailers, which just are expensive. But now with the social media, that's a much cheaper way of being able to get out and reach people and that's helpful, I think. But in our town, we have a campaign donation or contribution limit of $200 per person in a four year cycle to any one candidate. So and that's a good thing. At one point, we even had matching funds for candidates, which I think was also a really good thing because I think it helps keep the expenses lower. My campaign, the last election, was north of $35,000 of which I paid zero. I figure if people aren't going to contribute money to my campaign, then I shouldn't be running. If I'm going to self-finance a campaign, it's a that's just a vanity campaign. So I don't believe in that, but it does mean that you have to have connections in the community to reach $200 campaigns at the maximum from so many people. But the real trick with any elections are independent expenditures. And they are really, I think the bane of democracy. And I know in art, when I was running for mayor, I was running against two other candidates, one of whom didn't spend more than a thousand dollars and he had a $35,000 mailer done by an independent expenditure supporting him against me, as was done for the other candidate for him against me by the same group that wanted me not to get elected. So they spent north of a very close to $100,000 opposing my campaign by endorsing two other people running for the same seat. So that's something that is very hard to control for given our election laws in the United States. But it is more expensive to have an at-large campaign. But on the other hand, it involves the entire city. So electorate. Thank you. And I'll just add, so I ran at large as a council member and then that was pre-COVID. And then I ran during COVID and using the social media and all these other great tools that we have. And it's interesting because the mayor race, you would think it'd be a lot more money, but it ended up being the same because I was able to use technology tools. So I was probably $50,000, $60,000. And just like Mayor Barrett, none of that money was mine. I felt the same way that if people believe in you, they're going to donate to you. We do not have a contribution limit.  It's never been an issue in San Rafael. And that would make it really even harder because my mom that gave me 500 bucks, I was super psyched that she did that. So that was the first question. And your second question again was about how do you broaden the pool of people that want to run for mayorship? And again, I really think that is the capacity building that we've already talked about through the boards and commissions. If it is already, it's a stretch to run for mayor. You're putting yourself out there. And so I think having those interim steps where you build the personal capacity and ability to do it, to be a public servant, to be taken all the stuff that you do, you can get that through the boards and commissions. So I, to me, the boards and commissions, I take those really, really seriously, those appointments, because I look at, that's my bench, to be totally honest. I know people can come from otherwise, but people need to be mentored and talked into this gig. I'm telling you. And so that's really the bench. And I can probably take one more question and then I do have to go. Sorry, I've been on Zoom since like 9 a.m. this morning. Yeah, I appreciate you're doing that. We actually have one more hand up and then we'll be able to let you go if you can do that. So, Danny. Quick question. Christine, thank you for asking. That's actually one of the questions I wanted to ask, but the finance, so how much it takes to run a campaign for mayor. With that said, how likely is it for somebody from the canal area, from an underdeserved area to come up and win an actual election for the mayorship in San Rafael? And how likely or unlucky would it be for somebody that represents that community to be appointed through the council as a mayor and be able to represent that area? Right. So I don't have to be appointed. So I'll take the first part of your question. So our canal neighborhood is primarily Latino, going to districts. And just this is a, and I didn't want to get way into the weeds, but I will. We were not able to draw the lines to have it a minority majority district, right? So even with the districts, when you look at the voters, if you believe, and I don't believe this, I think people vote across race lines because I've just, I've seen it. But if you were to believe that people only vote, let's say Latinos only vote for Latinos, there's not a majority even in that district. There's still a majority white. And then that's just the way it was. And it's because you guys know, this districts are drawn on population and not on who votes, right? So there is a very dense district, but not everyone's voting. So part of that is, we need to get everyone signed up to vote. But that, so that, so there is kind of an issue there. The woman who represents that district is Hispanic. She's bilingual and bicultural Spanish. And I think that's been fantastic. And we are, I'd love to check back in a year, you know, you could find out like, how did that all go? Because we really are trying to take advantage of how do we use her skills to become more inclusive. In terms of running for mayor or becoming mayor, I do think, again, I can't say it more like building capacity to have someone who doesn't matter where they live in San Rafael, to just run for mayor out of nowhere would be really, I think it'd be, it'd be really, really challenging unless you, I just raise a lot of money, right? Because people at the end of the day, the way that you win is people vote for you.  So it's those relationships that you're building. So to me, it's more having the time and the capacity to build those relationships than to get the votes. Danny, I'd be happy to answer, you know, more completely because I, because it is something that we've talked about. But my hope is, and I'll just finish by saying again, my hope is I'm going to continue to build up the bench so people get the context that they need. It's, it's both the individuals, but it's also all the other community-based organizations, the neighborhood-based organizations. I'm in this seat because I had all those networks from my time on the council of showing up for everything that people asked me to show up for, right? So they got to know me. And so, so I wasn't asking for every vote I got. Other people asked for the votes that I got. Does that make sense? Which was good. A lot of people asking. So it was good. Great. Thank you. All right. Well, I want to thank both, both you, Mayor Collin and Mayor Barrett for your time. I know it's very, very precious. This has been really, really helpful tonight. And I got to say, your enthusiasm and love of your jobs comes shining through. So both Petaluma and San Rafael are lucky to have you serving. So thank you very much. Thank you. If you have any other questions, definitely you have, Rob has my email. I don't know who else says, but Rob does. So, okay. Great. Thanks for that. Best of luck with your process. And thank you all. I should start to thank you all for your time and service to do this. It's really hard to get folks to volunteer about process and about things that aren't, you know, hey, I want to show up and build this new park. That's easy to show up for. So do pat yourself on the back when you sign off of your call for finding time in your own lives. I mean, this is, this is right here, democracy in action. So thank you for inspiring me as well this evening. All right. Well, thank you and good night. Good night. And Mayor Collins, right. You guys are doing, you know, the angels work. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Okay. The hope for tonight is that we can complete our discussion on the directly elected mayor. I hope that committee members, if we need to go past seven, if you're willing to do that, hopefully we can wrap up close to that. But we've got a lot of information here.  We'll continue our discussion from last time. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and open public comment. If you're a member of the public wishing to speak and you're participating via Zoom, use the raise hand feature and the host will recognize you. If you're calling in, please use the star nine feature and you'll be recognized. Chair Siscoe, I don't see any raised hands. Okay. Great. And I'm going to go ahead and bring it back to the committee. Any other questions of staff before we move on to continuing our discussion? Okay. Not seeing any. Trying to figure out the most efficient way to have this discussion. I know that we were taking the temperature. I mentioned it didn't have to be your final answer last time. We definitely had a number of individuals that were not in favor of moving forward on the strong mayor and or just a directly elected mayor. There were just a handful that were talking about arguments on both sides. So I think what I'd like to do is let those individuals kind of start the discussion and then I'll go back and see have you all raised your hands as to whether or not you want to add something or change what you decided before. Logan, I'm going to call you out. You are one of the ones that really is interested in this. Can you kind of give us your discussion points? Sure, Patty. Thanks. Let me also, you're the chair. I don't know if we're going to have time to do all the different powers of the strong mayor. So I want to suggest we just kind of do the yes or no on at large and then maybe do that second. But I guess we'll see where the conversation goes. Yeah, my sense was that we were not really heading in the direction of the strong mayor. So I think just staying with yes or no on directly elected mayor and utilizing the roles and responsibilities that already exist in the charter was kind of my sense of what I took away from last meeting. But again, if people have other things they want to throw in, they can do so. That was my sense too.  And I think that's really important for us to focus on. And I think that we have to also sort of step back and realize we all know who the mayor is. We know how that process works. But the average resident doesn't. They might know it a little bit. They might remember a mayor from a few years ago. But I think that what she talked about is a really important point to get more people engaged. And they need a symbol. And I think that a symbol has a lot of power in it too. They talked about how the mayor from San Rafael talked about how she's inspired young women in their community. So I think it has utility in an everyday function. And I think it also has that symbolic power to make people feel like they're part of their government. To have more people that don't look like me being charged. And I think that I want to go back to what I talked about and lean on my professional experience.  When you go to Sacramento or you go to Washington DC and the mayor talked about it, you're in the conference of mayors, which is a huge network to be a part of. You're out there hanging out with the mayor of LA, the mayor of New York, and the mayor of Petaluma. You're all literally in the same room together, seeing these great presentations, having that network. It's really, it's the next level of governance. And the fact that we might be missing out on that is really troubling to me. And I know that we get it, I guess, because we have a two year mayor, but we still are not viewed the same. And you're not speaking for the whole city. And especially now when you're elected in a district, let's think about that. That's about 26,000 people. And that's not even all the voters. So you might become mayor with 10,000 people having voted for you in our whole city. And I think that that really undercuts you as that symbol and as that focal point. And I think about the past few years that we've gone through in our city. And there, I think there was a comment last time that we should stick with the status quo. And that is often how we feel in times of uncertainty, but the reality around us has not been status quo. We've had a lot of crises in the last five years. And we've also been really lucky that we had good mayors during those. We had people that were well known. We had people that had run the police department. We had people who had connections in Sacramento and D.C. And if we didn't have that type of mayor, I don't think we would have been as well off in the end, in that moment of crisis and in that long-term recovery. So try to think about that. We might have been spoiled a little bit by good mayors. But if we didn't have a good mayor, or if we had a mayor that had been elected by very few people, I worry that we'd get really different outcomes. And then I think the other issue I want to just bring up, and it is valid, is you're going to have to spend more money to be mayor than probably running in a district. I think that's just logical. But I think we can look at recent history and see that the underdog can still win. And if you go back to 2016, our current mayor, Chris Rogers, had a huge independent expenditure directed against him. He's the largest ever in-city history, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent for his opponents. And the way he won was just by talking to voters. He went to every door at least once. I think that shows you that we have a highly engaged electorate. People are going to look past that if you put in the work. And that's what we should expect from our mayor, is to put in that work and to talk to every single person in the city. So again, I think it's a symbol. I think it's a powerful symbol. I think it'll make the city run better. And I think that we need to consider looking forward that we're probably going to have more bad stuff happen. And we need to make sure that person who's in charge has that legitimacy behind them. So I'll stop there. I'll let other folks talk. Thanks Logan. Jasmine, last meeting you mentioned that you thought there were good arguments before and against. You willing to share your thoughts on this now? Sure. Thank you, Chair. I have similar sentiments to Logan regarding the importance of having a citywide representative. I think it's also helpful for people to be able to vote for two representatives or district representative and a mayor. And I think given the limited powers that are currently allotted to the mayor, I think that it would be appropriate to have a large elected mayor. I still do have concerns regarding equity, especially when we look out for the voter turnout and how they are higher in district three, I believe, and lower in district six are related to equity. I do see that those are high equity priority areas, meaning there are more Black, Indigenous, and people of color living there with lower income. And it is being from that community myself, I see that it's probably likely that it's similar to like the canal region where it might be denser or there may be less voters within the population because there may be non-citizens and undocumented residents. And so I see that as a little bit of a disenfranchisement for a district. And so when I think about large elections, I see it is possible for someone from that area to run and maybe get elected, but also it's going to be, I think it's going to be much at an advantage or somebody from a different district that's more well known whose proportion of their district votes at higher rates, they're going to have an advantage in running. So I see that as an unequitable situation. So I would say that if we do move forward with at-large mayors, I think it's important to think about ways that we can mitigate that inequity and compensate for that and also look out for the legal risks that might come of the California Voters Rights Act. And that could look like, sorry, just one last thing, that could look like maybe donation limits or I don't know, some type of like some way of making it, either allowing non-residents to vote or considering that at least in our charter or making it easier to, or like increasing incentives for voting in those lower turnout areas, which I think would be beneficial all around. Thanks, Jasmine. Brian. Thank you. I want to bring up one other question that hasn't come up. I was one that has been against an elected mayor and I probably still lean that way, but I participated with Windsor when they went through the district change and the elected mayor discussion and they chose to go elected mayor. And my concern at the time was, one, it had to be two-year terms and not four. And I wanted to support it, provided there were term limits and I don't have a magic number for term limits, whether that's six years, eight years, 12 years, whatever, but something. And Windsor, of course, went without term limits, but a two-year elected mayor. The benefits were mentioned earlier about at least every voter in the city gets to vote each election for one person. And so that's my question, I guess, to legal counsel, is can we do a term limit for just the mayor seat? And can we have a two-year term instead of a four-year term? Might be more interesting to give my support. Sue, do you have a quick answer for that? Yes, and the answer would be yes on both points. Okay. Chris. Yes, well, I'm in favor of an elected mayor and I think the reasons were articulated very well. A concern I have is that if that comes with redistricting, that's going to be a poison pill that will make this inherently unpalatable to all the voters because who wants to go through that? And so, you know, I don't think it's probably, I guess, but I look to the elected to say, is it feasible to have eight votes on a council with some sort of tie-breaking mechanism? But if we inherently say, yeah, okay, an elected mayor, but now we're going to redistrict, I think that would kill it when it sounds like there might be lukewarm support among the electorate. And as I recall, not to speak from the, but the electeds on this commission were against it. And I think that's powerful. So that's my only thought. Thanks, Jen. All right, thanks. Yeah, I think I find Logan's positions pretty compelling. And especially, you know, we're a decent sized city that has to interface with the state level and federal level a lot, for no other reason than these relentless disasters we're hit with. And relationships that can end up in funding for things like affordable housing, et cetera. And I actually share Chris's concern around the redistricting and that being a poison pill. I share Brian, I would feel more comfortable with the two-year term and with some kind of term limits. I am concerned about the possibility of someone being elected mayor who has zero experience. And I'm wondering is can you, could there be a requirement that you have previously served on a planning commission or yeah, I think it has to be planning commission or city council? That's a question that I have. But I guess the equity concerns, I think it's, we can do contribution limits and I would definitely support that. And there's also sort of proactive things that you can do by holding more forums and holding more forums in specific areas that have traditionally low turnout, things like that. I think there are things that we could do to do that to help with that. So I think it's complicated, but I would support it also just for the sake of having sort of a unified leader. And I'm the only reasons I've been trying to talk to people about this and trying to think about this. The only reasons I come up against it are really sort of practicality. You know, reasons like logistics right now, just around when we put it on the ballot and how do we have to redistribute and that kind of thing. But in just sort of an ideal ideological sense, I think I have great support for it. However, in his, sorry, I'm going on. When I think about this, I keep really coming back to that with respect to equity and good governance that the very, very most important thing, whether it's a direct elect mayor or not, is that we are paying our council members a real true middle-class living wage so that we really can open this up to folks from all walks of life and all backgrounds and bringing all different perspectives. And so I feel like that to me has got to be like the first question. Are we really going to offer, if we're saying we're going to offer a salary of $40,000, then I say who cares? We might as well pay what they now. That's my personal opinion. But if we want someone, basically, like I think we want someone who can say, I'm going to give it my job and do this. Because otherwise we're just talking about people who either are going to have to work like crazy or they can't afford it. And then also, then at that point, we can also have the expectation that they treat this in a very serious way. And that they work, that this is a full-time gig. And that we have that expectation as well. Sorry, it does a lot of rambling. But those are my thoughts. Thanks. Thanks, Jen. Mark, you aren't unmuted yet, Mark. So I'm not sure where you are. We're having trouble connecting to Mark. So... Here's Cisco. I just asked him to unmute. Mark, can you see that? That message? Okay, so both Sandy and I sent him a message asking him to unmute himself. But I don't know if that's coming up on his phone. Okay. Well, why don't I go ahead and move on to Logan again before and hopefully we can connect with him. Okay. Thanks, Spada. Yeah, just one comment. I agree with Jen and Brian. I think term limits would be appropriate. And I think also a two-year term would be a good way to start this. I agree with the presenters that having people only vote on their city representative every four years does also trouble me. So I think having a vote every two years on mayor and then every four years on council just increases representation. So I'd be supportive of that. And then, yeah, Brian, I'm not sure what the maximum term is. I'd say six or eight years. Nothing more than eight. That definitely gives someone enough time to get stuff done. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was muted. I was muted. In the last city council elections, we had the number two turnout was 77% for District 7. That's the actual voters to the registered voters. I'm District 1 with 74%. Then Rogers District, Chris at 73 and Tim at 665. So the underrepresented people that got a chance to vote for district representative for the first time turned out the best. And I'm concerned on the timing of implementation. I think if we pushed off implementation to save for six years, that would give time for those who already served almost a full term to run again and it would give those that have only served a half a term so far. They would get their constituents would get a whole term with them, and they would get a chance to run again. So underrepresented districts need a whole first term to experience a district council member. And that's my concern on the equity. I completely agree with Jen on the pay issue. I think that's an equity issue as well. And then as far as the mayor, one option we can consider is not having a limit on the number of terms. I think we have the best mayor of all cities in this county, as far as integrating new people into the fold and dissolving any concern with the lack of protocol or procedure as far as how to get something on the agenda and how to speak to it on the agenda. It's kind of ironic because we also have, I think, the best mayor that could be a citywide mayor. But I think the timing is off. If we let the council continually pick the same mayor, we could even get the same representation in Washington and we can assure that's a competent mayor. If our last president were to win the mayorship, it could be a bummer and it may be a problem to get them on. Thanks very much and apologize for the technology issue. Thanks, Mark. Others that spoke last week you want to weigh in on this as to how you're feeling having had this presentation? Lisa, how about you? Thank you, Chair Siscoe, appreciate it. It's been a great conversation. I agree with a lot of the supportive concerns. I mean, the supportive comments. I'm interested in the elected mayor role. I share Jen and Mark's concerns and support for really being thoughtful and deliberate about a meaningful amount of pay, even exploring qualifications. I would share the same concern around the reality about, I would be fearful that we could end up with a mayor of a really large substantial city, the largest city in our county, with an inexperienced mayor. And so I don't know how that gets designed for if that's a practical structural thing to be done, but I'd be interested in discussing more. I also really agree with a really meaningful salary. I mean, if we're looking at a council pay conversation in that if what we're seeking is a truly open field where a range of differently experienced and qualified folks can actually run and serve in a substantial role in a substantial city as a job, then let's do that. I agree with Jen that if we're thinking about a $40,000 salary, then that doesn't get us there. So I also would be in alignment with a two-year term and with coupling that with some level of term limits. Thanks. You bet. Yes, very complicated topic and I agree with many of the people that have spoken, but at this particular time, I would not be in favor of a large mayor because of the disadvantages that we've had in the past and me experiencing that from their perspective of not having representation on the city council for many, many years. I do like having a unified front, so maybe put it off for a couple more years just to give a time period for people to get used to this concept that we currently have. And one of the questions I stated was, do we have to do charter review every 10 years? So cutting down on a timeframe and given this current voter situation we have, some time to really settle in with people. The city has to do a lot in educating our community about this process. And I think there are some things, I asked the question, how are we going to go back to our community and have conversations about this topic when we have language issues? When you're in the meeting, we have translation, but then when we hear can go back to the community, have discussion, we would literally have to have the translator and now they have to have that discussion in the community. So there's a lot of things I think is still missing at the table when we're looking at DEI and having that equity inclusion that we need to make sure that when we're doing this process, it's not just for the few, it's for everyone, right? So we need to work on some things as a committee, as a city, to make sure that we're being inclusive with our community as a whole and that we're hearing the voices of those that are not in the room. I think we have some really great representation. You know, we have a great mayor, we have great mayors in the past and they made a certain effort to connect with communities here in Roseland. And I remember specific conversations with some of the people that have been there currently and in the past. And so I think we would do a great disservice if we move forward, not really getting our legs on the process that we currently have. So I do believe in having that united front and having those people that can go and speak on our behalf. I do believe in that. But at this time, we just don't have enough information. There's concerns about money, the money and how much should that be and you know, come in and looking at from someone that was thinking about running for city council. And then because I didn't, but I did tap my toe in it a little bit. And there was a lot of concerns. And so unless we're going to be putting money aside to you know, help people run for this type of position, we need to really just take our, pump our brakes on it. Maybe revisit this topic in maybe five years after we had a couple more district elections. And that's my thoughts. Thanks Yvette, Ernesto. Thank you, Madam Chair. Based on today's discussion, I still have not found any real compelling reason to change my mind about not moving in that direction. For me, it goes back to the fundamental question about what is the problem kind of solve. And the one that came up for me, of course, was diversity, equity and inclusion. And this isn't doing it. I was fortunate to be the first elected, not elected, but first appointed Latino mayor. I'm proud of that. And I hope that happens again. I hope that we have a Latina, African American and others as well that follow. Um, I tell you, during my term as mayor, I never had anybody question me as to whether or not I was directly elected or not. I went to Washington a number of times, spoke to my congressman, attended a number of state functions, national functions that I never was asked. That was never a barrier. And I never asked anybody else. I say, are you directly elected or not? I never made a difference. It's not a requirement to become a member of the National Congress of Mayors. All you have to be is a city of over 30,000. We're there. Um, and I, and I also, I'm not also, I guess I'm also not sold on having to be, having had served on a board or commission, because again, it eliminates many, many, many other residents from Santa Rosa to participate. There are other ways to get that experience and understand education. We have an emerging office of community engagement that is hopefully going to help us in doing that as we continue to move forward. We just recently moved into our district elections and we already saw the change that is happening across the city. And I think it's amazing and I want that to continue. I want to see what that takes us as far as trying to level the playing field for everybody in our community to have an opportunity to, to serve. You know, the issues related to abandoned cars, damaged mailboxes, yeah, that happens. But you know what, if you have a, a good communication process within your city, people know where to call for those kind of issues. I didn't deal with a lot of those issues as the mayor, because people knew who to call for those kinds of things. So for me, at this point, I have not been convinced that that is the direction for us to go today. I think we need to give what we have right now a chance to play itself out, to see what we are. Thanks Ernesto, Annie. Thank you, Chair Sisco. Thank you, Ernesto, also. I originally was really feeling like, like we should keep the system that we have. I was worried about excluding too many people from being able to campaign as an at-large mayor. Listening to these two ladies kind of opened me up to a different viewpoint. And I kind of like the idea of an elected mayor. I like the idea of two years. I don't know if we need term limits. I think that as you gain the knowledge that you have, that you can build on what you can offer a city. But I do also feel that the appropriate pay, that we need to make sure that we pay them properly. But we do need to have some sort of protection there for campaign funds, making sure that it is open for as many people as possible, and whether that limits the funds. I'm not quite sure how we can navigate that. But those are my thoughts. Jen, you have more to say? I'll always. I appreciate Ernesto, your comments. And I actually maybe really very quickly rethink the whole idea around experience, too, because that's also probably really an equity issue. And particularly because planning positions are unpaid. And so I will take that back. But I am wondering if there's... This all seems like a lot of change to happen at once. And is there some procedural way where we can kind of kick this can down the road or phase something in? And I guess that's the question for you, Sue, which similar to Yvette's question around, can we do this more often? So fun, can we do it more often? But because I think this is a really pretty big decision. And I just wanted to add one more thing that I forgot that makes me really like this idea. And that I think that it's more engaging to the community. The idea of voting for a mayor is, I think, more engaging to the community as a whole.  And so I think that it could get a greater voter turnout. And if we could pair that by allowing non-citizen residents to vote, then that might help us with the equity issue just in order to get more folks engaged. And I will end my comments. Logan? Thanks, Patty. One thing I think I've been thinking about the timing and sequencing, I'm sorry, I have a puppy playing next to me if that's really loud. But I think that, so this would be on the ballot this year, right? So voters would have to approve it. And then what would happen, and then after that, I would think that that mayor, if that voters approve it, they would be on the November 2024 ballot for whatever term we designate. So I think at that point, kind of the Marx point, all the districts would have elected someone by then. In fact, someone would have gone twice by then. And then by the 2024 election, they all would have voted twice. So I just wanted to point that out, that I don't think it would be, the mayor would be running this year. It would be at least two years out. They wouldn't even be in office for three years at that point. So I think that gives us time to educate folks, get people to know about it, maybe get some good candidates in the mix. Those are my thoughts on timing. Karen. Thank you, Patty. Well, last time I was not in favor of directly elected mayor, and I'm still there, I'm not in favor of it at this point in time. I appreciate the comments that the two women made, the two mayors. But we have to remember, San Rafael and Peddler were much smaller communities than we are. So it costs less money to run in those communities than it does in Santa Rosa. Back to the equity issue. When you look at what it does cost to run a city-wide campaign, I mean, we're talking $60,000 to $80,000, and that was like two, three years ago. And for somebody to be able to raise that money, it's very, very difficult. And I just think... So that just keeps sticking in my mind. And when you look at the voter turnout, it is in predominantly non-minority areas in the community. And so what will we be achieving? If we... And then going to Vet's comment about giving districts a chance, I agree, we need to give districts a chance and see how they really play out before we switch again to something else. And let's see what else. But the equity issue is just keeps coming to the surface for me and the fact that it is so expensive to run a city-wide campaign and that you're eliminating people who can't raise those kinds of... That kind of money doesn't... Don't have those kind of connections to raise that kind of money. Their likelihood of becoming mayor is much greater if we maintain what we have at this moment in my view. So I will not be in favor of a directly elected mayor. Annie. I also am not leaning towards going at large. You know, I'm thinking that we currently moved into a house, our districts, we're ready to break down the walls and remodel. We haven't even figured out the foundation, which is our city council's pay. And how can we even feel comfortable where we're at yet if we can't even take care of our city council first? I think that the equity is an issue. I think that we have to keep it fair.  Yeah, but with equity, it's harder for somebody of a BIPOC community to reach certain donors, approach certain. It's not equal. And I think that we have a strong city manager, a BIPOC woman, who I think is going to be phenomenal and guide the city in the right direction. And we have a strong city council. And I agree with Ernesto. What are we trying to figure out where we're trying to fix something that's not broken? And so far, San Jose is benefiting from a great mayor, a great city council. Now we have an out BIPOC city manager. I'm not leaning towards towards that large event. You have some more comments? Yeah, I forgot to mention about the pay. I'm all for that. Yeah, they're paying what they deserve because they do work very hard. Many of them, you know, work in regular jobs and doing city council. I'm totally in favor of that. It's just the other component, not so much. Okay. Anybody else want to make comments? And then I'm going to try to make a suggestion about how we sort of pair this down. Okay. I would just add, I mean, I came into this really in favor of a directly elected mayor. And then I kind of ran into the equity issue. And what I thought would be more equitable, I'm now feeling like it might tip the scales in the other direction because of the cost of campaigning because of the East side turnout. And we might be going backwards from where we gained ground for district elections in terms of diversity. So that was a problem for me. And like a couple of other people have mentioned, we're also going to be looking at not as closely as what the council will be when they go to put these things on the ballot. But the timing is really bad that the county just redistricted, the city is redistricting, and then we would be asking the voters to vote for losing a district and be redistricted again. I think that's just going to be, I can't remember the word, the poison pill. What we want to be doing is putting things on the ballot that actually will move forward. And I just think the timing on this one, the fact that districts haven't really settled in, there may not be a problem to solve at all. And then the fact that we would be doing this on top of all of what has been happening in terms of who's representing who is going to be very difficult to have the voters swallow. So I think the other concern I had, and this goes to Yvette's point that if we stay on the same cycle, our 10-year cycle for reviewing the charter is set up at the same time redistricting happens on its 10-year cycle. So we will always have this problem if we don't shift one or the other and maybe make it available to do potential charter amendments, seven years, whatever, somewhere down the line. And I know that Sue can take a look at what kind of language we could do to do that. But this problem would not go away if what we do is we stay on this same cycle and we expect the voters to go through all of the redistricting process and then ask them to do it again and potentially lose a district. I don't think adding a mayor on top of our seven districts is a great solution. I really like what the women had to say and also acknowledge that the San Rafael always had a directly elected mayor. They would not be making the kind of transition that we would be trying to convince the voters to do. And Petaluma doesn't have district elections. So we've got this variation there, but I really appreciate what they had to say about the stability of leadership. And if we did go in the direction of putting this on the ballot, I would not be in favor of a two-year cycle. I would want it to be a four-year cycle because the other concern I have is the city that shall not be named having people jump seats and then the city gets in a situation where they're either paying for a special election or the electorate itself isn't voting who is going to be the council member. It's the council members that are appointing that particular district's representative. So I think a longer term for the mayor would be less likely to have that happen so frequently. And I'm not in favor of term limits. I think if you have the experience, an Arganian experience, that would be great too. So that's kind of where I stand is wait and see and find a better time if, in fact, there is a problem to solve, to have it not match up with a redistricting process. So what I think I'll do is let's just see how many people are absolutely not in favor of going forward with the directly elected mayor on the ballot at this time. And so I can get a sense of what else we need to craft, if anything. So if you are, I have some of the names down, but if you are not in favor at all right now based on what we've been looking at, could you just raise your hand and I will count you up. Okay, so I have one, two, three, four, five, six, and me. So seven. It's 89, I think, Patty. Some people aren't using the raised hands feature. Oh, okay. So you can tell there's two more. Okay. And, oh yeah, you see a couple more. Yeah, Stephanie, you got a good suggestion for me. I was just going to say, would it be easier to do this audibly? I can call the committee members names and they can say yes or no. Yeah, let's go ahead and do that. I was thinking we could just sort of do a straw poll and then go from there. But it's probably clear if we do it audibly. Yeah, it wouldn't be like a formal action. Yeah, I'm just going to read off the roster. And then you can say yes or no. Sorry to interrupt. I have to log off. Can I designate Adriana Arizona as my Do you want to just give me your vote right now, just me? Yes, I sit in my position before. I am in favor of at large with the caveat that equity measures be considered to mitigate the inequity that there's a possibility for. So, okay, yeah. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Jasmine. Thank you all. Thank you. And I would suggest clarifying what the yes and the no means. You may just want to have people say either supportive or not supportive. Okay. I'm just going to go down the roster. Committee member Pitts, do you support or not support? I am supportive of directly elected mayor. A committee bed and fort. I'm supportive. Okay. Committee member via Lobos. Adjacent had to leave, so. And committee member Miller is not here. Committee member or vice chair Oliveris. I am not supportive. Okay. Committee member Byrne. I am not supportive. Okay. Committee member Martinez. Did he leave? I'll come back. Committee member Walsh. I'm not supportive. Could you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Committee member Diaz. I am not supportive. Committee member close. I support it. Committee member Masiya. I am supportive. Committee member Bartley's absent. Chair Cisco. I'm not supportive. Committee member minor. Not supportive. Committee member Cunningham. Committee member weeks. I'm not supportive. Committee member Barber. I'm supportive. Committee member Arizon. I'm not supportive the way it is. You're not supportive of a elected mayor or are you support? I'm not supportive. Of elected mayor. Okay. Committee member Condren. Not supportive. And committee member Ling. I'm a yes, but if we don't have term limits in the final drafting, I'll be a no vote. Missed a tally. But right now I have eight, no, and seven, yes. Can you? Okay. I know. I miss. What do you have, Sue? I had nine not supportive and seven supportive. Okay. Stephanie, I'm sorry. I lost signal. I'm back. May I vote? Yes. You may vote. I'm against. You're against the, okay. So that makes 10 not supporting an elected mayor. And who was that last? Danny Martinez. Okay. So that's a pretty close vote. And can I ask a point of clarification, Patty? Yes. Are we going off the majority of members present or the total membership for a quorum? Or maybe that's a question for Sue. This is really kind of a straw vote. And it would be up to the, to the chair or to the committee as to whether you want to simply take the, I mean, we have a quorum here, but whether it's the full membership, a majority of the full membership or, or a majority of those present, it would also, it gets complicated because, you know, in, in like, for example, in the council, it would take, it would take a majority of the full council to affirmatively take action, which in this case would be to place something, to recommend placing something on the ballot. So I really leave it to the committee or to the chair. But at this point, we have at least this straw vote. What was it? Can I ask how many people are absent today? Sorry to just reject that. It seems relative. You, there are, well, at roll call, we had six members absent, but two of them joined later. And at this point, if we had 10 votes, not supportive and seven votes supportive, that would be 17 total who voted. That means four members are not here or did not participate. I'm thinking back to the charter review I served on 10 years ago. And when we had a really close vote on whether or not to put district elections on the ballot, kind of what we decided was that if, if we're sort of representing the electric, the electorate, that it might make sense, even though there may be a majority of us, a slight majority of us that are not in favor of this, it might make sense to pass it up to council with that information that, you know, let them decide and also continue to work on the format that we would put forward on a ballot. So what are, especially those who are not in favor, what are you thinking about that idea? I want to be fair to everybody here and, and make sure that we're, you know, we're doing what we, we need to do. So opinions on whether or not we should do that. We have some hands raised. I don't see any hands raised. We have three hands raised. Oh, okay. Meeting to scroll down, sorry. Okay, Adriana, what do you think? I'm sorry, opinions on what we should do, what was your question, Patty? I'm considering doing, even though it's just a small margin of people against versus people in favor with some caveats, whether or not we should just go ahead and offer it up to city council for their decision to put it forward, you know, with continuing with our recommendations as to whether there's term limits, all the other stuff. Since it's so close with us. Well, I guess my comment was going to be about the closeness and I, I was out of the country last week, so I wasn't here, so you guys voted on something, but I remember being on another meeting and voting on another item, like on electing co-chairs, I believe, and we were so close, it was nine to 10 on one of the voting, and we still passed with a 10. That was even closer than this one, so I really would say there's no question in my opinion, but that's just my opinion. I would think that whoever is present gets that vote, and I feel like it's a good difference, 10 to 7, if that's the difference. Well, I appreciate that, and it's also true that city council is going to do whatever they want to do with it, and when I make our report as to what conclusion we came to, I can be clear as to what the numbers were, so how about you, Dan, what do you think? I support your recommendation, Patty. Which one, the one I just had? The one you just made, to send it to council. Just send it to them. The work done on the details. Okay. And we can continue working on the details, but to send it to the council. You want it sent to the council. Okay. I think that was your recommendation. Originally, it was to, yeah, to make it fair, but I'm also hearing other people think differently. What do you think, Chris? I think that it's been a confounding discussion, and actually, I think a number of the people that are absent will probably vote against it, and I think that if we spend more and more time on this, we'll be taking away from other things that we might want to talk about, including, for example, compensation and other things. So I would think at most, maybe you pull the folks that were absent, and then there's a report to the council, but in terms of our further discussing how this intangible thing would look, I don't think that's good news for our time. Okay. I hear that. Okay. Mark, what do you think? Thank you very much, Patty. First, I want to thank you for elegantly getting us through this conversation and receiving input, and I do appreciate the other resources for the women that have experienced being the out-large elected mayor. I think we, to be fair, we would need to consider information about the, about what, more information about why some people would not want an elected mayor. It feels like we've kind of, that this has been pushed on us a little bit. There are a lot of people, a lot not in favor last time, we've had an education session that changed at least, you know, a couple of minds, which is, which is good. But then maybe we look at what the charter now says with respect to trying to achieve more equity, and that was the district elections. That was also a capital project budget. The city was going to have a budget for capital projects, and then each district was going to weigh in on, on what they would want in their own districts. And I don't think that actually happened. So to bring something to the council, we may need to give them more information. So what are we doing district-wide with capital projects, the, the funding that was intended for the districts? I know that does speak a little bit more to, you know, districts advocating for their own districts instead of city-wide, but I don't actually think that's a problem, especially in the districts that have been underserved. My preference would be, I would say we recommended against it, that it was a close vote, that in fact is true, it's 10 to eight or something like that. And if the council was still interested, they could tell us. They can do what they want, yeah. They could say do more homework on it. I think some of the items that were intended in the last charter to achieve equity were not implemented. And it would help us to read that charter and go through, say what was actually implemented and what was before we make this type of recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I want to be mindful of our time. I think I know where I want to go with this. Karen, you want to say something? Just real briefly, Patty, if I actually can't say something briefly. I have a feeling this is not going to be the only item where we're not unanimous. And so that type of a vote would be reflected in whatever the final report is to the council.  Okay. I hear that. So can I make a quick comment, Patty? Sure. I'm supportive of your suggestion and Dan's suggestion to send it to the council. I went back and watched their videos of when they placed these items to charter review, and there was no opposition, major opposition to this. So just keep that in mind. No one at the council really spoke against this idea. And I think we've done a lot of work for them. So I think we have helped them and done what they asked and explored a lot of the different avenues. So yeah, I'm supportive of your proposal. So I think what I can do is when we get to the point of passing it onto the council is just give, you know, a complete report of those that opposed it and why those that are for it and some of the caveats that they wanted to go through with it and they can make up their mind what they, how they want to package it or not. So okay. But that that'll help us move on to all the rest of the stuff that we need to do, which we have a lot. So okay, so if we're comfortable with that, that's how we'll leave it, that the majority of the committee had opinions to not support it and but we'll be putting, I'll be putting forth to the city council the reasons that those that are in favor of it and how they wanted that to look. And I think we can do that. So any anything else, Sue, you need from us on that or suggest? No, that sounds fine. And it sounds like what we'll be doing is preparing, working with you and preparing that report. We will not be preparing a ballot measure. Is that what I'm hearing? That's what I'm understanding. I'm saying. Thank you. Does that work? Yes, that works great. Okay, okay, great. All right, we are going to end tonight. Eventually, we just got a little bit more to go. Item number five is the committee chairs and city attorneys report. Sue, you want to make a report? And no, I have no report for tonight. Okay. And I just have a brief one and that's that I appeared in front of city council last Tuesday to just give them an update as to what our process and our progress is. You know, clear that we haven't made any any final decisions at least hadn't up to that point. And I wanted to share with you that council member Rogers Natalie Rogers in particular was very effusive and thanking all of you for your service. And just appreciate the kind of time and thought you're you're putting into this very, very meaty process. So wanted you to hear that. We don't have any subcommittee reports. We don't have any written and or electronic communications and future agenda items. You want to share that with us, Sue? Yeah, and I'll keep it very short because of the late hour. I did propose did provide a proposed schedule that would take us through May 11th as our final meeting. This would what we have is next meeting will be regarding ranked choice voting. The following would be we would be presenting some ballot measure for council compensation and then also for ranked choice voting. If the penny decides to move forward on that, and we would begin discussion of the omnibus measure, including the allowance for the two year budget process. And then it goes forward. We will at some point, and I don't know that we want to do it tonight because of the length of this meeting, but we will need to get the committee's direction on your next priorities. You had identified the top three at large mayor ranked choice voting and council compensation. We will have room to consider potentially two more items. But we need direction as to which items those are. I did provide that got sent out today. The list of the 12 issues proposed by council, the three that we've already or are in the process of addressing and then the remaining. I don't know if you want to wait until next meeting to have that discussion or if you want to have that discussion tonight. I would like to have any other discussions next time. So we can go home and eat. Yes. Do whatever. Okay. All right. Great. Thanks for that. And we have one more public comment period, which I will open on this future agenda items. Again, if you're a member of the public watching by zoom, use the raise hand feature. If you're calling in use star nine. And I will ask our host if anyone is there. And chair Cisco, I see no raised hands. Yay. Okay. All right, with that, I'm going to go ahead and adjourn our meeting and thank you all for sticking it out. And, you know, this is this is very interesting and meaty stuff. And we're working hard on it. So thank you for your time and your willingness to stay a little bit longer. So thank you. And I'll see you soon. And thank you. Good job, Patty.  Thanks.