Council Study Session

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT TOWN COUNCIL IN SPECIAL MEETING FOR A STUDY SESSION, MARCH 2, 2021, AT 5:15 P.M., 50 EAST CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Yung Koprowski, Councilmembers Scott Anderson, Laurin Hendrix, Scott September, Kathy Tilque, Aimee Yentes COUNCIL ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Manager Patrick Banger, Town Clerk Chaveli Herrera, Town Attorney Chris Payne, Intergovernmental Relations Director Rob Bohr, and Office of Digital Government Director Dana Berchman CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. 1. Discussion on Town Council roles, responsibilities and process updates. Director Bohr discussed the recent transitions on the Council and stated the Intergovernmental Department tried to develop and refine an orientation process and help the Council feel supported in their roles, which included the addition of study sessions. Town Attorney Payne summarized the Mayor’s authority based on Arizona Revised Statutes and Gilbert Town Code, as well as in one reference in the Land Development Code. He noted that it was a Mayoral function to appoint or remove a member of the Redevelopment Commission. Mayor Peterson stated that appointments for the Redevelopment Commissions were made by the Council as body and asked if that covered the requirement, to which Attorney Payne affirmed. Town Clerk Herrera provided an overview of Open Meeting Law for public bodies. The information included Open Meeting Law requirements under Title 38 of Arizona Revised Statutes, what constituted a quorum, requirements for agendas and minutes, and an overview of laws pertaining to Executive Sessions. She reviewed potential Open Meeting Law violations, conflicts of interest and disclosures, public records procedures and requirements, the disclosing of gifts, and expectations of civility. Lastly, she reviewed the basics of Robert’s Rules of Order for parliamentary procedures. Mayor Peterson discussed the requirement of board and commission members to take Open Meeting Law training annually; she asked if the Council were required to take it also. Town Clerk Herrera stated Councilmembers were not required to take it, adding she was not aware of the reasoning behind that past decision but she felt it would be beneficial. Town Clerk Herrera stated the training was now available electronically through the Human Resources Department/People Team. Mayor Peterson recommended making it a onetime training as the onboarding process for new Councilmembers. Town Clerk Herrera stated she would be happy to coordinate that. Councilmember Anderson stated the League of Arizona Cities and Towns also provided similar training. Town Attorney Payne noted the annual requirement for board and commission members was defined in the Town Code. Vice Mayor Koprowski said typically items were discussed before the motions were made, but asked if there could also be discussion after a motion and second was made. Town Clerk Herrera stated typically it should be discussed before a motion was made so that everyone had a clear understanding of the full scope of what the motion was referring to. Town Clerk Herrera added once the motion was on the table, the discussion should end until the vote was taken; then depending on the outcome of the vote, additional discussion could be had if there was an amended vote. Mayor Peterson stated she had seen a motion and second made, then an amendment to the motion, and there was sometimes a lot of discussion that ensued, making it confusing to know what was amended and what was the original motion. Town Clerk Herrera stated it was the responsibility of the Clerk to clarify what the original motion was. Councilmember Tilque stated she would like that to be part of the process that if there was an amended motion, it should stop in order understand the motion, adding there should be a reset on what was being proposed. Councilmember September asked about creating a quorum outside of the Council by discussing an item that had not been agendized. Town Clerk Herrera stated that it would be a violation for an item that had been brought to Council or may be brought to Council, adding it was a sensitive area since many of the items could come to the Council in the future. Mayor Peterson stated the Council could discuss an item after it was done, but it was still best to not discuss items with a quorum of Council even after. Councilmember Yentes asked if it took a minimum of four Councilmembers to call a meeting or put something on an agenda, would that be a violation of Open Meeting Law or an exception to the rule to discuss requesting a new meeting or adding an item. Town Attorney Payne stated it took three Councilmembers to agendize an item, but per the Town Code, it took four Councilmembers to call a Council meeting, which is the one exception that requires four. Mayor Peterson stated if a meeting was requested it was could be requested through the Town Manager or Town Attorney. Councilmember Tilque stated the Councilmembers could request a new meeting through the Mayor, so that action would likely be taken if the Mayor was refusing to add that Council meeting. Councilmember Yentes noted the caution of asking other councilmembers about a topic; Mayor Peterson noted the form that could be used by the Councilmembers for that purpose. Director Bohr stated Gilbert was the Council-Manager form of government and explained processes of high-level policy decisions versus day-to-day policies. He stated the Council was the policy maker, and the Town Manager and those under that position carry out the directives that were implemented. He discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Council including the representation piece of advocating for things as voices for community members in a formal position and advocating on behalf of the Town. He said the Town was prohibited from using any resources for advocating for or against any ballot measure that Gilbert would have on a ballot. He said Councilmembers had a little more freedom than staff, but said the only stipulation was it was still prohibited the use of any Town resources and costs to do so. He noted there should be a line drawn if it was a personal advocation effort and no Town resources should be used. Director Bohr discussed the recent significant Council transition and updates to the orientation program using feedback from the Council. He noted the Council’s request to bring items to the Council’s attention prior to them coming up for vote. He discussed ways of helping to provide additional support to the Council in their day-to-day duties, including being an easy point of contact between other Councilmembers, staff, and constituents. He discussed the response process regarding residents’ emails. He also briefly discussed requests and initiatives by the Council and becoming more involved in the community, adding there would be a clarification of that process to come. Town Attorney Payne stated the main role of the Council was to act in a legislative role, or sometimes in a quasi-judicial role, depending on the items. He noted a case of litigation from the past when opposing counsel wanted to depose the Mayor and Councilmembers as part of the litigation. He discussed the Town’s action in that prior case. He said if the Councilmembers were to step outside of that role there was potential of being brought in to litigation, being deposed as witnesses and the like. He said if the Councilmembers were within that role there were privileges and immunity. He summarized more of the prior litigation case, emphasizing that the Council should stay within the role on the dais and act within the policy. Councilmember Yentes asked about an administrative function that a Councilmember may do versus a legislative one. Town Attorney Payne noted being too involved with staff on a particular issue or talking to those on the other side and directing staff members could potentially lead to being deposed and called as a witness. He noted you can talk to staff, but to be careful not be too involved or give direction to staff that should come from the Town Manager to staff. Town Manager Banger noted it was a complicated process and for the Councilmembers to please reach out to him or Town Attorney Payne with questions to make sure things were done according to the Town Code. Councilmember Tilque discussed the need for specific touchpoints on items coming before the Council, including more clarification on if they were part of a bigger project and what were the other touchpoints. She said if there was relevant historical information on an item, the past information should be outlined in the background for the new item, such as background information on a change order. She said on the financial statement of the council communication there should be more consistency with the information that was provided so a call was not needed to obtain more information. She discussed the process with the Intergovernmental Team regarding resident emails so the Council could know what had or had not been done and thanked them for adding that process. She also discussed the process to get an item on the agenda. She asked what was the best practice if an item needed to go back to the Council after it was already discussed at a meeting. Town Manager Banger stated his experience was that he brought items to the agenda that were staff-generated in nature; adding if something was legislative in nature, it was done by the three Councilmembers completing the form, through an ask for reconsideration by a Councilmember, or if the Mayor requested it. Mayor Peterson stated she had seen the request sheet being passed down the dais for consideration in the past, adding if there was an issue with staff, it was best to go to the Town Manager to handle it and to keep those roles separate. Mayor Peterson discussed the information provided to the Council and asked the Councilmembers to review it and let her know if they had questions. She noted the study sessions would help to alleviate some of the separate staff meetings and allowed the Council to hear the same information at the same time. 2. Discussion on Town logo and rebranding. Office of Digital Government Director Berchman showed a presentation on the Gilbert logo and rebranding. She discussed the website and implementation of the branding underway. She talked about other items in progress and about some of the implications of further delays. She summarized the major marketing projects planned, stating the touchpoints were also great opportunities to share the brand with others and tell meaningful stories. She stated though not everyone could be happy, there was great effort made to take all of the feedback into consideration and to move forward in the implementation. Mayor Peterson talked about her desire to bring the logo and rebrand back for discussion. She voiced her agreement with residents in not liking the new log, adding the brand was not the best move for the community and did not fit Gilbert. She talked about some staff and residents being embarrassed about the logo and branding, adding she wanted the opportunity to have her say. She said she hoped for to be able to put the new logo on hold and go back to the old logo for the time being. Councilmember Anderson said the prior logo was not accepted by the community for six months. He said the Council made the decision, he was done, and talked about allowing the public an opportunity to get used to the logo. He said there were greater issues, and he encouraged everyone to move on down the road with it. Mayor Peterson spoke in agreement about there being bigger issues but said the reason the item was being brought back was due to residents. She said she did not think the logo spoke to the community and she was embarrassed. She also spoke about the way the former logo was received in the past. Councilmember Tilque stated that she liked the logo, though it took her a while to warm up to it. She talked about the representation of the logo and about reactions, stating the logo was about people and the representation of people. She said it was up to every individual to see the positive; she saw it as people-oriented and about caring about people. She said the Mayor needed to be proud of what the Town was doing and asked the Mayor to change her mindset to the positive things it represented. She said the Council could help the Mayor to get there as a spokesperson for the Town. Councilmember Anderson talked about the representation in the logo, saying maybe it was the job of the Council to educate the community on what it represented. Mayor Peterson stated she had watched or attended all of the meetings and did not understand the representation and did not equate it to what she was being told. Councilmember Hendrix spoke in agreement with Mayor Peterson that he did not like the logo. Councilmember September talked about his initial reaction to the presentation of the logo. He talked about lack of transparency in the process and then discussed the shape and color pallet. He noted the opportunity of a subcommittee to make changes, stating he was in favor of the logo now. He said if it was changed again, there could be issues in the future with others not liking it. He talked about Public Safety not being proud to put on a uniform and said that was his problem with it. He spoke in support of the possibility of creating a separate logo for a patch on Public Safety uniforms and perhaps on vehicles that was more easily recognizable of Gilbert. He noted of the endorsement of the logo by the Town’s accredited Economic Development Department but said he would entertain Public Safety having something different. Mayor Peterson spoke in agreement that their patches should be their own and Council should be just the final nod in their process. Town Manager Banger talked about the challenging undertakings of a rebranding effort and the need to move forward. He stated the Town endeavored to gather input and come up with something that represented the community without excluding anyone. Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Brigette Peterson, Mayor Chaveli Herrera, CMC, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the study session of the Town Council of the Town of Gilbert held on the 2nd day of March, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this __________ day of March, 2021. ___________________________________ Chaveli Herrera, MMC, Town Clerk