Culture & Arts Advisory Board

Sorry.

The other side will come later in the meeting. I'm like,

My favorite story is still when I remember I woke up the day after my birthday woke up and yawn and welcome Oh, don't worry. When you turn 50, the warranty is expired. So, it kind of updated then Have to make it all the way over. Yeah,

is it?

Good day for a bike. Good day.

making sure that

good afternoon everyone. I'll go ahead and call this town council work session for April 21st, 2026 to order and let's honor our nation. Join me Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Um I think we have commitments. Uh we're try to get through this as quickly as possible. I know Council Gray, you have to go watch Apex play Apex Friendship and girls lacrosse. Very good. And I got so we'll go ahead and turn it over to town. Sorry. Thank you.

Okay. Well, good afternoon, new mayor and council. Uh today we will try to keep everything concise and distinct. We've got a lot of things that we want to cover today. Um we're going to high level walk through a couple of follow-up items that you all have requested. Um council committees, resident advisory boards, um a few of policy updates. Um what you will see um as we go through the agenda is kind of the purpose of today's meeting um the research the data set that was um evaluated and analyzed kind of a a proposed flow of the work session and then we'll dive into each portion of the uh various sections. Um really this is around uh you know as our as we continue to grow wanted to make sure that our policies and our procedures match how we are growing making sure that we're consistent with other municipalities um you know similar size municipalities and then identifying areas where we really need council's direction on um some of these items uh can can be heavy and can appear to be um a lot. So, I would just ground up and

remind us that we're really uh, you know, trying to be community focused, respectful and collaborative, clear and concise. And I think I I'll say this at least from from my perspective is we don't really have a proposal or an opinion about what we feel like you all should do. This is really what you all feel like you want to do. Um, so we'll we'll show you the data. The data will speak for itself and then we'll ask for some some guidance from from you all. Um so as we go through each section um I will present the research from the data set and then we'll have some discussion and then I'll ask for some direction from you all based on that introduction so that we can know how to proceed going forward. I'll start with the the research. So I surveyed 21 municipalities across North Carolina. Um in doing so we looked at cities or municipalities as large as 900 some thousand. We looked as small as 50,000. Apex is included, which is why you see 21. If you take out Apex, then it would be 20 municipalities. So, Apex is included. Um, you will see in this data set, it was a range of whether the mayor had voting power, whether the mayor didn't, whether they were two-year terms, four year terms, whether they had council committees, whether they didn't, whether they had resident advisory boards, etc. So, um, it's a wide range of data sets. Um I will start by just giving kind of a visual overview of of what the common themes were or what the data showed. Um so in this data set uh the major mayor's legislative authority 48% of those 20 that were surveyed um showed that uh the mayor votes in all matters and then the other was split between only breaking a tie or a tie in personnel related decisions. council committees uh 53% excuse me 52 of them uh utilize the council committee structure uh whereas

38% of them do not and then the others were either committees as a whole or they create them ad hoc as needed. Also when we look at kind of understanding our resident advisory boards uh one of the questions that has come up is whether we have too few or too many of our resident advisory boards. Uh we do have uh as you see uh this is the number of municipalities on the the y- axis and in the x. So we've got seven municipalities that have uh sevenish uh advisory boards. Um six that have between that zero to excuse me 10 to 19 advisory boards and so forth. So we fall into that zero to nine. We currently have six advisory boards and over 58 members uh that are appointed to those boards. So uh based on this data set I will also you might think that well based on the larger municipality they have the most advisory boards. That's not always a correlation. So actually the one that has 40 is Winston Salem. Um it is not Charlotte or Raleigh. Also a couple uh discussions have happened recently about terms going to any year elections and so forth. And so one of the things that you will see is 67% of the Thank you. All right. Terms of 67% of them uh showed that they have four-year terms whereas 19% show all two-year terms. Um,

and then the mix, what does that mean? There are some that have the the mayor as a two-year term and council as four-year terms or all as two-year terms. Uh, again, election type. So, there are some with with staggered terms um, and some where they all come up everybody up at once um, and so forth. And so I just felt like that was one of the things that was kind of asked for in the research, but since it has come up in recent conversations, I thought it would be helpful to to present that. So we will dive into council committees. Um kind of the purpose of council committees obviously is to ensure um you know and enhance policy review collaboration. It also allows you to present policies back um to council in a smaller setting um facil facilitate collaboration and also of course to strengthening strengthens governance. What the research showed statewide is that uh larger cities do use formal council committees. That was not something that um was an outlier. what was was kind of the the hybrid approach and there were very few cities that did not use council committees. So the larger cities that did not of course Greensboro and Durham being ones to note uh 12 of that 20 data set u showed that they used um some form of council committees in terms of the appointment authority for council committees. It is common in in these jurisdictions for the mayor to make appointments to council committees. Um it is less common for the full council in terms of council committees. So just to level set not resident advisory boards. This is just council committees. Um it is less common for the full council to make those council committee uh nominations and or uh the mayor's participation and size

varies across municipalities. There are some that have um a seat designated on the council committees uh for the mayor. Examples are Raleigh and Fateville. There are some that have the mayor appoint to the council committees and do not serve on them. Um, examples being Charlotte Asheville and Winston Salem. Um, very inconsistent with the with the data research. Um, there was no one one way fits for every jurisdiction. We are of note u smaller in terms of our committee size. Most of those that were surveyed had at least three or four members on a committee. Uh we've talked about that before. We get into quorum issues with the full council. Um but most have at least seven member councils when we look at that 20 data set. Um we we are small and as it relates to the size of our council. Um but most membership in council committees again falls into that three or four members. Uh, another thing that we looked at was kind of live streaming and whether you know currently we do not live stream our council committees. Um, and not to be confused with live streaming equals recording. Um, so live streaming is just real time. When the meeting adjourns that recording goes away. Um, there are some that just do live streaming only. There are others that do no streaming or recording which is what we have historically done. Um, and then there are some that that live stream and record. Again, it wasn't really a one way fits more than the other kind of split. And then in terms of meeting preference, we have historically scheduled kind of quarterly meetings with the committees unless there's a special meeting needed. So, one example would be the finance committee during budget season, etc. Um, that is not something that um we saw common. most of them had their

monthly meetings or every other month. Um, and if they didn't have an adopted schedule, then they just kind of called them ad hoc. So for us, the town of Apex, our current council committees, um, the rules committee, uh, which was a a former committee for the town of Apex, developed this structure. It was adopted unanimously by this by the council, uh, in March of last year and was set to be effective for January 1. uh 2026. Um this that structure was proposed to to remain the same. So it was uh two members uh continued was not recording or live streaming the meeting either. So they're still open uh the mayor making appointments to those committees and then continuing with the quarterly meeting cadence. As mentioned before, we will get to each section and we will have some discussion and decision points. So, at this time, uh, I'll turn it back over to you all on whether you want to continue with the council committee structure, if you do, who makes those appointments, uh, do you want to continue with the two member size committee? Um, whether the mayor participates in committees, whether you want them to be live streamed, and board meeting. You can go back to the other slide just so that we got that as discussion points. Thank you. Sure. Thank you for that research. Um I just want to go back to the December meeting when I made the assignments as I mentioned there. But we didn't, you know, kind of open figure it out. My reasons for putting myself on committees the way I did to to have in a different way and now I understand that there was

concerns with that looking at you. I really would like to serve And I got everything from hey defer the seniority um to the mayor you make appointments to I would like to be here or there. So I did my best and making those appointments based on the feedback that I received. So after the meeting of course you know we're here today concerns with how those uh assignments were made. I just want to say this with regard to the mayor participation. I'm not speaking for mayor. I'm speaking as mayor um once I decide to leave. I just want to make sure they have some engagement. That's very important and at the end of the day there is really no for still have to come back to. So with that it's just like we have work sessions very involved in that discussion. So um with all of that here's what I decided to do based on the concerns and I wanted to hold this until the meet because I wanted to see the feedback first. I want to get the research and really see what was I'm in practice with, you know, municipalities our size or even smaller to see how they handle this. And of course, I made my phone calls as well. So, thank you. So, what I'm going to do is pass around a draft of what I came up with past few months. Sorry about that.

I'm just going to start with the uh environmental leadership committee. And this is pretty much the same from December. And the reason I wanted to keep it that way is because we already have 10 We have some things we're discussing with data centers and things like that. No need to to move them away because I want to keep consistent. And then council member C has expressed interest from the beginning of leadership committee. So I want to keep that as well. The governance one grace and senior member of the council had expressed strong interest in being there. Councilman part of his financial skill set. I think also you know what it shows here is Councilman Gray and may approach him serving the finance board. So keeping gray there maintains that continuity over that section public safety. This is the one that I assign myself to for obvious reasons. I would really like to be a part of that and say any more about that. Council Ed Gray, same thing. Team effort and put that in. And then the last two, I left it open. I think this is opportunity for us to discuss it and have your opportunity to figure out which one should go where. So we have a team participation that you guys figure it out. So that's where I landed and then I'll add this too. I know there was a came up with the mayor be on any committees. Again, I just want to say for the office of the mayor, I think the mayor needs to be involved with

committees if that mayor decides to do so. So, this is where we are. So, discussion.

I'll jump in first that um knowing that my comments are not necessarily the most popular, but it's going to say what's on the line. Um, so you know, my thought on the mayor's participation in any of these committees is fairly simple, which is it it does not it does not bother me that the mayor is on any committee or even chair. It doesn't bother me. The thing that I'm most concerned about is whether or not there's form on these committees because ultimately these committees are there to focus the issues to be brought before the entire full body and if the discussion on town business and we've got a quorum there that defeats the purpose. So um you know to me the idea of you know two people two members on the structure you know as we uh as as we worked in with the uh with the rules committee u you know over a year ago I think that's a solid structure just to be able to propose these things um I think a big reason behind my view and it's my view and what the committees are there for committees are there to streamline issues not exclude the issues not drive the change not drive the issues they're streamline is because ultimately regardless of whether this is going through you know public safety or whether it's going through vibrant community it's still got to come before council as as a whole for discussion. The initial thought process behind this was, you know, I remember uh, you know, this was a an area that, you know, Terry and I went over, you know, took months on this one, which is as a council as a whole, we did not have a really good mechanism to be creative and to come up with ideas. Um, you know, we wanted to figure out how do we best allow a council member who's talked to somebody out in the community to be able to say, "Hey, I've got this idea. Let's figure out whether or not

this works." So it shifts the role of the committee to kind of a working committee where they would be working with the applicable departments to help narrow focus research and come up with uh you know recommendations to support or maybe even just say h that idea seems like a good idea but on balance isn't going to work. It's a way to help streamline the issues ultimately that get to council. A committee can't kill an idea. Only council. A committee can't approve an idea. Only council can. And that's why I when I look at the when I look at these committees from the perspective of the real work and not to say that the work of the committee isn't important, it's very important. But no one committee has the ability to create policy. It's still us. And that's and that's a responsibility that quite frankly you can't advocate. That's what you are like. Um so even if you're not, you know, um if you're not on any particular committee and you know my view on a committee, I'm flexible. Put me where you want me. I'm I've got no ego in this. So if you want to if somebody really wants public safety, uh I'm more than willing to step aside and take it. There's not a committee up here that I don't think I can contribute to. There's not a committee up here that I don't think is valid. Um, so if someone feels like they've got talent, time, and really a desire to do so, feel free to tell me. I'm more than happy to step aside. Not an issue at all. But I think it's really important for us to remember that the committees are there for the purposes of streamlining the issues for us. They are not policy creation mechanisms. That's all I got. ready for fights. Thank you for that.

Yeah,

um so appreciate the department as mayor coming back. That's um some changes to the structure and leaving some open for debate to hear. Um my understanding from what the risk committee had proposed and what we had adopted last year was that we wanted to start acting more like a bigger governing body where we would refer issues to committee for all the reasons that council member I would like to be able to be a little bit more creative have some interaction with staff do some research stuff that we can't really do on the fly you know you're a council. Um, which makes perfect sense. Um, but my understanding expectation is coming out of a committee that is a policy orations, you know, based on that research thinking that that's happening in a small team that then ultimately comes back to full counsel for adoption. Um, so far so good. Um the thing that I am unclear of and kind of pointed me in one way or the other right now it's pointing me in the direction of you know I'm happy with the mayor to participate in any and council uh as a participant but not as a you know quotequote building member eligible because I feel that if we are expecting the chair of the committee to put things in front of the committee for discussion or you know uh not bringing in front to the reasonable for discussion but I know those are you know some chair uh responsibilities that I think are unclear to me or may not even be defining. So if if a chair has a a role that can can move a

proposal forward in one way or another then I think it's important to consider the role of the mayor which is not a legislative role uh by you know designing that chart and so at that in that point or at that point it become problematic for the mayor to have a role as a you know in the legislative process as a chair or or vice chair. Um, so assuming that the committee chair has somewhat those privileges, my position has been that the mayor and again like I appreciate you pay the mayor, not about uh Mayor Sh Gilbert um cannot be part of that committee process in a voting capacity. Again, I have no problem the mayor being presently participating discussion make known. Um but not as a chair or vice chair. um again we can clarify the rules for you know what what the sheriff can or cannot do and maybe I'm not reading too much into it but again if I kind of look as what was proposed as we want to operate like a larger government where you know chairs of committees have certain privileges to to bring things up for discussion or not you know then I think it becomes important to to kind of separate church inside the states so to speak right and then you again at that point I don't think that the position of mayor can be in a a voting or patrolling position but that had been my my position I think based on how I understood in China to address

the intention rules committee was uh to process That was a result. If you got an idea what to do, how do you do you know that

the town manager or say agenda ad also has led to to events where stuff was going on. So there was two goals. one, it was to have a slow process, a deliberative process, but the intention I think it was still um mayor, I had a question for you because the way we tried to square the circle listening to your feedback listen concerns about legislative involvement was to put the mayor on every committee as a nonpol everything and you need to have the choice to go or not go whether you felt like you were relevant. Um my recollection is I thought we agreed on that and then later that didn't work. So my question why that still seems to be solution that kind of doesn't make everyone happy because she wants more. We're really concerned for that. That was a that was a sincere address you about wanting to work with us and just It was unconventional but it was was a lot in the process of what yeah again going back so far I think there's a lot of defining opinions that needs to be made clear. I want to go back to a question voting. So we we've had these committees before serial committee. Is there is there an actual formal vote? I mean you got two people on committee is that a vote is is if they both one must go this direction the other goes that direction what happens then so I'll speak to what has happened in the past and it doesn't happen often but what's happened in the past you know particularly in planning committee and others if there was a split vote or you

know or if there's not a split vote maybe there's zero saying no don't proceed with this it's always reported back out to council so as we've done in the past, you know, and there may be things that I'm not aware of prior to me getting here, but regardless whether it's a split vote or not, it always comes back to council vote. And so I think that's the other thing. It's also been practice at least from my perspective is when we were setting the agendas, I would reach out to all the committee members. So if it was planning committee, the former, I would reach out to Mayor Proim, Council Gant. You know, if it's a if it's a rules committee, then I would reach out to the two rules committee members. So, it's always been both members have had kind of full autonomy to add things to the agenda. You know, if they wanted to take things off and if the recommendation was split, it still come back to the full council. That's what's happened in the past.

And I think we would indicate I'm trying to think through a couple of examples where there's a split and we would say there was no recommendation from the committee and so staff would just bring the the base. And I know we in in finance we've had I don't want to say split but we've had I think kind of a moving down from four courses of action and basically kind of we're down to two and there those two are presented and I think I recall one time there was a conversation point where Terry advanced one position I advance the other position just so that we could get so that that could be fleshed out. And I think to me that was a great example of how these committees should work which is you know we even when we are recommending using finance as an example you know uh a certain fiscal position all of the other courses of action are still present. So you may get the three present three issues that were discussed recommendation on course of action one course of action two and course of action are still presented um and then ultimately there may be thinking

essentially three courses of action majority and council for being on one side and g being on another side. So, it's not unusual for us to be in a position where that happens. But to me, the the beauty is being able to narrow that down from seven forces of action, the five courses of action we come in, talk about, and debate three in a reasonable way, even if everyone knows about the prior seven. My other question is this. So, the mayor's office has an idea wants to put something on the agenda on the agenda for the full council.

Can that be done?

Yes.

And the the rules of procedure says that yes, the clerk is directing the place on the

implement any ideas doors doors put on the agenda, but it could only be couldn't be that kind of rule.

Yes. So have to and then it'll be eligible to be adopted.

And and the you know the pill for that is if we're coming up with something we want to make sure that we've had at least a good staffing process where we may came up you know I may come up with a great idea as we start to talk about it. Marty's in the back going whoa uhuh no way. It's important to make sure that I just use your money, but but it's there just to make sure that we aren't missing any critical steps along the way. Um, and that's why when we look at the the the committee structure as it was proposed, these are groupings that are kind of shared by a portfolio, but to make sure that we've got good staffing to help vet the issue before it gets back to us for decision

point. Um, and I think that's that to me is always the important thing we're make sure that we're reminding ourselves about, which is decision point still comes back to us. Decision point still comes back to us. The job is to limit the colorless forces of action. Limit the colas so that when it gets in front of us, we're not sitting here trying to figure out between 18 things what to do. We got five, three, maybe two courses of action that have been well researched that we have confidence that everybody on the staff has had a chance to have their say because it's important to know that if you know Demetria says that's a stupid idea, we've got somebody who said that and we want to be able to hear that voice um before moving forward. And that's that's that's the the purpose of these committees. Once again, narrow, refine the issues, present the issues, but not create but not you don't create the policy. You'll help us decide what the policy is. Am I overstating that, Terry? that that to me seemed to be incredible where I would kind of reach out.

You go back to the slide the uh municipalities that have the Maryland. So this is those that have committees. Um this is the legislative authority, you know, for for mayors that that vote. um in the memo that was shared with you all that includes um the municipalities that have the mayor on the committees. Um and I think

oh right here yeah but this is appointment. So this is not this is just who appoints people to the committees not that the mayor is serving on the committee you know. So for example the Charlotte mayor makes the appointments

but does not serve on them. the Rollins mayor makes the appointments but serves on committees. So, it's it's inconsistent. It really depends on what you all prefer. What was common though was that the mayor at the appointment of council committees. Is this a fivey year? Yeah.

So, so again going back to question and concern if I wanted fresh local ice cream to be delivered to all 85,000 residents once a month. There's no way that can get approved unless it goes to

correct. But that would be the same for any council member as well.

Correct.

And you know that's why if you want to do that and not saying I'm supportive going to say it sounds like a damn good idea. Uh you know what the the the discussion point once that would be brought up at a council meeting would be okay which committee is that going to be referred to for further vetting. Um and then that committee whichever committee would get would be directed to look into the issue. They would then have the responsibility of saying all right hey you know 30 days 60 days whatever the time frame it's set they come back and say your idea to give ice cream to everybody is a great idea. We can't do fresh because that would be showing undue favoritism and unlawful contributions to one particular business. So our recommendation is break it up amongst eight or nine different you know local businesses that are willing to provide ice cream. That's the sort of recommendation we would give. You know, that's why we would have the committee look into it because we might have legal say, "Yeah, we like the idea of ice cream, but identifying one particular business may have these consequences." Or we'll have economic development say, "Hey, that's great, but if you do it with fresh, our non-down businessoriented ice cream manufacturers

may be hurt." Or we may have, you know, the meter in community development say uh or somebody from community development say hey you know Brewers is uh is AAPI owned we may want to emphasize that. So those are the sort of courses of action that we would then get a chance to say all right which sides do we want to balance for if we want to give the ice cream and of course Sean is going to say we can't give ice cream because it cost so much money.

I like ice cream. Um, so let me ask you a question and I think that's maybe your question about like voting what kind of voting should happen right so what what is the role like do we have a defined role a chair of a privileges and authority are off that position. Um again like I I my primary concern is about putting the role of mayor in the legislative process by having a controlling function within a if that doesn't exist I think that takes you know some of my concern does again that was kind of my understanding of how the proposal was set out looking at larger governments it's not necessarily this this is set but you I think are more that was kind of my understanding of where so I would say the process that we described is actually new but all works at the same level I tell you historically in Apex many meetings have been trying to build a fine but not specific ordinance of a generally speaking was early direction

for staff and state stuff and winner at the state level. There's a volume issue where you get 800 some bills to find anyone have 50 of them. The committee chair would or they would have which ones be on the agenda given the limit they have. That's where it comes from. Something could just sit on a backlog because the community share defin that's state level model and uh it hasn't specifically defined how that process work here started doing. So essentially it also depends on what our rules are like you can imagine at the state level a no vote in the committee kills the bills unless it's pulled from committee by by a full body. So it would be referred to a committee and if it's not favorable they would be dead favorable and a lot of times have serial committee A favorable B favorable C and then back to those bodies. So again that's really complicated. It's the way they deal with um you know you imagine a bill or an ordinance that deals with multiple maybe it goes to community engagement to talk about the ice cream entities and then it goes to finance talk about cost of it and they each have their their their slices that they evaluate and they they look favorable nonfavorable. So we could do that could not do that could be something that's process put in place if the volume of suggestions is such that the uh process that we have at school I

mean my thought is that we're not getting that level of value I mean I I I I think that I think it's incredibly important to understand that our committee system unlike the general assembly committee system is built to move things forward. I mean, I really do think it's a presumption to move things forward. Not doing that just, you know, to dump on the the general. So, but I mean, the their process is built to

take 50 ideas and get rid of 40 of them. Whereas our process, I think from our tone and intent from accepting and kind of taking the spirit of how our council operates, it's much more of a all right, we come up with idea one. How do you make idea one as good as you can get and then give everybody an opportunity to vote up or down as opposed to all right, how do you take idea one? No, we're where can I can I'm sorry. Can I ask one more question? Out of the uh the research you made, are there any cities and towns that have that state government model, state, do it that way?

I I did not see that in the research. Um I think you know one argument could be made that you know maybe a larger municipality like Charlotte or or Raleigh may do things

Yeah. that way not based on their meeting cadence just based on their meeting cadence alone it's once a month for both of those so you know I think that the volume but I don't think the volume is really the question I think it's the the role of the committee membership and the role of the chair that's really what what seems to be kind of the hold up here so it sounds I mean just to to recap because I know we've got several other sections it sounds like there's still interest to retain some standing committees um Obviously the membership size is two. So we you know we know that you can't have more than that. Um who who makes appointments and and the list that's been proposed you know need some direction on that. Um

I think more information about the roles

we I don't want to keeping the ball down the field here. I think we need to make some decisions run when it you know it doesn't work we can force priority along the way and I don't want to you know

over this crowds come home um so I would ask them so I mean and I hear you know the comments a lot of right like these communities are not set up to kill those apparently they're meant to be um so with that let's fill out the rest of the the sheets Um I I think the only the only thing that would be good in my head and then kind of thinking back to meeting um you know the mayor you made your your recommendations we didn't really have time to work on it or you know give our pumps out necessarily right like it was kind of like final discern so let's uh let's move forward um you know can we treat this as we likely treat the the advisory board committee where you make your recommendations. There's some debates and discussion as how you confirm the the the nominations and that's the structure of

yeah I mean you know don't have any issues with that. Um we were just going pretty much by what we've done in the past not that's that's right you know but uh it was going you know fair appointment pretty much yet and what what I what I'm concerned about and we going to have to get deep into that and and we may talk about this with resource at at some point we have to really understand what is the mayor's involvement and and does it carry any type of because if I'm making a recommendation every time you guys say we don't want that I say you but I'm just for the office of the mayor we got but but I'm I'm more than happy yeah in the future whenever I'm all about team play this opportunity right here we got you know two

committees discussion do this. So four open spots. So I would say with that change that council confirms change there chairman happy vice chair receman vice chair round

unless someone wants to take one of my spots behind I'm always open.

So can I repeat that now please? Okay. So, um, environmental leadership, governance, fiscal stewardship, and internal support and public safety as presented, responsible development, mayor promappy as chair, council member Ree as member for vibrant community and economic vitality, council member Ree as chair, council member second.

Okay. Zigman is chair and then move. We can confirm it.

All right. Perfect. Um so resident advisory boards I won't I won't get into this but u really you know the purpose of them um as we talked about it's really about the appointment process that we're discussing here. So uh in the recent appointments that have been made one of the things that um has been modified in the process is kind of collecting the elected official nominees um and then having a mayor

recommendation. Um so just kind of outlining our current workflow um is we obviously recruit, we'll review, we'll determine whether they meet the residency requirement, ETJ, colonel property tax, those kinds of things, uh distribute the packets, get nominees from the elected body, um receive the mayor's recommendation, and then ultimately action on a council agenda. Um there were four primary models in this research that popped up. Um they are outlined here. Um one of the 21 uh denotes that the mayor has the full responsibility to appoint resident advisory boards. Um unless council directs otherwise. As you can see that was a less common model. Um there are two municipalities where the mayor has designated seats. Um whereas council member has the other designated seats. Um that pops up in in two two municipalities. Um what what is uh common uh not the most common is our current practice which is the mayor recommends that council appoints um the full elected body has say so um so everybody provides provides one one name and then for the majority it proceeds um and then only the council um sticks to those municipalities. So um those are the fi four primary models. Um again with the elected body having the most and the most common practice followed by council only and then our practice which is the mayor recommends that council appoints. Um another thing that came up recently was whether to conduct interviews. Um in doing this research a majority of them do not conduct interviews. Um and some do. Um the cases in which they do or where there's a split nomination. So whether it's, you know, three and three, they can't pick on a name, you know, pick determine somebody. And so they'll interview the candidates hopefully to narrow down um

their selection. Um also some, as we've talked about previously, will have specific boards in which they will interview for. So if it's planning board, if it's board of adjustment, um in some jurisdictions, they have a library board of trustees. Um and so they designate that board as the candidates have to be interviewed before they are even up for a nomination. Um again looking at our our current board size um we are kind of on the on the lower end in terms of the number of our boards. Um most municipalities have less than 20. Um but again they kind of fall into that um larger range. And again the the population size does not dictate um the number of boards because again this kind of 40 plus is Winston Salem um which is obviously not the the largest municipality in the state. So, a couple of decision points. Um, we have three and that is the process for appointing advisory board members. Whether you you want it to continue to be kind of the mayor recommends council appoints, whether you like the nomination process that's happened over the last two sets of appointments that have come up. Um, whether you want to have formal interviews and if you do, um, do you want to designate what boards go through a formal interview process? Um, or only if there's time regardless of the board. Um and then whether we need to evaluate our advisory boards. You know, fortunately, we we've just done a restructuring of our advisory boards. So, I think, you know, from our perspective is is probably no. Um at this point on whether we need to to add advisory boards, but we certainly want to revisit that and see if there's any direction from this this body. Um we we did spent a lot of time kind of consolidating boards um about a year ago. And so, um again, just wanted to revisit that. So there are

thank you for that. I just say I like it set up

and what I'll say is I like the direction we're going to where the information is as quickly as you can get it to us. We all have an opportunity to look at all the uh see only concern in what has happened at the latest that point is I don't like changing the process mid right in the middle we had that one that we had we had two that went forward because it was I guess. So I guess we have to figure out what are we doing about that to go back to the city.

So my understanding is that there was interviews that were requested. So based on this work session whether you all want to set whether planning board um nominees go through an interview process or not that's our next step. But the way was left was that there was interviews to be held between those top two candidates. If you all don't want to do interviews and that has changed um then it'll be put back on the council agenda for further direction.

Okay. So just to follow up with that I just trying to understand why was it just those two and and we had other press forward. So a strategy was 25%. I think that's a I think that's a decision for you all because that's what you've all decided. That was another

can I say um I don't have a problem with uh the mayor make recommendation but um but in the situation like if the uh recommendation is uh you know um it's very different from the majority of the council's re recommendation or there is a tie you know between two candidates in this kind

situation. I think we should introduce the interview process.

Yeah. I just want to make clear. Yeah. The tide and and I know council ree he actually nominated two people because I think I don't know process was you could nominate two numbers. Um yeah and so I'm kind of thinking back to my appointment where the process was very similar as the way that we do the advisory board now but it was a clear like you know everybody gets you know seven stickers put on the boards right and so right now we've kind of interpreted as like everybody gets one vote or you know for position basically now has taken some some liberty with that right but just kind of throwing numbers a little bit so if if you kind of clarify that that's that coding mechanism then I think it's it's overall a solid process. I really like the way that we have much deeper background and then how the you know the the applications have have you know are running richer in detail. So I think we're down generally have done a great job. um interviews it can be you know um I think for the statutory boards it makes sense like I think those are really important and then you know maybe the other boards you know the case of you know want to make a decision because you think you want to do a lot that would be And I guess the process going back to this again whatever process we come up with what is the mayor's role engagement.

So I I will speak to it in the research when interviews were conducted they the council would establish an ad hoc interview committee and so whoever serves on that interview committee um that's certainly at the discretion of this body. So I think if you know planning board that there wants to be interviews conducted you want to do it as a full council as interviews you're welcome to do that but what is a common practice is where they will create an ad hoc committee to interview the candidates and make a recommendation back to the full council. I'm just that's what the research shows. So here's my canvas thoughts on this. This is once again not public view, but my presumption has always been that before the mayor was providing us names to vote on that the mayor was actually doing the thing. That that was always my presumption. Whether that was an interview, whether that was a phone conversation, I don't think that the recommendation to us should is is is without due diligence. That's always been my thought process. Um, you know, ultimately presented to us and I like the process now where, you know, we're getting an opportunity to say, "Hey, mayor, there's some names that we also like." I think that puts the presumption on us to do the due diligence. Um, so I I tend to say that the interview process is probably not necessary because I don't think we should be recommending names that we had to work on. That's just me. I there's I refuse. If someone comes up to you and says, "I need a job recommendation." You're not just giving a recommendation to anybody without saying because that's your name on the line. That's your recommendation

and anybody I'm putting my name behind I I do so with full gusto. If someone is not getting my recommendation that's also send a clear signal too. But I'm never putting my name out there for anybody aside that at least willing to say, "Nope, I'm willing to stand with that person." And that and that's been my that that has been my understanding of kind of how or maybe I'm polyiana in this, but that's my understanding as to how these appointments should have been coming from the mayor and from others. You're giving us a recommendation. You're putting stuff behind. And and if I can add to that council with year six, year seven, whatever all the recommendations have been made for president or three in September last year and so I don't know where we're maybe it's it's a terminology. The way I took it was like you said nine out of 10 nine 9.5 out of 10 appointments are are without problem. And so the way I took council member Moo's comment was there was it came down to two and trying to decide. So not necessarily doing a formal interview process but allowing each of you if you wanted to have a meeting with those two individuals. So if council member wanted to meet with the two that were in consideration, she could go meet with those two and then come back and have in her opinion an informed vote because she's now talked to those individuals. But if you were fine with it, you don't have to. You don't have to. Whoever wanted is is how I took that vote, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I took it as you wanted further due diligence on your behalf to talk to the two candidates that were there and you wanted to afford your colleagues that opportunity should they choose to do that. I actually um I think we either uh need a ad hoc committee to do the interview or the council do the interview because you know those are a

kind of important roles we need uh be you know uh need to be cautious and pick the right candidate. Yeah.

So there's one point on the interview that I think brought up is um I've been kind of moving towards trying to empower the making I think an interview process public interview process people that want to tune in and watch lend sort of some legit to it you know sworn in that's once the outcome is known to the appointment I'd like to invite them in actually swear them in right after we do it Again, let me tell you something like I'm trying to make these feel like a weighty important thing that citizens want to get involved. Um, so I'll just leave that out there. I personally have not felt involved in this process over the past seven years. I've wanted to vive ways to do this or this way not able to come to us being the mayor is not doing um you know I think what we do now is great. have the interviews to them there some no candidates get a majority I think that can trigger the interview process not add the mayor and then we get do the interviews and then the other change I'd make is that the council when we're voting candidates should be voting by that's how councils supposed to do answer your question right beyond you know uh survey with the rest of us being a committee, the chair of a committee all the way up until the end and then make recommendations do the ballots. If it's a contested vote, which is one, the other ones where we know the outcome, even if it's like, you know, a split vote, we know this person could point,

you can still invite them up, point them, do the swearing in, do the thing. Um, I would ask my colleagues to consider that to make this feel like a a weighty process that's that's transparent, that's public, that's important, that these additions um you go through something, it means a lot. And we have considered all the stuff in

Yeah. And I want to hear you say clear, but my thing is why did we just start it right now? That's just didn't it just take place got everything together to work on find the process and then started with a new whatever mayor we tried we tried we tried to come up with a process but but you and I couldn't come to an agreement so we kic down the road for for the uh resc Okay. So, but what's Go ahead.

I was just going to say I think in terms of the interview piece because that was a recent situation that come up. It it is something that that we need to you all need to talk about and provide us with direction because when there is a tie what is the next step does it majority vote over rules? Is it you know does it go to an interview process? I think that's why it because it recently came up as a suggestion of going to an interview. That's where we left it is that those two candidates would be interviewed. I included it in the data set to see okay well does other municipalities even do interviews? Um and so while again it's a common practice that they don't, there are still some that do. Um and again defining what that looks like. I know that what's been mentioned here is that there would be interviews conducted, but it's also been thrown out whether we would just do that for statutoily required boards or would we do that for

all boards or only when there's a time?

Yes.

Um so you didn't.

So it's only going to come up once a year.

Yeah. It's going to be situations where it's probably going to be an open seat where there's lot of opponents. But I think in most cases I'm fine with doing it for other boards as well. I just think it won't come up that often for other boards. And I think what you can do is people can change the vote if you don't want to trade process for the arts boards. Well, you know, people have to do that. I think what uh what Council Ree said is fine as well. Thanks so much. You'll vote for zero, one or n positions and just whoever gets the majority out of them. As long as we know that's the whole like as long as doing consistently fine, dude. You know, everyone's fine, vote for them all. You don't want to get

Yeah. if you don't mind me speaking to that really quickly. That was my understanding of the process was the opportunity to weigh in and say, "Hey, these are people I sign off on." And however, my colleagues um priorities um end up sifting that that would um that the decision would be self-evident at that point. I want to back up really quickly and say I know this is um tense where we're at right now, but it is I just want to zoom out and say what a great problem to have. We have so many talented committed people who are willing to take time out of their lives to come do thankless works. And so that is um so and then the next thing I'll say though on the on the perhaps more rubber meets the road aspect of it is I do believe that the interviews would work well for statuto boards and the tying down issues because especially with their statuto boards

I can read a resume and read feedback from someone and to your point a moment about job interviews there's been times when I've thought a candidate was a certain candidate, a predisposition and then you know perhaps I was underwhelmed and then we meet them and we realize my goodness this is a this person is on point and also the other direction too right something can look really good on paper um and the reason I say that for the statuto boards is because there's a lot of public speaking there's a lot of um asking of questions and um I think that there are certain personalities that fit um better in those position ways than others. Uh the last thing I'll say just is that uh I think that if we're able to reconcile things today, we will have a improved process moving forward. Um and I think that we should be kind to ourselves in the fact that we'd had um several people who were comfortable um uh in these positions um and then we'll now have the discussion. The other thing I'll say is that um I don't want these I don't want people to feel like um pawns like they're just being washed around because they're uh caught up in the process. Um, and the good news is we've got great candidates who will, I'm sure, find their way with boards some point, if not now, in the next cycle, uh, as folks rotate off.

All right, so we're back at just for the record, I'm good with interviews. I don't have one yet. I was just trying to understand how we got to see this at this

just for the record the numbers you when you display the numbers at that council meeting it was his council count

no because I didn't receive a submission on that

at that time I have since gotten that submission

um okay so what I'm hearing is to keep the the mayor recommends council points. Um having formal interviews for statutoily required boards and only for others if there's a tie nomination. Um and then going from there.

One more question. Is there a standardized process? How does that work? Like where you

for interviews?

Yes.

I think that's TBD. I mean because this will be the first one. So is the intention of everyone to interview all I mean so what I heard you say was different than I had to interview only for size for all signing board and then

I'm okay with that just to kind of get get out of date we really love the process and this is something that we want to do more universally but again we can we can scale but uh I also want to make sure that we're not overcommitting and now we're interviewing like 16 candidates for two positions I say I would say the rule

that I think popped in my head from this discussion was if no candidate gets a majority we're going to interview the nominated candidates or multiple candidates get the majority because multidority just sort of like whittle down like so if 50 people apply we all between us come up with seven different names no one actually

well I just also wanted to put forth. I'm I would be happy to be part of a process where I like you said a minute ago just have one s um and one vote on the ballot. Um I think that that may be that is a a change from what my understanding was in terms of these recommendations. But if that makes things smoother, I think that

I think that if you're if we're doing interviews, I don't see a problem with your

with with the way that you did. I mean honestly I think with that as an understanding I think it basically says

we gota make it universal. Yeah, you got

I would say that approach is necessary in the situation,

but we get 30 applicants and you don't have a yes on all of them. No one will get

exactly almost impossible, right? Like when you have five maybe when you have a lot the problem you want to have, you sort of have to be able to check them all once or you won't be able to still have like you know there.

Yeah. So I mean you we have to do it that way if we get large numbers.

So just to clarify so a vote is basically a yes no vote on each candidate like I would be okay with this candidate or I'm not okay with this candidate. So it's kind of independent of the number of open positions, right? So if there's one position for two position, eight applicants, you know, we get basically eight votes, right? And it's either binary, it's either, you know, yay or nay and you know, outcomes a majority or not that if the tie or no majority, we go to the

Yes.

That's what we discuss, right? only in the situation of high majority from we all get you know basically as many votes as there's candidates on for the position you vote for all of them that's the same as I ask about validating like it sort of bugged me for a Uh wait for make appointments.

You sway me I can do balance.

Yeah. And that's again only for the contest once.

They can't be anonymous.

Cannot be anonymous.

No you would read them for the simultaneous. It's not I passed them out collected them and then read them.

Okay. All right, we're moving on to um

maybe something like the rules.

Yeah,

that's about it.

Thank you.

Just clarity. Am I involved with I think when we do interviews

I think whoever wants to do it raise your hand do it. And and quick gut check really quick on I have to say we're talking about going to people that are volunteering to be on a board and we're going to say you don't have majority support from the council and now we want you to go through an interview process to see if we want to select you for a non-paying position. I I just to your point, Council Member Mafy, I hope you guys can work to avoid a tie because I think if you get to a tie and you have to force people to go through an interview, we are either a very fortunate community where people will be still willing to participate or you're going to go back to those people and they're going to say, you know what, if I don't have support, give it to the other person

I would say I would say this is this is a very important position that has authority and you're gonna just like get the perception is there already.

Yeah,

is that's what I'm concerned about.

Yeah, I wish uh we can have more openings and more uh advisory boards for the you know for our great residents because I know they're eager to participate and contribute. Yeah.

So, so that is the question. I mean is there any desire to evaluate?

I like the number of boards that we have. Okay. I like being able to give the boards the ability to appoint

subcommittees as necessary. And then do we want to have a number of boards expand? I think with regard to there are some boards that I think are automatically expanding and contracting based upon the number of participants. I don't think we ever told anybody, but you can't be on Earth's advisor.

Yeah. I mean, if they're not appointed to the board, then they're

right. But most people Yeah. I mean, most people are like, it's like, you get that sort of thing.

Okay. So, I'll I'll summarize this and we'll make sure that we're all on the same page. Um, okay. Elected official financial policy. Um, so a couple things that have come up is that we don't we have obviously a financial policy for account staff. We don't have one for elected officials. And then um, so just wanted to kind of talk through some best practices. Again, this was also included in the research. Um, it's also included some best practices from the school of government as well as um, just standard um, financial controls across the state. So we'll look at these five categories. PE cards, mileage and meals, lodging training and documentation. So again, these are best practices from the school of government and from the peer communities. Um, in terms of PE cards, and again, I won't I won't hit all of these bullets. Um, it is uncommon for elected officials to have PC cards. Um, what is common is for there to be a department card that obviously is checked out. Um and then uh also a recommendation of kind of a limit set um for if you are checking out a card what can be spent. Um and then mileage. Um what is proposed in the memo that you all received was kind of having a determined boundary area. Um I felt like that was cleaner versus having a

particular mileage. Um some jurisdictions said 100 100 miles you know round trip. Um in in the memo it defines Johnson, Chadam, Durham, and Wake um as being those uh areas that would be covered under your existing stipen. So not eligible for mileage reimbursement. Um and then if anything outside of that would be of course reimburseing the IRS rate in terms of meals, um obviously only when it's conducting public business and defined as official functions. Um inside that four county area boundary the cycle would cover unless again as defined as official function. Um also as it relates to meals you know similar to employees you would get an advanced meal siphon or pdium. um if you're going out of town or you know an event is coming up in which meals are not provided. U lodging we don't we don't have really a big issue with that here. Um but it did come up in some of the policy research and so it was common for the county in which a municipal municipality set they would not um have lodging unless there was um kind of a defined emergency or accommodation. Um and then travel and training. What was common in municipalities was to have kind of a cap per member um defined um and then any out ofstate travel requiring the council's approval before doing so. Um and then stipens um here and what is common is that there is a siphon issued. Um what what did pop up in several policies was um kind of this tier for food and events that is covered under siphons. Um and then again defining reasonable expenses um directly tied to town business etc. um looking at town halls, office hours,

and community meetings. Obviously, those being covered um by the town um and and what those limits are per meeting and then whether you all want to have a an annual limit per member um and then of course documentation and receipts need to be provided. So, if you have your phones, please

Oh, no, no. I was gonna say was parking per.

So, uh that is in the mileage survey that I've got um pulled out, but uh for most most it is in a memo that that parking is considered like taxis, you know, those kind of things within that four boundary areas is covered under the site.

I just want to go on record say this um with regard to the PE card. the P card that when I took the office in 2019, I was in my office. The town clerk at that time opened my office and said, "Hey, by function, you get a P card. Here it is." I didn't ask for one. Never asked one. Obviously, I had one employee here. So, I just wanted that to be known. I didn't request PE. Make that clear. I don't have a problem with giving up my PE bar.

Okay, everybody good? Good.

All right.

Perfect.

Okay. So, if you will scan this QR code, um there's some questions uh for for policy considerations and then I will display the results. Um it it outlines about six or seven things. So if people will scan this

I need to I need to say

I'm gonna have to walk up here.

You're prepander than I did.

And you did you get it? Let's come back.

Yes.

I have a question about the two.

The four the four boundary area. Is that within that area you're not entitled the reimbursement?

Correct. Okay. Correct. community meetings. So, uh, in the in the memo, it talks about, um, if you have community meetings where all members of the public are invited and or all members of the elected body, um, for a particular purpose, um, funds can be used, but then there's reporting, you know, who was who was invited, who was who attended, and then what was the purpose of it. And if it's over a certain threshold, then it requires

and only if approved.

Correct.

You won't.

Okay. So, thank you for your patience with the question. If a somebody has a cost and they want to pay it,

it doesn't fall under one of those

one of these

or you exceeded it. They never comes to you all for action.

What's the pro? I'm just trying to figure out what the logistics of that is. It's sent to you. You then go to I mean obviously we could send to you all before you got two responses. Is it possible you go back the site amounts

the siphons for the current siphon?

So is it a different sip than you received today?

Correct. Yes. In addition,

no. So this is tiered food limits. So this is not the actual site. This is up to this amount it should be covered under your siphon.

Okay. Oh, that's interesting.

Correct. So your siphon would cover things in this category.

Is that per event or is that per month?

Correct. For event. Okay.

So you achieve And is there a monthly limit?

Um, in this it talks about

annual

annual. Okay. Six. Okay. So, um, first question, should elected officials be issued a V card? Um, one said yes, three said no. use department only and two said no reimbursement only.

Second supportive of the four county boundary area. Um majority supported yes going with that area. Should there be member caps on travel training and events? Yes. here for that stipen levels retain the current siphon amount. A majority said to continue to retain that. Um she said to increase the current those two.

Do I?

It's okay. I said okay uh just I chose uh keep the current amount but I said allow those two voted to increase. And then um what should the item cover? So um five said the needles local travel and then community meeting supplies. So again and then five people said that and then should town funds be used to support and then check all that apply. um office hours, task force meetings, community meetings only if approved. Um and then promotional materials. Any questions on mutual op? So what's the implication of this?

So this will help inform what goes in the policy. So based on your direction here is how we will draft the policy for you all to consider. Um,

go ahead.

So based, so for one example, should elected officials have a PC card? It'll be in the policy that they do not because the majority.

So here's here's one thing that I do want us to consider is that, you know, we have different stipens. you know, many time gets I think $8, not more than the rest of us and many gets a little

bit more presumably because they have more expensive than the average. Um so if there is a challenge on what the statement should cover or how much it should cover um I think we need to make a look at the amount of site you know especially mayor versus town right the biggest because the mayor does attend more functions that we do presumably has more like parking expense things like that right so rather than policy around what is in and what is I think it's probably for us to you know look at where excitement levels are you know mayor council members to make sure that it covers the expenses that we generally understand to be and you know because I see a lot of fight which I presume Mr. mayor is using like um I have expenses that are not here right and so I do want to acknowledge that you know we can accommodate that outside of a policy but through the appropriate level for function

okay

I agree

so would it be helpful to kind of look at get results on what pure

and and also I think it would be good to just get input from from from the mayor. I said like here's how much you know here's how much I got to spend every month so that we can better accommodate because I I mean I I don't think my sip should be the same amount just others may be otherwise I um really if you just once you had that slide could you go back one I just wanted to um put some words to the reason why I voted for this right here was this specifically is if you've got

town hall community meeting limit of $400 um just I feel like that should round up to even $1600 if you're having a quarter

one a quarter that just felt unprincipled it felt so inongruent okay thank you for Okay. All right. Next section is elected official with press releases um and what was seen in our peer communities. Um so again the purpose is that these are best practices. So, it's obviously not a a policy, but um it is common for uh staff to see um or to have and go by a social media policy. Um it's inconsistent for elected officials to have said social media policy. What was common is that there be um an official social media archiving through the through the municipality and also um

okay that's okay. Um and then press release standards um inconsistent um and then branding inconsistent. So what does that mean? Obviously um you all the dos and don'ts just as a reminder you're not going to discuss legal matters you're not discuss confidential information um it's to engage with the community you're not going to delete comments from a post um etc. And then if you will and we've got some decision points for

question correctly. Is it official social media accounts or unofficial social media?

I need a new phone. children. That's how it

I think an official account an account is where it says, you know, um, council member Arno Zerman rather than just your own personal. you give the impression that an official account.

This may be a topic. Is there a desire to have I think it's probably good to have official accounts. So like if you go to the White House page, it's it's the White House page, but each president basically occupies that page during that time period. And then after they're done, their stuff gets archived. The White House page continues. That's an official change.

I would say what what is common at least for those that have a social media policy for you say best practices for elected officials is that it's it's distinguished that it's your official page. It's a disclaimer um that's noted that hey this is this is not representative of the entire body in which I um sit on. This is my views. Um, this is my official town page. Obviously, it's subject to public records law, etc. Um, but I wouldn't see that page continuing over to to your, you know, someone else fills that seat, it's really there, not not the same.

Um, number 11 says engaging with town staff via social media. That is count members of council engaging in official or unofficial. Either way, this is all-encompassing, right?

Like if you tag like if you know that Diane does planning and someone comments on your page, are you going to tag her in it?

Thank you. Uh number four, may elected officials issue individual press statement. What does this I mean um can you clarify what kind of individual press you know uh statement?

So if you if you put out an official statement that says from the office of council member move, are you going to are do you think that that's okay? One, and then two, do you feel like if you do that, you need to notify your your colleagues? Okay. So this is personal not like um only from me not from the you know elected body.

That's been what's been confused I think in the past is that when when you issue a statement issue council member it is viewed as you the town of Apex council member.

Got it. Thank you. This one is confusing. I I don't

This is the last

I am so worried about the definition. Thank you.

I mean I I mean what do you mean

again? Best practices and what is perceived as your official account.

What are the consequences?

It's up to you all. If you don't follow it,

yeah,

I think there's a I think there is a a good thing desire that you all would kind of adhere to each other's desires and wishes. Um but you you choose not to discontent something you know is accounts and I make a statement that seems to come to the or be an official statement that commits us to doing something and how I'm supposed to personal opinion or you know, you know, like anything here is personal opinion only, right? And so something that, you know, the public cannot tell apart from town business. So are we, you know, inadvertently committing ourselves to something or, you know, creating a liability for town through our communications, you know, in their private channel. And so because I I think if we have official communications and they they should go through town channels like officially town maintains, social media, presses, whatever, instead of coming from individual elected officials. And so that's that's really where I think it's good to separate the two and make it very clear. This is my personal page. You getting my

personal opinion here. You get my read of the council meeting from last night instead of you know this is an official statement on behalf of the town. Right? And like if we start blurring those lines, I think you know we create confusion amongst the public. Um and then again potentially creates reliability and I think the 13 president that's I would like to

there's um 11 and 12

engaging with town staff with social media that is confusing for example if some um you know if I made announcement like that this data center right we approved uh that um resolution unanimous And if some you know uh residents ask why is one year not longer so I I can just based on my understanding you know or consult you know u lori and answer I don't have to engage with the tongue

right

so it's confusing right

so so this is what what do you prefer as a practice I think like what we explained to counc is do you think it's acceptable to engage with town staff Would you tag a staff staff member in your post?

Maybe you don't have to. It's bothering others. Yeah, but I Yeah, but I do think if um the question and answer regarding you know Tom business like as a whole like uh the question I just you know uh I mentioned I consulted Lori for my answer to make sure it's you know correct and not misleading. So I think this should be you know um the the practice right if we speak on behalf of the town something right

so that would be kind of getting to this one whereas you would redirect it to an official town email right

but I answer on my social media because the comment is on my social media post you know and I don't have if I receive the emails it's easier right I also Yes, I received emails asking questions. I consulted Lori and then I replied you know directly to that uh resident that is from email but on Facebook I just you know uh replied the comment directly after I consulted with Lori. So how do you you know um make this clear? I I don't think it's clear in these questions. So you you would not engage with town staff via social media. You wouldn't have tagged Lori in it and said, "Hey,

right." This is asking is that okay to

Okay, then. No.

Right.

It's confusing. Yeah.

Don't tag me. I won't see it.

And some const may not have social media accounts,

right? But those that do. Yeah. It's

not because some you know some town step they don't want to be bothered.

Correct.

Right. Yeah. Because the residents sometimes ask irrelevant questions. Right. Right. Okay.

Question like what like create a policy with

it's not policy. It's not policy. It's a best practice guidelines.

Best practice guidelines.

Yeah. Like that better.

Okay. So, so he's just trying to gauge what you you all would like to see in your best practices so that he can work on drafting this document.

Right.

It's and then it needs to go through legal review because as you acknowledge there are uh first amendment protections that you all have not lost just because you have run for and been elected to

office. So, um, and then, you know, I'd have some recommendations, but

we hear them.

Um, I think it's problematic to try to direct a council person or mayor to have a statement on their social media that says, "Hey, I'm just speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anybody else." Because that can be viewed as coerced speech and violating the First Amendment. So, what I would say is that the town itself um at the council's direction should be the ones saying, "Hey, if you want the official town take on something, here's our website. Here's our social media, blah blah blah blah. If you if you want the town's official position on something, if you want to know what council member Gray thinks about something or council member Reese, then you know, sure, reach out to their social media. But if you want the official anything, you need to be reaching out to the town.

Thank you.

Uh yes, I think do we have one category like If one of the council members or the mayor make announcement on the social media, you know, like um mayor of Apex, you know, council of Apex, member of Apex, right? Um if anything town related, you know, um can how do I read this? Yes. Um this um you know a person should post the fact correct information if not sure consult the staff or attorney before posting if just personal thing like I went there you know meet somebody I

talked to some residents it's fine right but like t official business stuff it should be correct No miss um no you know a personal opinion with inside that message post that's do we have any here in in your question I don't I don't see it

no because I think getting to Lor's point I mean we can't we wouldn't be able to control that so you know you can you can do a censure you know and come out publicly say that you know hey which is an extreme measure you can come out and say you know hey we don't we don't agree that this was factual and this is on how these events took place. But I mean, aside from that, I don't know of any else that you could really do other than a private conversation.

Yeah. Okay. Uh can uh can we um make some you know um recommendation or from your uh summarize summarization like any um official town related business should be correct like if I quote the resolution directly from our website, right? That should be fact, right? Or, you know, um, consult the staff or attorney, you know, to make sure it's fact, actual fact.

So, like if that's what you choose to do, that's great. Unfortunately, that's not how the first amendment.

Okay?

Under the first amendment, you can say whatever the heck, please, right? You can say like, you know what, the mayor showed up in Bloomberg yesterday, right? And it was, you know, it was despicable and like

and so and everybody's looking at the video. I was like, that is not right. You know, there's your right under the first.

So, we ready to show results.

I haven't submitted.

Okay. Submit right now.

I do have, you know, um

Okay. Thank you.

Um pre prefer disclaimer on social media

accounts. So all said yes to having a disclaimer on their social media accounts. Um allowing comments on official Three. So a majority is saying yes. They they think that it should be or at least post by post. Um should policy include professional conduct standards? Yes. May elected officials issue press releases. Two said yes, two said with a disclaimer, one said no, and one said yes. Um, as long as they notify the all group prior to distribution. Most officials notify all council groups when responding to media requests. That's kind of split on the board. always said no. Um, so I think at least the majority is saying yes in some way, form or fashion. Um, officials speak for themselves unless authorized. So yes, they're going back to the disclaimer statement. Can elected officials independently issue emergency statements? Yes, as long as they have a disclaimer. Yes, restricted to the topic or no depending on official black crisis communication. Um, should the town arrive official capacity social media post for elected officials? Yes. Um, what archiving method should be used? Kind of an automated process that is a common practice for other municipalities. um forward and retain private messages involving business only available only upon request. Um engaging with town staff. Um no through social media handling constituent requests. I prefer to direct those through official emails. Um a combination of based on the topic. And then can elected officials use town

logos seals on official accounts? A majority said no with one saying with prior approval and one saying yes always continue.

Can I add a perspective on this? Sure. I think a lot of these problems would be solved if we had essentially a rule of three an official town managed town owned operated social media account and you guys can have your own political social media account that you may have for your campaign and then you can have your own personal non political whatever it is. I know I've got you know a Facebook account that just says personal and I've got the campaign one. Not that that the campaign one too conflated with anything on the town, but if we to solve a lot of the problem of what's official and what's not official if we had a, you know, a town owned, you know, council member Reese's page that he gets to post on and you guys get to manage and maintain. It would go a long ways maintaining our records. The one the one thing about um archive social, at least to my understanding, is that um you do have to sign in to your accounts through that platform and the town has archive social. Um and then we we set the record retention schedules on our end. Um so, but that's with your existing account, but you do have to sign in, but we wouldn't be doing post, you know, anything like that on every app. Um but it does help automate and it is a common common theme. Okay.

Are we good to continue?

Yes sir.

Okay. Um so something that's come up more common recently is events, office hours, and community use with the elected body. Um and so this is trying to gauge um what does staff support look like? Use of town facilities, branding

um etc. there were four um policies or or similar that existed of the 21. So, it's a very new thing I think that's being developed or coming from a policy standpoint. Um in speaking with those that didn't have a policy, they either have general general guidelines or they they are working towards a preferred policy. Um they do define the level of support, town resources and the role of elected official and official capacity versus program. And while you're thinking through

while while you're thinking through on this one, I would like to remind everybody of um

work

these events as they relate to um campaign events and election related events. Um we cannot use public funds on campaign events to uh support or oppose any referendum election or any particular candidate for elective office. So and um that includes city employees time. City employees cannot um participate in campaign activities on the clock. And this would include use of town resources like property.

I have a quick question in regard to number five. Um, should the town promote town halls, office hours, events? Yes. All, yes when open to all members of the public. Yes, when open to all.

Difference between when open to all.

So yes to all. Yes, only when open to all members of the public or

got one. Okay,

we're still okay. We know what you mean.

Only one more after this.

Okay, number seven. Yes,

it's council approval required for for what

the hold official advance office hours commission. Okay, got it.

Some of these things we have in the past and so we don't want to have four

results. Um 5050 split on the level of staff support logistic only versus active coordination. Um, is professional staff required or optional? Or um, a majority said it was optional, too? It depends on the topic. Um, should elected officials have priority to access to facilities for events in their official capacity? A majority said yes. Should there be a limit to the number of town halls officials? Two said yes, said no. Said maybe. Uh should the town promote town halls, office hours and events? Um yes. Um and then yes when open to all members of the public. So so yes is the determining factor there. Should the event office hours or comment be the event excuse me be advertised? Yes on the website? Yes on the website and social media. Um and yes website and print material. Um, is a council approval required? The majority said yes. Uh, should financial support be provided? The majority said yes. If so, if so, to what level? Um, only the member siphon. Two members said that member siphon should cover um only for like refreshments, event specific, and of course pending council authorization. Last item is the public forum. Um so again just revisiting public some of our current guidelines um are not current with our um and so this is just a reminder that we only have to offer once a month

public forum comments. Um our our current practice is we require them to be in person. Uh we've limited it to 12 figures and or 36 minutes. Um, we've asked that they identify themselves. Uh we've acknowledged that there's been any written comments that have been received and we have previously said no to electronic presentations being voted on our equipment for any other on the top. Three four. One more.

Um, should public forum participants be in person? A majority said yes. Um, should public forum be at each regular meeting? So, that's twice a month. Yes. Um, public forum shall be limited to 12 speakers or 36 minutes, whichever comes first. The current practice and then when more than 12 speakers have signed up for 36 minutes have been reached. A majority vote to amend the time is preferred by three members while others say a majority vote by the time continue. Um, the providing officer I'll just add note that it's something I've seen other bodies do. I don't know if you can process when you're researching this. They they would split up a look form that goes over. So in this case it had 12 or 36 minutes and they would go say okay well we got to do the rest of the meeting and have another call at the end who wants to stay you know whether it's two hours late or whatever still there. And we do the other way around. Instead of like, okay, like we just reached 36 minutes. Now we're going to make a change. Can we make a change before everybody starts to keep it equitable and said, okay, we got 16 people signed up. We're going to give everybody two minutes instead of three minutes so that everybody has a chance but we still keep it with the time set for ourselves because otherwise like 12 people have to speak and then like we're going to condemn you know people that sign up.

So in I don't think there's there was consistency in the in the policy as it relates to that. I do know that um it's often seen as amending the time restriction. So if it's three minutes um and you've got let's say 14 speakers, you reduce everything down to two minutes per speaker. Um but that's done obviously at the beginning. So from an equitable standpoint, you're doing that from the onset. Um

so the question is phrased is like after 36 minutes that's been correct. So now we're just now we're going to squeeze everybody but you know we have the sheets going into this. I mean you can tell up front that okay we more than all speakers or you know we got six people speakers of nine minutes so we're going to go over our time limit. So we're going to take action before everybody gets started.

I still saw nothing in there. minutes.

Okay. So, the goal is to get the directional feed over to legal for the first of May um and then get it to you all by the first of June and then um have for you all to adopt in June. If we obviously need to have another work session, we can do that to revisit any of these items, but What?

We'll we'll proceed with with scheduling interviews.

Okay.

Yeah. The policies is what's specific questions. There there is one remaining item that I don't have anything prepared for which is the name rights and I don't know if you all want to kick that to next week's work session. We have one Thursday.

Um and if there's anything that you all need for that then certainly let us know but

that was one of the items that have been requested for today.

Do you mind sending out the policy?

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.