[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR, FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE, UH, CITY COUNCIL.
LIKE TO CALL THE, UH, MEETING TO ORDER, UH, LIVE WEBCAST.
THE MEETING CAN BE VIEWED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
THE NOTICE AGENDA AND INFORMATION OUT ON THE CITY OF NASHVILLE CITY'S WEBSITE INFORM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THEY MAY SUBMIT A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OR A PUBLIC COMMENT ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
ONE IN PERSON IN THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, CHAMBER BY SUBMITTING ONE OF THESE SALMON COLORED SPEAKER SLIPS, AND THEY'RE AVAILABLE AT THE BACK OF THE CHAMBERS, UM, BY EMAILING NO LATER THAN FOUR HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING.
ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PUBLISHED ON THE CITY WEBSITE IF RECEIVED BY THE DEADLINE.
WITH THAT, CAN WE HAVE ROLL CALL PLEASE? HELLO? UH, COUNCIL MEMBER IMANI HERE.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOLINA PRESENT, VICE MAYOR BUSH.
UH, WITH THAT, IF WE COULD ALL, UH, STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I'LL ASK, UH, UM, MEMBER IMANI, WOULD YOU, UH, LEAD US? PLEASE STAND.
CAN READY, BEGIN? I'M BY ALLEGIANCE TO THE, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN INDIVISIBLE WITH, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[4. PUBLIC COMMENT]
WE WILL NOW HEAR, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS AGENDA AND RIGHT.UM, AND WE WILL GIVE EVERYONE, UH, TWO MINUTES ON THAT.
AND SO WE WILL GO IN ORDER OF THE ITEMS, UH, THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL FIRST HEAR ON ITEM FIVE ONE.
UH, STEPHANIE MINEOLA, FOLLOWED BY JAMES KIM TO BE FOLLOWED BY EDWARD YTO.
I'M THE ADMIN SECRETARY FOR THE NATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I AM A MEMBER OF THE ME NEGOTIATE NEGOTIATING TEAM.
I'M HERE TODAY TO REMIND YOU THAT WE HAVE YET TO SIGN OUR NEW CONTRACT, UM, WITH THE CITY.
WE ARE NOT BARGAINING FAIRLY AND THE OUTSIDE LAWYER YOU ALL HIRED IS ONLY GETTING RICHER AND RICHER BY STALLING NEGOTIATIONS.
WE GAVE THE CITY AN EXTRA SIX MONTHS TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH, AND YET WE HAVE PASSED THE DATE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
THE ONLY REASON WE ARE STILL BARGAINING IS BECAUSE YOU ALL LET A SHORT TIME CITY MANAGER AND A SHORT TIME HR DIRECTOR CHANGED THE WAY THAT WE USUALLY NEGOTIATE.
YOU CONTINUE TO HIRE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT AND CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE ONES THAT LOVE AND CARE FOR THE CITY THAT YOU CLAIM YOU CARE ABOUT TOO.
YOU CONTINUE TO PROMOTE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE IN POSITIONS OF POWER AND DO NOTHING BUT CREATE MORE CHAOS FOR THE CITY.
EVEN IGNORE ME, IGNORE EMAILS THAT ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
WE WANT YOU ALL TO ASK THE CORRECT QUESTIONS.
PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THE CITY.
WHY DID, WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO PROMOTE PEOPLE THAT HAVE A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME AND THEY GET HIRED TWICE, THREE TIMES IN THEIR SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME? WHEN LOOKING FOR WAYS TO SAVE MONEY, ASK WHY WE CONTINUE TO HIRE DIRECTORS, MANAGERS THAT ARE NOT NEEDED.
YOU TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THE HARDEST TO THE PEOPLE THAT TALK A GOOD GAME.
INSTEAD, WHO KNOWS WHAT IS BEING SAID TO YOU BY THE LAWYER.
BUT WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE MOON AND STARS.
WE JUST WANT A FAIR CONTRACT AND THE MEA MEMBERS DESERVE IT.
JAMES KIM, FOLLOWED BY EDWARD NETTO.
UM, YOU GUYS HIRED THIS LAWYER THAT WAS HERE MANY YEARS AGO, BUT NO LONGER WORKED HERE ANYMORE.
HE GOT FIRED FOR SOME REASON AND GOT REHIRED AGAIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU GUYS REHIRED SOMEBODY THAT WE LET GO A WHILE AGO AND FOR WHAT HE'S SAYING TO US AS MEA, HE'S TELLING US THAT HE REPRESENTS YOU GUYS, THAT YOU GUYS GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FOR YOU.
AND WE JUST LOOKED AT HIM LIKE, REALLY? AREN'T THEY THE BOSS? AND YOU WORK UNDER THEM? HE KNOWS NO, I HAD THE CHOICE TO MAKE WHAT I WANNA DO, THE CHOICES I WANNA SAY, AND RIGHT NOW I CAN, I I'M DENY ALL PROPOSALS.
[00:05:01]
GAVE YOU GUYS 21 PROPOSALS, THE BEGINNING OF A NEGOTIATION, HE SAID THAT YOU ALL READ IT AND YOU GUYS DENIED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF 'EM.IN REALITY, YOU GUYS HADN'T EVEN READ NOT EVEN ONE PROPOSAL, BUT HE SAID THAT YOU GUYS READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF 'EM AND HE DENIED EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL.
THAT TO US WAS A SLAP IN OUR FACE.
WE'RE WORKING HARD, NOT WORKING HARD FOR OURSELF OR MEA FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.
THE WORKERS WAKE UP SIX IN THE MORNING WHO ARE OUT THERE AT THREE IN THE MORNING MAKING THE COMMUNITY GOOD FOR ALL OF YOU GUYS.
AND THE THING IS THAT WE GOT DISRESPECTED LIKE THAT, THAT HE'S CHOOSING WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
WE GAVE YOU GUYS 21 PROPOSALS.
I'M LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? F-F-A-P-O-A.
THEY'RE ONE INDIVIDUAL UNION, MEA, WE HAVE NINE DEPARTMENTS THAT NEED HELP, NINE DEPARTMENTS, MAYBE 10 THAT NEEDS HELP.
AND THOSE 21 PROPOSALS THAT WE PROPOSE TO THEM IS LEGITIMATE PROPOSALS FOR EVERY DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO RUN FUNCTIONS CORRECTLY, UPDATED AND FUNDED TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THESE EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR US TO WORK WHAT THEY DEAL.
UH, EDO TO BE FOLLOWED UNDER THREE POINT, UH, I'M SORRY, 5.2.
THEY PASSED OUT THE PACKETS I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.
UM, I'M NOT HERE TO EVALUATE THE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT I'M HERE TO, UH, TALK ABOUT THE 51 MILLION RESERVE MYTH AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE LABOR NEGOTIATIONS FROM THE CITIZENS' PERSPECTIVE.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, REGARDS KEEPS POINTING OUT THAT THE $51 MILLION IN RESERVE, LIKE IT'S LIKE PINING A UNCLAIMED CASH THAT WAS JUST WAITING TO BE HANDED OUT DURING THE UNION SALARY NEGOTIATIONS.
HE EVEN CALLED IT A HEALTHY RESERVE.
A PHRASE THAT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT UNTIL YOU START LOOKING AT THE BUDGETED NUMBERS, AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, RODRIGUEZ UH, TRIED TO STIR UP APPLAUSE BY ASKING THE FINANCEER TO, TO, UH, WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE $61 MILLION? $51 MILLION WAS TO THE GENERAL FUND.
HE FRAMED IT LIKE A MIC, MIC DROPPING MOMENT.
YOU KNOW WHAT, IT WAS JUST A, A PLOY.
THE THING IS THAT THAT 61% HE'S TALKING ABOUT, IT'S MEANINGLESS.
YOU HAVE, I THINK YOU FORGOT THAT.
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE RESERVE ITSELF.
IT'S NOT JUST ONE RESERVE THAT'S UNASSIGNED, IT'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESERVES WITH DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS.
YOU HAVE THE RESTRICTED RESERVE, YOU HAVE THE COMMITTED RESERVE, AND YOU HAVE THE SIGN UNASSIGNED RESERVE.
SO INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT $51 MILLION, THAT ALL BOILS DOWN TO $4.8 MILLION OF UNASSIGNED RESERVE ACCORDING TO YOUR LATEST UPDATE, $4.8 MILLION.
THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THIS STUFF.
AND YOU KNOW, MY HEART GOES OUT TO THE, TO THE EMPLOYEES, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING ANY MONEY TO TALK, TO MEET ANY OF THE SALARY, SALARY, UH, NEGOTIATIONS.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE CITIZEN UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, $4.8 MILLION WHEN OUR AVERAGE, UH, COST IS LIKE FOUR SEVEN TO $8 MILLION PER MONTH, THAT'S LIKE TWO WEEKS ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE NATION.
IT'S A TWO, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE TWO MONTHS WORTH OF RESERVES IN THAT UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE.
THAT'S PUTS US AT RISK FOR A LOT OF THINGS.
IT CUTS TO PUBLIC SERVICES DELAYS FOR, UH, REPAIRS AND EMERGENCIES.
MY POINT IS THAT I THINK THERE IS HOPE FOR THE UNIONS, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE TO WORK WITH THESE CITY FOLKS.
JUST REAL QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I ED I THINK THE 4.8 MILLION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PROJECTIONS THOUGH, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO CORRECT YOU'RE SAYING WHAT'S PROJECTED AND CORRECT.
OKAY, SO IT HASN'T BEEN REALIZED YET, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH.
SO I JUST WANTED CLARIFY THAT NOW UNDER 5.2 WE HAVE DKI VALDERRAMA, WE'LL BE FO WE'LL BE FOLLOWED UNDER 5.4 BY MARISSA VOS AND ALEXANDER GUTA.
UH, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 5.2, WHICH YOU GUYS WILL BE GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION.
UH, YOU'RE, AS YOU'RE PROBABLY WELL AWARE, THERE WAS A MEDIATION THAT WAS HELD.
WE DIDN'T PARTI, THERE WAS TWO MEDIATIONS.
WE PARTICIPATED IN THE, IN THE FIRST ONE IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT.
WE THOUGHT THAT THERE, THAT THE CITY WANTED TO, WANTED TO NEGOTIATE AND SETTLE THE CASE.
UH, ONE, WE FOUND OUT WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF THE SETTLEMENT WERE.
UH, WE ARE NOT GONNA NEGOTIATE AGAINST OURSELVES.
I THINK I'M HEARING FROM OTHER MEMBERS THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE, ARE, ARE ONE SIDED.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE SECOND ONE, UH, FOR, FOR US TO SIGN TERMS THAT NOBODY ELSE ASSIGNED IT, IT, IT'S BEYOND US.
I HAD, I GAVE TO THE CLERK A ITEM THAT FROM YOUR WEBSITE, IT WAS WHAT WAS GIVEN OUT, UH, THE LAST UPDATE ON CANNABIS, WHICH WAS DONE ON 7 25 22.
[00:10:01]
UH, YOUR CANNABIS WEBSITE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED IN OVER THREE YEARS.THE SCORE THAT'S REFLECTED ON THE WEBSITE HAS MY INCORRECT NUMBER.
ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS A SIMPLE SOLUTION.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYEES TRYING TO GET MONEY, AND THERE'S, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DEFICIT.
I HAVE A VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE SITUATION.
THERE IS, YOU GUYS AUTHORIZE SIX CONTRACTS AND RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE THIS, UH, SESSIONS BY THE BAY AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO CANNABIS OPERATORS.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE ARE TWO OPERATORS THAT ARE NO LONGER EVEN.
UH, YOU'RE NOT EVEN NEGOTIATING WITH 'EM, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT HAVE NO CONFIRMATION BECAUSE YOU GUYS DON'T TELL ANYBODY ANYTHING.
AND SO IT'S HARD TO NEGOTIATE FROM OUR STANDPOINT WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THE TRUE FACTS.
WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING IS IF YOU'VE LOST TWO CONTRACTORS AND YOU MAY PICK UP ANOTHER ONE THAT'S ONLY GONNA GIVE YOU THREE, THREE, UH, FOUR CONTRACTORS OUT THERE, YOU HAVE POTENTIALLY TWO OPENINGS.
AND WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING IS IF YOU, IF YOU EXPAND THE FIELD TO THREE MORE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT, ALL, ALL LOCALLY OWNED, YOU'LL, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET TO WHERE YOU NEED TO GET TO.
NEXT WE GO TO 5.4, UH, MARISSA CUEVAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALEXANDER GUT TO THE CLERK.
TODAY I HANDED, UM, THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK RIGHT NOW, NOW A COPY OF THE JUNE 30TH, 2025 CURE AND CORRECT LETTER, WHICH YOU'LL BE RECEIVING AT THE END OF THE MEETING TO REVIEW.
BUT I'M GONNA GO OVER JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IT IS.
SO SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE DAIS HELD THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 17TH, 2025.
THIS MEETING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN OBJECTIVE AND UNBIASED DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO RESTORE RESIDENTIAL AND REDUCE DENSITY ZONING FOR THE ORANGE AND SWEETWATER NEIGHBORHOOD TO PRESERVE THE SITE AGAINST A PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCE.
THE COUNCIL REPLIED, RELIED UPON NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTS OR REPORTS, INCOMPLETE RESEARCH AND STAFF STATEMENTS SLANTED AGAINST RESTORING RESIDENTIAL AND REDUCED DENSITY ZONING, WHICH THE NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY HAD TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY WHAT THEY WANTED.
AND THAT WAS TO REZONE THE AREA BACK TO RESIDENTIAL.
AND IT'S SHAMEFUL THAT THE COUNCIL MADE THAT DECISION TO REJECT THE COMMUNITY'S WISH BASED ON NO EVIDENCE.
FURTHER, THE MEETING WAS USED TO REJECT THE REQUEST TO DOWN ZONE THE PROPERTY ON JUNE 17TH, 2025.
AND YOU ADOPTED A MOTION TO REJECT THE REQUEST TO REZONE TO DOWN ZONE THE PROPERTY NATIONAL CITY COUNCIL.
PLEASE CURE AND CORRECT THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE DESCRIBED SERIAL MEETINGS BY ONE VOIDING, THE MOTION TO REJECT THE REQUEST TO DOWN ZONE THE PROPERTY.
TWO, SCHEDULING A HEARING TO GIVE OBJECTIVE, UNBIASED ZONE, UH, CONSIDERATION OF THIS COMMUNITY'S REQUEST TO RESTORE RESIDENTIAL AND REDUCE DENSITY ZONING TO ORANGE STREET NEIGHBORHOOD.
FURTHER TOMORROW IS THE 30TH DAY, THE LAST DAY TO KIRIN, CORRECT.
IF THIS IS NOT DONE, THEN THERE WILL BE A LAWSUIT.
EXCUSE MAYOR FOR DISCLOSURE PURPOSES.
UH, MS. VAZQUEZ, ARE YOU REPRESENTING LA VISTA MEMORIAL CEMETERY? ARE YOU REPRESENTING LA VISTA? OH, THAT'S INTERESTING.
PLEASE DISCLOSE WHO YOU GUYS ARE REPRESENTING AND IF YOU'RE BEING PAID TO REPRESENT THAT, I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU'RE THREATENING LAWSUITS AND YEAH.
ALEXANDER GUT? YES, GOOD EVENING.
CITY COUNCIL MAYOR, ADD SOME LEGAL FRAMEWORK INTO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS DISCUSSING.
ALL MEETINGS OF CITY COUNCIL MUST BE OPEN AND PUBLIC, AND THIS MEANS THAT A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS CANNOT DISCUSS BUSINESS ITEMS OUTSIDE OF A MEETING.
AS MY COLLEAGUE STATED, SERIAL MEETINGS WERE USED TO DECIDE THE JUNE 17TH, 2024 CITY COUNCIL TO BLOCK AN UNBIASED, UH, DISCUSSION ON REZONING THE TWO RESIDENTIAL, UM, IN THE SWEETWATER ROAD, ORANGE STREET NEIGHBORHOODS.
THERE WAS NO WRITTEN REPORT, INCOMPLETE RESEARCH.
THE STAFF STATEMENTS WERE SLANTED
[00:15:01]
AGAINST RESTORING RESIDENTIAL AND REDUCED DENSITY ZONING AND TO ULTIMATELY REJECT THE REQUEST.ON JUNE 30TH, WE SENT THE CUR AND CORRECT LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL TO CORRECT THIS ACTION AND HAVE A UNBIASED DISCUSSION.
COUNSEL HAS HAD 30 DAYS TO CUR AND CORRECT THIS VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT.
IF IT IS NOT HEARING CORRECTED, WE'LL BE BRINGING A LAWSUIT AND THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE US, WE'LL BE AT YOUR DEPOSITIONS.
SAME QUESTION, MR. UH, GUTTER.
ARE YOU REPRESENTING LA VISTA OR PAID TO REPRESENT THEM? NO.
OKAY, NEXT WE GO TO, UH, 5.5 AND ALICIA MORRISON.
SECTION 5 4 9 5 0 POLICY DECLARATION.
THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES WHICH SERVE THEM.
THE PEOPLE IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY DO NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW.
THE PEOPLE INSIST ON REMAINING INFORMED SO THAT THEY MAY RETAIN CONTROL OVER THE INSTRUMENTS THEY HAVE CREATED.
JUNE 17TH AT 7:08 AM I SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL, MY 832 WORD COMMENT, ALONG WITH HISTORICAL DATA, CRIME, STATISTICS, AND PHOTOS TO THE CITY CLERK FOR THE 6:00 PM COUNCIL MEETING, ALL MATERIALS SUBMITTED WERE NEVER MADE PUBLIC AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PER SECTION 5 4 9 5 0.
THE MATERIALS WERE GIVEN TO HELP PROVIDE COUNSEL WITH INFORMATION FOR DISCUSSION AND TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ON ITEM 5.4 VISIBLE AT TWO 30 TODAY.
FINALLY, MY COMMENT WAS MADE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THESE VIOLATIONS JUST AS THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY ON ITEM 6.1 THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 17TH MILLION THAT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
AND THE CLERK DID WRITE BY HER JOB BY BRINGING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
MAYOR, THAT ADDITIONAL PROCLAMATION WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT THE MAYOR CHOSE TO PROCEED.
THIS IS SERIOUS AND REQUIRES REMEDY.
THIS BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THIS GOVERNING BODY'S DUTIES ARE EXPOSING YOU TO POTENTIAL LITIGATIONS.
THAT IS ALL THAT WE HAVE ON THE, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS, THE CITY ATTORNEY.
WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS A STAFF ISSUE AND I THINK THERE'S A LEGITIMATE, UH, POINT THERE AS I UNDERSTOOD IT WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAILS THAT MS. MORRISON BRINGS UP.
IF SHE ABOUT POSTING, IF SHE'S REFERRING TO DOCUMENTS THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BE POSTED BECAUSE OF THEIR SIZE, I THINK, UH, OUR CITY CLERK CAN EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND THAT.
SO THE EMAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED, UM, IN THE CITY CLERK'S FOLDER.
UH, THE EMAIL SIZE WAS, UH, TOO LARGE FOR OUR, UM, OUR SYSTEM TO ACCEPT.
AND SO WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL WE RECEIVED ANOTHER EMAIL FROM MS. MORRISON WITHOUT, UM, ALL OF THE, THE OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO IT THAT WERE OF SIZE.
AND THEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OF IT.
WE WENT AND CONTACTED OUR IT DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE NOW, UM, EXTENDED THE, THE SIZE LIMIT AND ACCEPTANCE FOR OUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR OUR EMAIL BOX MM-HMM
SO IT WAS, IT WAS MERELY JUST AN IT ERROR AND IT WASN'T REALLY AN IT ERROR, IT WAS A SIZE ISSUE THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF.
BUT SINCE THEN WE HAVE REMEDIED IT, IT IS ON THE, ON THE WEBSITE AND, OKAY.
THANK YOU CITY CLERK AND THANK YOU MS. MORRISON FOR BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE THAT WAS A LEGIT PROBLEM.
LIKE, I'M SORRY IT TOOK SO LONG TO POSE, SO, BUT I THINK IT WAS A LEGIT PROBLEM.
[5. CLOSED SESSION]
UH, WITH THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION.WE HAVE SIX ITEMS FOR CLOSED SESSION.
AT THIS POINT I WOULD HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY IN INTRODUCE THAT INTO THE RECORD.
UH, THE ITEMS FOR OUR CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ARE 5.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR
[00:20:01]
NEGOTIATORS.UH, THE UM, ENTITIES INVOLVED ARE MEA, UH, NATIONAL CITY FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND THE UNREPRESENTED GROUPS EXECUTIVE CONFIDENTIAL AND MANAGEMENT 5.2 IS EXISTING LITIGATION.
THE CASE IS BCD VERSUS CITY OF NATIONAL CITY 5.3 IS ALSO EXISTING LITIGATION.
THE CASE NAME IS CALI MOTA VERSUS CITY OF NATIONAL CITY 5.4 EXISTING LITIGATION THAT IS POLANCO VERSUS THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY.
5.5 DEALS WITH ANTICIPATED LITIGATION AND THAT'S INVOLVES ONE CASE.
AND THEN FINALLY THERE'S PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
THE POSITION TO BE REVIEWED IS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER.
ALRIGHT, AND WITH THAT WE ARE IN THE CLOSED SESSION.
UM, IT WAS ALREADY THERE BEFORE WE GOT THERE.
UH, WITH THAT WE ARE OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT OUT.
UM, OUR CLOSED SESSION AGENDA INCLUDED UM, 5.1, WHICH IS CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS AND THE COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTIONS TO THE NEGOTIATORS.
UM, ITEMS FIVE TWO AND FIVE THREE INVOLVED EXISTING LITIGATION CONCERNING CALI MOTA AND BCD VERSUS CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND THERE WAS A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF MEDIATION EFFORTS WITH THOSE PARTIES.
UH, 5.4 WAS EXISTING LITIGATION POLANCO VERSUS CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, THERE'S NO REPORTABLE ACTION.
5.5, UH, ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, NO REPORTABLE ACTIONS AND 5.6 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INVOLVING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND THERE'S NO REPORTABLE ACTION.
OKAY, WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED TO OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING NEXT, NEXT WEEK ON THE FIFTH.