Kodiak Borough: Assembly Special Meeting of November 12, 2026

All right, I will call tonight's Kodiak Island Borough Assembly special meeting to order. It is 7:50 PM. This meeting was called by the Deputy Presiding Officer. Roll call, please. Mr. Arcs.

Here. Mr. Gardner. Here. Mr. Smiley. Here.

Mr. Sweeney. Here. Mr. Vizcocho. Mr. Woods. Mayor Griffin.

Here. You have a quorum. Okay. We have an opportunity for citizens' comments tonight. For those who wish to call in, the local number is 907-486-3231.

The toll-free number is 1-855-492-9202.

Please mute your radio or streaming device to prevent feedback. And I don't see anybody in the room tonight, so, unless Seema wants to make comments, but we'll give a, since this is an abnormal time to start a special meeting, we'll give a little extra time for people who wish to call in. So we'll give it about a minute.

Okay. All right. Hearing no calls, we will get into the agenda item. Tonight we're looking at an ordinance for introduction, Ordinance Number FY 2027-13, amending Kodiak Island Borough Code, Title 2, Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.35, Conflict of Interest. Section 2.35015, simultaneous employment or personal service contracts by mayor and assembly members prohibited, to revise prohibitions on simultaneous employment and personal service contracts.

Is there a motion? Mr. Arndt. Move to introduce ordinance number FY 2027-13 and advance it to a public hearing at the November 19th and December 3rd regular meetings of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded.

Uh, Mr. Arndt, this is your item, so, um, I'll let you take it over. Thank you. Um, basically it, uh, it goes, it goes back to what the original problem was. And the original intent. The original problem at the borough was with professional service contracts.

Professional service contracts are negotiated and not put out to bid, and that was where the abuse took place with, um, previous assembly member, multiple $25,000 purchase orders were issued by the manager, which was Rick Gifford, and then also Bud Cassidy's signature was on some of them. And some of them were multiple purchase orders in the same day, which basically, when it came to light of the assembly, they thought it was criminal that that was not coming before them. And then Jamie Fagan got involved, and the intent was to preclude those professional negotiated contracts. It really wasn't to eliminate competitively bid projects. So what this change does is defines professional service means professional technical or consultant services that are predominantly intellectual in character, results in the production of a report or the completion of a task, and include analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, and recommendation.

So you see crossed out the word personal. You basically— in A, I'll read that for the public. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, Neither the borough mayor nor any member of the borough assembly shall at any time during their terms of office be employed by the borough in any other capacity, included but not limited to part-time or temporary employment, nor may they be a party to a— what is currently in there is personal, and what is crossed out is personal and added— a professional services contract with the borough. So the only— we're substituting substituting professional for personal on there. And the borough code already speaks to professional services, and the limit is now the manager's authority is up to $50,000.

Those are typically negotiated. If they're over the $50,000, they come— so like architectural services on there, those are— we have a contract for those that gets added and they come before us. But this changes— so basically addresses what the problem was and speaks to the professional service contracts that are negotiated. And the intent is to give this two public hearings, not one and be as transparent as we can be with everyone. Um, and, and hopefully we'll get more people.

I'm thankful for the people that came forward, but, um, I think this falls in line more with what we used to do and what the intent was from talking with Mr. Jamie Fagan on there. So I would appreciate everybody allowing this to go since there's only 4 of us here tonight and it takes 4 to move this forward to these— to the November 19th meeting and the December 3rd meeting. I appreciate everybody's support to let the public weigh in on this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott Arndt.

Mr. Gardner. Well, I called this meeting because this whole rigmarole around Mr. Williams. I've talked to so many people in the community, and the vast majority of them seem to be in favor of Mr. Williams getting his office. And as I had thought about this whole issue on my own, um, I realized, you know, that more than anything, I wanted to follow the code. And, um, Mr. Arndt has a long memory when it comes to things done in this room.

And, uh, when he says what the original intent was, I tend to believe him that that was the original intent. But I'm, I'm still not either for or against this. I really wanted to go to public hearing because I want to hear what the people have to say about it. I hope, um, like Mr. Arndt, that we can get many more people to come in and voice their opinions. I do have a little problem with the wording on it.

Um, maybe we can discuss, maybe it shouldn't be a problem, but the completion of a task. Um, I would argue that plowing roads is the completion of a task, and somebody could bring this whole thing back up and start the conversation again, and I would like to get this over with one way or another and get back to work. Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Burchett. Just like everybody, been thinking about this a lot.

It's weighed heavy on everybody's thoughts.

But I think I got to play devil's advocate on it. The 2013 voting results for the original proposition were pretty clear. 400 People voted— 400 more people wanted more transparency. They wanted less conflict of interest. They didn't want there to be— Um, they didn't want there to be any confusion.

Um, so obviously corruption is heavy on everybody's mind in government right now, so that is also something that needs to be considered. It feels a little bit like a knee-jerk reaction. Um, it's taken 13 years to come forward, so, uh, we got to consider that as well. Um, I, I I would also like to hear the public's opinion because I have heard more people than not say they do not support changing the code.

I think it raises the question of if it were to be approved, how much of a person's— and it would be tough— how much of a person's annual income is derived from these contracts that they hold from the burrow while they're simultaneously holding a position. I mean, times are tough, you know, people do crazy things. We're all subject to, you know, human emotion and reactions. Um, it's— I will say it's clear, I'm not denying that Mr. Williamson didn't win. He very clearly had the votes.

Um, it just so happens that there was some confusion on some— on his ability to appear on the, uh, on the ballot. Um, so again, like this, like, I would like to hear more from the public. Um, this, this feels pretty expedited. We've mentioned how late it is. It's pretty tough for a lot of families to be making phone calls to borough assemblies this time of night, on a, especially on a school night.

Uh, again, something to consider. Um, One comment was made of, well, it's what we used to do. And I really hate that saying. Just because it's the way that we used to do it does not mean it's the way that it needs to be done going forward. This is 2026.

Times are changing. We've got to keep up to date. We're updating Bureau records request forms. It's, you know, it's ever-evolving. So, I think— I think the voters made their opinion clear in 2013.

I think it's fair to bring it to them again since the majority seemed to have wanted this candidate. I don't agree with making the amendments for one singular candidate in mind. It's pretty hard to say that that's not what's happening. It just kind of feels that way. Again, devil's advocate on everything, you can blame the insurance guy.

That's just how we think. I hate it sometimes, I really do, but it's the way of life. And I ultimately just want to support what the community wants to do moving forward. Thank you. I'm going to go with Mr. Smiley since he hasn't spoken yet.

Mr. Smiley. This is a tough one for me.

In the previous version of this, It seemed like people were concerned that if you're getting money from the borough, you shouldn't be on the assembly. And this doesn't say anything about that here. And yet that seemed to me to be the nexus of what the vote was about. So the verbiage— excuse me— the verbiage that's in blue here doesn't really address the critical question. It kind of skirts the issue.

And then we have the second part, number 2, where your company is half owned by you and half owned by your wife in this case. So that seems to bring the thing back together again in a way. I'm not a lawyer, but I I don't think this does the job, is what I'm saying.

Thank you. And I'm going to jump in real quick because I think we need to clarify because I think there are two issues getting mixed up here together and in some of the public discussion. The first issue is the 2026 election and the qualification for office. Mr. Williamson was elected by the voters. The separate question was whether he can qualify and take office while his company holds contracts that fall under the borough code as it exists today.

That issue is being administered under the existing code with guidance from our legal counsel. Tonight's ordinance does not decide that question and does not retroactively change the rules that governed that election. The second issue before us tonight is a legislative ethics policy question. Should we change our conflict of interest code for the mayor and the assembly? That's what Mr. Scott Arndt's ordinance asks us to consider.

The current code broadly prohibits mayor and assembly members from holding personal services contracts with the borough. The proposed ordinance would substantially narrow that prohibition to personal services contracts. Those are different— I would— those are different questions.

Entirely possible to respect the voters who elected Mr. Williamson while still asking whether this proposed change is good long-term, long-term ethics policy. It is entirely possible to believe that the current conflict rule should be reconsidered without concluding that this is— that this particular ordinance is the right way to change it. If the, if the ordinance is eventually adopted, it will affect people who qualify for future service, including potentially who is qualified for appointment to a vacancy. But that is different from determining what the law required of an elected candidate under the code that existed during the election. So I hope we can keep those two issues a little more distinct tonight.

We are not rerunning the election. We are not deciding whether the voters made the right choice. That's not— we don't have that authority anywhere to make that call. And we are deciding whether to begin changing a conflict of interest rule that applies to this mayor and every present and future assembly member. So I really hope that we can keep our discussion to the policy question and on its merits tonight.

I just wanted to say that before handing it over to Mr. Gardner.

I appreciate Mr. Sweeney playing devil's advocate, and I appreciate Mr. Smiley examining the verbiage here. I don't think the verbiage here is quite perfect. I think it can be amended. And I wanted to remind Mr. Sweeney, I do not know if I am actually going to vote for this or not. I have not been fully convinced in either direction.

Voting yes for this tonight simply puts this into a public hearing. It doesn't— two public hearings. It doesn't make it— it's— we're not making a decision. We're deciding to have a more intense discussion on making a decision. And for that reason alone, I want to vote yes tonight because I want to hear more on it.

There is every 50% of a chance that I will vote this down after its second public hearing, but I'd also like to see the entire assembly— well, at least the entire assemblage of who we have at the time here to discuss this as well. So That's the way I feel about it. If I had to vote on this becoming code today, I would vote no because it needs to be discussed more further. But I think the language needs to be cleaned up, and I'd like to hear what more people have to say about it in a sort of official setting. So I would encourage you to vote yes tonight.

I have Mr. Sweeney and then Mr. Arndt. I have a really quick procedural question for— from the the clerk. I have never seen a motion like this before that requests to send an item to two public hearings. Um, uh, I wonder if you can speak to that real quick. And then if, if the item passes tonight, but then if it fails on November 19th because this motion was passed, does that require it to still be brought up at the December 3rd Meeting.

I do not know the answer to that question, but I'd be happy to, to think about it tomorrow. And I know that we've had more than one public hearing on— hearings on items before, but I think those resulted in The motion was moved to advance to public hearing, and at the public hearing, that's when we, um, when there was— there were a lot more questions, wanted more input, then they postponed it for additional public hearing. I think what we can do, if the desire of the assembly is to maybe amend the motion that we have tonight and just advance it to public hearing at the next meeting. And if you feel like you need more public hearing, postpone it and then hold another public hearing at the second meeting. That's one other way.

I might ask for a break to explore that because I don't know if that might affect— and if I have to break a tie, well, I guess I wouldn't have to break a tie because it wouldn't pass anyway. But I mean, if the motion itself is out of order, then I think we need to—. I think—. Or does your gut say it's fine? I think what we can do is that at the next public hearing, because you are not going to be adopting it, that you're just advancing it to public hearing, just hold the public hearing at the next meeting, and then at the second public hearing, that's when you would have— you can have a second public hearing then, and then after the public hearing, if If you want to then have a motion to adopt it, then you can then vote it up or down.

So if it was voted down on the 19th, then it's done? Yes. Gotcha. Okay. That's—.

Does that make sense? I didn't want to confuse— I just wanted to make sure that we don't get hung up in some, you know—. I think we're not on the same page. What I'm saying is that on the 19th, you can have a public public hearing and not have a motion on the floor and just have a public hearing. Oh, I see.

And then— okay. And then hold another public hearing then on the 3rd, and then hold the public hearing first, and then after you hold the public hearing, then you can have another motion. You can then have a motion to adopt and vote it up or down. So then on the 19th, somebody can make a motion to not advance advance it to the next, or is this gossip? We did that tonight already.

The motion before you is to move to— the motion that is before you tonight is to introduce it and advance it to public hearing at the next two meetings. Okay. And then let's say on December 19th just have a public hearing and listen to the public. And then on November— on December 3rd, have a public hearing again, and then you can then, after the public hearing, have a motion, okay, to either to adopt, and then you can either vote it up or down. Gotcha.

So there's a vote today, and then the next vote on this item would be December 3rd. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry about that, Mr. Sweeney. No, go ahead. No, no, I just— uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor and Assembly Gardner, uh, bringing me in here a little bit. Not trying to speak out of turn on any issues and whatnot. Uh, just there's a, there's a lot of thought process going on, a lot about everything here.

So, um, not, not trying to confuse the issues at all. Um, so just wanted to see that. Mr. Arndt. Yeah, the intent was to get as much transparency as possible. Not normally, we only have to do one public hearing, so the intent was to be as transparent as possible.

The other reason for it was that I'm not opposed to wordsmithing things and amending the proposed ordinance. That's typically part of the process. That we go through. So that's the reason for the two public hearings on there, because I think it's, it's very important to hear. Thank you.

So usually when we bring something to public hearing, it's, it's ready for the public to hear it. So if there are amendments, they need to be made tonight because we can't adopt amendments at the next work session.

Um, so, Mr. Scott Arndt, you can suggest amendments for future public hearing on there. So, um, there's a lot of give and take that can take place, correct? But typically during the public hearing, the public gets the chance to, uh, comment on the ordinance as it's presented before the amendment or, you know, or changes are made. And so, um, uh, yeah, that's why I would strongly recommend amendments tonight.

But, um, Madam Clerk,. Mr. Mayor, I would like to note that this has not gone before the attorney yet. There's that too. Yeah, I also want to point out that amending something, a motion, or amending, um An ordinance would require— it's a secondary motion. An amendment is a secondary motion, so you're gonna need a main motion.

So I just— I don't know how that's gonna play out when you want to amend an ordinance at the next meeting. I think it would require you to make a main— a primary motion to adopt, move to adopt. And then it kind of complicates the way that we're doing it here, the way that the motion is worded, because you can't technically just make a motion to amend at the next and wordsmith it.

An amendment is a secondary motion. You need a main motion before you can amend something. Gotcha. Okay, um, Mr. Gardner. So, Noble, we— you're telling me we cannot make an amendment to the amendment tonight?

You can amend the motion that is before you tonight, which is move to introduce ordinance number 2027-13 and advance it to public hearing.

I think if your intention is to amend it at the next regular meeting, I think we need to amend this main motion that is before you right now. I agree with the mayor in that I would like to see the wording on this fleshed out, and I think we're running into a procedural hurdle here. So real quickly, before I pass this back around so we can figure this out, the specific words completion of a task. If the intent is to allow Mr. Williamson to have the opportunity to fulfill a term, or someone else in his position, I don't like completion of a task. I think this will just come back up.

And Mr. Smiley is correct where subsection 2 from section B here, I think that also holds us back up in the same spot that we currently are.

Mr. Arndt, do you have your hand raised? Yes. Okay, okay, sorry, I didn't know if you were—. Basically, completion of a task is when on professional service contracts they are asked to I'll use— basically you've got, well, attorneys are professional service contracts. You have accountants that are professional service contracts, surveyors, engineers, architects, that kind of thing.

The task is, for instance, on an architect is the design of something on there. The— what you're trying to do is say a construction contract that went out to bid, you're trying to say that grading is an individual task. We, we don't pay based on task. We pay by the hour, strictly by the hour for equipment with an operator. On the contracts that you're talking about, not a task.

Mr. Gardner. All right, I'm kind of looking out for another assembly in 13 years from now, so what fixes it for me then is, or the completion of a professional services task. And what this. Is,. And really, I'm saying the exact wording instead of completion of a task, completion of a professional services task.

So you'd like to add that? I'm just looking at 13 years down the road. And then Section 2, um, you need to revise that and say a person shall be considered a party to any professional services contract, so on and so forth. And then I think to me that fixes the wording overall where we can bring this to public hearing.

I'm amenable. I'm amenable to that.

Mr. Smiley.

One of the ways that Mr. Arndt has characterized the differences between the former personal services and the professional services now was how the contracts are arrived at. The professional service contracts are negotiated. And the personal service contracts are put out to bid. That's not in this ordinance, and that would be a good way to distinguish things. Yeah, that's a, uh, that, that's, that's a good point.

The, uh, the ordinance says, right, the fundamental conflict arises when an elected official gets a borough contract without a transparent competitive bidding process. So If competitive procurement is the principle behind the ordinance, where is that in the operative— where is it in the operative language that we distinguish a competitively awarded contract from a noncompetitive one? Basically—. I'm sorry. Let me recognize you first.

Mr. Arndt. Thank you. Basically, that's what— that's why we're listing the professional service contract. Anything else is typically competitively bid. The borough gets anything else.

It's listed elsewhere, the professional services, and this definition was taken out of there. So anything else that's competitively bid where we get multiple prices on there and then the prices come before us, that I didn't think we needed to speak about that. This was only speaking to those professional non-competitive bid contracts. So the competitive ones always come before us on there if they're over $50,000. The manager, sometimes, you know, she brings them even less than $50,000 before us.

But the intent is those all come before us. So that's why they're not listed here. Just spelling out what the professional service contracts are. So you said typically. So would a competitively procured engineering contract still be prohibited as a professional service?

I'd have to ask Aimee on there.

I mean, and then alternatively, could a non-competitively procured maintenance or road service contract be permitted because it's not professional service?

Um, I think in the whereases there's some references back to the definitions that are established in code in 3.30070, which outlines our exceptions to standard bidding processes. That's what that portion of the code is for. And so, um, if, um, if I understand Mr. Arndt's intention here, and a sitting assembly member or someone who's going to run for the assembly would not be qualified as assembly member if they held a contract that was not competitively bid. So we—. Well, that's not in the language.

I think that's the intent. I don't know how you want to put the language, but I think that's what—. Intent's got to be clear, because if we're arguing over a 2013 ballot measure's intent, then The intent needs to be clear in the language then. Sorry, I'm so sorry. I really did not mean to interrupt you.

I apologize. No, no, I agree with you. I think that's why line 19 adds that KIBC code number in there. Is that a reference to like, that's where that definition is getting pulled from? That's where we talk about what— and so there could just be more whereases added in there to— like make that jump to how we're getting to where we're getting.

And then I'm going to stop talking.

Hold on, let me— I'm looking at my list here because this is technically a special meeting and not a work session, so we do have to keep this still somewhat formal. Anybody else wishing to speak? Because Mr. Arndt spoke last. Okay, Mr. Arndt. Thank you.

Yes, that's why I listed on line 19 the Kodiak Island Borough Code, because I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. And so it's, it's strictly designed to deal with the non-competitively bid contracts that are negotiated. Any of the bid contracts are already spelled out in the code as to how you go about that. That's why I wasn't wanting to create redundancy, but not opposed to creating the redundancy if you feel it clarifies it more.

I like clarity. I'm just, you know, I'm just saying, I mean, the Uh, it, um, in the introduction to, to this ordinance, it was mentioned that, you know, uh, the, you know, the principal problem to—. That this ordinance is intended to solve was to clarify intent from a 2013 ballot. But that's not in the language, you know, that's not in the language that this is intended to clarify that that intent. So, um, I think that should be— I think that should be stated too.

I can't make amendments, but, you know, I think there is, um—. I mean, for me, uh, and, you know, take this with a grain of salt because I'm just the— just the non-voting mayor, but I don't think that the stated rationale and then the legal mechanisms promoted or proposed in the ordinance language are addressing the same. I think they're addressing different things.

As the language sits right now, which is why I think we need legal review.

And— yeah, Mr. Arndt. Yeah, and the clerk will go through that if this is allowed, you know, and at other times we have gotten attorney's opinion that has helped clarify some things that maybe you want to put this in and that, and we have amended to accommodate that. And so I see we have that opportunity through here to do it. And basically, I was trying to keep it simple on there. Basically, anything other than what's mentioned here is competitively bid, and that's already spelled out what happens in the code.

And that's allowed. It's these professional ones that got us all in trouble to begin with years ago. On there, and there was abuses, and that's usually how things get astray. So, but part of the legal review and part of the public testimony, I see that by this is introduced and basically one can move to approve, and the idea is then take the testimony, maybe modify it there at the— on the floor, or goes to the next work session with the things that then goes forward to the next public hearing on December 3rd. I was trying to leave as much room for— because I know how things change, and the intent was to make it simple.

And I realize sometimes that can be oversimplified and people want a little bit more. Not opposed to that, but the idea is to get it out there to begin with and spell that out. So that's what I'm asking, and move it forward and we discuss it and it ends up getting voted up or down on December 3rd.

Mr. Gardner. Should we add a section that effectively— not to overcomplicate, but to make it abundantly clear that, you know, I'm not exactly sure how to word it, but, you know, a number 3 that spells out the intent being for contracts that have gone out to bid and contracts that are negotiated I'm really not sure how to say what I'm trying to say, but to spell out with negotiated and out to bid in there somehow.

Sit on the assembly or run for the assembly, and they already have— for different kinds of contracts that are not professional but are— would we have those weird definitions, the personal and professional. So let's say we have a contract where we're doing ratings and we are— the price is just, you know, 25% of the overall rating. I think there is concern that there would be a possible assembly member, uh, retribution for contracts where the staff— and it's usually an assembly member or staff or other people from SWAB or whatever that are coming in and putting their names on there. But they're— the, the— what I'm hearing from staff is they're worried about then the assembly members could be mad at them or have feelings toward on staff that there will be the possibility that we're setting up for assembly members who don't win a competitive contract for them to be upset with the outcome, um, or, and then place blame on certain people for not giving them more points or less points or whatever. So there's one thing about when the contracts are already bid.

There is a different world where we're bidding, and I think our financial conflict is really easy. Like, clearly that person would say, I have a conflict with this, I am bidding this contract, and they would step out and wouldn't vote. Like, that part is very simple. There's another part where it's not just based on price. If we're— and so we have competitive bidding prices, uh, processes, and we have professional contracts, and we have stuff that the assembly doesn't see under $50,000, but we also have big stuff that the assembly sees that has, um, staff expertise input where they're grading stuff based on a matrix, and I'm sorry to complicate things, Mr. Martin.

Well, I think that's— that is a central kind of assumption that I think the ordinance makes is, does competitive bidding remove conflicts? Does competitive bidding remove the conflict at the point of award? Maybe. But does competitive bidding remove the conflict throughout the administration of the contract? Right.

And as long as there's never a disagreement with the people processing the billing and the people in finance who are paying out, then there's no conflict. But the first time something is questious in the assembly, assembly and the school district, and so if there's ever any questions of conflict, that board meets quarterly and those questions go, and they have fancy forms you can fill out. So there are communities. Sure. And, um, the, uh, and at the same time, that contractor member renewal of a contractor when that contractor is also one of the elected officials participating in the oversight and the evaluation of the manager.

So anyway, thanks for bringing that up, Mr. Gardner. And did I see Mr. Sweeney? No? Okay. And then Mr. Smiley.

I will be short. I found it very interesting that you brought up contractor holding if it went the wrong direction, that is sort of—.

Mr. Arndt gave us some of the history of how this came about.

Did you have something? Yeah. Thank you. I do understand Assemblyman Gardner's point, and I I, I hope that I'm not insinuating that any one particular person would react any one particular way, but I don't want this code to be for one person. I want this code to be for all people.

And so it's not a question of character on any one person. Like, I don't mean it that way, but what I am concerned about is what happens to future staff members, future managers, future assemblies, and looking at this more holistically. And our, again Conflict code is very much financial, financial, financial. And so this, this kind of issue that I present doesn't— hasn't come up since I've been involved with the assembly since 2020 because we haven't had a person sitting on the assembly with a contract. I'm just imagining, you know, what, um, how upset people must have been in 2013 that a citizens initiative came forward with that.

And so obviously there was a problem. And now here we are feeling the effects of it 13 years later and how, how it's rolling into someone else. But even in the paper yesterday, the headline was Borough Assembly to, you know, adjust code for this one person. And I think that that's not the best way to look at things. I think we need to make a decision for something that can last.

That's the idea of an ordinance change. Mr. Scott Arndt. My intent is we're a small community and we have a lot of people. I don't like seeing them precluded from it. So this is not speaking just to snow removal contract, this is speaking to any purchase arrangements.

Typically, before the borough purchases anything, they get 3 quotes on it, and if it's over the $50,000, it comes to us. If it's not the manager can choose to do it herself. Great point on the additional conflict of interest. Just like Mr. Gardner, hadn't even thought about it that way. Why put ourselves in a future position for anything, you know?

Why create an additional risk? That's my thoughts. Thank you. Yeah.

Increasing the candidate pool is another problem or another justification. I mean, I'm, I'm a guy, just like I teach my students, I need evidence. I would like us to know how many people are actually excluded by this rule that we currently have. Do we have evidence that people have declined to run for assembly because of it? Um, I don't necessarily want to overwork, you know, that one tonight, but, um, the other thing to think about too is, um, As Aimee said, yes, we should not— as much as for some reason we keep coming back to one person, this should not be about one person.

Are we comfortable with a code that could theoretically permit several members of the governing body to be borough contractors at the same time, provided that their services don't meet this definition of professional services, right? We have to have, in order to pass anything, we have to have a minimum of 4 people. If we have a, you know, if we're opening this up to somebody who does contracted business with the Assembly, on the Assembly, plus their spouse, plus a competitive contractor, you know, who decides that they want to get in on the business too, you know, that's— I'm starting to see a Pandora's box that I didn't see maybe an hour ago.

Because if we get to a point where we have multiple recusals, that's a problem for the credibility of the body. And, you know, just how effective, you know, can the body be if there are multiple recusals? You know, I do debate, so you think about hypotheticals. The only way to really understand the implications and consequences of something is to think about hypotheticals, to think about devil's advocate kinds of extremes, because if they happen, then yeah, we're right back here. So some things to think about.

As it sits now, again, I think the intent of a public hearing—. —Dealt with this. Announcement of the clerk that I— or the first one that I put out, that's when the 14 starts for accepting applications. So if you accept the seat or vacate the seat on Thursday, and then I advertise—. I entertain a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.