Nome Common Council Special Meeting- Oct. 16, 2026

Looks like everyone's here, so we'll go ahead and call the special meeting of Nome Common Council on Friday, October 16th, at noon to order at 12:02. Clerk, may I call the roll, please? Councilor Martinson. Here. Councilor Johnson.

Here. Councilor Henderson. Here. Councilor M—. Here.

Councilor Green. Here. Councilor Lust. Here we have quorum.

Their agenda is before you, or not. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda with the opportunity to ask a question during discussion. I'll second. Motion to approve the agenda and seconded. Motion by Council Member Johnson, seconded by Council Member Green.

Discussion on the motion to approve is a question from—. I'm just wondering, can we have—. We can't hear you back here. Well, most times when we have motions, we have the ability to discuss it normally. Normally it's not protocol when you approve the general discussion, but can we— can you add a discussion of the motion prior to voting on it?

There, you can discuss something before voting. Dan, and I got Sam on there. Did y'all hear that?

Yeah, I heard that. I mean, it's pretty standard, you know, after any motion that there can be discussion prior to a vote.

Yeah.

Any further discussion on the motion to approve the agenda? So I have a question. How did this come about and what's the precedence for being able to bring up something that we already voted on? Despite how we might think the vote should go, what's the precedence on doing what we're doing? I can answer that if you'd let me.

Go ahead, Dan. Is that okay, Mr. Mayor? We're discussing the No interest. That's motion to approve the agenda. Okay, well, addressing, uh, Mr. Council Member Johnson's remarks, um, this, this was an appeal, and so the appeal process has to be followed.

I can detail that during the agenda item, or I can do that now, whatever you prefer.

Whatever you prefer.

It's— let's first of all approve the agenda, and then we can discuss the issue we're to discuss when we get to that in the agenda.

Um, if there's— yeah, a motion on the floor. Is it—. There's any— yeah, there's—. I'm out of discussion. We wouldn't need the agenda if we had— if we knew why we're meeting or why we have precedence for meeting, because it's an unusual— it's an unusual, um, meeting that we're doing.

That's why I'm asking. That's why I'm questioning it.

Okay, so go ahead and Answer his question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Mr. Deputy, can you bring up the code, please? Under 310.060, under the appeal, um, we'll read through just real briefly. In the event that chauffeur's license application is denied or previous issue license revoked and the licensee or applicant has been served with the written notice of the reasons for denial or cancellation The licensee or applicant may, by writing, by notice in writing submitted to the city clerk's office within 5 days after receiving such notice, appeal the decision to the common council of the city.

He was denied by the city staff. He did issue a written notice to the clerk's office within the time frame and did ask for the appeal before the common council. Now we're going to skip to B because this is where it's directly applicable. After hearing all applicable evidence, the Common Council shall rule on the appeal, which was done in the last meeting, and shall rule on the appeal and issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law determining 1 or 2, which is, you know, granting the appeal or upholding the city's determination. And so the appeal process is simply incomplete without findings in fact and conclusions of law being written and adopted, since this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and decision.

And so as far as I've discussed with our attorneys and with city management. We're still in the middle of this appeal and is unresolved without those findings of fact and conclusions of law being adopted. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like I said, it is new, it's very unusual. But yeah, so any more discussion on the motion to approve the agenda?

I was just going to suggest that we vote on approving the agenda. We put the meeting— call the meeting to order or whatever, or approve the agenda, and then we can discuss all of these details.

What? Perfect. What does that— no, no, what does that mean? Calling the question means to call. So to vote on it right away.

Okay, thank you. Sorry. All right, go ahead and call the vote on the motion to Approve the agenda. Yes. Councilwoman Johnson.

Yes. Councilwoman Martinson. Yes. Councilwoman Anderson. Yes.

Councilmember Oles. Yes. Councilmember Green. Yes. Motion carries.

Next item on the agenda is citizens' comments. Are there any citizens that would like to comment at this time? Yeah, I'll comment. Okay. Hi everyone, my name is Ashley.

I'm speaking today as a concerned citizen and the former co-owner of Boots and Cab Co. Um, there was a lot of discourse on Facebook about this topic when the KNOM article came out, and I figured I would come here in person to kind of voice my concern and opinion. Um, thank you all for holding this meeting. I'm here to strongly oppose Micah Mossek being able to drive cab in the city of Nome. The city ordinance clearly states that an applicant for a chauffeur's license must be of good moral character, which takes into account arrests and criminal charges. The most concerning crime he was charged with was sexual abuse of a minor.

I don't understand why it's up for debate to offer him a public-facing job when he was convicted of a crime as serious and life-shattering as sexually abusing a minor. On a public Facebook post, Steve was in the comments justifying this crime, saying that the girl lied about her age. To defend the crime and blame the victim is quite frankly disgusting. In addition, Mike has 2 convictions of DUI and reckless driving on his record. Cab drivers are tasked with providing safe transportation to the community, including women, children, and elders.

As women, we are unfortunately all too familiar with sexual assault and inappropriate behavior. I think I speak for many women when I say a cab driver with this history is not someone I would ever want to get into a car with. There is a responsibility of the city to uphold the very clear ordinance and protect not only vulnerable populations, but but visitors to the— and the community as a whole. EZ Shuttles is a company who has never operated legally and went out of their way to harass and defame our legal cab business, yet city leadership has continued to allow it. It is one of the main reasons why we decided to no longer operate.

The standards are not equal. Neither Steve nor Mike had a chauffeur's license for an extended period of time, yet have been operating a cab under the deception of rides for donation. Steve was court-ordered to end these rides for donation, yet was never held to that. Now he is employing someone for a shady business. The Nome City Ordinance also states no person shall drive, operate, or keep for pay or hire within the city any taxicab or motor bus without first having obtained a chauffeur's license.

I know Steve didn't have his through most of his rides for donations. And Mike still doesn't, or maybe that is what we are discussing. First, I urge you not to issue Mike a chauffeur's license. On a deeper level, I hope that you reconsider and analyze cab services in Nome as a whole and operate with fair and clear standards for everyone. Thank you again for your time.

Hi, my name is Billie Miller. I'm the other co-owner of Boots and Co Cab LLC. First, I would like just to see a raise of hands of any of our council members, manager, and mayor who might have been sexually assaulted.

Any?

That speaks volumes. I'm a sexual victim from an infant until I was 11 years old. I don't think the question's appropriate. Did you, did you vote against Mike or for it? I did not.

We denied. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for that. That's powerful.

Thank you for your testimony. It really serves the purpose here because I see 1 and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 men 1 in 8 men who have been sexually assaulted or will speak up on it.

I am a victim of sexual assault more than once.

Many women have come to me with their testimonies of being sexually assaulted.

It is your job as the mayor, as a councilman, and as a city manager to protect our community. Right now we are in a position where there's a pedophile employed under a business. Can I have one volunteer from your council to search up credentials with me on your phone? I'd ask for one council member to do this search alongside me. Ma'am, right now we're here to listen to your comments.

It is not a back and forth. It is not—. I have one volunteer question.

What is your name?

Okay, can you go to Alaska? Can you go on Google? I'm proving a point here. Can I—. You're out of order.

Please direct it out of order. Yeah, can you, can you, can you, can I interrupt, Mr. Mayor? I'd request that you allow the speaker to finish without interruption. I'm the council member that requested this special meeting, and I am making the request to let her finish uninterrupted, please.

Under, under point of order, Mr. Mayor, I think it's fine for people that are coming to the podium to speak their piece and to, um, present whatever they'd like to present at the podium. I think the problem comes back between the discourse between between the, uh, council and the, and the person speaking. I am not communicating with her, I'm just listening. I'm not, I'm not arguing with you. She needs to be okay, then you need to be quiet while I'm talking.

Please don't tell me to be quiet, council member. Can I finish my comment then without, without volunteers? Okay, so anyone is welcome to join me, you're welcome to follow along. Thank you for volunteering, however you are not allowed to If you go on to Google and you search Alaska business license search, the top link says search business licenses under Alaska Department of Commerce Community so-and-so. Click on that link.

Under business name, type just E as in elephant, Z as in zebra. That's it. Go down To city, type Nome and hit search at the bottom.

Scroll down, you will see license numbers and companies with their credentials for operating transportation licenses in Nome.

You see AK Rides and Express. That was by IU. You click on it.

It says line of business 48-49 transportation and warehousing. NAICS number 485310 taxi and ridesharing services. Let's go back.

You click on Easy Enterprises by Steven William Longley. Business license 2214797. Let's click on that one. My point with this is to show two examples of who has the license to operate a taxi service and who doesn't. This shows for Steven Longley line of business 48-49 transportation and warehousing.

That is a category. Under the Alaska state license. NAICS says 488410, motor vehicle towing.

What does that say about who you have allowed to operate a business in the Nome of Alaska state or city of Nome, Alaska with a taxi business or a shuttle business as we've seen you guys allow. Can someone comment on that? Mr. Mayor, would you like to comment?

Do you know what 488410 motor vehicle towing means?

Okay, so I took the liberty of Googling this.

So the NAICS stands for the North American Industry Classification System. Some might pronounce it NAICS. It is a standardized system used by government agencies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico to classify business establishments by their primary economic activity.

Mr. Longley does not have a business to run a taxi service in Nome, Alaska. He has made fools of all of you for a long period of time. Despite citizen comments, we had this, the last council meeting recently, and the mayor was just the deciding vote on whether a pedophile can be allowed to drive for business. Sitŋasuaq has not even a taxi service. Do you guys do your research on the businesses in Nome, Alaska?

Have you done your research, Mr. Mayor, on Mr. Longley? Have you actually looked up his criminal record or Michael Mossock's? Have you?

No comment. I'll take that as a no. However, what I'm saying is there's not a proper business decision being made here because nobody has done their research or has not spoken up against it.

So if we're going down this line of whether or not Mr. Longley has a credentialed business in Nome, Alaska, we look at insurance. He tells people he has insurance. NPD has told me personally he does not have commercial insurance for a taxi business. So when you look at this illegal business and you see that he does not have an actual business license per the NACS standard to run a taxi service, he's only allowed to tow vehicles. And you, Mr. Mayor, made a decision, the defining decision on whether or not a pedophile can drive for this illegal company, for this shuttle that we've seen.

I am livid. I am a woman who's been sexually assaulted multiple times in my life, and I see a bunch of men here, one of each, who's had the courage to speak up about what that looks like or what that might feel like.

It is your job to protect us.

It is everybody's job here to protect us. When I had the privilege of driving my cab business, we had many women and children in our cab, many that did not prefer, that did not prefer Easy Shuttle, many, and that were very sad to see us go. My reality is that Mr. Longley parked outside my house for weeks People say he's sticking his chest out, he's intimidating us. It was intimidating. Look up his record.

I encourage every single one of you to go home after this and look up his record and look into sealed documents.

Look up Michael Amasek's record and then ask yourselves If you had the right to vote that as protectors of our community, there were a few who did not, and I'm thankful. I really appreciate the gentlemen in this room who voted against that because you say, I'm with you, I'm sorry that happened, I validate it happened, and I'm not going to let it happen again. However, when our Mr. Mayor doesn't know the credentials of this illegal business, and allows a pedophile, a pedophile, to operate in a community. He's had no recidivism, no reentry progress.

What does that say about how we operate a city?

No further comments. Thank you for your comments, Miss Miller.

Are there any further citizen comments?

Good afternoon, Council. Uh, Jeremy Jacobson, resident of Nome. I just wanted to speak on the topic. Um, I'll keep it short, but I thought NCO, um, 310.030, Causes for Denial, uh, was pretty clear. It lists a A person shall be denied a chauffeur's license if the person has been convicted in any jurisdiction of a felony crime with elements similar to any felony offense defined in AS 11.41, Offenses Against the Person, which this falls under.

So I I guess with the law being clear, I didn't understand, um, how this would get passed. I was under the impression that even council members are still subject to the law. So aside from that, uh, past councils and administrations have denied this application. And it sits in the city's vault. So that was a little bit, um, odd because the record's in the vault.

Um, so there's no precedent being set here. If anything, it's going against precedent. But that was the two things I couldn't quite get around, other than a little bit of public safety.

Um, in Anchorage, they have a lot of issues with rideshare and taxis and sexual assault. So it's— they had— and so it was quite an issue, I think, 10 years back. But it's just a concern, um, I think, if anyone had any daughters that might ever want to use a taxi service, whether it's to get home from a friend's house or really any circumstance you can think of. Um, just seems like it's a really basic safety concern. So I guess if— I guess the example that we're going to set for our community, for our children, as leaders, um, that was, that was it though.

That's my piece. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Richardson.

Thomas Simonson, voting resident of Nome. Um, I followed the discussion regarding cab services here for a long time, and it is an issue, and I believe that the murk we're in right now could have been avoided, uh, should there have been some more expedient outcomes in, in terms of what is a cab service and who can operate it. But here we are, and I've heard the discussion. I was slightly shocked by the vote, I must say, and I've had a lot of follow-up questions with people, and I've read the posts on social media where people share their thoughts as well. So I wrote down a little bit just to keep me on track here.

Some observations, uh, and my comments here are not about the individual applicant or his character, but about the city's responsibility to follow its own ordinances. So Nome Municipal Code 3.10.025D assigns the authority to approve or deny a chauffeur's license application to the chief of police. So from what I understand, the chief may have approved this application while the city administration subsequently denied it. And if that is accurate, there is a procedural question that deserves clarification. However, that brings me to what I believe is the more significant issue.

Section 3.10.030, subsection A2, states that a person shall be denied a chauffeur's license if convicted of a qualified felony offense against a person under Alaska Statute 11.030. 1.41. Unlike other provisions in this section, there is no 3 or 5 year limitation attached to this disqualification. The ordinance also establishes separate good moral character requirement. While, uh, previous licensing and evidence of rehabilitation may be relevant to that consideration, I do not see anything in the ordinance allowing those considerations to override a mandatory ground for denial.

So this raises what I believe is the central question here, uh, for the council. Did the council, in approving this appeal, make a decision that falls outside the authority granted to the council under its own ordinance? Section 3.10.060 gives the council the authority to hear an appeal, but I do not read that section as giving the council authority to waive or disregard the minimum qualifications and mandatory disqualification established elsewhere in Chapter 3.10. Additionally, I'm almost done, Section 3.10.060 requires written findings of facts, which is apparently why the council has gathered today, findings of facts and conclusions of law supporting the council's decision. We are, of course, eager to hear what those might be.

It's noteworthy because, uh, without those findings, it's difficult for me as a voter and the community at large to understand what legal basis the council relied upon to approve an application that appears to fall under a mandatory disqualification. If the original administrative denial was procedurally incorrect, that issue should certainly be addressed, but a procedural error does not automatically establish an applicant's legal eligibility for a license. The council has the authority to amend its ordinances if it believes the existing requirements should be changed, but until that happens, those ordinances remain the law under which these decisions must be made. My concern again is not, uh, who the applicant is or what anyone personally thinks about any applicant. My concern is whether the council's previous decision was consistent with the law it is responsible to uphold.

I would respectfully ask the council to address that question today and ensure that its final decision is based on the requirements of the ordinance, supported by the necessary finding of fact and conclusion of law. And I will end with stating that it is my understanding that any council member can move to rescind a previous vote, or a member who voted in the prevailing side can move to reconsider a previous vote. To bring it back to, to the table. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Sanderson.

Are there any further citizen comments?

Not seeing any, we will continue to the unfinished business item. This The discussion of the appeal approval from October 13th. A motion on the floor for discussion purposes. I'll make that motion. I'll second.

And the motion is what? The motion is to have further discussion on appeal approval from October 13th Nome Common Council meeting.

That's what the agenda—. Sure, I was thinking of a motion one way or the other. Would a motion one way or the other, for or against the appeal, would then allow the discussion of that appeal, right? So Chair will entertain a motion To overturn the council's decision to grant the appeal. Mr. Mayor, can I make a point of order, please?

Sure. Um, I, I had requested earlier for so that the council can receive very clear direction from our city attorney that he be available, uh, on for this meeting. Uh, is he currently available? Sam's on the call. Okay.

Yes. So both the clerk and the last gentleman with the black jacket hit on the idea that the appeal is a two-part process. It's—. Dan cited it, but it's a decision being made and then followed up by written findings of fact and conclusions. So the process is a two-part process and it is not done.

And so substantively, the council has the right to reconsider, to continue to deliberate, excuse me, because the process is simply not done. The appeal's not over. How you want to style that is somewhat up to you. I mean, you could just say motion to reopen it.

A thought that I— a way to make sure that we're staying consistent with getting toward the findings of fact and conclusions of law would be a motion to direct the clerk to draft written findings consistent with Tuesday's decision, which, um, grants the appeal. If that motion failed, then we would have to have a discussion because there wouldn't be consensus to finish the process by drafting findings and conclusions which are consistent with the prior decision. Does that— I'll say that again. So a procedural avenue would be a motion to direct the clerk to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law granting the appeal.

That would be consistent with the decision that was made on Tuesday. If that motion failed, then we would have to have a discussion, and it would allow effectively reconsideration. If that motion were granted, Um, then the clerk would draft up the written findings and bring them to you at the next meeting for adoption.

Does—. Go ahead, Scot. Uh, thank you for joining us. Um, so if I understand it correctly, the appeal process is not complete until the city council votes or requests via a vote for you to issue a findings of fact and conclusion of law, correct? And then you have to issue that, that find— those findings.

And then to complete the appeal process, then the council would then have to vote again a second time to adopt those findings of fact and conclusions of law. And at that point, if they accept it and if the findings of fact, uh, supports the appeal decision made on Tuesday, then the appeal is granted. But those things have to happen to complete the appeal process. Am I thinking about that correctly? You have that correctly.

Just a couple of points of clarification is it does not necessarily have to be my office. Often we would say, "I want the clerk to do it because they're used to doing it and saves some money," frankly, you know. That is correct. And I guess if we walk through just kind of a hypothetical that's not this appeal, but you would do a decision on the record and then say, "Would direct the clerk to come back with written findings and conclusions at the next meeting." at which point we will vote to adopt them. That, and that's kind of the piece that didn't happen here, which is why it's incomplete.

But yes, that's correct. And often they'll put that draft, draft decision into the packet just so, because it's drafted ahead of time. And then, yeah, that's correct. There would be a separate vote, which is often, that vote is usually just if somebody disagrees with the wording in a sentence or says, hey, that mischaracterized What I said, or I think there's a typo. I mean, that, that vote to approve it is often a rather pro forma exercise because everybody's already done the hard discussion in the first place.

Does that kind of help just walk through the process? But, but you were correct, uh, in your recitation of how that works. Okay. And so if any of those steps to towards the conclusion, uh, of the appeal are not completed, then the appeal is essentially, you know, dead in the water or not, you know, it's just, or denied, or I mean, how, you know, I guess what I'm asking is, does, you know, should this body, if there is a desire to revote or take a new vote to repeal the earlier decision or to go through this process of, you know, requesting you to appeal issue of findings of fact.

What is the cleaner or most concise way to do this? Because I think we, we as a council needs to be really clear on this issue, and there's no, you know, room for future disputes or interpretation. And that's— hopefully that makes sense, right? I do see it as 2 steps being the cleanest, even though it's 2 steps, because it allows you to have 2 different motions and progress through them. The first one being, uh, motion to direct the clerk or attorney to draft written findings and conclusions consistent with our decision from Tuesday granting the appeal.

If people want to reopen it, they would vote against that because that would be just voting to finalize what is the current status quo. If that does fail, then it, it reopens the floor to we need to come up with a decision. If the decision— well, sort of regardless of what the decision is, then the next vote would be direct the clerk to draft written findings and conclusions consistent with the decision we just made on today, Friday. So I think the first one is whether to follow through with written findings and conclusions consistent with the Tuesday decision And depending on how that goes, we're gonna— we would have to have another discussion.

Okay, thank you. Um, just to make sure I understand this, so if there's no motions made today, we have lots of discussion and nothing happens, the council is— doesn't want to make any motions to, you know, direct you to issue a findings of fact or the council doesn't do anything, basically. What— how does that affect Tuesday's decision, understanding that this process is not complete?

Right, it just becomes— I guess it's, it's just technically incomplete. I guess the What I'm comparing it to is if somebody, you know, makes a motion and nobody— it effectively kills or stops whatever that resolution or action is, right? I think it's a challenging question because, I mean, the, uh, the oral order, as I understand it, was essentially, um grant the permit, but that's not formalized. So it's challenging. One, it's challenging.

Two, nobody can appeal it and go to court, or it's harder for them to do that because that's one of the formal things that's triggered when you have written findings and conclusions. That's what a court looks at, you know, is that document. So what it creates essentially is confusion. It is challenging to declare definitively who wins and who loses as a result of that because it's just incomplete. I think what it does is creates confusion.

It sets us up for the next 6 months to debate kind of, well, does that mean it was denied? And that's not good for anybody. So sorry for that. That's a little wishy-washy. It's a very good question, but I just, I hate to say, I don't want to see somebody prevail or not prevail because of just failure to follow through.

I've got more questions, but—. Mr. Mayor, this is kind of why I asked the question when we first started the meeting to get an idea why, how we're able to do this. Because we're— and, and I'm glad that we have the attorney here seeking legally by legal advice because it's something unusual for Nome to have gone through this process and going through this process. And it'd be good to get clear, concise information, which we're trying to get, in order to how to proceed through this process. I'm not against going through the process, just to let you know, but I like if we're going to do something, we want We wanna make sure we do it legally and we're seeking advice from the attorney to do this process, to do whatever process we take to do it legally.

Well, let me throw something out there. I mean, if we make it very simple, the process in the code is a 2-step process. It is decide, then issue written findings of fact and conclusions. So the issue today is to direct someone to bring back written findings of fact and conclusions one way or another. But if you look at it as more of just a process step, that's what we're trying to move forward is we're trying to get— trying to just get complete.

And it's a two-step process. So we're just trying to direct step to, so somebody has direction how to do that.

And generally, that's a cleaner process than, say, if there was a member who voted yes who, again, wakes up the next morning and says, you know what, that wasn't the right call to make, says we can't— that individual or an individual couldn't raise to rescind that. And then we could have finding of facts based on that?

I do think it is cleaner. Yes, I do. And part of the reason for that is just that the city code, like most, doesn't have crystal clear direction on rescind, reconsider, particularly in a quasi-judicial sort of context. It's just not crystal clear. And so we get into that and people might have different rule versions of what Robert's Rules says on that, or you need to do it within 24 hours.

I just think it's easier to conceptualize it as we're just not done, or you're not just not done.

So direct it to be, direct it to be finished. And you, you have to express how to give that direction.

That is one option, and I appreciate you explaining that. Is another option to sort of complete this process sooner is the council could make a motion and vote on basically reversing the decision made on Tuesday instead of requesting you issue a finding of facts of law law and so forth. Could we just— could a council member make a motion to reverse the earlier decision on Tuesday? And if the council votes in favor of that, this basically denies the application and this process is concluded. It's very clean.

The council has spoken in a very clear manner. And I apologize if it reduces the legal fees you receive, but I'm kidding. No, that's— I mean, I appreciate that. And I frankly, I'm striving to find ways to do that all the time. There's plenty of work.

It still leaves us with— if the words that are used are reverse the prior decision, that's not really problematic. The challenge is that the code still says that the process is decide the issue and then issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law that are either in favor or against the city's decision. Um, and I don't want to just hammer on that's what the code says. The code says that because that's how these appeals generally speaking, are done statewide. I mean, that's, that's the process.

That's not something where Nome's code is novel. So you would still leave it technically unfinished. So I would encourage you to, if you wanna use the word, we reverse it, but somehow say, we reverse it, thus uphold the city's decision. Please write findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with that. We'll approve them at the next meeting.

Then we've just put the whole A to B to C to D and connected the dots, and it's done. Uh, and final point is I definitely am in favor of, uh, telling the clerk to do it. This, this particular, uh, document in this case would not be terribly complicated and the court, um, could do it, so it wouldn't have to be me. I believe there was such a document included in the packet that stated the basis for the city's decision, that should be conclusions of law and findings of fact, that if those were sustained, that would essentially provide that document to be the basis for the overturn of the appeal. If we were going to—.

I think that's a good point, Kenny.

We could still draft up something that actually says the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, uh, it would be a little bit more definitive as it's considered a legal document in this case. Whereas the memo I wrote was— is not. All right, thank you for that clarification, Dan. Uh, Mark, go ahead. Mr. Mayor, um, I'm— this is a really frustrating process, and I think it could have been alleviated.

I believe Miss Miller made a very good point earlier that if the— if the council is giving direct action per the code from our staff, from our city clerk in particular, we would not be in this position of having to decide how we're going to write findings of fact and follow, follow the regulations that are in the code for permitting and things like that. We would not be in this position. Then secondly, I want to point out I'm not sure how we could ask the city clerk to drop the findings of fact to back up our decision or the council's decision to grant the appeal when they've clearly stated that the appeal should not be granted. I don't know what facts you could find to— the appellant didn't put any findings of fact of why they were appealing it. They just said they were appealing it.

So I asked the attorney, if we're going to do that route, what grounds would the clerk have to put on there that would back up our decision? Because I don't, I don't I don't think that there are any grounds to back up the decision. And the clerk was pretty clear in this letter and did a good job with this letter. But we skipped the process that we should have been doing during that meeting, and that's why we're here now. If we would have went through the process properly and been guided properly, I believe we wouldn't be in the position we are now to do this.

So just if I could ask, Councilmember Johnson, a question. So you are saying that there is— I mean, obviously the rationale for the initial denial by the city clerk as and also supported by the city manager is from my perspective very clear and concise. And I think you are saying that. You know? And I don't know what other information he could have provided for Tuesday's meeting for the city council to make a well-thought-out, well-reasoned decision.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying the city clerk's office provided enough information, but maybe we don't have enough information for today's meeting? Well, maybe the question I guess I have is the attorney is saying that we need to instruct our clerk to go back and back and find findings in fact to back up our decision as a council today for Tuesday's decision. And I don't know how one— I don't know how he could do that because he was pretty clear and giving the findings and facts up front. It's just that we didn't go through the procedure to, to write those down further properly, I guess. Okay, so I guess that's why we're— I'm really not getting clear picture from the attorney of the procedure that we need to follow here.

I understand that if we make a motion to follow the procedure we're supposed to do, that we would say— we ask the— instruct the clerk to write the finding of fact. If he gets assistance from the attorney, which would be wise to do, he could do that. But if we do not— if we— if that doesn't pass or doesn't get a second to that motion, I think you're asking that earlier, what's the next step? Okay, I understand. Yeah, I'll be quiet.

So if it gets a second, then it votes, and it doesn't, uh, it doesn't pass, it dies? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's the answer that the lawyer was talking about. Yeah. Did you guys—.

Is that correct? From the attorney that that's what happened? That died? Sam, is that correct? Yeah, so just go back one step, which is it is often a challenge that the, uh, that the record and the deliberation isn't sufficient to, you know, write out the findings of fact.

I appreciate that that's a concern because I'll often say if I'm in the room and I'm going to do it, make sure you make, you know, give me 3 or 4 lines about why you're reaching this decision so that we can explain the reasoning and the findings of fact. So I understand that that's a frustration.

The question of if there is not a vote to authorize the findings of fact and conclusions, does that mean that the appeal is unsuccessful? And I think it does mean that because There is not support to grant the appeal in whole.

That's the question you're asking, right? The appeal would not be granted because it's not— nobody has authorized it to be finally authored, so it cannot be granted.

Preference just for a clean record that, you know, would be to maybe not rely on that just because, you know, people like to just see that a decision was reached by an effort to, you know, in a more— after a more robust discussion. But I think that would technically be the answer. The appeal is not complete until everybody agrees to issue written findings of fact and conclusions. And if everybody can't agree to do that, then the appeal is not granted. I mean, I think that's—.

Scott Henderson, we're talking about— if I could ask you a couple of questions regarding Tuesday's decision and the earlier decisions by the city clerk and support reported by the city manager to deny the initial appeal. Did their—. Can you state on the record today that, that their decision conformed with current city ordinance? And that's a yes or no question.

I cannot.

I, I cannot with the information that I have. I have a limited factual record personally because I have— I'm not tasked with— so I have limited facts. So I cannot say that, that it's supported by the city code because I— so I cannot. Okay. I thought I was going to get a yes or no.

I do not have a copy of the applicant's criminal record. I have I've deliberately not chosen to do that research because I'm not sitting. Okay, I'll ask you another question. If the City Council today votes, issues a, makes a motion and votes to reverse, rescind the earlier decision, the City Council's decision, which effectively will deny the application and basically support the earlier decision made by the city clerk and the city manager. Can we do that today and also request basically a findings of fact and conclusions of law after this decision so that council members and the public can feel comfortable, uh, and understand the, the reasonings behind that decision?

Basically, instead of holding this process up for another week or two or however long it takes for you to issue your findings of fact, there's clarity on the record now, followed up with your legal, you know, determination of whether that decision meets the requirements of Nome's code of ordinances.

Yeah, that would be your decision. Decision whether it— I mean, but right, it could be done today. I mean, it would take a little bit, and so Dan or I would have to carve out some time and bring it back to the council at 5 PM for approval or something. I mean, I think that is theoretically possible. Can we do that today?

Maybe on Friday. Everybody, council members take a lot of time out of their schedules schedules, and it would be really nice to get this resolved today, however it's resolved. That's what I'm looking for. I don't want to pull the council, but it certainly would be good if we could get this resolved today instead of waiting for you to issue a later decision and then voting on that decision again. I think the public needs some pretty clear direction on this today.

Mr. Mayor, for clarification to what Scot Henderson is asking, you're not necessarily asking for them to draft up the findings of fact. You're asking them— you're asking us to be able to vote, and then they follow up with the findings of fact, which we can review at a later time. That's correct. The city council— I'm asking the city council, maybe if it makes sense, to vote on it today, and then the attorney can follow up with his findings at a later date at the next council meeting. Oh yeah, and I thought the attorney—.

Yeah, absolutely. No, absolutely. Yeah, yeah, 100%. I, I thought you had like with in the next 45 minutes while everybody waits in the hallway. I was hesitant to promise.

Okay, so right, right, absolutely. No, that would be the direction. And then just say, please include it in the packet. Um, you can say at the next regular meeting, uh, we'll have it done by packet deadline, or, or we want to do, do a special meeting on, uh, you know, Wednesday or so and, uh, get it done by then. Um, yeah, would it be okay to make a motion now then, unless anybody else has any more discussion?

Huh? The chair will entertain a motion. Uh, Korn, I think, has a question. Okay, but if we, uh, from what I understand from you earlier, if we vote to go with that, then the findings— find the findings part, the second part— we vote to approve that, then it goes to a— well, we'll still have to convene on that in next meeting.

I can answer. Yes, that's correct. And, uh, the— yes, that's correct, it would be a separate meeting. That, that part is usually pretty quick because the heavy lifting of making the substantive decision is done now. The findings and of fact are consistent with that, and you're just looking at it and saying, yeah, that checks out with what we talked about, you know, on Friday.

Yeah, okay, sounds right. You spelled somebody's name wrong, fix that, but otherwise we're good. That should be pretty quick, but that is a separate meeting usually just to allow time to draft a document that incorporates the reasoning that was stated on the record. Scott? Yeah, and just to add to that, if we vote today to reverse the earlier decision, that decision is final regardless of whatever the attorney puts in their findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We've—. If we decide today to reverse the earlier decision, it's done. Is that correct? And then you can issue your findings of fact later as for information purposes, but if we as a council decide to reverse the decision, the earlier decision decision today, that decision is final unless somebody wants to try to change it again. Is that correct?

Yes, I mean, if that's what the council directs, then it's— it is again consistent with the theme. I mean, we've got to agree on those findings before it's officially, officially over. But yes, I mean, that's— that's what the council decides to do today. That's what we'll write up. And before we get to making a motion, I, I, in my head, I just have two different threads, and I want to make sure that I'm on the right track.

One of them is potentially somebody's going to make a motion to approve the Tuesday, and then we're voting yes on that, and then immediately somebody's going to make a motion to rescind that and then issue a new Or are we doing nothing with the Tuesday and somebody's just going to make a motion to overturn and we're just moving forward? Sorry, I just want to make sure that I'm getting—. I'll be very transparent. I will make a motion to reverse the City Council's decision on Tuesday night, which is effectively, you know, overturn this. I will make that motion.

I don't know how it's going to turn out, but that's my plan. And in my mind, Whatever happens after that, we— the city council has acted very clearly, uh, and whatever the attorney decides to do, I honestly—. I agree. Does that answer your question? Yes.

Okay. And again, just for clarification, so we make sure whatever we do is, is legal, I'd ask the attorney that if we go that route, because it's different than what you initially stated are we able to take the route of making the motion to rescind on Tuesday's meeting and then carrying on from there?

Yes, I envisioned it a slightly different way, but the end result is the same, and it, I think, just makes more— it's just easier to conceptualize the way it was just stated.

I would— it is fine that that is different from how I initially envisioned it as a— yes, that's fine. And follow-up to that, just for future reference, because like I said, I don't remember this happening in the past, and I'm more on making sure whatever we're doing is correct legally and in proper process, that if we make votes on the city council and at a later time decide to rescind them, the person— what we're doing is we can do that. I mean, that's the question, is the current process to do that.

I'll tell you the distinction here, a critical distinction, is that you were sitting as an appellate body, which is much different from what you're— you're sitting in a quasi-judicial setting, and that's why it's a little bit different. As far as reconsideration on a legislative matter, which is probably 90% of what you do, um, I'll have to get with Dan and look at the code and figure out what the history and practice is on that, and we can maybe clarify that. Uh, the two distinct processes. So, uh, what you're normally doing with an ordinance or resolution is more in line with normal notions of reconsideration and Roberts Rules and give guidance on that. This is a little different.

Just simply, it's quasi-judicial, which is rare for councils. And so it puts us in this spot where we're just kind of— it didn't get done completely, so it's still kind of open. They're distinct.

I think we're ready for—. But actually, I will work with Dan to provide some guidance on reconsideration standards and/or maybe codify that for most day-to-day stuff. It's not crystal clear in Nome's code in general. I will make a motion to reverse the City Council's decision on Tuesday to To support the appeal, and I'm probably going to ask the city clerk to basically make sure that the motion is very clear, but I— my motion is to reverse the city council's decision on Tuesday, uh, on regarding Mr. Amasuk's appeal on for his chauffeur's license.

And if I could also ask the city clerk to read back the motion so that all the council members understand what a yes vote means and what a no vote, just to make sure that there's no confusion.

So, uh, yeah, yeah, yes, and for our attorney to follow up with a finding of facts and conclusions of law regarding this decision.

Just that. Were you going to read that back? Yeah, I can read that. Please do. Thank you.

Motion to reverse the last meeting's decision regarding Mr. Moskowitz's appeal and issue findings of facts and conclusions of law.

Can I ask one more and then I'll be quiet? A yes vote basically denies Mr. Amosuk's appeal. Correct. Thank you. That motion is made by Council Member Henderson and seconded by Council Member Johnson.

Is there any further discussion?

Not hearing any further discussion, clerk may call the vote. Council Member Lust? Yes. Council Member Johnson? Yes.

Councilmember Martinson? Yes. Councilmember Henderson? Yes. Councilmember Owls?

Yes. Councilmember Green? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

As a side comment, I want to apologize to Councilmember Johnson for raising my voice earlier during the public testimony. Uh, we as council members are supposed to maintain our professional decorum, and I did not, so I apologize for that. Apology accepted.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. Sir, motion— there's a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Seconded. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Thank you all very much for your time.