Ketchikan Gateway Borough - Special Assembly Meeting September 28, 2026

Welcome to the September 28th special borough assembly meeting. Will Ms. Bolling lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Will the clerk please call the roll? Arnson. Present. Bolling. Here.

Dial. Here. Mattson. Here. Ortez.

Here. Palmer. Here. Thompson. Aye.

All present, one via WebEx, Your Honor. All right, that takes us to citizen comments. First up is Rob Holston. Mr. Holston, please come to the podium.

Good evening. Let me first premise by saying probably one of the most difficult decisions you can be faced with is to reverse a course especially when your initial course was so publicly proclaimed. Now, my written comments. Recently, a planning commission member made comments at their meeting that were determined to be racist. The condemnation of this person was overwhelming and seemingly unanimous among community leaders.

I recently talked to a Tlingit friend of mine and ask his opinion. In essence, he stated that the reaction to her comments reminded him of a mob mentality, where in this case, if anyone even suggested to look beyond the accusations of racism and examine any underlying community concerns that led to her comments, that they themselves would be accused of being racist. Indeed, I myself suffer the— may suffer those same consequences with such accusations for me standing here tonight and presenting my intellectual approach to this emotional topic. I was born and raised in Montana near the Flathead Native Indian Reservation. I attended high school on that reservation.

I had friends classmates, bandmates, and teammates who were Indigenous Flathead Tribe natives. When I moved to Ketchikan in 1981 as a schoolteacher, I had a keen sense of our local Ketchikan community embracing their Indigenous brethren of the Haida, Tsimshian, Tlingit tribes above and beyond what had been the case in Montana, and that the Ketchikan area tribes seem to be well merged and incorporated into the fabric of our community. In Ketchikan, we have various indigenous groups doing business here. Ketchikan Indian Community, known as KIC, Cape Fox Corporation, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, and the Sealaska Corporation. Perhaps this is confusing to the casual onlooker.

Most of their efforts seem to be doing quite well. Since the Alaska Native Land Settlement Act of 1971, when 44 million acres of land and $962.5 million were transferred to Alaska Native corporations. This was certainly a much better outcome for all concerned than the mostly failed examples of the reservation system in Montana, my home state, and many other southern states. Much of these organizations' funding comes from federal, state, and local governments, and of course from some successful entrepreneurialism, which I appreciate. It seems natural for some non-Indigenous members of the Katchikan community to become concerned and perhaps jealous of perceived favorable treatment of governments towards these tribal organizations.

Unfortunately, the comments attracting attention included the word "white," and the Native group contains the word "Indian." So the emotional stage was set for playing the race card. If indeed she did not lie when reporting that 7 people had contacted her regarding perceived financial and policy bias favoring KIC, then the question to answer is: Not whether she was racist, but indeed, is there a level of fairness in deciding financial and policy decisions? Not to get hung up on the ill-advised use of the word white. Thanks for listening to my intellectual examination of the other side of the coin.

Thank you so much for your comments. Thank you for listening. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next we have Tom Guthrie.

Hi. I'm Anu Yuuk, Earthshaker. I'm Simshian.

I live here in Ketchikan. I've been here for 18 years. My wife is a councilwoman at KIC. I'd like for him to walk in my shoes here when I was little and up to now.

Being racist, you feel it. I'm brown, he's not.

We feel it. We know when we run into somebody. Any of you would say hi, how you doing, whatever, and I'm gonna say, "Wah wah wah wah wah." Say nothing. You could feel it. You don't feel it because we feel it.

We're born to breed it like that. We're connected to this land very much, so we know when there's a deer in the woods, a wolf, whatever. We feel it. We're bred to be connected to this world here. We've been here thousands of years.

I lived in the community next door, Netlakatla, and we spit at and called down in the high school here wasn't joyful.

It changed slowly, and I've been here 18 years, and I could feel good hands, meaning there's a lot of good people here. There's some that haven't learned. They learned from their parents to think of them above everybody. That's not the way to walk.

When you walk, you walk equal. Don't look down on people. You may be thinking, because I don't lower my head to you, I'm racist or whatever.

We have thousands of years of holding our head up high, no matter who you are. Simgians don't lower our eyes to no one. Our head. That's the way we're brought up.

We have a lot of enemies when we were young, 300 or 400 years of different tribes fighting each other, but that ended. It's important that we keep that. Unity makes us strong. With you, unity is even stronger. We need to end this pettiness of words that hurt.

We need to make sure we all walk the same path instead of griping about each other on words that were said. You may misinterpret something, but that isn't what it is. We feel it.

I'd love to have— I have a lot of friends here. I made some good friends, both sides, and they don't like it either. I don't like it. I'd rather walk on a red road, meaning the good path, not the dark side. I walk that side.

It's not a good feeling.

When I drank and drugged, I didn't care about nobody.

Brown, Black, white, that's how I was. Because I was treated bad in Kansas. Felt the hurt there because I didn't have that growing up in Metlakatla because we were all brown. Going to a different state and feel that and see places say welcome Haskell. Nothing.

One place that said that.

Every other place, welcome KU.

They brought their riot in the late '60s to different campuses down there. We wouldn't allow them on our campus.

Why bring something that we don't even know what you're fighting about? Very simple to walk away and not hurt anyone.

It's important that we walk together.

Not important to feel the hate of a person. They're losing a lost battle by doing that. It's them who are hurting, not me. I lost a son 14, 15 years ago. I could have hated that boy for taking my son's life, but that was my nephew.

I had to talk to two matriarchs, my mom and my auntie, because I didn't want to talk to the law. My matriarchs are the— are my ones I talk to.

Forgive them with kindness. My ziih told me, all your work hurt all the time. Let it go. And I had to let it go, but I will never forget my son.

I told my nephew not to worry about me. Walk your life right. He quit drinking and all that. And that's good.

We all need to quit that business of being hateful. It's not good for everyone.

When we go here, from here, leave it in this hall.

Walsi be friends.

It's important that we walk that road together. We'd be a stronger nation if we walk that road together, not divided.

There's somebody that's dividing us now, and that's not good.

He's playing the card that nobody likes.

If we walk together, they can't do anything to us. Let them walk around us.

Protection. Oh, goodness, geez. Thank you so much for your comments. Public comment is still open. No one else has signed up.

You can come to the podium to speak.

Good evening. I'm Cheryl Eiseley. Um, I just wanted to say something really brief. I missed the first meeting last week. Um, how we present ourselves and the words we use, we get to choose those things.

You know, when we speak publicly as people in leadership roles, we get to choose what we're saying and we have to be careful about what we say and we know that before we speak. So, you know, when we're talking in a way that's divisive about a specific group, especially Indigenous people, Native people, we know what we're saying and there's no doubt, I think, that the community is fully aware that this was racism, that that's how it was spoken. So that's really not the question at hand. You know, Darlene chose her words. She followed by saying that she could be fired for them.

Her intent was there. And I think that if you know Darlene personally, um, or have watched her Facebook posts, there's been a lot of ranting about KIC for about 3 years, maybe a little bit longer. The one thing that I just want to point out is even though, um, there's a lot of support for her and the idea that 7 people came forward and asked her to speak those words She's not made a public apology at all. There's not been an "I'm sorry" said at all. If it was me and I spoke about a specific group, I would apologize, even if I did not feel like I needed to do that apology or I felt justified.

You know, there's just continued division that's out there publicly. So, you know, I'm a fair-skinned Native. I don't really fit in on either side. A lot of people don't accept me because I'm not dark enough or, you know, I'm not light enough. And so I get to feel a lot of different things depending on what group I'm speaking with or speaking to.

And so I just want to say thank you for considering the impact that it's had on our community. And it's not just the Native community, it's those people that have mixed blood like myself or married and have a mixed family. I think it's really important. I also have grandkids that, you know, of color. And so it's really important to remember what we say is always there.

You know, this was spoken, it's a video, heard that's been shared, and that's going to have an impact for years to come. So I just want to say thank you for taking the time to do something about it. Thank you so much for your comments. Podium is still open for anyone like to come and speak.

Good evening. Ali Ginter, I remembered this time, um, borough resident. Good evening. I want to address the new narrative that the comments we have been discussing were taken out of context. Whatever the intended context was, there are some ideas that remain harmful regardless of what surrounds them.

The notion that white people are taxpayers carrying this community while Native people or Native organizations are somehow a financial burden is one of them. I am a Native woman. I am a member of Ketchikan Indian Community. I also own a home in this borough. I pay property taxes.

I pay sales taxes. I work here. I raise my family here. I contribute here, and I serve this community. I am both Native and a taxpayer.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. And I also want to speak to something that I think is getting lost while we debate context words that have impact. Since these comments were made, I've had young Indigenous people reach out to me with genuine hurt in their hearts. Young people questioning whether they are a drain on society, wondering whether their tribe, their families, or the services their community provides somehow make them a burden. That breaks my heart.

I wish I could fall back on that old schoolyard saying, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. But we all know that isn't true. Words do hurt. Words shape the way young people see themselves. They shape whether our children feel valued in their own hometown.

They shape the way neighbors see one another. And then words reinforce stereotypes that Indigenous people have been fighting for generations. We cannot simply dismiss their impact by saying they were misunderstood. Our young people heard those words and some of them internalized them. So I will repeat my words because I want them to hear something else just as loudly.

You are not a drain on society. Your family is not a burden. Your culture is not a burden. Your tribe is not a burden. You belong here.

Native people are homeowners, taxpayers, business owners, fishermen, teachers, healthcare workers, parents, grandparents, elected officials, employees, and employers. We contribute to this community because we are this community. We can debate intent all night long, but we should also be willing to acknowledge impact. And when our young people tell us that words hurt them, I believe we have a responsibility to listen and to have accountability. Sheesh.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your comments. Public comment is still open. Podium is open. All right.

Seeing and hearing none, public comment is now closed. That takes us to Item 3, Special Business, Introduction of Ordinance 21-22, Amending KGBCC Title II to Provide for the Removal of Appointed Members of Committees, Boards, and Commissions. I will entertain a motion from the Assembly. Your Honor, uh, Ms. Mattson, I move to introduce Ordinance 2122, amending KGBC Title II to provide procedures for removal of appointed members of committees, boards, and commissions, and set it for a public hearing on October 5th, 2026.

Second. Moved by Mattson, that's seconded by Thomson. Uh, discussion? I was going to allow the attorney to speak at anything that he wants since he kind of created this code here. Um, curious if you had any comments on it or where he got it from or those sorts of things.

I'll answer questions about the draft. Uh, I think you'll note that in Section 1, we just wanted to reference in the administrative hearing section of code, um, the process. This is a new administrative hearing, uh, operation that is being introduced. Normally, um, it's just not something without the mechanism in place. The assembly's never had any procedures or anything for dealing with the administrative hearing on a removal.

So it affects the two sections. I will note that on page 2 of the ordinance, under Section 2, there is a typographical error. Um, in the heading of that, it says KGB— KGB 2.10.140 amended as follows, and then there's a typo that should also read 2.10 .140, and speaking with the clerk, we'll make that clerical edit, um, if the matter is introduced and then brought back next week. So if there's any questions—. Is there any questions for the attorney?

Yep, Miss Arnson. Thank you for noting, um, uh, just the typo. I, I noticed in Section A, I just wanted to clarify Is that also a typo, the 2.20.040? Should that be 140, or is that one correct? I'm sorry, in Section A?

Yeah, is that— because that's regarding the code of ethics.

Is that reference accurate?

Uh, what page are you looking at on the ordinance? The recitals, recitals A. Oh.

No, that's correct. 220 To 040. Okay. Is where the ethics code resides. Okay.

And then we have 2 E's in Section 2.

Very good. So—. We'll make that as a clerical edit if it is introduced and brought back.

Okay. I have a— I do have a question for the attorney. So one of the things that I was looking for is the timeline, because I was trying to wrap my my brain around how somebody would— how the dates work. And I had asked the attorney to clarify that, and we talked about they need to have 10 days to appeal from the day that the hearing happens. So I'm curious if it would be prudent for us to add in Section D where it states the grounds for removal shall be stated with each removal action, as well as the date upon which the removal will become effective, not less than 15 days from the date of the hearing.

Because I didn't see anywhere else in here where it clarified that.

Is that a question? Or just—. Yeah, I'm just curious if that would be— if, um, I know I'm throwing this out at the attorney on the— at the podium. So if it was an amendment that you were wishing to make, um, I, I would like to make that amendment, but I just wanted to—. If that— if there was somewhere else in here that clarified the timeline for when, if a person— if this was passed and a person was removed via hearing, when that would become effective.

It does say not less, uh, no, it just says that they have 10 days to appeal. Um, so I'm just curious if we can clarify that. They don't have 10 days to appeal. They have to appeal 10 days prior to the date that the removal is effective. So the way it's drafted, if the assembly were to pass on or approve the removal of someone, they will set the effective date.

That's in Section D, as you read. Once that effective date is set, the person— obviously, the setting of that date's going to take into account that they need to give notice not less than 10 days prior to the effective date of the removal. What this will likely do— and further in E, it provides that if an appeal is filed, the removal shall not be effective. So it essentially stays if an appeal is filed, the effective date of the removal set by the assembly at the time of removal is stayed pending the hearing. If the appear— if the hearing is not conducted prior to the effective date of the removal, that's, that's— so I think your proposal regarding 15 days would probably put more confines on it.

You were talking about 15 days to hearing from the date of the hearing. Yeah, I don't— I think binding the assembly to hold a hearing within 15 days, I don't know if the assembly would appreciate it, but it's your amendment. The clerk has something. Thank you. And if we look at the prior section in Section 1 where it talks about the individual subject to the removal may file an appeal.

So my understanding is the, the order of the steps would be there would be an assembly removal. Within 10 days of that action, the subject could appeal. Then a hearing would be set if, if a valid appeal is, is filed.

So I guess that's where my confusion is, is because it says the, the assembly will set the date upon when the removal will become effective, but they have to appeal within 10 days of the removal being effective, the decision to remove.

The appeal would happen within 10 days after that decision to remove. The assembly motion that's adopted to remove a member, that's the decision. And so the appeal would come— need to come in within 10 days of that.

And, um, through the, through the mayor, uh, But it says in Section E, notice of appeal must be given to the assembly no later than 10 days prior to the date the removal is to be effective.

So if it is to be effective on the 10th of the month, the appeal must be received by the 1st.

So it seems for future assembly reference, it would be prudent for us to let the assembly know they have to give at least 10 days so that, like, if this were to pass and, and the hearing were to happen, they couldn't make the removal effective immediately based on what I'm reading. Well, and there's a— there's a 30-day— there's a 30-day appeal period to Superior Court after a hearing. So we've got a couple of timelines here, and perhaps this is something that the attorney and I can work on when we bring back the version for the hearing to make sure that that's clear. If it simplifies it some, instead of the amendment that you proposed Might I suggest that E begin with a notice of appeal of a decision removal must be provided to the assembly, period.

The hearing shall be heard prior to the effective date of the removal if reasonably possible. So remove the 10 days, the note Put the period after assembly in the first sentence of subsection E. Does that simplify it some? Mm-hmm. I think in any event, there's not going to be a circumstance with this appellate right. There's not going to be a circumstance where the assembly removes someone and makes it effective immediately because they have to allow their appeal period to, to run.

So if it simplifies it, You know, ideally, you're able to schedule the hearing.

You set the effective date of the removal, and ideally, you set that so that the hearing could conceivably be accomplished prior to the effective date that's set. If it doesn't occur before the effective date is set, the effect of the removal is stayed until the hearing is conducted and a decision's made. On the appeal.

So if we simply—. So, through the mayor, on that scenario though, if— yeah, I just want to make sure that it's clear for now and in the future that you can't just remove somebody immediately, that they have to have time to appeal the decision. So that's, that's what I'm looking for. Yeah, there's no circumstance in here that someone could be removed immediately and still recognize their appeal rights. And still recognize that, right?

So, so in here, it— that's why I'm asking for it. Um, when it's where it talks about when the assembly has the authority to set the date upon which the removal will become effective, that means they need to give the appeal period time, and it seems prudent to have that in black and white in the resolution. Okay, so, um, I would rather give staff time to, to work on that and bring that back, um, than make an amendment now. We can bring back an updated version that would clarify that the process and also make the clerical corrections that were discussed earlier. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Your Honor. I guess one could read this to say that the effective date could be immediate but would be stayed if an appeal was filed within 10 days of the action.

And I don't know if that's the intent of this, but it certainly could be. Otherwise, I tend to agree with Assemblymember Arnson that perhaps in Section D, right after where it says the date upon which removal will become effective, there be a new sentence added: The effective date may not be less than 15 days from the date of action. And that would give us a 15-day window, 5 days to notify all the parties concerned, and then a 10-day appeal period would occur if there's an intent that this would be delayed from the date of action to some date in the future. Otherwise, you know, it could be written such that the person could be immediately removed, but could be— would be reinstated effective pending a hearing. If they appeal it within 10 days.

Does staff understand that? Yeah. I don't know what the will of the assembly would be. I guess, yeah, that's a question I would have is if that's the will of the assembly that someone could explicitly be removed effective immediately with a reinstatement only upon prevailing in an appeal. If that's— if the assembly would like the revised draft to come back with that in it.

It would be helpful to know that.

Do we need a formal vote for that? Or—. Yeah, go ahead. I'm still a little confused here. So are we going with— based on the most recent comments, is it your understanding that we're going with the comments that our attorney said would help the issue by And of course, this is all going to be done away from this meeting, but I thought we were going with notice of appeal must be given to the assembly, and then we're going to get rid of the no later than 10 days at that point under E. That's where I thought we were going.

Is that what you're thinking we're going? Through the Mayor, we certainly could go down that route, but I— but what I was pointing out is that the way this is written the assembly or the mayor, whoever is taking the action, could set in a date upon which the removal would become effective, which could be immediate. But we need to make sure that under the, under the rules that we have here, that if someone appeals that, then they have the right to be reinstated upon a pre-hearing. And that's— but they have to appeal that within 10 days prior to the date the removal is to be effective. That—.

There's a little bit of a a disconnect there. So if you took that clause out and just said the notice of appeal must be given to the assembly, period, then they could appeal immediately or, you know, within a reasonable period of time if they wanted to, and then a hearing could be established. But in the meantime, they would be removed from the body that they were appointed to until they were successful on appeal. It's a little bit confusing, but it's not really worded well that way, but it could be interpreted that way, and so it's not clear. Okay.

And I don't know if the will of the assembly would be to have the authority to remove somebody immediately, because if there's a situation where somebody needs to be removed from a body because they're unfit to serve, then it doesn't really make a lot of sense to leave them on that body for an additional 15 days where damage— more damage could be done. But they still have to have the right to appeal such a decision and be heard.

Madison and then Bowling. Thank you, Your Honor. Just in Section 1, Item D, it does say that the individual that's subjected to the removal action may file that appeal within 10 days. So it's not open to, like, whenever you feel like it. They do have the 10 days from the date of the ad assembly action.

And so I think that that is important to maintain, that there's an opportunity for appeal and for potential redress if a decision was made in a way that was determined to not be accurate. I think it's also important, I think that notice of the appeal is to be given to assembly, period, and not having that built-in arbitrary, we've gotta have 15 days, or that we're, or a future assembly is bound by some kind of, red tape on the timeframe. If somebody is being removed, then the— which is fairly significant and substantial and has to fall into this, you know, the kind of the parameters on what vacancy would be a good cause, you know, different things, then ideally, I think that that removal would be happening not in a month, you know, but it's happening for a reason immediately, and then there is redress that's available via the Section D in— or Item D in Section 1 for the individual, and that the assembly would know that that was to be given to them, and that they're bound to follow the procedures of a hearing that would follow, but that they're not bound by arbitrary rules limiting the actions that they're taking in order to give a potential for an appeal. So I'm in favor of just removing that Section E 10 days, but leaving that 10 days, that's for the individual. Uh, bullying in the DOW.

Thank you, Your Honor. So, um, kind of wishing we had a visual, you know, with the timeline of everything, because what I'm thinking about is it— the removal of whatever, whomever, um, is going to have to be on a an agenda at least once, maybe twice. So this whole— they're going to have fair warning, right? So I'm sorry, yes, help me out. Just to add to that, in the event that there is an appeal and a hearing set after the assembly decision, we have an additional set of requirements that we follow in the appeal section that's already in code.

That includes timeline, it includes notice. There's a timeline for the notice and for items to be submitted before the hearing. So it's a very strict set of guidelines. The Assembly is probably familiar with that from different types of appeals that the Assembly has had during its quasi-judicial functions. So, um, I think that it would be good if the attorney and I can go through this after tonight's discussion, if you're very clear on what's important to the assembly to put in, and then we can make sure that we fit that in along with the other timeline that's in the appeal section.

Thanks. I think it's helpful for people who are listening that we, we are understanding the entire scope of what this looks like. We can't just show up and remove somebody, that there is a process before this process that we're talking about right now. So So thank you, Mr. Dowell. Along the lines with what Mr. Thompson said, I support the assembly's ability to make the removal immediate unless appealed within 10 days.

Yeah. Mm-hmm. Same. Yep. Go ahead.

I just wanted to say that that would be my preference too. I tend to agree that if, if it's something that needs to be addressed right away, then it's probably something that should be able to be done immediately. But there definitely needs to be due process for that person. Um, and I guess my question for the attorney would be, if, like, if the assembly were to do that and remove them, is this 10-day that's built in here now, is that to hold space for that due process? Um, and are there any concerns from a legal perspective if they were to be removed, they have to be reinstated by appeal before they could resume their position?

As I understand what Mr. Thompson said, yes.

Yes, through the mayor, that's—. There's no concern that would be permissible by law, that they're reinstated upon an upheld appeal? But are they still— they're waiting, we're waiting for the appeal to see what the decision is. So for that, during that waiting period up to 30 days, um, do they— they don't get put back in that position? What I'm hearing is, and I was going to ask this question, the consensus that I'm hearing is that the assembly wants the ability to remove someone effective immediately upon the assembly vote.

Person's off at that point if they pursue their appeal rights. When—. And in that conversation, if we take a look at subsection E, it looks like from what I'm hearing, the third sentence beginning with, "If a proposed removal is appealed," it sounds like that sentence needs to come out altogether. And I may need to add a sentence that in in the appeal section that says in the event of an appeal being upheld, the person is reinstated to the remainder of their appointed term, something to that effect.

Sound— seeing head nod, yes. Okay. I counted 7 head nods. Jamie, Ms. Palmer, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Honor. I also agree that there should be an immediate removal with some conditions. Whenever we take the time to vote, it needs to be a stand-down. There's certain egregious things that could happen that would render us that ability to do it, and I think that's fantastic. And then, of course, they stand down until they get through the appeal process and if they should get reinstated or not.

So I'm in line with everybody else's thinking here and appreciate the time to come back with clerical edits for the next round. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the attorney? We're all on the same page.

Yep, go ahead. I just want to confirm based on what's written here, this is only one hearing by the assembly. This is not two. The fifth will have another hearing. Okay, thank you.

No, no, I mean, if this gets passed—. As written. If this is passed as in the next meeting, Um, you're saying there will be another meeting after that? No, I'm saying, and then if somebody was put forward to be removed, that is only one action. It doesn't require two public hearings, correct?

Just want to confirm that. Yes, the mayor says, I want to remove somebody, and then you guys vote formally on it, and then there's an appeal process. That's what it's kind of—. Yeah. It doesn't have to come back for a second hearing if there's an appeal.

If there's—. Yep, just want to make sure. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Thompson. Just for clarification, um, we can introduce this tonight.

The attorney and staff have, have our sense of where we want to go with this. We will have a public hearing at the next meeting, but we can also make amendments and pass it at that hearing. And just for point of clarification, under this new procedure, that does not require a public hearing. That is something that the mayor can do or the assembly can do as a resolution. Yeah, I'm getting nods from the court.

Thank you. Or a simple letter.

Okay, are we ready to vote? All right, please call the roll. Does the attorney have anything? Understand our direction? I believe I do.

All right, sounds good. All right, please, Jamie, do you still have this question? Nope. No. Okay, please call the roll.

Arnson. Yes. Dial. Yes. Ortez.

Yes. Thompson. Aye. Palmer.

Yes. Mattson. Yes. Bowling. Yes.

7 Yes, Your Honor. Okay, uh, that takes us to Mayor and Assembly comments. Let's start with Mr. Thompson. I don't really have anything further this evening. Voting days are coming up, so everybody plan to get out and vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Let's go around. Ms. Arnsen. I just want to thank the folks that came today.

I like that we have public hearing— or, excuse me, citizen comments at our meetings. I like to hear from the public. Today was just really about making sure that we're correcting a gap in our code right now that doesn't allow for the assembly to remove appointees. And so I'll look forward to seeing this again at the next meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bowling. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad that we are resisting the distraction of engaging in the minutia, the nitpicking, um, of the commission decision, because good decisions reinforce themselves, and treating our neighbors with care is a good decision. Thank you, Miss Mattson. Thank you.

Um, I, um, I'm interested in the narrative about the underlying concerns behind comments. I think many issues can be legitimate to look into, and planning issues are important. And if behaviors or statements by committee members obscure those issues or change focus from planning issues to race, bias, discrimination, or bigotry, the importance of holding a standard of no tolerance for those in our spaces of government. Governance takes precedence, and I appreciate that we've been able to do that. And so I appreciate this action.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. Nothing tonight. Mr. Dowell. Um, I'm going to reserve additional comments for the second reading, but I support this.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Palmer.

Thank you, Your Honor. I will also save my comments till the 5th. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Um, no more discussion. Uh, the meeting is adjourned at 6:13.

You want us to shut the computers down?