The Common Council met 04/20/2022. It was the first meeting of the new Council year so, although none of the items taken up were particularly remarkable, there was some education on Council procedures that was worked into the meeting.
When it came time to establish the Order of the Day, Mayor Woodford took time to talk about that process for the benefit of the new alderperson. He explained that the agenda was made up of all of the committee reports which included recommendations from the committees that have met since the Council’s last meeting. All of those reports appear under item L on the agenda “Committee Reports” which was basically a package of all of the recommendations. Establishing the order of the day was the opportunity for an alderperson to request to separate out an item from that package of recommendations so that it could undergo separate discussion. Any item that appears on the agenda can be requested to undergo a separate vote.
He noted that this was also a good time for an alderperson to request a refer back to committee.
Once all the items that alderpersons wanted separated out where requested, the Council would go through the separated-out items and after discussing and voting on them would then move on to the Balance of the Agenda. The Balance of the Agenda included all the other items that were not separate out, and those were all taken up as a single package which underwent one vote.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) noted that the package of the committee reports contained the recommendations from the committees so if an alderperson didn’t want to approve the recommendation made by a committee, this would be their opportunity to separate out that item. Otherwise, when they vote on the balance of the agenda, they would be voting in favor of the recommendations as they came from the committees.
Three items were separate out for individual discussion and votes.
- Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) requested to separate out Safety and Licensing item #22-0410: Class “B” Beer and “Class B” Liquor License Change of Agent application for GT Limited d/b/a Rascals Bar & Grill.
- Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14) requested to separate out Safety and Licensing item #22-0454: request to Purchase Fire Truck via Sole Source
- Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) requested to separate out Safety and Licensing item #22-0363: Class “B” Beer and “Class C” Wine License application for Area 509 LLC d/b/a Area 509
The Council took up the Liquor License Change of Agent application for GT Limited first. No one on the Council had any comments or questions and the item was approved 13-0 with Alderperson Van Zeeland abstaining.
They then moved on to the request to purchase a fire truck via sole source. The item did result in some discussion which I recapped in a previous post. After reviewing the reasons for the sole sourcing and the savings that would result from paying for it before May 1st, the Council approved it by a vote of 14-0.
They then moved onto the final item that had been separated out, the beer and wine license application for Area 509 LLC.
Alderperson Schultz said that, since this was an educational session, he was going to take this opportunity to educate the new members as well. He went on to explain that occasionally an item might come before the committee that involves an individual that an alderperson knows or a business or project with which an alderperson is involved. Although it is rare that there would ever be points of contention, sometimes an alderperson needs to cast a vote of abstention to avoid the appearance of impropriety in voting for something that they are involved with tangentially outside of the Common Council. In situations like that, alderperson separate items out specifically so that they can abstain from voting on the item. That was why he had asked to separate out this particular item.
None of the other alderpersons had any comments or questions about the item and the Council voted 13-0 to approve it with Alderperson Schultz abstaining.
The Council moved on to the Balance of the Agenda. There were no comments or questions, and they voted 14-0 to approve it.
Two resolutions were submitted and referred to the appropriate committee or department.
The Council moved on to “Other Business”, and Mayor Woodford took that time to congratulate the Council on reaching the end of their first meeting. He looked forward to working with the new Council members and thanked all the alderpersons for their effort in welcoming to new members and sharing their wisdom and knowledge along the way.
The agenda had included a notice indicating that the Council might enter closed session. [This notice had been placed on the agenda in case the Council ended up having to deliberate on the alcohol license revocation for Core’s Lounge. However, nobody from Core’s Lounge came to the meeting to make a final plea to be able to keep their license, so the Council did not separate that item out or deliberate on it specifically, but rather approved the revocation of the license when they approved the Balance of the Agenda.]
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) asked if Mayor Woodford could explain what a closed session was, since they were learning things that day. Mayor Woodford asked Attorney Christopher Behrens to explain what closed session are and when they are allowed.
Attorney Behrens said closed sessions were rare but they do shoe up on occasion. Government is intended to be open so that the public can see everything that’s done, but there are some very limited circumstances where it is statutorily permitted for the Council or committees to go into closes session. Those session included the presence of only members of the committee or Council and necessary staff. Some of those situations in which closed sessions were permitted would include if the city was involved in litigation and they need to discuss litigation, the status of it, litigation strategies, or things that if they were discussed publicly would potentially undermine those strategies, and how the city intends to move forward.
The previous week there had been a hearing with the Safety and Licensing Committee. The committee had been permitted to go into closed session so that they could openly deliberate in more of a private setting.
Anytime a body might enter closed session, they have to list the statutory reason for it and at least generally what the topic is that would be discussed; although, he added, they don’t go into great detail because that would undermine the purpose of the closed session.
Mayor Woodford noted that they did have a Council rule pertaining to remote participation. Remote participation was not permitted in closed session, so that was something for alderpersons to keep in mind if they were ever going to utilize the option to participate in a meeting remotely. They would not be able to participate in a closed session.
There were no questions and the meeting adjourned.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=937639&GUID=3EADCB31-F8DF-46CB-8073-07E75B05E9C7
Be the first to reply