So I’m skipping 3/4 of the meeting and jumping to the council discussion, motions and voting. What happened after we all went to bed? Check to see what your alder did, or didn’t, have to say!
Here’s the video. You can watch the first 6 hours and 15 minutes the meeting, including the fire drill! This is the public testimony, questions of speakers and questions of staff.
MOTION FOR THE SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION “OPPOSING” F-35s
Starting at 6:13 there is a motion. Alder Grant Foster moves the substitute, someone seconded. He asks to read the substitute. The Mayor doesn’t seem thrilled about that, reminds him that everyone has it at their place. Foster defers to the body, if no one wants to listen. Somebody says that they want it read into the record. Foster ask Alder Rebecca Kemble to read it. She starts reading at 6:14 and over 15 minutes later she finishes. You can read it here.
MOTION FOR THE ALTERNATE RESOLUTION WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LANGUAGE
At 6:31 in the video, or about 1am, Alder Barbara McKinney makes the motion for the alternate and it is seconded. Two hours of debate follows. She starts off by talking about the Social Determinants of Youth Health – she says the determinants of disparities include poverty, unequal access to health care, poor environmental conditions and educational inequities. Poor and minority children have more health problems and less access to health care than higher economic status cohorts. Health problems leads to absenteeism in schools that impacts educational outcomes, earning potential and health. Those who earn more money and have a better health status and earn a high school degree live 6-9 years more than those who don’t.
She says the basis of their alternate – (she is reading from something) they worked with great consciousness to arrive at a resolution that they hope they can support. They have heard passionate voices on both sides of this issues, attended community and public listening sessions and had one-on-one conversations, and they were unwavering in their attempt to affirm who they are as an elected body, what their priorities are as a city and what their values and concerns were around the bedding of the F-35s. (gets lost in what she is reading) They have received over 900 emails showing passion on both sides. As a city they must address some real issues related to racial, educational and environmental equity. Communities of color are often faced with low income wages. These communities often are pushed out to the margins and many injustice related areas, they often have limited choices and liven outlying areas where uninhabitable conditions are tolerated. Where housing supply is barely affordable, they learn to accept, adapt and many of these conditions become normalized. What is the issue really about? She respects each alders decision to support the alternate or not, but at least lets be clear about what factual information is or is not on the table. The alternate contains a clear strong message about bedding the F-35s at Traux. Why did we not work together where we as a body could join together to make a strong statement that all alders could have signed on to, what a powerful statement that would have been. They began this process with “no” and it has been impossible to an “and”. Thank you Alder Reddy for reminding me of the “and”. Unfortunately this did not happen. Equity cannot be an isolated conversation focused only about F-35. What this has become is a strongly devisive items before the council, our community divided. Information that we learned has inaccuracies, incompleteness and conflicting. It did not have to be this way, over 900 emails have been staggering over both sides of this issue. When she looked around the room where this item was being discussed, she saw little diversity in those spaces. What efforts were in place to bring this information to the people most impacted. This was a difficult decision to offer this altered resolution. She knows families living in Truax, a family of 5 with a father working 3 jobs to just make life work. We owe it to those absent to have accurate information from which to make our best decisions. Let’s make this issue about what it should be about, we do not have all the information we need. The alternate is a request to receive accurate, measurable data, with statistical accuracy that informs us of policy makers to make our best decisions, please support the alternate. She reads what she says is the final be it resolved (but its not).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Madison Common Council calls on the Air National Guard to seriously take into consideration all the potential adverse impacts outlined in the draft EIS in its final selection process, and to re-evaluate the selection of Truax Field as a preferred location if the final EIS does not provide strategies to affirmatively mitigate the noise and/or reduce the number of training flights; and
She again says that she wants them to support the alternate and that must have all the information and it must be accurate so that we as policy makers make it the best informed decisions for the city of Madison and the residents thereof.
(Did she just justify and say its ok that poor people have to live in shitty conditions? I’m honestly unclear about what her point was and I know it was late, but that was the most inconsistent logic I’ve ever heard. What facts are going to make it ok for poor people to live in the flight path of F-35s? I couldn’t choose just one 
)
Mayor Satya Rhodes Conway explains that they have an alternate before them, it is one discussion, the vote will be whether to make the alternate the main motion, and then they will vote on the main motion. If the vote first vote succeeds it will become the main motion, if it fails they will go back to the underlying motion. She says people look confused and she explains it again.)
Alder Grant Foster says he’s going to read one line he put on the top of his notes “Assume good intentions” and he is saying that out loud because it is important for him to remember in a discussion that could be heated. He does not support the alternate, he supports the substitute. With respect for Alder McKinney, he doesn’t really understand the majority of what she just read and how it relates to the substitute before them and doesn’t understand the rationale for the alternate. The couple points he heard was that they should have been able to come together, but they couldn’t. The resolution that was drafted and co-sponsored by all the alders that are expected to be most highly impacted was put forward and he made an offer to everyone on the body to reach out with any questions or concerns and 5 of the 7 alders who sponsored this alternate ever talked to me, and I’m not certain if they talked to other sponsors, I was just shocked honestly that these 7 alders would put something together that takes a significant amount of work that Alder Kemble and I put into responding to this EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and took the teeth out of it. The only significant changes in here besides putting in the talking points of the proponents of the F-35s, it just asks for consideration instead of actually responding to the draft EIS which was the intent of the original resolution. We were very thoughtful and careful about understanding the role of the Common Council and he feels very confident that the work they put in absolutely responded to the EIS. The Mayor reminded people earlier that we have rules and we need to follow them. He agrees, the EIS process exists because of federal law that was created for this type of situation. We are moving forward in the name progress, industry, commerce, defense and we recognize that over the course of our history we often made decisions that lead to negative consequences for our environment and our people. We created a rules that says that before we do that in the future, let’s take a pause and try to anticipate what some of the unintended consequences could be. Their requirement to do the EIS was instituted for all federal agencies. That proves is very clear, descriptor and defined. The information in the draft EIS is what this resolution is responding to. The primary arguments of those in support of the F-35 beddown, there are two key points you have to accept in order to accept that beddown. And they both discredit the EIS, one is that the negative impact clearly defined in the EIS over-represents the issues. All of the language in their resolution calls out the significant and disparate impact to people of color, to children to people with low income, is what the draft EIS is telling us as a community and its what our residents are reading and what they are responding to. He would be thrilled if all that information is inaccurate. He tried to get some clarification tonight about why it would be so accurate. At this point we don’t know, if there is information that would change those results, but the information we have tells us to expect these impacts. And our resolution is saying that we don’t accept that. We are not going to agree to this proposed action with this impact. The idea that its too much to say no, he asks everyone to reflect to 3 hours ago when they finished up one of the most inspiring public comment sessions that he has attended or heard over the past 3 or 4 years. The alternate references or mixed opinions at one of the meetings and in the flood of emails, everyone knows that an overwhelming number of those were not from residents of the City of Madison. While the opinions are certainly valuable, our job is to represent the residents of Madison. The fact that all but one of the people who spoke tonight, and were unwaveringly passionate said they don’t want this, this will hurt my community, my family, my neighbors. To ignore that, and to pretend that we hear them, and say “we’re really concerned too” but we don’t want to tell the federal government now is really surprising to him. Particularly with some of the resolutions we’ve passed here with incredibly strong language against federal actions, and we say these are not the values of our community. He thinks about resolutions around immigration and the idea that on this, on something that very explicitly says that this is going to hurt our most vulnerable communities, we can’t say no. It’s been hard for him to wrap his head around, it been really difficult and it comes back to, who are we representing. He knows who he is representing, he heard the voices tonight and he wishes they could rewind and have this debate and vote after listening to those people because those are our residents and what lead him and the other alders with the residents, is because for a month they have been hearing from those residents while you all have been barraged by emails from all sides over the last several days, they have been hearing from the residents, all of their stories. He won’t take the time to read some of the emails that he received, he’s sure they haven’t had a chance to read most of the comments submitted, it was overwhelming, but these are our residents and they are real comments and they know, they know its not right. If we fail to listen to them, I have no idea what we are doing here. Our only job is to represent our residents and do what is in the best interest of the City of Madison. The resolution they drafted is absolutely in order, it absolutely respects process and holds the US Air Force accountable for the process its supposed to follow. If the impacts are not going to be as significant as it shows in the draft EIS, they can make those adjustments, they can adjust the proposed action and have less flights, or take other actions to reduce them. They can come back with a final EIS that doesn’t show this disparate impact, that is not bad for our community and we can evaluate that. This resolution does not say no F-35s ever. I know many of the people who spoke tonight might have that opinion, but that is not what this resolution is. This resolution says that based on the information in this draft EIS, we do not support choosing Madison for this F-35 beddown. The only poets we have is holding up the voices of our residents, and saying no. So he does not support the alternate and invites people to vote not and support the substitute resolution that holds up the voice of our residents.
Alder Keith Furman says they are not here tonight to approve or disapprove F-35s in Madison. An awful thing to do in a complicated situation is to try to make the discussion a binary choice. He’s hearing a narrative that you are either against the F-35s or you don’t care about the community. The truth is the draft EIS has raised a lot of questions and there is a lot we don’t know yet. If the worst case impact statements are correct he believes they are absolutely unacceptable. The different between the alternative and the substitute is essentially one sentence. Both outline the findings of the EIS, both state our values, it practically word for word. The substitute has a sentence that is missing from the alternative. “The Madison Common Council does not support the selection of Truax Field as a preferred location for the 5th operation beddown” The substitute does ask for reconsideration of the preferred selection of Truax Field if the draft EIS is shown to misrepresent the significant environmental impact the alternate also asks for “strategies to affirmatively mitigate noise and/or reduce the number of training flights” If that can’t happen, it also asks for reconsideration just like the substitute. The draft EIS report, as we heard this evening, makes assumptions that don’t reflect local usage about frequency and flight path. The resolutions are essentially identical with the exception of one telling the air force straight out, don’t bring the F-35s here. Some have said the alternate is weak, asking to work with the Air Force, the Air Force isn’t going to listen. If that’s the belief, why doesn’t anyone think the Air Force is going to listen if we tell them not to put the F-35s here. Saying no is premature, its unclear if we can make a difference, but the alternative gives them the best opportunity to come back once the final EIS is issued and revisit our statement before a final decision. He thinks its too early and ineffective to just say no to F-35s at this time. They are discussing a resolution that forces alders to either taking a position about being against F-35s or the well-being of the community. The binary choice is unfair to the process, it poisons the discussion of a complicated situation. If it were truly up to the council to decide on the beddowns of the F-35s he’d be supporting a referral of this issue until we had a final EIS report and all the official answers to many important questions about mitigation an dF-16 retirement plans. He is frustrated that people are attempting to use the draft EIS report impact statement to push an anti-military agenda, but he also doesn’t believe that the worst case scenarios in the draft EIS report are just the cost of freedom. It is incredibly important they get the information about mitigation strategies around actual flight frequencies and flight paths. If the impact to our community will be as bad as the draft EIS report says, he doesn’t want the Air Force to pick Truax Field for the F-35s. He believes and is hopeful the impacts can be mitigated and reduced via smart strategies beyond new windows and insulation on homes and think that is enough, reducing flight frequency via flight simulator matters. Lack of personnel to match the frequencies in the EIS report is notable. He understands the importance of the City Council expressing the values that we find the worst case scenarios unacceptable and our demand to be involved in mitigation efforts. That is why he’s supporting that alternate that doesn’t accept that the draft EIS statements are ok, but makes it clear we care and will fight for our residents. The two resolutions have similar goals, which is protecting our residents, but with different strategies on how to achieve that goal.
Alder Syed Abbas thanks everyone, he agrees with Alder Grant, as an alder on the northside, Truax is in his district and he has met a lot of constituents who are extremely disturbed and it will impact their lifestyle. On the Northside they have pride in being green, having a better quality of life. He moved from New York to Madison for a better quality of life. If this project impact the quality of life it is not acceptable. He has received overwhelming response against the F-35s and he’s going to speak on their behalf. Many are single family homes, people who worked hard to find affordable housing, first-time home owners ($175,000, $150,000 under $200,000 homes) and now they are going to the torture where they don’t know if they will get mitigation money, what is going to happen to their home value and all of their future plans. They will go through this torture for the next 2 years. The mitigation will not start until all the planes are here. They will keep suffering. He is very disappointed see the alternate resolution. It says EIS does not provide strategies to affirmatively mitigate the noise or reduce the number of training flights and they want consideration of all the potential adverse impact. Let’s say we pass this, and the EIS report comes back and they say mitigation is available, talk to Dane County. We talk to Dane County, there are 312 mobile homes that are called manufactured homes. Manufactured homes don’t have any mitigation money for soundproofing. So what option are they left with. The report comes back and says that there is availability, voluntrary acquisition and purchase sound easement. They are left with two options. The question of equity is do we want the option for these homes or not. These are hard working Americans on the verge of, I don’t want to say a harsh word, but these people want to live their life. He knows people from mobile homes, they live their life and have a shelter to live in, if they don’t get mitigation soundproofing. They will get market rate for their mobile homes. The mobile homes have been there for decades and they have building code older than 1970, in very bad condition. He would encourage everyone to go there and visit. The market rate will be $7,000 – $15,000. Tell me you can buy a home for that in Madison, even $50,000, tell me you can buy a home in Madison. No, you cannot. These people read the low vacancy rate of 2.5 or 2.7% where will they go fi they love to live in the northside district. So these people with the voluntary acquisition won’t get the benefit. Lets says somehow FAA or Dane County comes up with purchase money to buy new homes for them, $50,000 for a new home or $100,000 for a double wide. At an average of $80,000 x 312 or 315 its about $28M. Who will pay $28M for these people. I don’t think anyone will pay, sorry to say that. We are already struggling with the budget. The county is supposed to pay for mitigation. I don’t think so, show me the data, give me that guarantee that these people will get served, get their rights, mitigation. He does not see that happening. That is the reason he is supporting the first resolution to oppose F-35s because he does not see any solution around it. He also wants to talk about economic development. The Mayor’s office is working hard on Oscar Mayer to create more jobs, we have a vision of creating Packers Ave. and more jobs. TASC wants to increase 400 more jobs, they mayor is committed and he is committed to increase more jobs. Public Market is a $13M project, will increase by 100 jobs. From a north side alder point of view, we are working hard to increase more jobs. He saw in the news that the north side will suffer but that is not true, he says they are committed to provide more equity and especially in the area of affordable housing. We cannot afford to loose those homes. He opposes the alternative because he does not see any solution for these people unless you can give me a guarantee these people will get a home as a substitute.
Alder Marsha Rummel won’t support the alternate. She heard someone say its only one sentence different. The thing that struck her right away was the mention of children. Children are one of the three main categories of disproportionately impacted people and you took that out of the body and turned it into “residents who are low income and people of color”, well they are that but they are also children. There is this whole things about this being about children in our schools, children living in their neighborhoods. I gotta tell you that was kind of shocking to me. I’ve been coming to these meeting for a long time and sometimes I know I”m not going to agree with everybody and I can walk away and “oh well, you lost that one” but this one you took out the kids? Really? I’m shocked. She is trying to assume good intentions as Grant said, because sometimes we’re all a little bit sloppy. She thinks the sloppy part is in that final section that Alder McKinney wrote, that starts with the phase starts with “if”. “If the final EIS does not provide strategies to affirmatively mitigate the noise, and or reduce the number of training flights” You know what, the EIS is not going to mitigate the noise, its not going to do that, its not its function. That is a separate federal process. Totally separate. You can’t use that as the standard because it will never be met. I think they want to work with us on the local level and you heard the colonels talk about what they could do, but I don’t know that they can make the EIS include strategies to affirmatively mitigate, because the EIS doesn’t do that, that is not its function. That is why she asks a lot of questions about the process and how long it takes. So, you’re going to tell our neighbors on the North and East side that for up to 5 years, that they don’t know “what the you know what” is going to happen. For at least 3 years. For three years they will not know if they should sell, stay, what should they do, how bad will it be? They won’t know. That’s all the angst that we carry around with us when we don’t know. It just seems so unfair. The mitigation happens, after, after, after, after, after you go up and you go down and you go flat. So flat line stability of the however many 6,000 speculative flights, is when you can maybe start the process to get the money. I”m sure you can start sooner but that is when they start doing the studies. They aren’t going to study the noise until you’ve gone through 7,000 a year where everyone is there. So who am I going to send the emails to when I start hearing that incredible noise? Should I send them to allalders@cityofmadison.com? I promise you I will, because we are going to get those emails, I’ll send them to the mayor too. Cuz I’m equal opportunity executive and legislative branch. So we’re going to get those emails for a very long time. She wants them to think about the process. We ameliorate it and think about poeple’s lives. So, that process comes and the airport applies through this 150 process. So, there’s a match. There’s a state and county airport match. I assume the county and the airport will try to find money. Can you tell me you feel confident that the state legislature is going to do their 5% match? Maybe time will change and anew election will come. I don’t know, I can’t predict the future, I can only look at where I am now and try to imagine how this plays out. In three years we’re going to be asking for money. She learned something in the last few days, maybe even from the Chamber, potentially when the FAA process starts and the county/airport asks for its noise study, the maps could change. So we don’t really know what the maps will look like, but you know what still sticks around no matter what the maps are – the freakin’ 1964 era decibel standard of 65 decibels. You know you can sit with your phone and your decibel reader when those things go by and you’re going to be more than that, but you won’t live where the little line gets drawn. That is an antiquated standard that is stuck on us, that is not anything we’re going to change. Maybe, but I don’t see that. I’m sure there will be a good faith effort to get mitigation, she’s not saying it won’t be. I’m just saying its 3-5 years out and after you’ve gone through the most intense noise profile that you can imagine given what you’ve already lived through. Then, there’s the other part, the map could change, but right now the way the map is, Truax and Retake, our CDA public housing are outside of the map. So city of Madison alders, are you prepared to start spending millions of dollars on CDA improvements for insulation, windows, all that stuff. Cuz you know what, if the county and that process doesn’t pay for it, its up to us. It’s us. That’s why at finance I asked about that. We don’t even have the staff on hand to start planning and preparing. We’re going to need to start planning and preparing. She doesn’t know how money it will cost, she won’t try to pretend she knows, but fixing people’s windows adds up. The other thing about remediation, what about the schools. We heard so many stories about how they teach at east or Sherman. They have the windows open in the nice weather, they don’t have air conditioning in their schools. When its warm weather that is not anything that is going to be remediated. I don’t know, maybe someone can tell me that is what will happen, but she thinks leaving out the kids and the whole impact on our schools is something that is just . . . I think we really need to think about what we are doing here. We got all these emails talking about the opportunity this creates, all I think of is the “sacrifice zone” This part of the city sacrifices for this installation. Yes, lets thank the guard for what they provide, we could do the factual history, we had all this people come, I’m fine with all that. They hired professionals to do the EIS, they don’t do worst case scenarios, they model things. It’s not like this is the worst that can happen, that’s not what they do. To even call it that, that should be deleted from the alternate if nothing else, just out of respect, because its not a scenario of worst case. Its a model based on an average, its based on those little pin pricks like the guy said, its an impulse someone else said. So that’s what it is. Its an implulse that is so extreme that over the case of one day it averages 65 decibel. That’s pretty much noise people. There is just so much to say. Is this binary, yes or no, yes, stand up or sit down. I’m sorry, you have to say no. Location, location, location. Put it in a place that has less people and less impacts. The EIS doesn’t deal with if this particularly aircraft is a boondoggle, but lets put it on the table, it potentially is. They are doing their job and I respect that, but at some point as citizens, as tax payers, how many billions of dollars are we going to spend on this plane. Someone anecdotally talked about all the noise the east side deals with, but the Airport Commission is something that the Shenck Atwood Neighborhood, I can appoint someone to be a delegate to that committee and I have periodically over the years. My big take away is that the airport needs to do some modeling now for F-16s, because you can hear everyone say how bad it is now, what will it be like. It’s totally disruptive, and maybe its not all day, but its a cumulative thing for young people and people that are more vulnerable and its just not worth their sacrifice. We’re trying to build up neighborhoods and not degrade them. You could probably live in a house like than and insulate maybe, but you won’t enjoy being outside. Put yourself in that place, and think about if you want to say yes to that.
Alder Sheri Carter says that in her world where she lives every day, a discussion isn’t about tearing down someone else’s work. A discussion is about saying why you think your work is the right way to go. A discussion isn’t about talking about the west side alders vs the east side alders. We are policy makers. We represent our constituents and we represent the City. We talk about process and today process is important, tomorrow process won’t be important and we’ll still make a decision off of it. She does agree with Alder Furman and she won’t repeat what she says and she believes they need to be at the table. And when we say we don’t want you here and take your toys and go somewhere else to another city, another state up north wherever, then somehow we might not get back at that table. And if you’re not at the table, then you’re dessert and she wants to make sure they are at the table and they are representing their constituents and the city. She wants to be there and she supports the alternate. She says when Alder Rummel talked about the kids being taken out of the alternate. She is concerned about human beings. You know we talk about the youth, we talk about the kids, we don’t talk about the seniors, we don’t talk about the folks in the middle, we talk about the millenniums, I’m talking about human beings. We all have ears, all the folks that are in the path are being effected by the sound, they were here to day talking about it. So, lets look at the human factor, lets be at the table. We don’t want to not be at the table. We want our mayor to be at the table if we can’t be at the table. We can’t predict the future. We can say we don’t want them here, but another body is going to make the decision and when they make that decision we want to be able to sit at the table and not on the other side of the door hoping we can hear a few words.
Alder Tag Evers he won’t support the alternate. There is no where in the substitute resolution where the door is closed to the table. There is no where that we say we don’t want to be involved in future discussions. Let’s read exactly what it says “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Madison Common Council requests that the Air National Guard reconsiders the selection of Truax Field as a preferred location until and unless the findings of the EIS are shown to misrepresent the significant environmental impacts to those living, working, and visiting the north and east sides of Madison; and,” This should be a no-brainer folks. It’s simply saying that if the final EIS does not come back and make adjustments to what is in the current draft EIS, ok. Please go to Montgomery Alabama where the impacts are not as profound. But the door is always open to say perhaps the EIS misrepresented the facts, so no one has closed the door. We will be a the table. It’s a no brainer! Maria Powell that was here earlier brought up the hypothetical about what would happen if these flights were going over Dungeon Monroe, I’ll tell you right now if the flights were going over my district, all holy hell would be breaking loose right now. I would get the same number of constituent contacts that my fellow constituents on the east side have gotten. And I am empathetic towards them, I understand that. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work they put in to drafting this, look at that. Look at how powerfully its written, how well its researched and what good sense it makes. They have not close the door to neotiation or conversation with the Air Force, but they say that looking at the plain writing of the EIS and the staff report, that considers all the other potential impacts, it says if that is what is going on, please reconsider putting these planes here. And to that point as to whether or not we have an impact on if these decisions get made independent of what we said. We need to speak with our values. Sometimes you stand up for what you believe in and you do not prevail. Ceasar Chavez, Martin Luther King, other leaders in the civil rights movement and the labor movement did not evaluate what they did day to day on whether or not they would succeed or whether any one would listen to them. But they did it on the basis of the values and the convictions that they had at the moment. And that is what we are called upon to do. He supports the alders who are impacted, who have residents that are most impacts. He supports Representative Taylor who responds to those constituents concerns. I have empathy and I have trust. There is no reason not so support the substitute whole-heartedly. Whole-heartedly and 100% and he asks them to join him in doing so.
Alder Shiva Bidar says she is going back to the good words of Alder Foster about assuming good intention. Deciding to pick on word instead of offering possibly a solution to it or working it through. I’m assuming that people on this council don’t care about children says a lot about the respect that we may have for each other. I have no doubt in my mind that every single person on this council cares about children, cares about families, cares about our low income community and our people of color. Some of us don’t like the word minority. Do we make a point to say “that’s the word, that word just says everything about your values, that’s the word” Why was it used. I assumed good intention because that is the word that the federal government still uses in their documents. So I just assumed that was the reason. I think that when we talk about big values as a city, we should also maybe think about the values of kindness and the ways that we talk to each other. That will always be something that she will certainly hold dear. On the substantive issue she thinks that this conversation has become a conversation around, literally, on this council on the ability of people to talk to each other, around defined personalities, because I think that these two resolutions are very, very close to each other, and she is so glad that Alder Evers read that part, because the part that you read could be very close to the paragraph that Alder McKinney read, however, there is a sentence about that that says that the Madison Common Council does not support the selection of Truax Field as its preferred location. Maybe that was the room to talk. Because the other one says we want you to reconsider it unless you find some other information. I think some of us is saying that when there is a document that says draft on it and they are asking for input, we should provide input and see what the final document says. If the final document continues to not correct the record, provide additional information, answers to the many questions that are still pending, the answer to the many questions to which we still do not have answer, for which our Senator Tammy Baldwin, our Congressperson Mark Pocan, State Representative Melissa Sargent have written. Our Mayor has written a press release to say “I have a lot of questions, answer these questions” It’s an opportunity for us to get those answers. If those answer come back and it looks like this, we don’t want this type of plane here, I think we all agree on that. It is unfortunate for her to see that if they all agree on that, if this is what we are going to get at the end of this process, we think this is not what we want. But we also feel that this is a draft document, it doesn’t say final, and there is a period in which we need to give questions to be answered. That is where the only difference is. I don’t think anyone on this council thinks its ok to negatively impact people of color, low income people, people because they live on the north side vs. the west side. That is not who we are. She believes that every single one of us believe in that. The other thing she would say, and she has to say this because she has to personally make my peace with that, which is, you have created, also an I’m going to assume good intention, a debate around the military industrial complex that has blown out of proportion that has become this thing to talk about, when some of us who sit on this council have personally made decisions to sit in these chair and not in any other elected body. Because we did not want to be triggered about conversations that are not in my purview, not part what of what I signed up for. Because I signed up to work with a nice community, with my neighbors, my colleagues on the council that I share values with and that I want to build, what I can’t build in world politics in my country, for my family who was bombed for 8 years in a row, every day. I cannot do that, so I decided that this was my city, this was my community and that I could do that at the local level. The last thing she would say, assuming good intentions, but I”m going to have to say it. When you say take this to Alabama, lets be clear about what we’re saying. That city is made up of over 60% people of color overall, overall. It’s not about a census tract, its not about this part of the city and the other, so just lets also say if we don’t want it, lets just say what we don’t want, but lets not say what other people should be having or not, especially not majority communities of color. I could tell you the south could tell us a lot of stories about what has happened with their relationship with the federal government and other bodies. There are a lot of stories there and a lot of history that books can be written about. So again, lets not go there. The last thing she would say is, as emotional as she seems sometimes, she is also very pragmatic in life and she always tries to find a pragmatic way forward, that is why she signed up to be on a body where we could do pragmatic work and actually make a difference in life. Her intent in all of the conversation is to be pragmatic about what we can do to get the answers that we need. She has spent an enormous amount of time and she knows many of them have, and she has read every single email and she was amazed by the amount of people who said that took the time to write. She appreciated that, but the intent has also been, that I have a lot of questions and I’m going to try to get as many answers as possible but some are left. On this council floor tonight you heard a whole different thing that I’m going to have to understand, and I’m going to want in writing to see those two things match, because if they don’t match then I’m not sure how to reconcile that. The alternate’s intention is to get answer and if we don’t get answers that make any improvements to the data that we have here, that we don’t think this is the right place. She wants to say clearly that the decision is not ours, its just what we want to express to the federal government, so if there is an narrative or any people that think somehow whatever way we end up in our statement, that it is actually some kind of final decision, or way for us to make that happen, I think we need to be very clear that it is just our statement of values, but we don’t have the power to make that decision.
Alder McKinney says that on the council floor tonight we heard inconsistencies on which the decision was already made to say no, I beg to differ when you say that no you didn’t close the door. Yes, you did close the door. It was a “no”. It is my understanding that there wasn’t outreach to come together and collaboratively work together so it would not be as divisive as it is. Yes, it was decisive in terms of the east side against the west side, we’ve been accused of not having empathy and some other accusations and I’ve talked about civility. I understand why they north side alders stood with their residents, I get that, but the audacity of you telling me that I don’t have empathy, the audacity that you could tell me that I don’t care about people, way over the line and I’m not going to tolerate it. The reason it is way over the line is that she has a right to sit at this desk and weigh, based up on the information that I have. I did not have all the information in which to make an intelligent decision even tho the decision was not mine, but I could not join in a substitute that would not answer the questions that were still outstanding. Over two hours or more we had information after information that was inconsistent, even in some of our own staff reports there were inconsistencies. Her question is how can they make and informed and intelligent decision when there are so many unanswered questions. Clearly in the alternate it was clearly stated and we made particular attention to go down each point of that well written document to say you are right, you are correct, if we missed children we missed something, you were right, you’re correct. Now let us go to the table and find out what information is accurate, what information is clear, what information is not clear. We don’t have all the answer, I don’t have all the answers and the purpose of standing for this alternate is to say what is missing, who can supply that information, is it correct and if it is not correct we can say no, we are not going to support this coming to our community. That’s why she stood up and those alders who stood up along side of me said, wait a minute, let’s pause, lets get all the information so we can base our recommendations on what is so. Our mayor asked the question, we don’t have all the information, I need more information. Systematically, through that process, we have heard we need more information. It is inconsistent, what is the information we can depend on. You heard it, and maybe you were in another place other than where I was today. And I am one that always talks about civility. I am one that always talks about decor. And I am always going to be the one that talks about respecting each other. Disagree with me, yes, but don’t malign me, don’t accuse me of something that, I own my stuff, right? Don’t accuse me of being inventive, of not caring about people or anything that I have heard tonight. The basis for the alternate was lets stay at the table. Get all the information that we need so that we are protecting “we”, whether we are a north side alder or west side alder, we are protecting the residents of the City of Madison. I’ll stand with the residents of the City of Madison on the west side, I’ll stand with there residents of the city on the north side, it does not matter. We want equality, we want accurate information, so that I can say that this is the information that we had, this is the decision that I made, it was based upon the information I was presented. That was it. No ulterior motive at all. Very clear in terms of our eyes. And so whether you vote the alternative up or down, be very clear you’re voting on information that is inaccurate. That was stated today, now if that’s ok with you, that’s fine. But there were basic inaccuracies that you don’t have all the information and you’re making a vote. I cannot do that.
Alder Rebecca Kemble is called on, the mayor says for the 2nd time. Mayor says “alder you spoke for 20 minutes” Kemble says that was not my speaking to motion, that was my reading the resolution. The mayor says we don’t normally read resolutions into the record and so, I believe you did speak to the motion, but you’re entitled to speak again. Kemble says “wow, alright.” She says the title of the substitute is “responding to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Air National Guard F-35A operation beddown.” That is the resolution. We’re not responding to someone else’s interpretation of the draft EIS, we’re not responding to the information that is not in the EIS that we want to have. We are responding to an actual document that was put out after a process that 4 alders and many north and east side residents had been involved in for over a year. The language is crafted very specifically to just respond to what is there. Not respond to speculation, not respond to other people’s opinions about it, but what is there. It’s very clear, even in the alternate. By the way the alternate has tons of changes, not just one line. Even in the alternate a lot of the whereas clauses are the same. For example, the one that acknowledges that there is no table to the city to sit at when it comes to mitigation. From our own city staff report, the city would have no official role in any potential noise mitigation study or program. The inability of the city to act on behalf of its residents and the best interests of city owned housing is a concern. There is no table for the city when it comes to mitigation and this alternate is logically . .. it doesn’t make any sense, because it’s asking for something that can’t be done in this process. It’s asking for the final EIS to come up with mitigation strategies which the Air National Guard says it not part of the process. She would like to remind them all that earlier this evening they unanimously passed a resolution that not only opposes a federal policy, but authorizes our city attorney to sue the federal or state government based on our values. “We authorize the City Attorney, in consultation with the mayor to join the city as an amicus in any cases related to immigration where the position of the state or federal government is contrary to Madison’s policy of being an open and welcoming city for immigrants.” We unanimously passed that, that was a values based resolution that we passed, no only saying no to the federal government, but authorizing our city attorney to sue. So we can take strong stands on behalf of some residents, evidently, but not on behalf of others. You know the county board that sits at these same tables and same committee meetings, on all of they agendas are three questions. Who benefits? Who is burdened? and Who does not have a voice at the table? They are asked to think of those three questions for every decision they make. Who benefits? Who is burdened? and Who does not have a voice at the table? So if we can all in our minds imagine who that is on this issue, and then each ask ourselves, who have you listened to and spoke to in forming your opinion on this topic. Is it the people who are going to benefit from the F-35 beddown? Are those the people you have been talking too? Or is it the people who are going to be burdened? Or is it the people who don’t have a voice at all. Maria Powell spoke to the people who don’t have a voice at all, 118 of them and brought her results of that back to us. And that was 118 people at Truax CDA housing overwhelming want us to stand up and say no more. No F-35s. And the very most basic equity principle, when making a decision, is centering the needs and concerns of those who are impacted most. And those who bear the weight of the historical inequities. We also, from Maria, gave us a little history lesson about the inequitable housing issue. And how east and north Madison was settled. Equity means centering the needs of the people are impacted most. She personally has spent weeks pouring over the EIS, speaking with the Air National Guard staff and residents in and around the “unsuitable for residential use” zone, and attending community meetings. At this point the answer is so clear to me, the people who will shoulder the burden of the harmful consequences of the deployment of F-35s are overwhelmingly telling us, their elected representatives, that they can’t take any more noise pollution than what they are already experiencing. They are saying no. That is what they are saying, the people most impacted. They feel that those who would benefit from this decision are not listening to them, and that this will be shoved down their throats no matter what. They are begging the airfare and their elected officials to not sacrifice their health, well-being, neighborhoods and lifetime investments, so that the air national guard can test a new, as yet unproven, military jet. They haven’t even finished their final testing of these jets. Their US and State Senators are lobbying hard to bring the F-35s to Madison, and other political leaders who refuse to take a position on the matter, leave themselves open to being used in the propaganda of professional spin doctors as tacitly supporting, because they don’t oppose. This is exactly what one Badger Air Community Council Board member did when he testified at the Expo Center last night, as well as in an email to all of us recently. Mike Moore, who is a BACC board member wrote “To my knowledge, our elected officials in the mayor’s office, the Dane County Executive’s office, nor the governors office are standing in opposition to this basing.” Those who say the decision on siting the F-35s at Truax has already been made only add to the psychic burden of those living in the unsuitable zone and pleas to the Air Force for more information and future mitigation strategies leave residents feeling even more abandoned, disregarded and worthless as Debra so eloquently stated. And some of the lines of quesitoning today that were leading to “oh, the impacts might not be so bad”. They might not be as bad as the EIS says, or even in the EIS, its 100 here, its 100 there. A 100 decibels is awful, its unacceptable for children or anyone. And, suggesting to people that we can’t stand up for them represent them, do our job representing our constituents and saying no to the F-35s because we need more information. We don’t need more information. All the information is in the EIS and it says there are significant disproportional impacts to children, people of color and low income communities. And these are neighborhoods that are already over-burdened. Our own city staff was saying, when Alder Rummel asked Dan about rezoning, or somehow that came up in questioning, “we’re not going to rezone and we probably wouldn’t demolish houses because we have a shortage of affordable housing.” So, we should, probably work on mitigation. This is like telling the residents “we’re not going to say no to the F-35s, but we think mitigation strategies, we’re going to ask for mitigation strategies and hope for mitigation strategies so you can live in an unsuitable zone, but with some mitigation in your house” It’s unsuitable for residential use, they’re inhuman conditions to live in if its unsuitable for residential use. And we’re telling them if we want to see more mitigation . . .we’re telling them, like Debra said, they feel “worthless” when that is our response to them. They need us to put our votes where our mouths and our values are, commit to our principles, stand up for them and say no. The cost is just too great. It’s too great. We can’t abandon those residents to those terrible conditions. And its not true that this decision has already been made. And its also not true that people can’t fight these decisions. People in southwestern Wisconsin fought the air force in the 90s and won. Why, because their local county and municipal representatives stood up for them and said no. The driftless region is not appropriate for low flying Air Force flights. And their local officials stood up to them and the Air Force abandoned the decision. We don’t have to just accept this. And we shouldn’t. So, on the topic of the emails, she read every single one of them too, word for word. Of the 100s and 100s of emails that we got that weren’t actually responding to our resolution, they were saying I support the 115th Fighter Wing. They were just irrelevant to the resolution, to the matter at hand. They just said they support the Base. There were single digit numbers of emails on the pro side that even mentioned the EIS. And many, if not most of those addresses, if they had them at all, were out of the city or out of state. The Badger Air Community Council boasts 4,000 people on their email list and as of over a year ago, they had $170,000 to promote this. The sponsors of the substitute, we’re just doing our job. We’re doing our job representing the people and its really painful to hear our leadership tell us we’re being decisive. It’s so painful when we’re just doing our jobs. To blame us for starting an anti-war debate. There is nothing anti-war in our resolution, there is nothing military industrial complex in our resolution. Our resolution is a response to the EIS. That is what our resolution is. And our collective decision in authoring it and saying we do not support the F-35s was a response to our community. Our community is not divided. We saw that today. Our community is united. Our community who are in the impact zone are united. There is a handful of people who say “I love the sound of freedom” but they are not the people who are going to be most impacted by this. It’s more important for us to represent our constituents on the principles that we collectively share and commit to, than for this council to have a unanimous vote. I don’t know where that came from, that we have to have a unanimous vote on this. When we authored this resolution, we did reach out. We sent it out and asked everyone to come to us with questions or comments and repeated efforts to reach out to some of our colleagues, they haven’t, they didn’t come and talk to us. We, who have been listening to those most impacted people. They had to talk to other people, I don’t know who they talked to, to come up with their alternative, but they didn’t talk to the most impacted people and they didn’t talk to the people who represent them. In 2014 when she decided to run for council, she decided to run for two reasons. She had been working as a journalist at the state capital watching representative Taylor and her colleagues really struggle against the incoming onslaught of money in politics after the Citizen United decision and what we saw was a pretty much corporate take over of our state government that had become predatory against the citizens. She talked about Madison is a punching bag. And I thought, I”m running for local office because there is still democratic space in local government and we need to defend and extend that democratic space before those interests come and take over our ability to take care of each other, our land, our water. And I also ran because I had a vision of economic development that was people centered and did not externalize environmental costs. And those were the two things and are still the two things that are really interesting to me and I’m working hard at, but this debate we are having about an alternate that basically says, “no, lets not represent the voices of the people who are most impacted, but tell them we need more information” That is so disheartening to me. That is so disheartening. Think about who benefits, who’s burdened and who’s not at the table. Who have you listened to and talked to about this? Who’s jobs and families are we prioritizing when we are saying what is in the EIS, the significant impacts in the EIS is not enough for us to say no.
Alder Samba Baldeh He thinks the discussions are getting personal and it is clear that whether you are east, west, north, south, wherever you come from in the city, we all understand the importance of making sure that our people are not impacted from the noise that will come from the F-35s. He has been here since 2015, I have never seen, particularly alders, speak to each other this personal and he thinks they need to be careful if you want to be very effective in being able to represent all the interests that made us run for office. He says since he has been an alder, he has never called anything to question and he wants people to speak their mind, but he thinks the fact that this is becoming too personal, there are many other people that have called this to question, let’s vote, we all have read the report, all the emails, all the facts that are out there, we have heard from our constituents who have come to express how they feel and almost every one of us has said something to the effect of where they stand. He thinks they should avoid these personal attacks or addressing each other to a level that this may make it really difficult for us to really tackle some of the issues that are ahead of us.
VOTE ON ALTERNATE RESOLUTION MAKING IT THE MAIN MOTION
Mayor Satya-Rhodes Conway asks if Baldeh is calling the question. He says he is. Carter seconds. 3 alders were “in the queue” (waiting to speak), two of whom have spoken already, but 2 have disappeared from the queue. Muttering off mic I can’t hear. The mayor calls for a vote. They move to a vote. The motion is on the alternate resolution. A vote in favor means the alternate resolution will become the main motion, a vote against means that the substitute will be the main motion.
Roll Call
Aye: Henak, Mooreland, Martin, Skidmore, Tierney, Albouras, Bidar, Carter, Furman, Harrington-McKinney
No: Kemble, Lemmer, Reddy, Rummel, Verveer, Abbas, Baldeh, Evers, Foster, Heck
Mayor notes that the vote is 10-10 and the Mayor voted aye.
VOTE ON THE ALTERNATE
Amendment to remove “worst case”
Rummel says that if they are going to do an tweaking on the floor now is the time. She asks that they delete the phrase “worst case” in the first now therefore be it clause. She doesn’t know how to solve the other issue she raised, but she will start with that.
Mayor Rhodes-Conway asks if Rummel is making a motion and to clarify it.
Rummel says to delete the phrase “worst case” in the first now therefore clause, its in red.
Rhodes-Conway repeats the motion.
Motion passes on a voice vote.
Amendment to make the action say the Council asks that the Air National Guard “reconsiders the selection of Truax Field as a preferred location until and unless the findings of the EIS are shown to misrepresent and underestimate the significant environmental impacts to those living, working, and visiting the north and east sides of Madison”
Rummel says its seems like the intent is to see what comes back with the final, but she’s feels so strongly that mitigating the noise isn’t something that will come back in the final, so she doesn’t know what they will be expecting that will make a decision. She doesn’t know what to take out to make that clearer cuz its 2:15 in the morning and she gets up at 5:00.
Alder Donna Moreland agrees. If the EIS can’t come back with strategies, then we need to tighten it up a bit to say what they want. She wants to see what the difference from the draft is going to be with the final, that is where she lands. She cares about all people, she has heard those planes, they are loud. I am not going to say that they are not, but there is a multitude of different issues that are all wrapped up in here and its not that anybody feels more privileged than anybody else because in case any body does’t know or hasn’t noticed, I a person of color. So, I’m very concerned about people of color, which is one of the reasons she ran, and she lives in a predominantly non-people of color district, this is important to me. This was not easy to do this. This is not personal, I’m going to walk out of here and be able to speak to everybody in this chamber, like I’ve done before. But I want the residents to know I am on their side, whether they come here or not, I want to work with the east side alders to mitigate the noise. Whether its the F-16s, the F-10s, the F-25s, the F-100s. That is not acceptable that we are impacting our children and our residents like that. But its unfair for us as a body to criticize other people that I wasn’t here when the F-16s came, so I don’t know where everybody else was when they came, but they are here, so if the decision was putting a base here now, my answer would be no, but there is a base here now. So, I think we need to tighten up that last sentence, I don’t know what the motion is going to be, but it needs to be tightened up.
Alder Tag Evers says he doesn’t know how to tighten it up either, but he wants to speak to the empathy thing. He never said that other folks don’t have empathy, what I was suggesting is that how I was motivated, having empathy for the other alders, the alders who’s constituents are most impacted. I imagined what I would do if these planes were flying over my district. And that I think is what is being called for here, for all of us, to have that sense of empathy. What if it was my – I”m not suggesting that anyone else did not have empathy – I’m talking about how I came to my point of sponsoring the initial resolution. And another point as to why we are here. The comment section is limited, we have until the end of the month, that was why Alder Foster wrote this, and we could have had a unanimous voice, saying that on the basis of what we see before us, this doesn’t make sense. We could have all come together on it. And it wasn’t meant to be divisive. The originators of this, Alder Abbas, Alder Foster, Alder Kemble, Alder Rummel, those who are most impacted, they weren’t trying to be divisive, not at all.
Alder Patrick Heck says he has an option that might work. He suggests they strike the entire “be it further resolved that is at the bottom of page 7 and replace it with the next to last be it further resolved from page 6 in the substitute resolution, this is the one that Alder Evers read earlier about misrepresenting the significant environmental impacts, then they should reconsider. Would that serve the same purpose?
Mayor Rhodes-Conway asks if that is a motion, Heck says yes. It is seconded. Mayor repeats the motion and they clarify. They take out this phase from the Alternate:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Madison Common Council calls on the Air National Guard to seriously take into consideration all the potential adverse impacts outlined in the draft EIS in its final selection process, and to re-evaluate the selection of Truax Field as a preferred location if the final EIS does not provide strategies to affirmatively mitigate the noise and/or reduce the number of training flights; and
and replace it with this phrase from the substitute
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Madison Common Council requests that the Air National Guard to reconsiders the selection of Truax Field as a preferred location until and unless the findings of the EIS are shown to misrepresent and underestimate the significant environmental impacts to those living, working, and visiting the north and east sides of Madison; and,
It takes them a significant amount of time to sort this all out . . . with questions and clarifications. Once the motion is clear, there is discussion. There is clarification about the procedure, the City Attorney explains. This is the second proposed amendment to the alternate.
Alder Avra Reddy says she is fine with this, but I voted against the alternate, except now I think that the alternate is in front of us and its not fair by democratic process to edit it and rip it apart, because the alternate passed and even tho I voted against the alternate, I think the alternate is in front of us and we shouldn’t spend and insurmountable time editing it.
Alder McKinney says that the paragraph that led to the alternate was exactly this paragraph and to “reconsider the selection of” and she spends time trying to figure out Robert’s rules and the city attorney explains again. She seems to think it is out of order, but the city attorney says not. She says this is the paragraph that drove the alternate.
Alder Furman is not supportive of the change, he would be ok with a slight tweak of the “be it further resolved” that is in the alternate, but he thinks that by doing the substitution they are leaving out any discussion about mitigation, which was an important part of this alternate.
Alder Carter was going to calls the question (cuts off the debate), but she waits.
Alder Bidar wanted to add a sentence within the paragraph that was the main alternate paragraph to do what Alder Heck was trying to do but the other way around. The sentence she would add is “if the final EIS does not provide any additional information and/or strategies to affirmatively mitigate”. She says “any additional information” is her way of summarizing the “findings misrep … I mean over-estimated misrepresenting, all of those things”, but just saying if there is no additional information, or strategies to affirmatively mitigate – if she gets a second, then she will talk to it.
Mayor rules the motion out of order, asks for Bidar to hang on to that thought. Bidar asks if she can still speak to it.
Bidar says she wants to speak quickly to the phrase that says that there is no strategy to affirmatively mitigate the noise, she understands that there is another process that happens, but it is also her understanding based on the letter from Congressman Pocan who says the draft EIS didn’t provide that, and I am requesting that information. I don’t know what detail he will get, it is also her understanding that the final EIS in Vermont did have some strategies around mitigation. She is not trying to say…I don’t know what they are, if they are broad things, or if there is detail, but she still thinks it is appropriate to ask for the in the final EIS and if its not provided, then fine.
Rhodes-Conway clarifies again . . . the motion is to switch the paragraphs.
Roll call:
No: Reddy,
Aye: Henak, Mooreland, Kemble, Lemmer, Martin,
They stop because the council doesn’t know what they are voting on, the Mayor explains that an “aye” is to switch the paragraphs to amend the alternate, and a “no” is to leave the paragraphs the way they are.
No: Tierney, Albouras, Bidar, Carter, Furman, Harrington-McKinney
Aye: Rummel, Skidmore, Verveer, Abbas, Baldeh, Evers, Foster, Heck
The vote is 13-7. The alternate is amended.
MOTION TO ADD SENATOR RISSER
Alder Michael Tierney makes a motion to add Senator Risser to people who should get the resolution. That passed on a voice vote.
MOTION TO ADD “CHILDREN” BACK IN
Alder Foster makes a motion to add it in the same clause where they took the “worst case” language out. He says that with good intention he assumes that was an accident. That passes on a voice vote.
Bidar says she’s hates to be the person that says this, but the sentence in English, her 4th language, reads “children who are low-income” which is one category and “people of color” is another category. So the children (and residents) of low income, and people of color. The children cannot be “and people of color”. She says the children of the people of color are not in the sentence.
Foster says he’s not sure if he is understanding.
There is discussion back and forth attempting to understand and the mayor cuts them off. Bidar says it’s ok.
Motion fails on a voice vote.
Alder Lindsay Lemmer tries to add children back in there again. Her motion is to say “disproportionately affect residents who are low income and people of color and children”, which puts children at the end, otherwise its not clear.
Alder Baldeh asks again about how many amendments they can make. City Attorney explains again. Baldeh asks if they can continue to amend, is there no limit to this? People laugh. City Attorney says they can do it until the court comes in and kicks you out. Baldeh says that before they vote he wants to say the phrase “people of color” has been used a lot tonight. The only time you hear this is during political campaign. He hopes this council . . . people of color are also are represented on this council and people of color also understand people of color and he hopes as they move forward that people of color who come to council and say something about people of color, that that is respected. He just wanted to say that.
Alder Albouras says to keep it clean and not convoluted the amendment process . . . never mind, he’s confused.
Alder Rummel says that she is not sure if this is the answer, the EIS uses “impacts to low income and minority populations as well as children” so we could just copy their own language.
The amendment passes.
MOVE TO REMOVE “UNTIL AND UNLESS”
Alder McKinney wants to remove “until and unless” and add “if the” in the clause that was switched. There is a second.
More confusion, mayor re-explains.
Alder Albouras wants to explain why he was confused.
Alder Foster points out that the motion is the opposite and doesn’t make any sense, he is going to vote no, he thought they were at a point where they had come to agreement, but he’s not in favor of that.
Roll Call:
“If”, vote aye: Reddy, Tierney, Baldeh, Furman, Harrington-McKinney
“Until and Unless”, vote no: Henak, Lemmer, Martin, Rummel, Skidmore, Verveer, Abbas, Albouras, Carter, Evers, Foster, Heck, Moreland
Abstain: Kemble (doesn’t even know what they are talking about), Bidar
5 ayes and 13 nos, motion fails
FINAL VOTE
Roll Call on the amended alternate:
No: Kemble, Henak and Abbas
Abstain: Harrington-McKinney
Everyone else votes yes.
8.5 hours after the meeting started . . .
