Committee of the Whole Meeting 06/29/2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5e1hLjGPdk Automatic captions; not audio-verified. [5:17] Committee the whole order. I'd like to call to order the committee the whole for the city of Highland Park, Illinois, June 29th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role? [5:25] Council member Tensor present. [5:26] Council member Buckman here. Council member Ross here. [5:29] Council member Tapio present. [5:30] Council member Leworth here. [5:32] Council member Bloomberg here. [5:34] Here we have a quorum. Uh, everybody okay with Council Member Bloomberg joining us electronically? Yes. [5:42] Excellent. Thank you. Um, okay. Um, two items at the beginning. Approval of the minutes of the regular rescheduled meeting of the committee of the whole [5:50] held May 27th, 2026 and the minutes of the special meeting of the committee of the whole held June 8th, 2026. Do I have motions [clears throat] to approve both? [5:59] Yes. Thank all in favor say I. I. Thank you. The minutes are approved. [6:06] Uh we have two items of scheduled business this evening. The first one is a policy discussion regarding the possible advancement of term limits. Uh [6:14] Gita and Megan Cherry, are you presenters? Yes. Um thank you, mayor. [6:19] [clears throat] We have a short PowerPoint presentation that nears the staff report that's in the packet. Um, very briefly at the uh May 11th [6:27] committee, the whole meeting, the majority of elected officials supported continued discussion about the possibility of a referendum question on [6:36] the subject of term limits for the position of mayor as well as council member. Um, we have a number of policy questions that we're seeking your [6:44] feedback on for consideration this evening. We do have a resolution on the city council agenda at 7:30. So based on [6:52] the feedback from the council this evening, um we will populate those highlighted areas that are on the resolution and then prepare that for [6:59] your formal consideration at the next meeting. Uh Megan's going to uh take us through just very brief background and highlights of this topic and then we [7:08] will land on this um slide at the end to talk about each one of these questions. [7:16] All right. Good evening, mayor and council. Um so a little bit of background information. Um, city staff presented information about uh term [7:25] limits at the committee of whole meeting on May 11th. Um, staff presented uh information including the memorandum [7:32] that corporation council drafted along with a municipal survey um that staff conducted uh of the 15 communities that [7:39] responded to that survey, four responded that they do have formal term limits and those term limits are outlined in the staff report. Um, based on the [7:47] conversation at the May 11th meeting, a majority of elected officials supported putting a referendum regarding term limits on the November 3rd, 2026 general [7:55] election ballot. Um, as a reminder, um, the city council will need to adopt an ordinance or resolution regarding uh, [8:02] the referendum before August 16th. And any term limits that are implemented would only apply to elected officials of [8:09] the city [8:10] [clears throat] [8:10] um, not to elected officials of other governmental bodies such as the park district or the school district. [8:18] So I also briefly want to just touch base about the role of elected officials and city staff throughout this process. [8:24] So elected officials need to provide neutral factual information about the referendum. Elected officials cannot campaign during public meetings or use [8:33] public resources to campaign. They also cannot take official actions. They advocate for or against term limits and they can't pressure the public uh [8:41] pertaining to uh term limits. However, elected officials can in their personal capacity talk about the referendum and [8:49] discuss that topic as long as they are clear that they are speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the city or as a representative of the city. As [8:57] for city staff, um they can provide neutral and factual information about the referendum and city resources cannot be used to advocate or take a stance on [9:05] the referendum. And then residents that have questions regarding the referendum are encouraged to call the city manager's office where a staff member will provide them with neutral and [9:14] factual information about the referendum. [9:19] So, as city manager Newkerk mentioned, we do have a draft resolution on the city council agenda this evening. On that draft agenda, there are or draft [9:28] resolution, excuse me, there are a few sections highlighted in yellow. Those are topics that will need to be discussed this evening. um based on the [9:36] policy uh discussion this evening, that draft resolution will be updated before the city council meeting this evening. [9:43] Uh if council would like more time to discuss and review the resolution, this can be postponed to the July 13th agenda. Um just as a reminder though, uh [9:50] a resolution does need to be adopted before August 16th in order for this to be on the November 3rd ballot. [9:59] So we do have some policy questions prepared that we are looking for feedback on. So what should be the length of the term? How many terms may [10:07] an individual serve? Should the term limits be consecutive or cumulative? So for consecutive term limits, those would apply um to terms in which individual an [10:16] individual is either elected or appointed backtoback. And then if the individual takes a break, the limitation restarts. So, for example, if the term [10:25] limit is two consecutive term limits, an individual could serve for those two terms, take a break, come back and serve another two terms, and kind of rinse and [10:33] repeat. Um, cumulative term limits would limit individuals to a fixed number of terms in their lifetime, regardless of whether those term limits are consecutive um or one term at a time. [10:44] Um, and then when should the term limits begin? As a reminder, term limits can only be perspective per Illinois law. [10:52] And then this is the text that is included in that draft resolution. Um I just want to note that the text in blue um has been added um since the packet [11:01] was posted. So just want to u make you aware of that. But the items uh in red are topics that will need to be discussed this evening um for that draft [11:08] resolution to be updated prior to the city council meeting this evening. [11:11] Can I just add uh I added the text in blue. I I did it um not prompted by anybody any member of the city council. [11:20] um but rather because when I reread it, I thought that that would be a good clarification. We all know the law. I've educated you on it. I've provided you [11:29] with memoranda about what Illinois law provides, but I didn't think that a voter um would understand that this [11:36] prospective requirement under Illinois law. So, I added that sentence. Great. Thanks. [11:43] As a recommendation, so I'm just going to share my opinion one more time because Excuse me, N. Can I make three? There's three corre [11:51] three corrections to the presentation that I just want. Yes, corrections um or just or clarifications is a better [12:00] way of putting it. First of all, um it was stated there out of those 15 communities, four have adopted term [12:08] limits, four have formally adopted term limits, five have informally adopted term limits. And I think it's important for [12:16] people to [clears throat] understand because when you say four out of 15, it almost sounds like well not everybody's doing term limits, but in fact nine of [12:23] the communities have either formally or informally adopted it. So I Well, I think it's important to note like Dan Kaufman, Alyssa Noble, Michelle [12:31] Hollowman all like informally limited themselves correct to two terms. [12:36] Correct. I'm just saying the argument that Highland Park has informal term limits. No, you couldn't because it's not like a caucus is advised that that's what the recommendation. [12:44] But it's sort of the same thing. One's a law that the No, one is individuals, one is a body that is neutral, that's a good [12:51] governance group that has advised the entire community that this is what So, are you proposing caucuses as well? [12:59] No, not at all. I'm just saying for clarification. I want people to understand and this graph is perfect, but I want the council to understand in [13:06] the community that actually it's not self-imposed by an individual, but there is a a good government body that has [13:14] actually done the informal and they haven't gone the extra step of having a referendum. [13:19] But there are five other communities that have informal term limits, which frankly some people have said, and we won't get into it, but that can be [13:27] recognized as term limits, too. Are and are all of these caucus communities? Do you know? No, they're not. [13:34] No. Okay. Some have done Gleno does. [13:37] Gleno. Some have done it by their own ordinance. Some have done it through a caucus. None of them are actual caucus [13:43] forms of government. That's a completely determining who their elected officials. [13:50] No. What the term is and Oh, no. [13:54] They determine. So, and and where I'm going with all of this is voters voters rights. Are you going to have a broad [14:02] range of atlarge elections that anybody can participate in [clears throat] versus a caucus telling you these are the appropriate caucus [14:11] and no, but I think it's important to understand if you're having a caucus that's also having informal term, you know, you're you're winding out informal [14:19] term limits, then add in the rest of the information in terms of also caucus diminishing voter rights. Well, this body could vote today that we want term [14:27] limits and we could say what it is and then not go to referendum too. And that's what some of these have done. What the whole thing is? Yeah. Okay. [14:34] No, no, no. The four went to referendum. [14:37] The other five did not. But in some cases, the government themselves said we want to do term limits, so this is what we advise. [14:45] So, I just want to call that point of attention. The second point I want to make is um it's correct that we as a [14:52] body don't need to file until August 16th, but if there's any question as to whether the ordinance or the um the [15:00] referendum comes from this body, if the public needs to file petitions, the date is actually August 3rd, which is two weeks earlier. So, I just think it's [15:09] important to note those dates because while for this body, it's important um I think it's also important to note that if this had to be done by petition and [15:18] by the community and if we were not to vote on it until um our next meeting, which is July, potentially if we still [15:26] couldn't come to some form of agreement, uh the community, if they wanted to proceed with this, would have only three weeks to get an inordinate amount of [15:33] signatures. So that's why the August to get it on the November ballot, they would still have the ability to continue and to get it on the April ballot as well, [15:42] right? But if they wanted to move this along so as not to conflict with our terms, frankly, it would be a very short window. So I wanted to make sure I made [15:50] those two points. And when you were asked the question about when should this begin, that can also be taken as um [15:59] should it begin for the next elections for 27. So, I just want to clarify that that in a sense was what we'd already kind of talked about. [16:08] And so, that's where Steve's blue words came in, right? No, but that it takes effect in 27. [16:14] It takes effect with the election that happens in April 27th. [16:18] Correct. Which is not to be assumed because in Skoi, for example, they had two different things and they waited a couple of years to have it take effect. [16:26] So, I just want to be clear about that. [16:28] So, I just wanted to make some clarifications. Okay. Okay. [16:31] Thank you. Um, and now again I'll share my thoughts which is that I am opposed to term limits. Um, I think it's [16:38] important to note that this as you noted would not apply to any of the people sitting around this table. So this is forward thinking what's on the best [16:46] interest in my mind and each of our minds in terms of the voters of Highland Park. Um, and Illinois law is very clear [16:53] that this cannot be applied retroactively. It can only be prospectively and as written. I think moving forward it'll be for people [17:02] elected in April of 2027 uh to then apply. But I think voter choice is probably one of the most [17:09] important democratic principles um that we have and um I really believe in our voters. I did some research because we [17:18] all have been and and by you know supporting the resolution if I do it's um out of an interest in hearing from [17:24] our voters not because I support what's in the resolution. Um and we heard about the 17 area municipalities but I think [17:33] it's important to note that nationally 9% of municipalities have term limits. [17:39] the vast majority of municipalities that have term limits are huge cities like Chicago and and San Francisco or whatever. Um, and I think the reason why [17:48] there are so few is because most people feel that elections themselves are the term limits. When you're done, you're [17:55] done. Uh, Bob Buhigh, a name that not everybody in this room remembers, but he was a three-term mayor. He ran for a fourth term and he lost. That was Bob [18:03] Buigh's term limit. Fort Clinton Square, by the way, is named Buhigh Plaza. and then that name was taken out by his family. Um there's value and and this [18:13] research by the way comes from the National League of Cities which basically represents thousands of cities across the country. There's value in [18:20] institutional knowledge and I think everyone around this table will agree that this is a steep learning curve. Um and I do appreciate each and every one [18:27] of you. But I got to say a few of you have had questions about how we fund major projects still because of time on school boards versus city. That's [18:35] different. uh second terms still not clear in terms of how things are funded, questions about zoning decisions that [18:43] are complex. There is definitely a steep learning curve. Um and I think it's [18:49] important also to recognize the power of the electeds versus our wonderful staff who we do appreciate and respect [18:58] greatly. They are professionals, but we represent the will of the people. Um, and lastly, the last election for this [19:05] very council had um, three people running unopposed. And I know one could argue, well, they were all incumbents. [19:13] People were freaked out. Okay, I it's not about me, but I ran against a 20-year incumbent, a 16-year incumbent, and a 12-year incumbent, and the 20-year [19:21] incumbent lost, and I came in first place. So, yes, is that a huge hill to climb? Sure, it is. and we know about the power of incumbency, but we also [19:29] know that the voters and the democratic process is one that this country is built on. So those are just sort of my [19:36] comments. Um I recognize again that in a democracy the majority rules and my understanding is that the majority of [19:43] you want to have this as a resolution on our ballot. And so based on that presumption, I'm just going to share a [19:50] couple more pieces with you and then I'm absolutely interested in hearing what everybody else has to say. the questions that we need to ask. What's the length [19:58] of the term? We already have a four-year term. I would like to I think we should stick with a four-year term. I think that's at least sufficient for somebody [20:07] to get a grip on what they're doing in these offices. How many terms may an individual serve? I'm going to jump down [20:14] to the fourth bullet point. Should the term limits be the same for the office of the mayor and the office of council member? I think they should be parallel. [20:21] I don't think you should shorten one and and lengthen the other. I think just the name of elegance, it should be the same for both. Um, I think the term limit [20:30] should be cumulative. If that's what you're trying to do, then do it. Um, and in terms of how many terms an individual [20:39] should serve, I am going to argue for three. And the reason why is as follows. [20:44] And I know some of you have heard me say this earlier today when we spoke on the phone. when in particular for the mayor you want to best represent your [20:53] community not just within your community but in the region at large at the state level at the federal level our political [21:00] system requires seniority and our political system is based on relationships and if you are a mayor of [21:07] a suburb the opportunity to participate in a council of government which we belong to the Northwest Municipal Conference they lobby the state they do [21:16] a little lobbying at the federal level That group bases who they rise through their um officership based on seniority [21:25] and it literally starts at the committee level. I've been the chair of their legislative committee. I became the president of the organization and then from that group you get nominated to the [21:33] Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus on behalf of that group. The Metropolitan Mayor's Caucus represents Chicago and the 274 [21:40] cities around Chicago. The Northwest Municipal Conference represents the 43 cities within this region. to have that [21:47] opportunity to speak on behalf of our city with our federal members of Congress, with our state reps and [21:55] senators, with the governor. You have certain credibility. You have certain gravitas that you just don't have, sorry [22:02] to my colleagues as a regular little mayor. But if you can rise through those ranks, you can then represent the city in terms of getting funding, policy [22:11] impact, having a voice in Springfield and in Washington that otherwise you wouldn't have to for that purpose. I [22:18] think the three terms is important. I think after two terms, you will not necessarily move up in those ranks. And [22:26] the same applies to the US Conference of Mayors again, the opportunity to speak on behalf of the community with more [22:33] gravitas. It's just the reality that seniority holds rank in terms of our politics. Um, so you want it on the ballot. Okie do. I vote for three terms. [22:44] I think you should parallel it between council member and mayor and I think it should be cumulative Barissa and then we'll just go around and I want to hear [22:53] everybody's sort of thoughts and input and then you're going to hear this all over again in the dis because if we're taking this to the dis we will be saying the same thing. Go ahead. [23:01] Thank you. Um so first I want to share some reservations before I get to where I land. Um the most basic level um I go back to what we discussed in May that [23:10] elections themselves are the most direct form of term limits and voter choice is a foundation of how we structure the representation. Um also that was [23:18] mentioned the timing of this conversation to me is a bit interesting considering the last election in 25 that I was a part of we were unopposed. Um [23:26] and I think the problem right now isn't too many incumbents. I think it's recruiting willing and capable residents to run it all. Um, in that same cycle, [23:35] you look at the election where council member center was a part of and he beat a 12-year um, incumbent. Um, which to me [23:43] is a pretty strong uh, data point. Um, I do also worry about the trade-offs that was mentioned in this staff report. um [23:51] loss of institutional knowledge, the value of a deep bench, effective transition planning and the lame duck dynamic for officials meeting uh nearing [23:59] the end of their terms. Um I also want to mention I know several residents had reached out um asking us to also explore [24:06] award system to ensure equal represent geographic representation and if you do that with term limits it could [24:13] definitely make it harder um to get qualified candidates. Um that said, u my own concerns about whether term lines are the right tool over Highland Park [24:21] shouldn't stand in the way of the residents um to have their voices being heard. Um so with that, I'll support placing the referendum on the November [24:29] 3rd ballot. Um in terms of the length, I also favor 12 years instead of eight. Um [24:36] 12 years I believe still preserves the continuity and institutional knowledge that the council relies on. Um, and then [24:44] I also think eight years is just really just two terms with no give and given how hard recruitment already is, I think [24:52] the longer runway is more responsible choice for residents and good governance. So that's where I'm at. Thanks, Annette. [24:59] I was going to said you want to have others first because you know me, I'll go on but that's okay. [25:04] Okay. So, um, [clears throat] first of all, as far as voter choice, to me, the voter choice is giving the voters the ability to have on the ballot the choice of do we want term limits or not. [25:16] And by doing that, that's their choice. [25:19] And if they say we want term limits, then I think that tells us that they've made that decision and they're taking it out of the hands of candidates who may [25:27] or may not want to stay longer. But um the referendum is the voter choice as much as electing candidates is voter choice. [25:36] Secondly, um Illinois is not an example I would look to, nor is Chicago because [25:43] evidently um of the 50 states, 39 have some form of term limits at a state level. And Illinois is one of only 11 [25:51] states that does not have term limits, nor does Chicago. So while there are major cities and this is usually where it is found in major and bigger cities [26:00] to your point, Chicago is not one of them, right? So it's not an example I would look to. [26:06] Um in addition to that, of the 20 jurisdictions that I checked and I can quote it for you, um that have had [26:13] elections, I believe since 2004 in Illinois regarding term limits. [26:21] All 20 have passed term limits. 10 of them by over 80% and 10 of them by over [26:28] 60%. So I think that there and with everything that's gone on in our community beyond our community and beyond our state, I think that there's a [26:37] great public outcry right now for term limits. Um and so I think to be a responsible leader is to take it and [26:45] give it to the people and let them decide. So that's one of the reasons I'm in favor of it. But I will go over some of the other things that I think really [26:54] um necessitate uh having term limits there. You cannot compare name recognition between an [27:01] incumbent and a new candidate. The fundraising advantages are tremendous. [27:06] Someone who's never run for office before has no idea how to go about doing this. Um, and if he or she is recruited, [27:13] which I think is almost incumbent upon us to do, um, we can begin to teach them. But if you're going up against an [27:22] incumbent, it can in most cases be a very arduous battle. Um, I I think there's a perceived inevitability when [27:30] you're running against an incumbent and that chills the the whole process because if people feel this is a very [27:39] high bar to cross both financially, name recognition wise, organizationally, they won't run. And so there are fewer [27:48] challengers, younger and newer candidates, they self- select out and it it takes a lot of recruitment to get [27:56] them to do this because it can be a very expensive venture. Um, and that practical kind of competition diminishes [28:04] over time as incumbents do more and more good work. I'm not criticizing the work of them. I'm just saying it has a [28:11] chilling effect. And the way to prevent that is if you know what the system actually is. Okay, after 12 years, this [28:18] is going to be an open seat. Someone's not going to run next time. This is going to be an open seat. Then a younger or newer or different candidate, someone new to the community might want to run. [28:29] Um, term limits restrict one candidate from remaining indefinitely, but they expand the number of people realistically willing to participate. [28:40] and predictable leadership turnover encourages broader participation and engagement. [28:47] Um, I think more residents would consider public service and newer voices [28:53] might appear if they didn't feel it was one of the most difficult things to do to get elected. [29:01] um leadership becomes more concentrated and that's because as we work very hard [29:08] and become more educated we tend to work amongst ourselves instead of doing the outreach which is why I love our system [29:16] of uh the advisory groups and the boards and the commissions because in a in a sense we've always viewed that as a way [29:24] to bring candidates up into the ranks and then to run. Um, so I think we already have the building blocks to do [29:32] that and I don't want younger residents to feel excluded from leadership opportunities because they feel those [29:38] bars are too high. Um, democracy functions best in my opinion when citizens believe that public office is [29:45] realistically attainable. And if they don't think it's attainable, you are correct, I don't council member, I don't [29:52] think they'll run. Um, last couple thoughts. Elected office belongs to the public, not to the office holder. Public [30:00] service is temporary. Leadership rotation strengthens institutions. I think that every now and then we get [30:09] someone who who's really a star and who really does outreach. And frankly, maybe after 12 years in a particular body, if [30:18] you're that kind of a person, you can make an impact. But frankly, 12 years, a lot of these people won't make that kind of an impact. It's it depends on the [30:26] individual and I don't think government should become dependent on any individual and the way we ensure that that doesn't happen is to make sure we [30:35] have a known uh perimeter from which to go. We cultivate future leaders. We avoid an [30:42] overconentration of influence and we get new policy because we have new ideas. I [30:48] still have a few more. Um, I want to see a responsiveness to newer generations and every leadership structure will [30:57] benefit from renewal of energized and different ideas. Um, I know my first [31:03] times on the uh board, I I was asking questions and I wanted to know, but I also wanted to try things out and I [31:11] think people are a bit trepidacious to do that. And if they haven't served in another office, it does take them a year [31:18] or two to get up to speed, which is why I have no problem with obviously more than what some of our neighbors do in terms of short terms. And I think our [31:27] four-year term is just the right amount of time both to learn and then to set the ball rolling and really run with it. I'm just talking about the term itself. [31:35] I'm not saying that's the limit I want. [31:38] Um I think without even meaning it, we reduce accountability and transparency by becoming too insular if we don't [31:46] change it and switch it up. And we've even seen that on our own commissions and boards where we set term limits for [31:54] those groups. We've said to them, you have a two-year term and your term is up in thus and such and we will renew it for another term, but we won't [32:03] necessarily renew it beyond two or three terms. So, I think it um we are already [32:09] kind of moving in that direction. Um okay, those are my points on that and [32:16] then to answer your questions. So, I believe um that the mayor and the [32:24] council members should have the same duration. Um even though in theory um a [32:31] council member position should be somewhat of a feeder for the mayor's position. Um a person may not want to serve eight years or 12 years and then [32:40] run for mayor. They may run earlier. But I do think um there's a nice symbiotic balance. I think it's most respectful to [32:48] the um to the voter to see that the two terms are treated the same. I do believe they should be cumulative. Um and that [32:56] means that there's a finite number on there. [33:00] Um and uh the four-year term and as far as how many terms, I believe it should be two [33:09] full terms plus under 25 months. We've seen in our short dur duration whether that's John's appointment to filling [33:18] Jeff Hubler's seat whether that was Adam Stolberg whether Verissa coming in Verissa Phil [33:25] Phil Jeff seat right so then [laughter] I mean we see it right here two of our members have been come on for two-year terms so that's very common I don't [33:33] think it's as common on a mayoral lesson level but that may be simply because Dancy you've been you know very steady [33:40] um and I don't know how every other mayoral cand Ed it has been but I to keep it symbiotic I I mean in some ways [33:46] it would be two years um for mayor two terms for mayor and two terms plus the 25 months for um council members because [33:55] there's a greater likelihood that six individuals someone will have to go off for whatever reasons but to keep it um really even I think that both should [34:04] have the two-year addition on it. Um so mine would be the two plus two. Okay. [34:09] Um good luck with that resolution. [34:12] [laughter] [34:12] Well, that's already written. It's written into the resolution. [34:16] I didn't do 25 10 years the same difference. [34:22] But just to be clear for the voters, I think it'll be you might need to add some language. [34:27] Well, maybe we do, but I we can talk about that if we Yeah, we get to that point. But I I think the other thing is to me it is term limits. [34:36] And I think when you're getting to the point where someone could serve in the city actually for 12 years as a council [34:43] member and 12 years as mayor, that's 24 years and that's too much. That's not a term limit. That's not even a decade. [34:50] That's a generation and a quarter. And I just think that's the voters could vote them out. But I hear what you're saying. voters could, [34:58] but you know, I I just I don't I think if we're leading on this topic and we're calling it term limits that setting it at that high a bar is not a limit. [35:06] Okay. So, you two plus two plus two. Okay. John. [35:11] Yeah. Thanks. Um, you know, I obviously come from a commercial background and previously [35:17] stated that I feel like all good organizations have leadership changes and I think that extends to what we're [35:26] talking about here. Um, I've also served on nonforprofit boards that have term limits that are really valuable um for [35:35] the same reasons. I fully recognize there's a steep learning curve. Um but I think planning for that is [35:44] just good change management process, right? And ensuring that there's the right uh coaching and development and [35:51] and pipeline in place to ensure good handoff and continued operation at a at a really strong level. Um I just got [36:00] started a new organization where the CFO, CEO, director of tax and chief compliance officer all left at the same time. and we have a brand new leadership team. [36:09] We're bringing tremendous insight, fresh perspective, new value to the organization and it is fantastic and to but it's great. And so it I don't feel [36:18] like that's a barrier to I don't feel like the loss of institutional knowledge or steep [36:26] learning curve should be a barrier but rather a challenge and an opportunity to just ensure that we have the right [36:33] guardrails in place to uh be able to accomplish that fully also hearing mayor what you said with respect to just the [36:41] nature of the world that we're in and the need to have relationships. I totally respect that. [36:46] Um, I think the data points of how many municipalities have term limits is not relevant at all. I think it's by design [36:54] that a lot of them don't have term limits because people in these positions don't want them so that they can protect their seats. And so I just I just I just [37:03] don't think it's relevant. Um, and it just leads into the advantage of incumbency that that many of us are talking about. Um, [37:12] I think Council Member Little's point around sort of the concept of this being voter choice versus [37:19] having no term limits and not being the voter choice. I think that's spot on. I really like that. I think that makes a lot of sense. Um, [37:27] and yeah, so I think those are my overarching overarching thoughts. Uh, with respect to the sort of questions at hand, um, I would if we could go back, I [37:35] can kind of drill down them real quick. I I would agree that the four-year term uh should should remain unchanged. [37:44] Um I I like council member Lawer's example here of sort of 10 years plus 10 years. There have obviously been a [37:53] couple of instances, my myself included, where we've got this two-year seat and then sort of have the opportunity to potentially do another um two full terms [38:02] and and sort of in the context of looking at an individual that could potentially hold two seats, I do think 24 years is a long long time and too [38:11] long. Um that would be the sanity check limit. [38:14] [laughter] [38:15] Uh so I I like I like kind of where that is headed. Um, so that would be the same for the mayor and the council at council [38:23] C and I would suggest that they begin, you know, effective immediately with the with the upcoming election cumulative or Okay. Yeah. [38:30] Thank you, Yui. [38:33] Um, thank you. Um, I uh supported term limits when it was um [38:43] and I'm going to actually say in advance that I, as most of you know, I'm a little jetlagged still, so forgive me [38:49] for uh any stumbles. Um I I supported term limits when it was first um proposed by um a colleague and supported [38:59] putting it on the agendas tonight. Both agendas. Um, my preference has been for some version [39:07] that originally for some version that allowed a candidate to choose whether they wish to serve no more than three [39:14] terms on either council or or as mayor so that one could choose three terms on either but not both. But there wasn't a [39:23] way to make that flexible option um available legally according to corporation council and uh [39:32] and I'm not sure that there's you know majority support for 20 years on council. Um I believe that in all [39:41] honesty I I I I wrestled this with this for weeks. I believe that three terms is a more appropriate number. I've for for [39:50] city council um and and I believe that you know and I I I believe that for the [39:59] mayor's position which is you know as I've witnessed and experienced uh you [40:06] know it it it is a more powerful position you're you know helping to set the agenda and um you know various other [40:13] things that there there's more that you know that the mayor is able to do than than council. and and so I I had [40:21] personally landed on three terms for council and and two for for mayor. Um and you know I've been on council for [40:28] nearly three and a half years. Um, I've seen that it takes a long time to uh affect change and uh for a variety of [40:38] reasons and um I saw that as well um although it's a different body of course [40:46] on 112 school board um and and my concern too is that there could be yet [40:53] more transformative candidates to come and I would um rather not li limit them [41:00] to two terms uh again at the council level. Uh and and three seems like more [41:08] than enough. Um but I'm I I would also rather not see um a situation where and [41:17] we're we're aware that you know a citizens group could [snorts] you know put this on the ballot if if if council [41:24] fails to do it. Um, again, I I do believe I've said it all along from the beginning and until now that I believe [41:33] in term limits. Um, I I would rather council um take the lead on this. Um, I [41:43] don't want it the you know that, you know, we're a citizens group feels they must do it for us because we're too [41:50] resistant to it. And if it's if it's a choice between not on agreeing on terms [41:57] and leaving it, you know, to residents to get it on a ballot, uh I'm I'm just [42:03] not a fan of of that. Uh so that's that's where I've landed. If if if the [42:11] ultimate outcome is that a citizens group is going to put it on a ballot for, you know, two terms and two terms, [42:19] I I'd rather it be city council um that takes the lead on on doing that. Um, and [42:26] to be perfectly honest, I, you know, am not an expert on what the I really just don't know that any of us are experts on [42:36] what is the ideal um term limit. Uh, but I guess I want to emphasize that again that that [42:45] I think that if we fail to do it, it it will be an out, you know, a citizens group that will put it on the ballot. I [42:52] I I feel um you know we we would be remiss in in thinking that you know that [42:59] that wouldn't happen and and um and I don't mean to make citizens group sound bad in any way. I mean I I I understand [43:08] the passion for the issue. It's it's it's an issue that I agree I I think I [43:15] agree with with the ID term limits. And so now I will go to the policy questions. Thank you. [43:21] Um and uh the uh length of the term, four years. Um how many terms? Um yeah, [43:31] if if if we fail to have consensus on this, I I would um I I would if we fail [43:40] to have consensus on it, I would go with two and two. Um, should the term limits be uh I I say that they should be [43:49] cumulative cumulative um because otherwise it sounds like we've effectively voided the term limits [43:56] concept. Um should the term limits be the same for the office of mayor and for the office of council member? I'm I I [44:03] don't feel the same u way that they they should be identical. Um but um it it you know will apparently wind up that way. [44:14] Um and when should the term limits Well anyway yeah so that that that covers it I think. [44:21] So in terms of where you're landing council three terms mayor two terms um that would be that would be your preference. [44:30] My preference but um if there I mean it's just a a reality if there isn't [44:35] support for it. Um, I um I think I [44:42] honestly want uh council to take the lead on this and and and not [44:50] uh be, you know, um I mean, I've always said not be dragged and I and I think that's where we are. [44:57] Obviously, we're having this conversation and so that and we it's on the agenda for tonight. I think it's a matter of just fine-tuning where we are, [45:04] but I hear where you are. That's an important principle for me that the council take take the lead in this. [45:11] Um, so yeah, that's you want it to be on the a you want it to be on the November ballot. [45:17] I want it to be on the November ballot, right? And you want it to take effect April 2027, right? [45:22] Okay. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, we'll get you coffee for the rest of the [laughter] [45:29] Yeah, it's all come at this um from, you know, as a you know, systemic strategist and kind of my professional work. I I [45:38] work with transformation and change and organizations of every size and nonprofits as well. And you know, [45:45] there's a couple major trends happening having to do with all this disruption that going on. One, there's a deep deep [45:53] distrust within this country and other countries as well of anything institutional at every level, government, universities, healthcare, and we're having fun because of that. [46:03] Yeah. [laughter] But that but I think there's as we interview people and do focus groups and [46:09] do surveys a lot of the sentiment not only primarily by the younger generations but not only is a sense that [46:17] in many ways the sense that institutions are failing us because of all the different issues that we're having and uh so when we look at that we see that [46:25] there is a desire for a change uh because somehow the institutional knowledge which is a you I'd say that [46:34] this is institutional knowledge is a very powerful argument philosophically to be made and I respect that. But there's a there's a sense in society [46:42] that institutional knowledge is actually failing us that the the ways of things done over and over again over time are [46:49] not meeting the challenges and needs of today. So for me philosophically as much as I respect institutional knowledge I [46:57] feel that overarchingly um you know I'm in the feeling that yeah the old ways or the generational ways or the multiple ways of the people have been in charge [47:06] for quite a while you know are just not yielding the results and breakthroughs that I think many citizens uh look for. [47:12] So so for one for that there's two philosophical reasons I favor term limits. one is that this sense that um [47:21] the institutional knowledge argument for me is weakened because in many ways institutions are failing us uh and so [47:28] what so at the core what's there and I think there's a need for change um secondly uh it's an inclusion argument [47:35] that I would make uh and you know uh council member um made the argument and so did council member center about the [47:43] the power and the strength and helpfulness of new blood new thinking the younger thinking not only younger generationally but younger in terms of [47:51] less experience perhaps in government but coming with outside perspectives. [47:55] We're seeing that more and more uh the the institutional knowledge or the knowledge within a particular domain is [48:02] limited in dealing with issues that we've never had to deal before and having people with different non-governmental experience which all of [48:10] us have by the way I'm not saying we don't. Um but that that freshness actually brings an edge a differentiated way of looking at things that add for more dynamic innovative um city council. [48:22] So um and you know the other place where I do a lot of work is in uh nonprofit board effectiveness and one of the [48:30] biggest problems in the dysfunction of nonprofit boards is not either not having term limits or not applying term limits or always coming up with [48:38] exceptions for people that are term should be terming out and it leads to dysfunction over and over again. And it's always interesting when we do the [48:45] interviews that the people that are causing a lot of dysfunction because they're not letting go or they're not being let go are the very ones that were really powerful and really good and [48:54] really fresh a generation before that but had lost their edge had lost their perspective had lost whatever and it [49:00] creates a barrier of entry and I think that's the third reason why and the final one for why I support this is that [49:08] when we think about inclusion it's not just about an attitude of openness hey come on Come on, let's come here. But that we have to look at the very [49:16] structures that are in place that may actually prevent institutional systematic barriers of entry and those are brought up. The you know the power [49:25] of incumbency, the power of money, the power of not of being known and so it makes it the threshold for for throwing [49:32] their hat in the rain just becomes so much higher that it becomes exclusionary. Not by design, you know, because but but it the outcome is [49:41] exclusionary. And I think from an inclusion perspective, I go for let's make it as inclusive as possible. Let's honor the fact that we don't want to [49:50] limit people to one term. No one's arguing that, but so it's not going all the way there. We need the institutional thing. Um someone who wants to go all [49:58] the way. The mayor often will start in city council. They can go four four. [50:03] That's 16 years. That's that's a really good wonderful way to serve the city if that person has the staying power and the the the ability to do that. Great. [50:12] But at some point, you know, you know, things get stale, things get codified and and it might create barriers for [50:21] others who want a chance to really serve the city. So with all that, I would say uh four for city council, four for [50:30] mayor, two terms cumulative, and this should start next. [50:40] Okay, great. Tony, two or two. Thank you. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Hang on, Tony. [50:46] I'm sorry. And then the two plus two plus two, right? So, up to 10. Yes. Gotcha. Okay, Tony. [50:55] Thank you again. Um, so I I want to start by saying that something I said before when we first discussed this, [51:03] term limits by legislation are undemocratic. [51:08] There's a sign on city hall that says the salvation of the community is the lawfulness of citizens. We have a responsibility as citizens to vote. [51:18] This is a poor substitution for that responsibility and solving a problem that isn't a problem. It's like [51:27] Supreme Court packing. You don't like the way the Supreme Court is acting today. You want to put more justices on the Supreme Court so the current [51:35] president or the president you like can seat more people on the Supreme Court. [51:39] But what happens when it turns out the other way? When there's somebody you want in office and you want to keep them [51:47] there be beyond a term or two. I didn't go into this position. I didn't run the [51:54] first time with the intention of serving as many terms as I am serving. [51:59] [snorts] [51:59] I'm here because I was asked to remain on the city council both by council colleagues and by people in the [52:06] community who voted for me year in and year out and yet the power of the incumbency [52:14] doesn't always exist and we've seen samples of that and that's been discussed today. So this is [52:22] an undemocratic thing. I I recall various of my colleagues [52:30] rallying against the notion of limiting who can serve on the city council. It's the same problem and you can't have it both ways. [52:39] [snorts] [52:39] So, I'm completely opposed to this. I've always been opposed to term limits before I was elected and in all offices. [52:48] If we're going to have term limits, I think that the issue of institutional knowledge is a different issue from innovation and from good legislation. [53:00] And I don't think keeping people in office long enough, if that's the will of the citizens [53:08] who are doing a good job, should be impaired. So, I would support four-year terms, no less than a total of three [53:18] terms for mayor and city council. But I am overall opposed to this and cumulative or not. [53:28] I I would say not cumulative. If somebody takes a break and wants and can get reelected, [53:35] um that's a clear message from the voters of Highland Park that they want to keep that person in office. [53:45] Okay, great. [53:51] Um okay. So where we've netted out as a majority it seems is um two terms. [54:02] Well actually so we have three people who support three terms. We have three people who support three terms plus two years. [54:13] And that's just for both two terms plus two years. [54:15] Two terms plus two years. Beg your pardon. And then we have one person who likes two terms for mayor and three terms for council. So [54:23] you have a different majority for the different offices, right? Which is doable by the way lawfully. [54:32] So we can keep talking [laughter] because we have a tie essentially. [54:42] Yeah. [54:42] In terms of the number of terms. By the way, just as a fun trivial fact, the first mayor of Highland Park was Frank [54:50] P. Hawkins. His desk sits out there. He was the first mayor in 1869 and then 40 years later, Frank showed up again as [54:58] the mayor. So, consecutive or cumulative? That's the question for you. And Frank Hawkins. [55:04] Um, I mean I I did mention in my comments that you know a a tie is ultimately [55:13] failure of of term resolution term limits again July. [55:20] Um well I mean the bottom line is we can keep talking and figure it out. I think this group [clears throat] holy does want to have if it moves forward. [55:30] I think I mean I don't [clears throat] mouth I know four of you want to have it on the ballot. [55:36] I I I I see a tie unless [clears throat] there's you know movement to to change [55:41] that tie. Um I I am um not willing to [55:47] have it it fail entirely um because uh as I said that that means [55:56] um sooner or later you know we're not um you know it it becomes uh you know a [56:05] citizens group uh choice and and and I I think the it's important [56:13] in in all ways, including optics, that that city council made this decision. [56:20] Um, and and and not uh look like it's being dragged into this. And um I just think that's an important principle. [56:29] So, I'm going to hazard guess and I'm looking at you. Um, yeah, because I suspect you will be if it does go to a [56:37] citizens group, it'll be to a two-term plus two-year. Yeah. [56:41] For both or just for council and then mayor two terms is that you know I would think a group I [56:48] whatever they want to do I would that's what I would advise but frankly um you know it might be two terms. I don't [56:56] know. I mean, I would say based on my experience, I think the plus two is very important. Certainly for the council position, [57:03] and because I'd like to have par between mayor and council, I'm adding the plus two to both, [57:10] but I I would have no control over it. I would express my views if asked, which hopefully I will be. Um but um yeah, I think the two plus two. [57:22] Um Steve, if we put it on, there's no way for the community to choose or is there a way for the comm? No, you have [57:30] to put in the specific. That's what I figured the answer was the specificity. [57:34] I did ask the yes same question whether we could give you know voters the choice the choice [57:41] of of of which of the voters could vote for vote and then cannot. Right. Oh, I see what you're saying. And it wouldn't be the majority, [57:49] right? All all um uh ballot questions have to be a yes, no. So, you can two ballot questions with two different [57:57] answers questions and you'll end up with two wins and then you have to figure out which has more votes or it just shows the impossibility of it. [58:04] Yeah. Um, let me think maybe council member Ross just if you want [58:11] maybe if you have a different opinion because right now we've got three elected officials that say three terms and then three say two full plus two years. [58:19] You're the tiebreaker. Yeah. Lovely. [58:23] Um I I um I I it it I mean I keep saying [58:30] this. It seems obvious that it's going to um wind up on on [58:37] the ballot regardless. I I just don't see any other any other I think we all agree. I think it's it's [58:45] how we are defining but I what's being we don't I think agree on on that because I I it as far [58:53] as I understand the timing it it needs to be decided tonight. Um and [59:01] um I my my Gita's like, "Wow, we could go to July." [59:06] [laughter] [59:07] And that's like um I I you know, it [59:15] Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm I I just um I I believe that it's going to al [59:24] ultimately wind up on the ballot is two and two and and I'd like that choice. [59:28] I'd like us to lead the way with that instead of instead of an outside group. [59:34] So, two plus 25 months or two plus two years or whatever. Two for the council, two for the mayor. [59:41] uh or the two plus the two two four-year terms for both council and mayor. Um so so now you have a majority [59:49] but we don't cuz they said two plus two two you said the 10 years or I I mean I I think at that point years [59:58] or 10 years scribbling I I I mean I don't have an issue with adding another two years. I I [1:00:03] just um it you know I I think we need to settle this issue. I agree. That's why [1:00:11] we're here. That's why we're having this conversation. Do you want to take a break? [1:00:16] Um, a break. I mean, do we take breaks? And I mean, we could do the other presentation and come back to it if you want. [1:00:23] I don't I don't know that it's changing unless anyone here at the table is changing. [1:00:27] The only frankly, we have three and three. [1:00:30] So, if you don't want it to go to a citizens group, you're saying we want a decision tonight. [1:00:34] With all due respect to citizens groups, I for sure. If you want if you want to be the leader I I would rather be a leader than [1:00:42] if you want to be the leader then we need to make a position tonight then it look like then then it be the [1:00:49] case that we were you know divided and therefore divided but we were yanked into this and and I'd rather be the leader on it. [1:00:58] Okay. So let me pose the question one more time. There are three options but frankly two options but there are three [1:01:06] options. So let's assume council and mayor are the same. Are you okay with that? [1:01:12] Um I mean I had Yes. Okay. Yes. [1:01:17] So the other option is two terms, two terms, two terms plus two years, two terms plus two years, three terms, three terms. [1:01:28] I'm looking to settle this matter. And while I I um don't have as strong [1:01:36] feelings as others do about the two extra years, I'm I'm willing to go with that because I don't see a huge difference with that. And [1:01:44] I mean, it's 10 years basically versus I will we can take the the two and two simple two and two off the table for me. [1:01:53] I I'll just Does that mean yes or no? [1:01:56] Off the table. Okay. So four people are supporting 10year max, three people are supporting 12 year max. [1:02:06] It it appears that way. I mean yeah [1:02:08] [laughter] [1:02:10] um it like I said I I and I don't see how the the rest of my colleagues aren't [1:02:17] seeing the in, you know, inevitability of this. I I I think it's fairly inevitable. [1:02:24] Um what is inevitable? um that we are going to land at at at two and two regardless or two and two plus [1:02:33] 10 years 10 years and 10 years or 12 years 10 years is where you're landing 10 years and 10 years right it's the 10 years for council 10 years for mayor [1:02:41] right right okay clear [1:02:46] let me just um talk about that 24 versus 25 months where it gets 10 years where [1:02:56] triggers versus a special election versus there are yeah okay so um till tonight I have been concentrating [1:03:04] on the um election to a special election to a two-year term just to put it into [1:03:11] so that everybody understands good example is what what um council member center was just elected to because there was a vacancy and he filled a two-year [1:03:20] term that would be an example of a total of 10 years service um The the question is, can somebody be [1:03:28] appointed to fill out a vacancy? Um, and with that vac is under Illinois law, [1:03:35] does that vacancy um can the mayor [snorts] appoint that vacancy uh somebody to that vacancy for 24 months um or 25 months? [1:03:48] And what's the nuance there? [1:03:51] What what's the nuance there? The nuance there is I I would want to make sure for for whatever re and I were appointed. [1:03:59] So for let's make it more more like say it's an appointment for three years. [1:04:04] Somebody is on for a year and they're like I'm out of here and then we appoint somebody but it would trigger. Yeah. [1:04:12] These guys don't understand. That's why it's 24 months. [1:04:14] Right. But and and I my assumption has always been 24 months. Um, I was always [1:04:22] comfortable with 24 months in my world of municipal law. Um, council member Little mentioned the word 25 months. [1:04:30] It says less than 25 months and they tried to take into account when a person sworn in when the election is when and I think you got that probably from Wilmet in this my quick little run here. [1:04:42] I I pulled up the Wilmet ordinance and they talk 25 months less than 25 months. [1:04:49] That's right. Well, I I think that the way I had it at 10 years would work isn't as accurate. [1:04:54] I I think it's fine. And it's elected or appointed. I also would add the elected or appointed. [1:05:00] Well, it it it's elected, but you can serve a total of no more than 10 years, which implies it doesn't matter how you [1:05:09] got there. Um and and that's why the way I if you look up at the the top it would [1:05:16] say um you cannot be elected or it starts elected to a maximum we would fill that in of two full four-year terms [1:05:25] for that office whether or not served consecutive um whether or not served consecutively that would stay in or if holding that office would cause the [1:05:32] person to serve for more than a combined total of 10 years. [1:05:37] Right. That's fine. I think that that reflects where the majority is. You mean is that where you're landing? It's fine. [1:05:45] [laughter] [1:05:48] Just to put a a fine tune on it. And we'd also in the first um bracket we'd fill in 2027. Y [1:05:55] and then uh you all agree with my additional blue language. I think that that's a good clarification. [1:06:01] Um and then we fill in that red which would also be 2027. Okay. Okay. [1:06:10] With the direction then of the majority, we will put this um in final form um for our meeting this even with no [1:06:17] blanks. No, this will it'll be a up or down vote. Okay, great. Okay. [1:06:23] Yeah. I mean, this is I'm stating be utterly obvious. This is up to the voters ultimately, right? Yes. Right. Yeah. [1:06:31] Yep. Okay. Well, thank you for a wholesome conversation on that topic. [1:06:36] appreciate it. Um, our next item is concerning automated license plate readers. Um, [1:06:53] thank you. Um, so Chief Jman and Deputy Chief Olsson are going to walk us through this um, PowerPoint presentation very briefly. U, we do have a staff report in the packet. [1:07:05] Um, this presentation is for your information only. So, no policy decisions need to be made. Um, but in light of questions that we've received [1:07:13] from the public as well as really questions nationwide about this technology, we wanted to share information um with you as well as the public about the technology. [1:07:24] Um, and uh and then also answer any questions that you may have. Also for public information, we have information [1:07:32] on our website which is very detailed in terms of a question and answer as well as a number of different success stories, how this technology has been [1:07:40] used for successful crime investigations. And so that information is also worthwhile um to review. [1:07:47] Just real quick, uh good evening. Uh Deputy Chief Olsen oversees our ALPR system overall. Commander Sean Curran is our uh ALPR coordinator. He's here also. [1:07:57] He is kind of our hands-on person at his department. So, he'd be able to answer any specific questions you might have. [1:08:03] Deputy Chief Ols has put together a brief PowerPoint to hit the highlights and then we'll be available for discussion. [1:08:10] Okay. Uh, good evening, mayor and city council. Um, we're happy to be here this evening to share information on the automated license plate reader systems [1:08:17] utilized by the city to enhance our public safety efforts and criminal investigative abilities. An automated license plate reader, commonly known as [1:08:25] ALPR, is a network of mounted cameras or vehicle-mounted cameras that log license plates passing through its field of vision for the sole purpose of [1:08:32] investigating a crime um or an investigation of a missing or endangered person. [1:08:38] When an officer conducts an ALPR search, they receive a high quality searchable image of a license plate, the license [1:08:45] plate state, make, model, color of a vehicle, and the body style. [1:08:51] Um, it's important to note that when officers receive an ALPR alert, um, that's based on still images and not a live video feed. [1:09:02] The ALPR data is uploaded to a cloud-based server. It's briefly stored. [1:09:07] It's for law enforcement investigative purposes only. It's not used for traffic enforcement or a revenue generator. [1:09:14] There's no live stream viewing and the vehicle owner information is not run through the ALPR system. There's no driver or occupant information that's [1:09:22] captured when vehicles pass through the pass by one of the city's ALPR cameras. The [1:09:31] police and dispatch are notified when a vehicle's hot list um is alerted through an NCI known hot list or a police [1:09:39] department's own hot list. It can search for subject vehicles with limited information. um more specifically for an [1:09:46] on for an ongoing case, something in the moment where you might have the date and time, um a location, a partial license [1:09:53] plate, or um a make, model, color of a vehicle. [1:09:59] The city of Highland Park was current has currently approval for 22 APR camera systems strategically placed throughout the city for vehicles entering the city [1:10:07] of Highland Park. There's also three privatelyowned ALPR systems which have granted the police department access for [1:10:15] use in criminal investigations and a missing endangered person investigations. [1:10:21] ALPR systems help solve um cases sooner and more often. It also enhances investigators ability to quickly [1:10:29] identify a suspect vehicle and access critical information in the event of an ongoing incident. [1:10:35] In addition, it also enhances our ability to prevent crime. It instantly alerts officers and dispatch to hot vehicles that enter through the city. [1:10:43] We've seen it's more efficient um to have fixed ALPR systems rather than the vehicle mounted ALPR systems just based [1:10:50] on a a vehicle moving the officer's vehicle moving can't be in the same place at the same time. And more than hundreds 100 [1:10:58] communities in Illinois are using ALPR system which benefits us with community collaboration and our efforts towards public safety. [1:11:08] Um the individual privacy protection and data security is a priority of the city and has been from the inception. We have conscientious policy in place that [1:11:16] respects privacy while effectively preventing victimization and increasing public safety. [1:11:22] ALPRs must be in compliance with Illinois law and local regulations. The in information is only accessed for life safety and criminal investigations. [1:11:32] The data is autodeleted after 30 days if it's not used for a criminal case. [1:11:36] There's no revenue generation or traffic enforcement like we already stated and there's no live stream monitoring. Data is not open to public review and is not [1:11:44] subject to FOIA and absent of any legitimate life safety or criminal invest in investigation criteria. [1:11:51] Personal information is not accessed. [1:11:54] Any outofstate or federal requests for access must be authorized by the police police chief and the city manager and [1:12:02] the city manager and police chief conduct monthly audits of every officer use. [1:12:09] The police department has successfully used ALPR systems to assist us in investigations, including child abduction and kidnap kidnapping cases, [1:12:18] domestic battery, hit and runs, burglary vehicles, missing endangered people, stolen vehicles, retail thefts, [1:12:26] robberies, burglaries, ar jewelry theft, felony warrants, fraud investigations, as well as locating a sexual predator with an active warrant. [1:12:37] Our automated and stationary license plate reader policy is on the city website um [1:12:43] to review and um we're here if you have any questions about the system. [1:12:49] Great. Thank you. I know um some of the concerns people have had have been you know other police departments not [1:12:56] honoring the contract and actually federal government frankly accessing information improperly. Um, I know you [1:13:05] answered that question, but can you expand a little bit in terms of what kind of protections we have in place so [1:13:12] that that contractual provision is being followed and we have assurance that the data is not being used for purposes other than what's been stated. [1:13:21] Can we call Commander Curran? Come on up here. Commander Curran. Wait, there's more. [1:13:25] So again, Commander Curran actually manages hands-on with the system. And so those those instances you're talking about, Mayor, early on um when AP LPRs [1:13:33] were kind of starting out, there were, you know, some missteps for sure. Um I know Commander Curran was very judicious in his settings and our settings. So we [1:13:42] avoided any of that exposure because we limited the federal government really had no access to our our you know our information. We did that by design. [1:13:50] We're very limited in who we'll share information with. he can kind of kind of explain uh how people get our information, how we either authorize or [1:13:58] don't authorize them and it'll give you a little bit of background why we feel very very comfortable that our information in Highland Park is secure. [1:14:05] So I'll let and then [clears throat] after that corporation council I don't know if there are updates from the state I believe there are new legislation [1:14:13] related to this or possibly wellended pending. Yeah. Thanks. [clears throat] Yes. Thank you mayor. So, uh, when [1:14:20] someone makes a request, uh, to utilize our cameras and to have access to our network, they have to I have to physically approve it or not approve it. [1:14:30] So, I literally, so it can't happen by accident. I literally have to go in there and I have to physically approve it. We also [clears throat] do audits [1:14:39] every single month and we look for all the reasons uh, why people are searching what they are searching for. And then what happened in that instance was you [1:14:46] can have a setting as I understand it where you can authorize anybody to have access. It's it's designed to share information law enforcement I'm sorry [1:14:54] law enforcement that good clarification city manager law enforcement but also that included at the time federal. [1:15:00] So we knowing that you know we certainly respect everyone's privacy and this system is designed truly to help the folks who are doing the right thing and [1:15:09] following law. This is helping solve their cases and helping to protect them. We don't want to adversely impact them. [1:15:13] So, we were very cautious about the settings we have and we have a very robust, again, if somebody from another jurisdiction wants our information, a [1:15:21] car may have hit in in our town that they're looking for, I have to go through him. And then certainly, if it's something um that needs to be reviewed [1:15:29] by myself, deputy chief, city manager, we have a policy in place to make sure that's happening. So, we feel we've got a very, very strong and robust system of checks and balances. We really do. [1:15:39] And is there a way that we can communicate that out? because I recognize what we're trying to achieve, but maybe it's just through the [1:15:47] individual emails. I don't I you don't want to compromise also. Okay. [1:15:51] Yeah. I I know the city manager and our city staff do a really nice job and we do have the information on the website. [1:15:56] I do feel certainly different municipalities take advantage of the system in different ways and then [clears throat] there are the vulnerabilities and so when people hear that, [1:16:04] right, they're certainly going to be concerned and we don't blame them. [1:16:08] That's why we've taken the approach we have here in Highland Park. We recognize the incredible value. It is really incredibly valuable. Um I've had a [1:16:16] conversation with a couple of my colleagues who who work in um municipalities who have since you know rescended the authority to use it and [1:16:24] they are clear and unequivocal that their ability to solve crimes and things that we're able to do has been uh severely impacted. So we want to be very [1:16:32] very respectful and careful because we recognize the value of what it's been doing for our community and for our residents. I mean, we've heard the stories and it's unbelievable [1:16:41] myself when right from our own experience here of how well the police department has been able to mitigate and stop and also solve [1:16:50] crimes. So, mayor, I'll tell you there are cases for sure probably 70 80% of the ones that we've provided to the city manager, they just wouldn't have been solved at all [1:16:59] with I mean that's that's how powerful it is. helps us in and to the point that the deputy chief mentioned in one particular instance, we got a hit down [1:17:07] about a stolen car on the south end of town. Our officers knowing that we were having catalytic converter thefts instantly went to the hotel and they were under there cutting them. [1:17:16] Oh my god. [1:17:16] So, we did inter interdict them. And so, but again, we know and we recognize that there are concerns, privacy concerns and [1:17:24] other concerns. And we also recognize that maybe other municipalities aren't being as judicious as we are. So, we're sensitive to that. [1:17:31] But we want to um respect everyone's privacy but also try to retain the rights to to make sure we're keeping the community safe. [1:17:37] And mayor, to your question, so the privacy information and the restrictions are reflected on the website. [1:17:43] And so, um, we have talked to a couple of residents that have had questions and concerns. So, we've had email communication, also talked to individuals, and we haven't heard back. [1:17:53] So, I mean, I think we've answered their questions and concerns. Yeah. [1:17:57] And yeah, I mean, I really like what you just said. Yeah, Gita. Um, and I've, you know, we've seen those responses and the [1:18:05] fact that they're not pushing back or, you know, we can assume that they're, you know, accepting, you know, the [snorts] carefulness of it all. I [1:18:13] wonder, you know, we get the stories as city council members about what you just said. [1:18:20] I, and I don't know if this is valuable for the citizens, but I'm just putting it out. You know, many times we kind of can get in in difficult awkward [1:18:28] situation when there's the bad players out there that then trigger all these concerns. Well, we have these systems and you know kind of ergo we must be [1:18:37] kind of maybe doing the same things that these bad apples did. And so we then find ourselves in a reactive mode. Well, [1:18:45] no, we're not. We're doing all these things. Have we and if we haven't, could we be a little bit more proactive? like [1:18:53] once in a while, you know, not just on the cameras, right? But maybe here's here's what we're doing proactively to keep our city safe. You know, we always [1:19:02] do the good reactive thing. This happened and this is what you know, but could we on a more proactive way saying these are the ways we keep [clears throat] the city safe, you know, [1:19:11] it may once in a while might once a year whatever have a you know, you may be wondering about these these um LPRPS. [1:19:20] No, LPRs. [1:19:23] Um well here's the latest on that you know so we're in a proactive mood ra mode rather than a reactive mode. [1:19:30] Yeah we definitely do and we definitely could do more. Yeah absolutely. So like for example every year we have a police speed coordinator meeting and so we use [1:19:39] those opportunities for the public to talk about some of the technology and the proactive efforts that police department is doing. Um and so that's a [1:19:48] good audience. We use the Highlander and the E-News. Um, but we have talked about doing um, you know, like highlights of [1:19:56] cases, you know, and so and I think the public generally I think appreciates hearing that. So, yeah, we can we can [1:20:03] Yeah, those stories are great. Um, and why not share more wide? It should make people feel safer and reassured about how we use these systems [1:20:11] responsibly, right? Sure. Yeah. [1:20:14] Great. Well, thank you. Any other questions? Any other? Okay, great. Time for this session. [1:20:22] Yes. [1:20:23] You do want to ask about the legislation. Legislation. Yes. [1:20:27] The answer is um it has not made it to the um it's not got past committee, but there have been legislation um proposed [1:20:36] to limit the amount of time that Mel can keep the data, but that's it. Still at committee level. [1:20:44] Gotcha. Thank you. Much appreciated. [1:20:46] Okay. Um, with that, I'm seeking a motion to go into close session. [1:20:52] H according to the according to to discuss it's it's to discuss close session. [1:20:59] No, it's it's not litigation. It's to discuss close session. [1:21:03] The annual twice annual review of close session meeting minutes. Right. So, somebody can say so moved. Somebody else can say second. [1:21:11] The third graders need a roll call. Now, we need a a vote, please. Council center. Hi, council member Bman. [1:21:17] Hi, Council Member Ross. Hi, Council Member Tapia. [1:21:20] Hi, Council Member L. Hi, Council Member Mayor. I six eyes, nos. We're going to close. Thanks. [1:21:27] Thanks, guys.