City of Bloomington Common Council Meeting – 03/01/23

I attended a regular Bloomington City Council meeting virtually on March 1st, 2023. This meeting had three main agenda items, reports, legislation and public comment. I will give more context for each of these items later but for now these were the main substantive issues on the meeting docket. The point of these meetings are for the city government, other public officials, business owners and other members of the community to come together and discuss what is going on in the city and to have a forum to introduce legislation and other items of interest. The “common council” as it is called, meets 2-3 times a month, on Wednesday evenings at 6:30 p.m.

Who Was at the Meeting?

I come from a really small town where very few people are actively involved in civic affairs and was minorly surprised to see the amount of people in attendance for the city council meeting. From what I could tell from Zoom, there were 14 participants (including myself) tuned in online, with an additional 15-20 other people physically present in the council meeting room. Included in that estimate are the council people themselves. 

When describing the demographics of those attending, there was a fairly even representation of both men and women in the room, however a notable lack of non-white participants on the council and in attendance to the meeting. Despite a lack of diversity within the room, the chair woman of the council did read a land acknowledgement statement before opening the meeting acknowledging that the land in which the City of Bloomington currently rests on was once inhabited by Indigenous peoples and that much of the city’s infrastructure was once unfairly built by slave or forced labor. 

Among those in attendance were the council members themselves, the city attorney(s), other city officials and city staff as well as members of the public. According to the meeting’s official roll call, the Councilmembers present were: Matt Flaherty, Isabel Piedmont-Smith, Dave Rollo, Kate Rosenbarger, Sue Sgambelluri, Ron Smith, Stephen Volan. The Council members absent: Jim Sims, Susan Sandberg. The City staff, officials, and guests present were: Stephen Lucas, Ash Kulak, John Zody, Amir Farshchi, Chaz Mottinger, Andrea de la Rosa, Talisha Coppock, Deputy Mayor Mary Catherine Carmichael, City Clerk Nicole Bolden. Council President Sue Sgambelluri presided.

Where was the Meeting?

The meeting took place at the Bloomington City Hall, located at 401 N. Morton Street, Bloomington, Indiana. There was additionally a virtual Zoom option for those unable to attend in person. As I attend via Zoom, I can speak to the accessibility of logging on via the video conferencing platform and can attest to its simplicity and ease of access. I found the link posted in numerous locations such as the City website, City social media sites and the meetings pre-posted agenda. I discovered after the fact that the meeting was recorded by a media company called CATS – Community Access Television Service. In writing this post, it was convenient to access this service to re-watch parts of the meeting and refresh my memory on some of the details.

What was the Meeting About?

Top Agenda Items

Regarding reports, there was a short report read by a representative for the City’s capital improvement committee entitled; Report on City of Bloomington Capital Improvements, Inc. Additionally, and perhaps the main subject of the meeting, was report read by council member Matt Flaghtery, summarizing the council committee’s findings from an investigation conducted by the Committee on Council Processes – Re: motion for removal of a Traffic Commission member. 

It seems as if the council had previously made a motion to remove a current city traffic commissioner from his position due to his alleged posting of inappropriate and lewd comments on social media regarding traffic related issues and due to his supposed inability to carry out his duties as traffic commissioner. The council ultimately decided to rescind the motion to remove the traffic commissioner until he had had the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him. The motion was made and seconded and there were no objections. 

Following the presentation of these reports, the council then entered a period of public comment. A Bloomington commissioner shared that Monroe county had received a grant that will allow community members to better access mental health care programs and entailed the dollar matching the City has agreed to. A Court Appointed Special Advocate or CASA member encouraged the community to consider becoming a CASA and shared a touching anecdote about a 5 year old girl he helped obtain custody by her grandparents. A gentleman from the Chamber of Commerce shared some information about upcoming elections, such as their “Elect-Connect” event and other events. To wrap up the first public comment period, someone commented via Zoom that they wished to inform the sidewalk commission that there was a sidewalk issue in their neighborhood. A legitimate concern, however I found the delivery a tad bit funny. 

Council members then spent several minutes discussing the motions surrounding the issue of the Traffic Commissioner as discussed earlier. Thankfully the council attorney stepped in to remind the council members that they had motioned to postpone their discussion and final decision for another week forward. After this lengthy discussion, a resolution explaining a grant proposal was introduced which explained The City of Bloomington is eligible for a large grant from the U.S. Department of Housing.

Another large part of the meeting was discussing an amendment to local Bloomington traffic code. The Agenda offers a summary of the proposed amendment; I have included it here. 

“To Amend Title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code Entitled Vehicles And Traffic” – Re: Amending Section 15.12.010 to remove seven stop intersections, to add six stop intersections, and to delete one 4-way stop intersection; Section 15.12.020 to add one yield intersection; Section 15.32.030 to delete angle parking on Fourth Street between College Avenue and Gentry Street; Section 15.32.080 to add no parking spaces on Duncan Drive, Nineteenth Street, and Strong Drive and to remove no parking spaces on Grant Street and Nineteenth Street; and Section 15.32.090 to add limited parking zones to Eighth Street.”

There was discussion from the council about this issue, not for a lack of wanting to pass the amendment, but I think rather in an attempt to better understand the aims of the amendment. It was passed with no objections or abstentions. 

Finally there was a resolution hoping to adopt an extension to Bloomington’s Outdoor Dining Program. A member from the project’s commission shared how the council’s various questions and concerns for this project. They shared a spreadsheet of businesses that either did or did not support the extension of the program along with other findings relevant to the resolution. There was intense public and private debate on this resolution. People argued that emergency vehicles were unable to get through, that it unfairly offered Kirkwood restaurants an advantage over other local restaurants. Others also argued that the city would lose too much revenue from the loss of parking payments collected from meters on Kirkwood. Those arguing in favor of the resolution brought up the issue of climate change and how this resolution would help limit cars on the road and encouraged less heating/air conditioning/lighting expenses from indoor dining. Supporters also cited city vibrancy and the joy of the urban fabric. The resolution ultimately passed.

Distribution of Information

All of the information – the resolutions, motions, reports and other pieces of legislation discussed in the meetings were made available online via PDF for those who wished to access them from the council website.

Meeting Resolution

The meeting wrapped up asking for any other business items or public comment and concluded almost 4 hours after it had begun.

Smart City Technology Opportunities

As someone who is very familiar with Parliamentary procedure due to my background in Model UN, participation in student council and my position on a board for a student organization, I realized the City Council Members were very unfamiliar with Robert’s Rules and true Parliamentary Procedure. This was made increasingly obvious as the Council Attorney had to keep stepping in with Points of Order to remind the council members to wait until they had finished debate on one topic to raise a new motion or to rescind a previous motion.

One smart city technology that could be utilized to help address this issue would be to create a digital program with some sort of live AI tracking for the meeting that absorbs what is being said, analyzes a proper procedural response, and offers it on the screen for the user. The user would have access to any documents being discussed and could also have a feed of the virtual venue as well to better access comments from that platform. 

This technology could be applied throughout the city, for example within the mayor’s office or maybe even at the county level such as with the Board of Health or with MCCSC. This technology might be called a meeting management system and could either be installed as an app on devices such as Ipads, laptops and phones, or take the shape of its own device entirely, being housed on a portable tablet.

Agenda’s and Other Documents

Meeting Agenda: City_Council-20230301-Agenda

City Council Meeting Minutes: City_Council-20230301-Minutes

Legislative Packets: City_Council-20230301-Packet (1)  City_Council-20230301-Packet