Okay.
Good afternoon, everyone.
This is the November 5th, 2025 regular
meeting of the Seattle Ethics and Elections
Commission and chairs after the killings.
And with me all in the WebEx remote
platform are Vice Chair Sherman and Commissioners
Paul Smith and Vassal.
We have a fairly full agenda today.
I'm adding one item to the agenda
which is finalizing the written supplementary
opinion in the matter of the Bruce Harrell.
In the matter of Bruce Harrell, the complaint
that we adjudicated the appeal up
by voice vote last meeting, our October 1st meeting.
I don't believe we'll need to ever closed session,
but we'll take that up and decide that
when we get to that item, which I'll put
at the end of the action items.
We have received public comment.
If there's any commissioner,
I'd like to discuss that public comment.
Now we can.
Otherwise,
I think we can just address
that comment within each of the above.
The action items which pertains.
Okay, hearing nothing.
I'll move on to the action
items of which there are now three.
So the first is the feel
of the executive directors determination on staff
bonuses and voucher gathering payout.
When you introduce this issue and your decision
to commission to defer discussion, yes, I can.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So after the primary election.
Right.
I had a conversation with public Rail and Renee
about for my staff about closing down this campaign.
One of the
things they talked about was reasonable bonuses
being an option for payments at some point
after the election.
But the next time that
came up was when we saw the draft.
See for that Mr.
Armstrong's treasurer variety to our office,
and he proposed giving 4000 bonuses to eight people.
So a total of $32,000,
which was far more than we have seen
in bonuses certainly in this election cycle,
I think, ever.
So I thought that that was unreasonable.
And so I told Ryan that
and I told him if you wanted to get
elected to the commission, which is why we're here.
The other thing is there was also a $30,000 payment
under a contract between him and Great Blue
for voucher Denver.
And as you know, if you all recall
four years ago, after the 2021 election,
there was
much discussion
about your gathering being paid
and all the problems with it.
But the commission
ultimately put tighter rules in place.
So it'll limit the practice.
So that was something we did.
So those are the two issues.
Those are the two things that are causing concern.
I invited Ryan to come in to speak to you, but
yeah, I just I can't in good faith approve
those two payment items.
Okay.
So can I just
clarify that kind of issues for a review here?
So there are two separate payments that are at issue
from the Ryan Armstrong mayoral campaign.
The first is
eight $4,000 bonuses
to our campaign staff
and their campaign staff and consultants.
And five of the people
are not members of the staff
they work for as consultants.
I see.
And that's $32,000.
And then a separate payment was to
a contractor
for a voucher gathering for $30,000.
Okay.
And the
just starting with the $35,000 bonuses.
You denied that
from the democracy about your funds
because you felt
that it was above fair market value. So,
yes, campaigns are allowed to get
to pay a fair market value for items under the under
the voucher code.
But they can't you can't just give money away.
So that was, I think, this false problem that
got it.
Any other basis
for denying that reimbursement request?
No, I don't believe so.
Okay.
And then for the 30,000
to what's named the blue.
Great. Blue.
Sky blue. Thank you.
What's the basis for the denial of that request?
I think that would also be like
above party values or something like that.
I just feel like after the campaign ended on, Mr.
Armstrong's campaign workers
kept collecting vouchers.
And it is something I think we're seeing this
for the second time with the mayoral campaign
and things feel like I got $450,000 to spend.
And that's not the case.
After we give money to people to spend on
campaign purposes that are legitimate. So
that's what happens.
So is there.
So was all of that $30,000 payment for post
primary elections, voucher gathering for your firm?
No, it wasn't.
It was for something really very encouraging.
They say it's
for management services throughout the campaign.
Sorry to say that also should've
been reported earlier as a death,
but we didn't find out about that until October,
I believe, or late September
or so after the primary.
And so
is the late reporting of it
a basis to reject it?
I don't believe so, no.
Late reporting is fine.
Really reporting.
I'm not sure you could
deny a payment because important.
Okay.
And you're you invoked
commission rule 16, Jay,
which governs
democracy voucher
collection and payments.
Is there anything in rule 16, Jay, that
you think governs here and precludes
compensating for the blueprint
for strategies, not for gathering?
I don't believe there is anything in it
for Partizan 16 Jay that gets at this issue.
Okay.
Well, I mean, it seems like the rule says that
you have to
you can have no more than to pay collectors at
575 now.
So that they have to register,
that they have to
take a training course,
but they have to sign this form.
Did they comply with all of those
regulatory requirements with respect
to break blue strategies?
Yes, they did.
Okay.
Any other questions
for Wayne,
Commissioner Ross?
Yeah.
Going back to the bonuses,
way, you indicated that bonuses had
been approved in the past.
Did I hear that correctly?
Yes. People were paid bonuses in the past.
Do you recall the amounts of those bonuses?
We had a couple of bonuses this cycle. One
Nathan Rouse
is given for city attorney pay.
What did he pay?
2200.
200, 20, $220.
So $2,220 for three people.
And it was necessary that $20 each.
No, no, no.
The total in the aggregate.
So in the aggregate, $80,000 to three people.
And Jeannie Chun was the candidate
for district to pay 40 $600 to two
in the aggregate, again, in the aggregate. Yes.
So I don't think my clients
and their entire cycles of
have bonuses been paid for.
To your recollection, Yes.
And were those amounts
commensurate with what candidate
Armstrong was requesting or were they
less than the amounts, both the two
that you just described?
I just think that they were always lesser,
probably better.
And I once again,
I would say
typically 1000 to 1500,
if it might be an
extra week of pay or two weeks pay,
or IT consultant might give
one month's
added payments,
you know, so.
So typically, consulting my church, 5000
is a total of 5000.
It would be 5000 for multiple employees of the
So and with respect to the the voucher collecting.
Just to clarify, you said that three
blue tier understanding that
I don't recall how many folks
were gathering signatures for Faith Blue.
Did everyone at Rate Blue qualify
that up to five people to be signature
gatherers per rule 16
The not everyone.
I don't think every
firm was qualified to collect it,
but some of the people working for him.
But he never had more than five others
that he never had more than five big collectors
at the time, which is what?
Okay.
Those are my questions. So
thank you.
Anyone else questions for Wayne.
Is it true that no one from the Armstrong campaign
or the Blue Strategies is here today?
You know the area Ryan Armstrong is here as well.
Is it magic?
I think he's the only other person from
the way that I'm from Great Blue.
Okay. Okay.
A question for you.
When did you consider regarding the bonus issue?
Would you consider approving lower
dollar amounts in response to the request?
I think I told them I would, but I couldn't.
I didn't want to get into a negotiation like,
you know what amount of three?
I want to get into that.
And so I just denying the 32,000.
And on the bright blue issue,
is there a copy of the contract,
the voucher gathering contract that you received?
Yes, there is experience.
I have it with me. So
I'm asking for a copy
of what's on a copy of the book.
Yes, I will send you that. Mr..
Those are my questions for now.
Sure.
Any other questions for Wayne?
Before we let the campaign
address these issues?
I, I'd just be curious to get a copy of that
contract as well.
Yes, I'll say all the commissioners.
I'll send it all
those.
All right.
Mr. Armstrong, do you have anything to say
in addition to your written submission?
Certainly.
Thank you, everyone, for the time.
I can hear me. Okay.
You caught me in the car on the phone?
Yeah.
In terms of the bonuses,
I think there just may have been
a communication error.
The guidance
I had received
from polling, Renee, was submit something
with no guidelines on the range
of what would be considered reasonable.
And I come from a nonprofit world where I thought,
what is equal to one month's pay?
As a thank you for staff and consultants
that worked
on the campaign, it did work hard
to make sure that we had a debt free.
So that was where the 4000 came from per individual.
But I was never tied to that amount.
So I'm very open to whatever amount
the commission
or Wayne is open to giving
if the bonuses are to be considered.
And that just came out of a conversation with
Renee and Polly about, Hey,
why are you guys gathering so much after the primary?
And most of it is because we spent
money on
CCTV ads right up to GOTV.
We're
trying to make as much impact as possible,
but did not want to end up with any death
and we weren't sure.
I think the city
know as well as the program is.
We get disbursements sometimes weeks later
or get updates, and so we weren't certain
what we would end up
with in the terms of the campaign,
which is why we kept collecting.
So in terms of the bonuses, that was just something
that seemed approvable for Polly.
Renee and I just drafted an option.
So in terms of that,
I leave that
to the commission to decide
what's best to do in terms of the voucher payment.
I do see it as a reasonable
compensation.
It's just the timing
of that Compensation is different
in the contract than other campaigns.
If you look at Bruce
Harrell's campaign,
he actually
spent more on voucher gathering and fundraising
than we spend on a per month basis.
If you break down the 30,000 over the campaign,
get a quick look at that.
And I think
Adam provided the breakdown in our written document
that you can see a table of that.
So I think the intention behind that 30,000
was to have it be payable at the end of the campaign
so as not to incur too much debt or
do not encumber the campaign too early
because we weren't even sure
if we would get qualified. Right.
That's the the first test of the campaign.
And we did get there was I'm very proud of.
So that's the intent tonight.
And I just come to good faith
trying to pay my people
and see if we can get this resolved for everyone.
So I appreciate everyone's time.
Thank you, Mr..
For the question.
So what else did Great
Blue Strategies do for the campaign?
The satisfaction election
volunteer management
got me my campaign manager.
I would say event management
and traditional fundraising.
So I would say typically a campaign
would have a fundraiser
and then a general consultant.
Typically, those are two different firms.
Yeah, we weren't able to get a separate fundraiser
for many political reasons,
but so Bright Blue ended up
filling both of those roles in the campaign,
and they were paid 5000 a month for fundraising,
but then the voucher
management process
of bringing them into the city,
making sure that they're viable.
There were issues with
a system
and a code that they had built
that were submitting
improper vouchers
that the city helped them work with and fix.
But I would say overall, they did
they did a well enough job
to make sure that we got over the finish line.
I know
I could check this fairly easily,
but do you know offhand how much you raise
from traditional contributions
outside of an entrepreneur?
I think some are around
27, $28,000.
I had to remember off the top of my head
for that could be from
Gabe or Adam.
Do you guys know that number?
Yeah. I'd like to just jump in and say we'd also.
We're asking for large contributions.
We were asking for qualifying contributions.
All of our fundraising efforts were focused on $10
qualifying contributions.
I think it was $26,500
that we raised to ensure.
Thanks in the table at the end of your written
submission reflects
the monthly costs that each of those
listed campaigns incurred for each category.
All right. That is correct.
I mean, it doesn't really just aggregate
democracy factor collection for general fundraising.
That's one obvious shortcoming in it.
But I understand the point you're making that
I need other questions for Mr.
Arm. Armstrong Well, why don't we hear from Mr.
and Mr. Magic?
Do you have a separate presentation
that you want to make up?
I just want to say a few clarifying things.
As the fundraiser.
So the fundraising and individual collecting
are very similar in their scope.
I mean, I I'm about revenue for the campaign
and the budget gathering has
in our situation the situation where
was such where we were able to get better
and better signature
from our voucher collectors towards the end.
So we had an unusual situation
of being able to collect a lot more vouchers
towards the end.
And so we were and we were always following up on
how much we we collected, how many of them counted.
And so we you know, we had a big book at the end.
And I kind of think that that might be why the
CAC kind of flagged this as maybe
spending money appropriately,
because there was
there was such a big jump towards it.
And I think that had to do
with just how we ended up
organizing and getting the collectors
who were a lot better at doing the job.
And then earlier in the campaign,
I noticed in the write up
that it says that we didn't
really find the exact wording.
And I'm not confident that your campaign
complied with the spirit of the letter of the rule,
and I take issue with that.
I think we did everything within the spirit of the
letter of the rules, and I think that we were able
to raise more money
at the end, which also put a huge
amount of pressure on the staff that we had
and that the reason
there are all those people
in with
the bonuses
is because all those people were working
around the clock to make sure that we
we process them correctly, that we had the
the voter IDs again, that we had them
scanned and and ready for the council.
And we didn't ask for them to be turned in.
We didn't send bad ones in.
I mean, I think there was a
there was a big jump at the end, which also just
meant much, much more work for everybody involved.
And that's why the bonuses seem to be appropriate.
And also in in the response as well.
It says that, you know, we didn't get a lot of votes.
And so it seems odd
to give bonuses, but the bonuses is fair
work done.
And it's because there were so many people doing such
a huge amount of work right up at the end that it was
it made sense to get bonuses related to that.
And so,
yes, when you put that out,
thank you for that.
And Mr.
Roddy, I'm sorry that you got it right.
Do you have anything to add?
I just wanted to add that we also looked
at other voucher campaigns this year
and in the past gave us
and I had both worked on previous voucher campaigns.
We did this across
this campaign, which was mentioned here as well.
I think, you know,
we've always tried to comply with the letter
and spirit of the law to the best of our ability
as to why this was reported late.
In terms of the $30,000
charge, I if the Treasurer
we aren't the Treasurer for the campaign,
we did our best to make the Treasurer
aware of all expenditures,
of all filings and everything.
I think there was just a miscommunication on that
and it was an honest mistake.
But the contract
cited data is from the first week of February
and there was no intent to hide a large
potential expenditure for the campaign.
That's all for me,
the Commissioner's.
I mean, any other questions
for the campaign or its consultants?
I have a brief one.
I'm not sure this from Mr.
Prouty or Mr. Armstrong.
With all of the work that that was described,
the day that we did in all of the work
described in the letter
submission work that was done under the
contract was titled Amounts Gathering.
In other words, there's no other contract
and there's no amendments to that contract.
Is that right?
That is the complete contract that you have
until there was a previous contract
that did not include that
when we were looking for a fundraiser
and that was added additionally.
So that was
amended into the contract within two weeks
after we were trying to build out.
The team just started the campaign
and then I think Break was stepped up
and said, okay, we can take that on and capacity was,
but that is the full contract that you have
in front of you from February,
I think six or seven.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
No, just an appreciation for what you do.
I appreciate everyone here.
Thank you. Mr. Armstrong.
Commissioners, any any additional
questions or comments?
Mr. Hostettler has her hand raised?
I'm not sure if that's intentional.
No, sorry.
We I would put it out so it doesn't have to ask for.
But for me,
sorry about that.
I do not have 125.
So my reaction to this
is that
probably some where in between is going to be
the correct solution, especially for the bonuses.
But I feel like
the record before us
is really quite thin and I find it
you know, I appreciate
the supplementation of the record through
the campaign's presentation
today, but I think I would prefer
to have just more concrete written information,
including the actual final earnings before us before
we can really adjudicate this issue.
I mean, other commissioners are ready to vote.
That's fine.
But my feeling is that we should either
hold this in abeyance
until a subsequent meeting or maybe vacate
the decision and and ask Wayne
to develop a better record and perhaps propose
some sort of compromise
rather than kind of just denying it flat out.
Do others have thoughts on
either of those approaches?
I agree,
and I'd like to see a copy of the contract as well.
Just get some more time to read over it.
Appreciate the presentations
that we've received today
and the more time to digest.
I read the contract
would be helpful and then I just wanted to
or other information was there
were there any other
I would like to be able to look over this as well,
But were there any other
specific documents that Wayne personally
had that pertains to this that haven't been
distributed to the commissioners,
the documents for you?
There's a contract which I'll send to on the
well we don't have their filings doing,
if you like, if you can send those
to you as well. Yes,
they were amended sometimes.
So yeah, we have
from my perspective
it would also be helpful to have a summary of
that work
that we've written, but it's it's just like on
perhaps that couple.
I just I hope that we can we can gauge
what is and
what has been done previously.
And yeah,
I mean when I think you have,
you should have the authority to gather
and request any pertinent information
from the campaign that you think would be
beneficial to your decision and our review.
So I don't think we need
to probably vote on holding this matter in abeyance.
I think we will all of you will do so.
And you are free, of course, in that period
to modify or manage your your initial decision as
appropriate. Okay.
Thank you.
Well, as the saying that
you have to have a legitimate question,
do we need to basically request another extension
to keep the campaign open or is it automatically
still in the open?
Well, this is being decided.
We're not going to penalize you for keeping your
campaign open, but we're looking at it.
So I think you're okay. Great.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Any other questions, Mr.
Armstrong or Wayne or Mr.
C? Nothing.
I think we can move on from this matter for now
and address the adoption of the October
1st meeting minutes.
Has any question or not
had an opportunity to review the minutes?
Okay.
And are there any proposed changes
to the minutes that it's
very done?
Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
I'll make mention the second
second
move by Vice Chair Shurmur,
seconded by Commissioner Smith.
Any further discussion
here is done all in favor of approving
the October 1st meeting.
Minutes to say I or is opposed.
Please say nay or raise your hand
and abstentions.
The motion here is so the final action item
which I've added to the agenda
today is discussion
of the final supplementary opinion, and we enroll
complaint
commissioners, as you know,
as appropriate for a quasi judicial matter.
I have prepared a written supplementary opinion
and added in it,
and I believe it is in final form.
If there are any commissioners
who would like to and Mr.
Commissioner Smith, I should say,
is recused from this matter,
you know,
his refusal to observe our
first meeting, and that remains a fact.
If there are any further comments, additions,
and it's to the opinion,
I think we can go into a
closed session to discuss a quasi judicial matter
if you want.
But I think we can probably just take a vote
to finalize it.
And the only thing
we really need to decide is how to sign it.
So the two options and Gary,
you can jump in and correct me,
I'm talking to Gary Smith, our legal counsel.
The two options for signing
it would be to take a vote
to delegated to me the authority
to sign on behalf of the full commission.
Or we can individually
sign this
by circulating our signatures,
and I'll ask
my legal assistant to put those signatures
into the document itself.
And that will look like we all got signatures on it.
So, Gary, did I get any?
And I think that's correct.
I think either
option would be appropriate to finalize the. Yes.
Okay.
Does anyone have a view as to
which approach,
which is
obviously the easier things
for me to just sign on behalf of everyone.
But if there's a value to everyone signing
or maybe you got to stop our
I like the idea of sign
on the back of the commission.
Okay.
Vice Chair, you're smiling and you have a thought.
I'm give up the easiest way.
So I, I agree.
Okay, but first
you go back to my person.
Sometimes I feel like thoughts are
behind.
Okay, So I'll just add that footnote
to the final opinion.
It will be very simple and say on November 5th,
the commission
delegated the authority to the chair
to sign on all commissioners.
How would that change?
I think the opinion is final and I think we can
take a vote now
on both finalized
the opinion and that delegation
that I just mentioned.
If there's a motion to do so,
some are
there a second
seconded
or can to move by commissioner has second
by vice chair?
Sure.
Any further discussion of the opinion
and a non go all non refuse
Commissioners, please vote
on the motion to finalize the opinion
and delegated authority to the chair to sign
all in favor. Say Iris and
I'll all oppose
say no or raise your hand
for any abstentions.
Here are none.
The motion carries
unanimously and I will finalize the opinions
and add that video and then you will release
it probably tomorrow to the public.
You can post it
on the website and
send it to the complainant and the respondent.
Is that anything else we need to do, Gary?
No, that should cover it.
Very good. Great.
Moving on to our discussion items today,
the first is Elections Code Rule
17 Revising contribution limits.
And this one I think needs some
introduction from Wayne.
But when you take that way,
yes, I actually like to introduce
all three at the same time.
That's fine
rules,
just because these are rules
that you'll have to adopt
in the December meeting we're giving them.
Here is a sneak preview.
When we got the rules
after having a public hearing
going through all the formalities.
So these are three rules and make changes
to the contribution limits to account for this. I
as you
know, the general overall contribution limit,
not just after voting goes to 700 this year
because it goes up to 684,
$0.55 under the
CPA assessment and that's $50 away from 700.
So we're recommending you just do 700.
So that will be prepared
and we'll have a public
hearing this before the next meeting
that we have before you.
Then the second one is the democracy Now!
To limit change, which isn't a change.
It's just really it is the same.
It will be the same.
It will still be $350
out of the 325 last time that we think it's 350 now.
345 So again, no real change represented
in the last rule is the one about
the special elections,
which because we have a special election in 26,
we need to make adjustments to account
for what we talked about last time to vouchers, $50,
etc., etc..
So that is the final rule there in your packets.
And that's all right.
So will be small game for you
in the next meeting with the public here
and now.
It just reflects the
you know, what we already discussed.
Right. Exactly.
And all of these are nothing
you should we doing.
So it's all reflected all the time. Very fine.
So we've already done some
really?
That's not why
I'm here.
It's a background noise and I'm sure someone
I think people
just walk out of the room and basically like,
usually that's someone not personally, but no matter
how many questions for Wayne
about these proposed rules at this time,
okay, no action.
I will vote on these at the summer meeting. Yes.
Okay.
Then in that case, I think we can move on
to the democracy voucher program report.
Well,
here's some closing data
from our day.
Okay. Yeah.
So quick update then.
The candidate counts of change.
So a little bit we can talk about that
in Council District eight.
It's a shame
we've decided to continue with the voucher program.
So that count changed.
We also have had
additional
campaigns reach their limits.
You know what this one is
like.
And so so those are there.
These are still
distributing money to a few campaigns.
We are still actively getting
vouchers in the reserves.
But there is awareness in public that campaigns,
in fact out decided to close down.
So the invoicing will change as the 32.6
million Syrians are moving away over time.
The next portion is are about, you know,
and how many residents that represents.
We are I think we're getting closer to our 2021
faster user numbers.
So little
bit of a different
election, but we'll see how that goes.
And the next chart
is really just how to use districts.
You know,
we do see that
certain factors seem to be our lower usage
districts this year at two and three,
unsurprisingly, are very active
districts.
And this year
a couple of things are coming up on the 28th.
The 28th is the last day for us to receive
our process towards
signature verification of potential reduction
and then anything we receive
after December 1st, we simply do not
think enough.
So we've got a couple days.
I think once the election
settles down there is the misidentifying campaigns
and then of course that's going to close down
and that is
following that for.
Thank you, Renee.
Successful year.
I'm personally looking forward to
being able to utilize my vouchers
for the first time in a long time.
And next year.
Any questions for Renee?
All right.
Executive director, would you like
to close this out with your report?
Yes, I'm afraid I really have just
two things to cover.
The first
is that
the commission appointments
are now very much in flux.
In short,
as you know, resigning and trying to get Council
President Nelson to replace appoint his replacement.
But now I think that I have to wait until January,
I believe,
unless you direct me to continue trying to do that.
But it seems a strange thing that somebody like
it would be a lame duck
soon to put something on the commission.
So if your your I would I mean, if you want my $0.02.
But council president clearly
still has the authority
to make that appointment accomplish this.
But I would not I would not press
that office that my thoughts Exactly. Yes.
But your sense of it and they refuse to take that.
I think that's very much.
All right.
And your reappointment or your rotating office
that is now also more complicated.
So I would have before the
next or the the Herald or
the Wilson administration once once that's decided.
So, yes, Mr..
Yes. This is a further complicated thing, I think.
Executive director for another.
Q But I'm actually moving out of the state
at the beginning of next year either
and probably be wary of all of our requirements,
but not another to do to notify
Mayor of the Council, because I don't know who
the mayor is comfortable be, but that will
become the Queen after the February
next year.
There's a bunch of
yes, I'm
disappointed not to be able to use my office here.
In fact, quite a bit of change.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
I sort of recognize that
the logistical hurdles that wanted to mention that
now we're planning for
the coming or trying to plan
for the coming year, perhaps prompt action,
perhaps have a slightly uncomfortable thing,
which I haven't mentioned, which is I have
I am no longer participating
in matters around the mayoral election.
It turns out that my wife,
who is a 25 year city employee, was contacted
by a fellow city employee in after the primary
and asked to help them with
planning for a transition.
If there is in fact a Wilson administration.
She has been doing that and recently has become
a candidate for a possible position
if there is a muslim position.
All of this is very contingent.
But I still disclosed to the chair.
I think it's best that I be removed
from anything to do with Merrill Lynch.
So that's my job.
And when I think it's.
Gordon, How do you designated Mark? Yes,
yes. I talked to the chairman,
which I recommended Mark and I did right.
I did appointment to serve in my state.
Okay,
maybe there's any questions I'm reading.
So I guess I just wanted to get ID on that end.
So you said any issues having to do with the mayor
or your question of the mayor or
any of the material?
I feel like it's anything
anything which could make it
more or less, although right now
that's kind of done.
But I still think right now with
my wife is a potential
given her position in a Wilson administration,
I shouldn't be saying matters
that could affect her ability to.
Okay. I understand that.
It's pretty clear
with that.
Just out of curiosity, would that recusal
or your people continue to apply
or be addressed on a case by case basis
and she's going to work with the campaign
or administration?
I think I might have a bigger just disclosure
to make at that point.
I feel like that.
And I'm waiting to see
if she is going to be in the administration. I
very much counterbalances.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, thank you for that disclosure.
I would consider comments like,
well, with with the chair leaving in December and Mr.
Hyde leaving a couple of months after.
I think I just leave us with for commissioners,
which is what we need for quorum. Right.
So we would need
the perfect attendance to take any action.
I don't know
if that changes the urgency of suggesting
replacements be identified or new commissioners, but
it seems like it might in my view.
Yeah, I believe as soon as the people are,
as we know, the office holders are going to be,
I will be reaching out.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Mueller and I.
I don't have to leave immediately.
I can stay on top of replacement
has been identified unless it takes two or
so. All right.
With that, anything further from anyone?
Staff, Executive Director, commissioners,
council.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Especially to our elections
and much about your team for another successful
election
by for projection.