May 2022 Study Session Minutes
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
33623 characters
Meeting Minutes
Airport Commission
Study Session
May 11, 2022, | 6:30 p.m.
Chandler Airport Terminal
2380 S. Stinson Way, Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hawley at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Commission Attendance
Staff Attendance
Chairman Christopher Hawley
Ryan Reeves, Airport Manager
Vice Chairman Charles McCorkle
Chris Andres, Airport Planner
Commissioner David Sperling
Diana Alonzo, Management Assistant
Commissioner Robert Bozelli
Commissioner Chad Wakefield
Absent
Commissioner Leo Jurgens
Others in Attendance
Rosemary Rosales, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
Steven Smith, Chandler Air Service
Scheduled and Unscheduled Public Appearances
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if there were any members of the public that would like to address the
committee on any items not on the agenda.
None.
Discussion
1. Discuss and Review Airport Commission Bylaws
Page 2 of 15
MS. ROSALES
Page 1 of 6
A. Grants – The Commission will review and provide a recommendation for all grants pertaining to
the Airport. Specifically, the Commission will:
i. Vote on all Airport grants before being submitted to the Council. The exception will be if grant
acceptance and Council action is required sooner than the Commission can meet.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that in the three years that he did not remember ever being asked to
approve a grant. They do receive grant updates as part of the construction report each month. He
stated that they might need to start living by this grant- review language. He would like some
clarification from Legal: does this apply to grants that the airport or city council is granting to
others or if it applied to grants the airport are receiving from the FAA, state, etc.
MS. ROSALES responded that in general as attorneys they like the opportunity to review
documents and make sure that they conform to the City code. The last time this was revised was
back in 2016, but was unsure if it had gone through legal review. They have been asking all the
Commissions to turn their Bylaws to Rules of Procedure because that is what they are and would be
consistent with what the code says. The Rules of Procedure would allow the Commission to add
anything to allow to proceed and operate.
MS. ROSALES stated that if you look at Section 3 Duties, B. Grants, and compare it to the City code,
which is the law that you have to follow, they are not completely consistent. The language is
different, and she recommending either striking the section as it is not necessary for the
Commission’s Rules and Procedures because of the City code, or using the Code language in this
section of the Rules and Procedure. MS. ROSALES recommends using “Rules & Procedures” rather
than “Bylaws.” “Bylaws” is a term that was used when the Boards and Commissions were created
based on Robert’s Rules of Order. “Bylaws” for attorneys have a distinct meaning, typically seen
with corporations. Law is encouraging all the Boards and Commissions to change the
nomenclature. When the Airport Commission was created, there was also a provision in the code,
that any changes had to be approved by Council. The new Commissions have it in place for the
Boards to create their own rules and procedures and do not have to go back to Council to be
changed. The changes can be done administratively. The idea is to operate separate from Council
as an advisory capacity.
MS. ROSALES stated that there is no problem in receiving reports from staff about the grants being
received from the state or FAA. Most of the grants received by the Airport are for maintenance
and minimal for operations. These grants typically come quickly, legal receives them for review
and it is even difficult for law to review them quickly. If this change is added firmly, it will be very
difficult the Commission to comply and will also be hard for staff to provide the information to the
Page 3 of 15
Commission. MS. ROSALES recommends striking section 3 altogether and making it more
consistent with the City code.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that “shall advice City Council” (Ordinance 4983) would imply that they
would need reports on everything on a regular basis
MS. ROSALES stated that she believed minutes are provided to the City Council and the Rules and
Procedures list that out. That is how communication is provided to the Council, what is being
discussed and being advised. The Airport Master Plan is part of the land-use policies and will not
be renewed again for another 10 years. That is the current general plan for the Airport.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that MS. ROSALES recommended to rename the Bylaws to Rules and
Procedures, but the code actually calls them Bylaws.
MS. ROSALES stated that was part of what they could do; they can go to Council with these changes
and can also go to Council with a code revision to make both consistent.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that this would not be the only ordinance he would ask to go to
Council with.
MS. ROSALES stated that changes are made as they come through due to resources. Any time
there is an organizational change in the City or problems arise, Law reviews the code to make
changes.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked MS. ROSALES if she is recommending striking section 3 and asked if
she is recommending replacing it with the language in the code.
MS. ROSALES responded that it is not necessary since it is in the code already and the Commission
have its direction from Council and such an amendment would be repetitive. It is not typical in
Rules and Procedure to have your powers and duties, as they come from the code. That is why
she recommended striking Section 3.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that he agrees with what is being said, but as a Commission,
there are people that are not familiar with the City Code and attempt to search ordinances to
figure out how things are done. The purpose of this is for the Commission to assess what they
need to know as Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI asked where Rules of Procedure was coming from.
MS. ROSALES stated that it was her recommendation to make a change from Bylaws to Rules of
Procedure.
Page 4 of 15
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that he would recommend for that change not to happen. Under
Section 3 Duties of the Bylaws, take direction from the Duties in 2-22.52 and replicate them in the
Bylaws No one would be confused, and it would be consistent.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that it would only be consistent until someone makes a change
to one or the other, and it will not be consistent forever. A way to make it consistent forever would
be by incorporating it by reference and it will remain consistent with the ordinance every time
someone looks it up. You can add a hyperlink that can take people to the ordinance. Hyperlinks
can also become inactive if the websites are updated.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that it would be a good idea to just cite the actual code.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that according to the City Code, the Airport Commission “shall
advise the City Council regarding these things” but it does not limit them from adding things. He
asked if besides these things is there anything else that the Commissioners would want to include.
MS. ROSALES stated not for the City Code. The Council at some point gave the Commission
authority to review grants, assuming that these Bylaws went before the Council. “As such other
matters as City Council may direct” does not allow the Commission to create new responsibilities,
it allows the Council to create new responsibilities for the Commission.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that this is saying “shall advise the City Council regarding: A. –
I.” it does not say that the Commission is restricted to those things.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that “A. The maintenance and operation of the airport and its
environs.” is very broad and he interprets it as the Commissioners ability to weigh in on matters
apart from matters that are mentioned.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE asked if there was anything else to consider that is not listed.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that he would not add anything that is not listed in the code.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked MS. ROSALES is she had any other recommendations.
MS. ROSALES stated that on page 5 K. Procedures – Unless otherwise inconsistent with these
bylaws, the conduct of all Commission meetings shall be governed by the rules contained in the
latest revised version of Robert’s Rules of Orders unless such rules are suspended by majority
vote of the Commission. She wanted to clarify that it should say “should be governed by Open
Meeting Law.” Robert’s Rules are simply guidelines to assist the Commission in parliament
procedures.
Page 5 of 15
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that the great thing of adding Robert’s Rules of Order is that gives
them guidelines on how to run the meetings.
MS. ROSALES stated that it can be added as a second sentence.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated if it is added as a second sentence as parliament guidelines and
procedures to follow, the Commission meeting itself still has to be governed by Open Meeting
Law.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked MS. ROSALES if she is proposing two sentences one that says, “the
conduct of all Commissions should be governed by Open Meeting Law in the state of Arizona”
and “meetings shall be ran according to Robert’s Rules of Order.”
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that Open Meeting Law would always prevail.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that on Page 2 of 6 B. Staff – The Airport Administrator
("Administrator"), or the Administrator’s designee… COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that the
Airport Administrator is no longer the correct title, it should be Airport Manager.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that on Page 3 of 6 Section 2 Study Session Meetings Public testimony
is barred. VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that it needed to be clarified and add a sentence:
Agenda will not include a public comment section. COMMISSIONER SPERLING also stated that it
needs clarification.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that he interpreted as in the agenda there could be no public
comment. There needs to be clarification on if public testimony is barred, if someone wants to
get up and schedule/unscheduled and address an agenda item or something other than agenda
item, would it be allowed.
MS. ROSALES stated that from a legal perspective, you do not ever have to allow public
testimony. From a policy perspective, Chandler encourages public comment. Tonight’s Study
Session is not in compliance with this Bylaw because it says that public testimony is barred, but
they have allowed for scheduled and unscheduled appearances. In the future when you do a
Study Session you would not include the scheduled and unscheduled appearances or take out
the be barred section. The idea of a Study Session is to work, get things done. Then during
Regular Meeting, you can have the public speak to the agenda items. It can be left out, but if you
want to be open to the public, the section should be taken out. This section can also be
reworded to be more respectful.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that the Commission is there to work on a specific issue. If
someone wants to speak on something else, then it should happen during the Regular Meeting.
Page 6 of 15
MS. ROSALES stated it can happen during the Regular Meeting. This is quite consistent with what
Council does for Work Sessions.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING asked if the public is allowed to speak on things that the Commission
is talking about.
MS. ROSALES stated that if you leave the language in, then the agenda needs to be changed and
not allow people to speak.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI suggested adding “unless invited by the Commission” public testimony
is not allowed.
MS. ROSALES added that it would have to state, “unless added to the agenda.”
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that if someone from the public wants to speak on the issue
that is being discussed by the Commission, it should be allowed.
MS. ROSALES stated that it can only be done if it is on the agenda, and you cannot have “public
testimony is barred.”
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that the stipulation in Open Meeting Law is that the Commission
cannot discuss things that are not on the agenda. The Open Meeting Law does not prevent the
public from discussing things that are not on the agenda.
MS. ROSALES stated that the Commission does not have to allow for public comment. In the rules
the Commission has specifically said that they will not allow public comment.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that he would like for the public to be able to comment and
help the Commission work through some issues.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that he would revise to “if invited by the Commission.”
VICE CHAIR MCCORKLE stated that “scheduled/unscheduled public appearances, audience may
address any item not on the agenda” should be stricken and adding the statement “only public
comments concerning agenda items will be allowed.”
MS. ROSALES stated that typically in the Study Session you only have one item.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that there are times when there is more than one conflict
evaluation.
Page 7 of 15
MS. ROSALES stated that for unscheduled public appearances you can speak about anything that
is not on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked MS. ROSALES apart from the special agenda item in which people can
bring up anything they want, once the Commission enters a topic on the agenda, should the
Commission turn to the audience and asked an interested party to weigh in on the topic.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that everyone is in favor of removing public testimony is barred from
the language.
MS. ROSALES stated that most of the other Commissions do not have strict language instances
where a Commission has an item that they want on Study Session, but do not want public opinion.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING asked if it is not listed and the agenda only has the discussion listed, is
the Commission allowed to engage with the public if it is allowed.
MS. ROSALES responded that she encourages some clarity for the public. Without explaining the
process for the public to speak, they will not know. If the language is completely removed, the
public may not know that they have the option to speak.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that the Commission should be allowed to be invited to speak on
a relevant topic and not just anyone that wants to speak.
MS. ROSALES responded that you have to be careful with this because you cannot pick and
choose. When you open the Commission to the public you get to hear everyone from the public.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that it would have to be on-point and on-topic.
MS. ROSALES stated that if it is on-topic, the Commission can state that there is no unscheduled.
It would be on-topic if it is on the agenda.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that he suggests changing what is on Section 2 Public Testimony
may address only items listed on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that would work.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that he would remove scheduled/unscheduled public
appearances from the agenda and change to public comment. This would allow the Chair to state
that section for public testimony only for the items that are on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that as they work through the issues, that is the time to hear
from the public.
Page 8 of 15
MS. ROSALES stated that she will have to think about everything that was discussed and give MR.
REEVES some comments and a draft on the proposed language. Discussions can occur as long as
the topics are on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that for Section 4 Quorum If meetings are conducted by telephonic or
electronic means no actions may be taken if a quorum cannot be maintained. Discussion/
presentation concerning action item will be suspended until communications channels are re-
established.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated if meetings are conducted by telephone or electronic means
no actions may be taken if a quorum cannot be maintained. Discussion/presentation concerning
action item will be suspended until communications channels are re-established.
MS. ROSALES responded that they could change the language to be more consistent with
current technology, but you may still want to make it very general, phone, audio, visual,
computer and livestream.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if there are four people attending the meeting and one person loses
connection, would the meeting need to be stopped until the person gains connection again.
MS. ROSALES responded, yes absolutely. There needs to be quorum at all times during the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if this was already part of the quorum guidelines or if there needed to
be some clarity.
MS. ROSALES responded that you shouldn’t need to make changes since the law indicates that
you need to have a quorum.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that his point was more to clarify the language for incoming
Commissioners to have this as a guidance.
MS. ROSALES stated that all that was part of Open Meeting Law Training, not necessarily included
in your Rules and Procedures or Bylaws. Staff is expected to advise the Commission when this
happens as to why a meeting has to be stopped because there is no quorum.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that it might be helpful to put it in writing for new members.
MS. ROSALES stated that if you don’t have quorum then you do not have a meeting.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that maybe it should be further down in the rules, if a quorum cannot
be maintained, either in person or electronic connection the meeting must be adjourned.
Page 9 of 15
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that around September 2020, he received Open Law Meeting
Training, and it was critical. Maybe adding that there is going to be Open Meeting Law Training
should be written annually, or bi-annually.
MS. ROSALES stated that when each person becomes a Commissioner, the City Clerk’s Office
provides a packet with information that has a timeline to receive Open Meeting Law Training
within the first year. The Clerk’s office is currently working on a schedule for everyone to receive
Open Meeting Law Training within their first 6 months.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI asked what happens if one of the Commissioners is not knowledgeable
on Open Meeting Law, do they have to take a course.
MS. ROSALES responded that the Clerk’s Office will have to advise on which Commissioners have
taken the course and they will go around to make sure everyone takes the training. The idea is to
eventually have training every other month for anyone that has not taken the training to have an
opportunity to. They currently go to each Commission to train them; they want to move to provide
training in one specific place every other month.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING suggested that maybe it should be recorded.
MS. ROSALES stated that it was one of the ideas that has been suggested and they are looking into
it. The problem is that many questions arise during training, and it would be hard to respond if it
is a recording.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that in the past, the Commission has requested to have an
annual review of Open Meeting Law for the Commission.
MS. ROSALES asked to go back to page 3, Section 2 Study Session Meetings, she wanted to make
a recommendation on the last sentence The Secretary shall cause a recording to be made of each
Study Session, which shall include at a minimum such information as is required by law, and shall keep
and maintain the recording as part of the Commission’s records. This should say that minutes are going
to be taken, instead of there will be a recording to take minutes. The minutes will be published and
provided to the Clerk’s office. The recordings are no longer kept forever.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked how long the recordings are kept since the creation of the recording
creates a public record.
MS. ROSALES stated that a retention schedule is followed for tape recording once the minutes are
transcribed and published and asked MS. ALONZO for the current retention for recordings.
Page 10 of 15
MS. ALONZO responded that before the recordings were kept for about 5 years, now the Clerk’s
office is removing that since everything is being uploaded. Once the minutes are sent to them there
is no need to keep the recordings.
MS. ROSALES stated the Clerk’s office goes through a process with the state following a retention
schedule. Once the general use of the recording is used to transcribe the minutes, the recording can
be removed. If the recording is kept, then it must be released if there is a public records request.
Once the minutes are transcribed, they are trying to get rid of the recordings. The updated language
will be very specific to Public Records.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that in Section 6 Conduct of Meetings – Commissioners may attend a
meeting by telephone if they are physically unavailable to attend in person. Commissioners will
provide the Secretary with a minimum of three (3) hours prior notice of their intent to attend a
meeting by telephone. In no event shall more than three (3) Commissioners attend a meeting by
telephone. When a Commissioner attends a meeting by telephone, the Chair shall state for the record
the Commissioner who is attending the meeting by telephone. He suggested updating language to
may attend a meeting by audio- or video-conferencing and also removing only 3 people
(Commissioners) being able to attend virtually.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that it should be updated to virtual attendance
MS. ROSALES stated that not a lot of the Commissions have updated their procedures or have
detailed rules in this regard. They mostly follow Open Meeting Law or Robert’s Rule of Order, but
the language can be updated.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE asked what the reason for this rule was.
MR. ANDRES responded that the reason for this was that telecommunication was not as advanced
and the chronic historical problem with attendance. There were many times in which quorum was
barely met. When the Mayor and Council declared an emergency during Covid-19, they enacted
emergency rules, and that is why the Airport Commission was able to go virtual.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if there is any guidance on what type kind of real time conferencing is
acceptable. For instance, text messaging, should the Commission prefer to see faces.
MS. ROSALES responded that telephonic is acceptable, but text messaging is only allowed when a
commissioner would need to communicate with staff about any technical issues during the
meeting. You do not want the public or any appearance to be perceived that texting about
business is happening.
Page 11 of 15
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY suggested changing the language to Commissioners may attend the meeting
by audio or video conferencing if they are physically unable to attend in person. Commissioners will
provide to the Secretary with a minimum of 3 hours prior notice with their attempt to attend a
meeting by these methods. Strike In no event shall more than three (3) Commissioners attend a
meeting by telephone. Update the last sentence to When a Commissioner attends a meeting by
telephone, the Chair shall state for the record the Commissioner who is attending the meeting by these
means.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY Section 6 Conduct of Meetings, D. Agenda Order the order of the agenda is at
the discretion of the Chair who may consider the request of any Commissioner for a change.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE asked if this had changed and if the City made any changes that
mandates the order or if it is still at Chair’s discretion.
MS. ROSALES stated that it is still at the discretion of the Chair. It is common for things to be
taken out of order as long as the public is aware of the order.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that he was not allowed to change the agenda, and that it
came from City Clerk’s Office.
MS. ROSALES stated that the agenda comes from staff and the Commission.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that is the way the agenda is supposed to work, but he was
not allowed input on the agenda for a long time.
MR. ANDRES stated that he could confirm that he was told that there is a standard format and
wording that cannot be modified.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE asked if this was a type of Open Law Meeting consideration for the
public.
MR. ANDRES stated that it was a way to standardize across the Commissions.
MS. ROSALES stated the Clerk’s office would like for the agendas to look the same now there is
an electronic agenda format. The new electronic agendas have sections to pick from and the
language comes up, but the specific language comes from the Commission.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that quite frankly the entire agenda belongs to the
Commission and the order in which it is presented is at the Chair’s discretion. The Chair should
be working with the Recording Secretary of this body to establish that and that in his four years
started happening towards the end.
Page 12 of 15
MS. ROSALES stated that legally they have an obligation to make sure that the agenda is clear to
the public as notice. You have to have a clear agenda to allow the public to understand what is in
the agenda.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that he wants to be clear on this document who has control of
the agenda, and it is his opinion that is the Chair of this body who has control over the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that there is a section about this. There are two issues, who has control
over the agenda and what goes on in the agenda.
A. Preparation – An agenda shall be prepared by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Chair for
each Commission meeting. The agenda shall comply with applicable laws regarding open meeting
notice requirements.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if the documentation comes from the Chair and if the other
Commissioners have to provide the documents to the Chair to relay to the Secretary.
B. Agenda Items – All items for action and discussion shall be submitted to the Secretary with
documentation eight (8) calendar days in advance of the meeting, to be considered for action on an
agenda.
MS. ROSALES responded that her understanding with most Commissions, the Commissioners
decide what they would like to cover on the following meeting as a board. In the meanwhile,
staff may speak with the Chair about additional items that need to come before the board, like
grants, zoning, land use or noise complaints, then these items are added. The eight calendar
days in advance is a reasonable amount of time that the board decided on for staff to complete
these.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that his understanding of that section is that through the Chair the
Commissioners have control over the agenda.
MS. ROSALES responded, yes.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that this how it was supposed to be and was not being
administered that way, not due to the Airport staff. This was coming from above the Airport
staff. Also stated that he just wanted to be on the record about this.
MS. ROSALES stated that this Commission has given the Chair this authority and some
Commissions do not want to give their Chair this authority for that part of the process. The
format of the agenda because it is electronic, the Clerk’s Office may have limitations as to how it
Page 13 of 15
will look like. The content as far as what the Commission wants to discuss can certainly be part
of the agenda.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that he was specifically told that he was not able to reorganize
the order of the agenda. Then he took the Chairman’s prerogative and reorganized the order of
the agenda. Before the agenda is published, the Chair should be able to organize the agenda in
the fashion that they want to run the meeting.
MS. ROSALES stated that as long as there is good intention behind the organizing of the agenda
there is no problem.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY proposed to leave in D. Agenda Order – The order of the agenda is at the
discretion of the Chair who may consider the request of any Commissioner for a change.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE proposed a permanent change to the agenda, making Members
Comments and Announcements to be the last item on the agenda in case the member would
like to make a comment after everything has been discussed.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that he as Chair and MR. REEVES as the secretary can agree to make
that change now. Going forward, the Commissioners will have the last word.
MR. REEVES responded that it will not be a problem to make that change.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that COMMISSIONER SPERLING referenced E. Consent Motion and
that Commission needs to be changed to the Chair.
E. Consent Motion – The Commission, by a single consent motion, may take action on any number of matters
where the Commission, staff, or general public with interest in such matters do not desire to address any of
these items. If after a call and invitation by the Chair for discussion of any item(s) on the proposed consent
agenda, should any Commissioner or member of the public request to address any such matter, the
Commission shall withdraw the matter from the consent agenda for the purpose of conducting a full
discussion and receiving of public comments prior to taking action on the matter.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that he is not suggesting that, but asking if it the Commission shall
withdraw it, or the Chair shall withdraw it.
MS. ROSALES stated that typically you have a consent agenda, the Chair would call a vote on the
consent agenda, and somebody would say I’d like to discuss item 1. The Chair would then remove that
item from the consent agenda and if there is a motion for the remaining items on the agenda. It is
very rare for advisory bodies to have a consent agenda because these bodies are mostly for talking
and discussing your items because you are advisory. The Chair can certainly handle that as long as
the Chair is capable.
Page 14 of 15
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if the alternative would be for the Chair to ask for a motion to remove it
from the consent agenda and a second and a vote.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that with all the education that he has received, he had no idea what
all of this was telling him, and he thinks this should just be cleaned up.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that since he has been part of the Commission, there has only been one
Consent Agenda item.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING responded yes, but he thinks it was due mostly due to the lack of
awareness of the tools available. The Commission has been part of these meetings several times
in which multiple sets of minutes were going through and this is when this comes up. There are
Study Session meeting minutes, Regular Session meeting minutes, but there are also previous
minutes and turns into four different motions that have to be made one for each set of minutes.
He would like to be able to make just one consent motion.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING asked what City Council’s rules for Consent Agendas were.
MS. ROSALES responded that they have language for Consent Agendas that can be added.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if they agreed to keep calling them Bylaws.
MS. ROSALES responded yes, it was decided to keep them as Bylaws and so you don’t have to
change the code.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked MR. REEVES if a second draft can be prepared with all the notes from
tonight’s meeting to vote on during the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING asked if they could have a redline version.
MR. REEVES RESPONDED yes.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if they felt confident enough with the second draft to be ready for a
vote or if they should have a second Study Session to review the changes.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that it would not be a bad idea to review the draft.
COMMISSIONER BOZELLI stated that it would not be a bad idea to do both, if there are no
problems, then they can vote on it.
Page 15 of 15
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that if they do that, then they will have to a Study Session before the
next meeting and vote during the Regular Meeting.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING stated that they do not have to vote on it if they do not work it out
during the Study Session, they are not committed to voting on it.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that there will be a Study Session next meeting and the item will be on
the Regular Agenda for a vote. He also asked if more edits arise that need to be addressed during
the Study Session, what will happen then.
COMMISSIONER SPERLING responded that then they would not vote on it or resolve the issues
during the Study Session and vote on it after.
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that there will be a Study Session before the next Regular Meeting
scheduled for June 8, 2022 and add to the agenda a vote on the changes made to the Bylaws.
Calendar
The next Regular Airport Commission Meeting will be held immediately after the Study Session,
in the Chandler Airport Terminal, 2380 S. Stinson Way.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
______________________________
______________________________
Ryan Reeves, Secretary Christopher Hawley, Chairman