removing the restriction that the board placed on the commutev development specialist position. so, when the board created that position, they said, you can only work on lafco. so, technically the current person who fills that position is operating outside of his scope because he has been doing special studies that the lafco commission has requested of him, which was on split banking, on [speaker not understood] voting -- >> can i clarify special that were outside of scope. he is not doing the work directly. he is finding people to do the work, that we're paying to do the work of these studies. >> yes and no. these are not necessarily studies that are contracted out. but you are directing -- >> i was told that they were all studies that were contracted out, that he basically helps with the process and finds the appropriate entity do the

studies and he just basically oversees the process. >> sure, sure. however he chooses to carry those out. still technically, if you look at the resolution which is referenced here that created that position, he's not supposed to do that. >> okay. >> he is only supposed to work on cca related item. so, even asking him to find a contractor to look at a different kind of study is technically outside of his scope of work that the board created for him. if the lafco commission is interested in having him do this other work -- >> okay, i understand what the resolution says. but i'm confused and in some ways surprised because of information that i received directly from the person in the position about lafco and initially when i joined the board and how we've been able

to communicate, it was my understanding, of course, that the position had never been filled. he's done work of those positions and this consolidation would basically help to continue things, make things more efficient in terms of the way they are. but at no point was i ever i think aware that he could not work on specific things because those were the things that were provide today me as his list of responsibilities and were actually encouraged -- i was encouraged to request these particular items that are not necessarily relevant to cca. >> so, this has been an ongoing discussion that actually precedes supervisor avalos. >> okay. >> the chair of lafco, these discussions were actually started when supervisor campos

was originally the chair. and this is information that has kind of come out over that time, realizing as we looked more into it in his position, what would be required to address sort of some of the staffing concerns that were brought up back when supervisor campos was the chair. >> we're going around in circles on this one. there is a motion. it's been seconded to continue this item. >> okay. >> so maybe we'll have better language -- >> i'm happy to come and talk further about it or get the information you need. >> i think probably part of it might need to be with you and jason just so that there is the same messaging around what this really means because i'm one of the co-sponsors and i agreed to support it for a particular reason. i could understand the language and what's being done, but i think there might be some contradiction with, you know, my understanding versus what we have here today.

~ i do under >> [speaker not understood]. >> and also, i just want to make sure my colleagues, of course, understand and we're all on the same page to support this item. >> and for myself personally, i'd like to see clearer language in terms of what we're trying to do here. so, have somebody reword it, really appreciate it. okay. so, with no objection, let's move this out -- the item will be continued. >> take public comment. >> okay. is there any public comments on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> now i can move it -- consensus is to continue this item to some further meeting. >> call of the chair. >> at the call of the chair. [gavel] >> okay. item number -- where are we?

can he please call item number 9 through 19? >> mr. chair, items number 9 through 19 are item regarding existing litigation. would you like to open up for public comment before we close -- move into closed session? >> okay. i see no public comment. public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, is there a motion to convene in closed session? >> yes, second. >> okay. with no objection, moved. [gavel] >>please stand by - meeting in closed session