Get email alerts on the Report Edits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members debate which redline edits are substantive
Summary
Members reviewed redlined and clean versions of the draft report, distinguishing nonsubstantive language edits from recommendations that might change policy; staff were asked to flag any missing citations.
Members spent substantial time distinguishing nonsubstantive wording changes from edits that could alter the report's recommendations. One participant explained that the first two paragraphs were largely "unsubstantive," while portions of the introductory language might be considered substantive and therefore would need explicit approval.
A member raised a missing citation on page three related to private-sector attorney salaries and asked staff to check whether the citation had been omitted. "On page three, private sector attorneys regularly earn more than judges ... The citation seems to be missing," the member said. Staff said the packet included linked documents on the council website and offered to share the sources during the meeting.
Members also discussed reordering the presentation of findings — preferring determinations before recommendations on pages five and six — and moving an additional bullet under judicial discussion to make that section more complete.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
