Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, I want to acknowledge I think we all probably agree that this has been a frustrating and confusing situation, I understand why members of the public and members of our law enforcement are offended her upset over this, I understand as well that there are other members of the community that are upset for different reasons. I think we can all agree when we're speaking about perspectives or biases, that there are certain perspectives that we as a society, do not agree should be given a platform. We as a society have said, you know, racism is not a perspective that we will entertain sexism, you know, when we're talking about a perspective on a class of people, because of their race, their religion, their nationality, that is totally different to me than having a perspective about an institution. If I were to say, which, by the way, I don't support charter schools, if I were to say, I don't support charter schools, I don't think anyone here would think that I hate teachers, that I hate teachers that charter schools that I hate people who support charter schools that I hate the parents who send their students, their kids to charter schools. Um, you know, one of our speakers said himself that he has a bias in that he considers himself to be pro law enforcement. I think that's a fair perspective, to have a fair perspective to be represented on this. On this board. I would not consider removing someone because they had a blue lives matter. sticker on their cup, though, I know that that would be offensive to to plenty of people. I think if we really are honest with ourselves, every single one of us here has a perspective, especially on an issue as political or close to home, as as policing and as criminal justice as the police. I mean, law enforcement officers as well as the system at large of public safety. But I think we would also if we're being honest with ourselves, acknowledge that there have been times where we have been in a role or position where we bring that perspective and are able to be open minded, able to be respectful, I think of you know, I was a legal assistant, and I know we can make comparisons and they're all They're not all direct comparisons, but I was a legal assistant for a public defender's office. I was doing work, that there were aspects of that work that I was uncomfortable with. I did not that Job was not an endorsement of the entire system of our criminal justice system. So I think that we acknowledge ourselves that we've been in those situations where we might not agree with everything our job entails. But we know that we've signed up to do a job and we are willing to do it. I spoke to a lot of people who are involved in this probably over 10. And I will say that and of all, you know, people who are board members, people who are in law enforcement, people who are staff, and from, you know, I will let those people if they wish to speak for themselves, but I'll just say, at least for the board members, and and others close to this board, not a single person said that Miss Bureau has exhibited a bias in her work, that she has been disrespectful, that she has been disruptive, this would be a totally different conversation. If that were the case, if someone would just say this person is acting as an obstacle to the mission of the board, we are not able to do this work with this person. I think that's a totally different conversation. And in that case, we should probably go ahead and remove that person, no matter the board, I think it's important to recognize as well, that Miss Barrow is one of nine members, she is not the staff person who is the only person charged with you know, this is not the person who's leading internal affairs or whatever. For, for TPD. This is someone who sits on a nine member board, or we're including every single other member said just about said that they did not they did not agree with Miss Bureau on this issue or other issues. There there is we can discuss whether we want more diverse viewpoints on that board. But I have to say from what I saw, there were a diversity of viewpoints, a diversity of membership, have perspectives of backgrounds, of professions, there's a lot of diversity on that board. I do think as well, as a commissioner I think about and I encourage all of us to think about, you know what it might say about us, and I know things change, people change their minds, people do things, you know, when we make these, when we make these appointments, or I'll speak for myself, you want to balance people who you know, and trust personally, to do a job with the fact that you don't want to just appoint people, you know, because you want to consider other ideas and give everyone a fair shake. So that's all true. But I think it's also true that I want to think about what does it say about me, if we've appointed a board, that of people that supposedly we trust, to carry out this mission, or else we wouldn't have appointed them in the first place, I hope, and that they have unanimously said, We don't want this person's removal. Under the strongest terms. And feeling very, very strongly about this. It seems clear that this is at least the conversation about the board, and how we review their annual reports or their recommendations. There's clearly unmet expectations, you know, on both sides here. Finally, you know, I would ask that the people today, here today that are opposing Miss Spiro, I do wonder, and I mean, this with all due respect, you know, if any of you have actually watched a meeting, or attended a meeting in person, to see her demeanor, to, to see how she approaches these issues, no matter what you think about it, but I'll tell you, I haven't heard a single person say that she has been anything but thoughtful and respectful. So, you know, for those reasons, I cannot support her removal. I have a question for whomever has the answer to this question. If I may, you know, have we I understand per policy, it is absolutely within our authority to remove a board member of any advisory board. Is that something we have ever done? In a situation like this? I'm not talking about someone who's moved away. I know we dealt someone who doesn't meet the eligibility requirements. You know about where they live, where they reside, someone who has missed, you know, attendance requirements. Have we ever just removed someone With cause or with without cause.