 All right, we're recording. Excellent. Okay. So welcome. I'm going to call to order the August 3rd meeting of the governance organization and legislation committee. At nine oh one pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public are able to access the phone via Zoom or by telephone. I'm just going to take a moment to make sure that everybody can be heard and can hear. So I'll start with you, Pat. I can. Yeah, I'm here present. We hear you. I was off in Lala land thinking about. Which is here. You're still thinking about camping alone. Mandy present. And Jennifer. Present. Excellent. Wonderful. Okay. So today. We are, we haven't met in about a month. So if possible, I actually want to just go ahead and adopt the July 6th meeting minutes so that we don't forget to do that at the end. And so let's see. Mandy, do we normally pull the meeting minutes up when we. I think we do. I don't think so. Okay. Anyone like to make a motion to adopt those minutes. And also. May I vote, even though I wasn't there. I think that's a yes. Okay. Perfect. Okay. So I think Mandy made a. Moved to adopt those minutes. Second. Yeah. Great. Okay. Pat. Your vote. Hi. Oh God. Dumber. Maybe it was. There's no part I had with my eggs. I don't know. Is it a yes for you, Pat? Yes. Good. Mandy. Hi, Jennifer. I, and I'm an eye. All right. Great. So we are going to begin. I was not at the last town council meeting, but as I understand it, Mandy brought forward a request that was referred to GOL. For this committee to review. And I'm going to. Bylaw 3.8. License fees, which includes in holders, common vehiculars and lunch carts. Is that how you say that word? Vehicle or lures. Okay. Victual lures. Okay. And also bylaw 3.36, which is soliciting both of those were referred to us. So we're going to hand it over to Mandy to offer some background on that. Yeah. So I'm going to share the screen so people can see what we're talking about. And this is just from the memo. So early on in the last council, I talked with the, that chair of BLC, the board of license commissioners, Doug Slaughter, about a number of things that would help the board. And I had brought forth a amendment to the bylaws at that point regarding adoption of regulations. And at that point he had said, you know, putting the fees in the bylaws themselves really ties the board's hands. And so I put it on my to-do list. And obviously it's been three years. And I thought he was talking about a whole lot of fees in the bylaws. And I had just never gone through the 100 and some pages of the bylaws to see which fees he was talking about. And so I finally did that in earlier this year. I talked to Marion. I talked to the current chair. I talked to Gaston, who's also on the board. And I went through them and I actually only found these two. These are the only two bylaws in our general bylaws that set fees in the bylaws. And every other bylaw that has a fee sort of associated with it, gives permission to a specific individual or board or group or, you know, committee to set the fees. And so we're going to be able to go through those bylaws. We're going to be able to engage over so that we can see which ones those are. This is four of them. The dealing in used articles. Gives the fee setting authority to the board already. The gas inspector is the town manager gets to set the fee. The local historic district. Bylaw set gives the historic district commission. The authority to set the fee. The residential rental bylaw sits with us as the council. We've already dealt with that this year. We've already dealt with that this year. We've also dealt with the county council. And we're dealing with the county council, which is the county council's commission commission. Keg licensing is also another one. That one is given to the board of licensed commissioners. The dog licensing one. Regulations relating to animals is given to the town clerk. And so. You know, building commissioner is also given one for livestock in that one. And so these are the last two that set the fee in the just given to the group that deals with those licenses. And so my proposal is to, with the, I believe it has the support. I was not able to attend the BLC's meeting last Thursday because I was in CRC, but they're meeting again this Thursday to talk about it and what the potential fee might be. All I've heard from the BLC anecdotally is that they support this. This would then make all of the general bylaws sort of consistent with each other, meaning none of the fees are set within the bylaws. They are all set. The bylaws just give the particular committee or person that deals with them the right to set the fee. And the language I took was from one of the bylaws already. And so you can see from the red that that's for in holders and all, it would actually literally delete everything except for one sentence. I don't know whether we'd still need the bylaw. I assume we do to authorize who sets it, but it would now make the bylaw one sentence that says the fees get set by the BLC for soliciting. I did not put the soliciting bylaw in. The only change to soliciting is in this data block. The rest of soliciting I didn't copy into my memo, but it would just be fee and it would just again, the language mirrors it and it would give the licensed commissioners the ability to set those fees. So that's the request. This was also referred to BLC so that they could weigh in on whether they want that authority, but also because if we delete the fees from here, there aren't fees until whoever we've given the authority to adopts the fees. The referral to the BLC for this change indicated that we shouldn't vote on it in council if we're going to pass it until the BLC is ready to set the fees. And I'll know more about that this Thursday to see where they are on that. And I'll be in contact with them as sponsor about that to make sure the council doesn't essentially eliminate the fees before they're ready to read up the fees. So that's all I've got for it. Okay. I have two questions, but I'm happy to hold them if Pat or Jennifer have questions. Great. Nope. Okay. So my question, well, first as a comment, the way that I'm reading this and maybe, I don't know, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I'm reading it to say that MGL requires the Board of License Commissioners to be the fee setting body. No. So MGL chapter 40, section 22F is a general law that allows a town council or other governing body to designate another body to be this fee setter. So that MGL chapter 40, section 22F is referred to in giving the historic district the commission the right to set the local historic district fee. It's the same law that is referred to to give the town clerk, the dog license fee setting authority. So it's just one that, it essentially says, hey, it doesn't have to be the legislative body that sets the fees. The legislative body can do something to hand it off to someone else. Got it. Okay. So just from like the point of view of, I guess it's grammar, but I mean, wouldn't it, wouldn't in accordance with MGL wanna come first? I don't know. Somehow I'm reading that. If I didn't know what MGL was, but if it's already in a million other places, does anyone else read it that way? Or is it, I just guess I didn't know what, I didn't know what MGL 40 blah, blah, blah was. So... I took the language from here, which is the dog license fee. The town clerk self set the dog license fee in accordance with MGL chapter 40, section 22F. Okay. The livestock, the building commissioner may set fees in accordance with 40, 22F. So that's where I took it. I'm not saying it is grammatically correct. Okay. Okay. That's where I pulled it from other bylaws. Yeah. Yeah, I guess just without knowing what that is and that that repeats itself a dozen times, one might be led to believe that MGL is what is requiring the fee to be set for this by the Board of License Commissioners. But it's not, I'm not hung up on it. I just... Yeah, actually, I think putting the MGL thing first gives it a dominance that it doesn't have. Okay. Yeah. That makes sense too, Pat. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense too. Okay. And then my other question was, Mandi, why are these, why the Board of License Commissioners as the fee setting? So particularly with in-holders, common victualers, and lunch carts, but also with soliciting, the Board is the one that actually issues those licenses. So the board is, so the fee for income, so the in-holder, common victualers, and lunch carts all have licenses. And we've seen the lunch cart one, I think in this council maybe already, but I know the last council saw some regulations or some other things related to lunch carts. Common victualers is just your dining license, the license to operate a restaurant. And so the Board of License Commissioners controls the regulations surrounding the issuance of those licenses. They control whether to issue them, whether to suspend them and all of that. And so in my mind, it makes sense that they should also decide what the fee should be for those license, since they're the ones issuing it. And same with soliciting. So soliciting is the by-law that allows someone to go, I think it's sort of like not to order and ask for donations and stuff to places. And so the Board licenses, I think the Board's the one that licensed those. I'd have to go look at, let me pull up the whole general by-laws. That one was 3.6. Was it six or two? I thought it was 3.6. I could be wrong. I can tell you. 3.6, okay. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I was like, I thought there was a two or three in there. So that one, where we are. So this one, the police department does issue the registration. Well, then shouldn't they set the fee? So it could be potentially, well, I was just going with Doug wanted them all and it was a license, so I assumed it was, but yeah, it's the police chief is the application. So in theory, it might be better to get that away from the Board into the police department. I'd wanna talk to the police department to make sure they want the fee setting authority there if they're issuing them. But yeah, so that could be a mistake on my part. I'd be definitely willing to change that to the police department if they're willing to. And I can mention that to the Board too. They might have already talked about it. Like I said, I couldn't make their first meeting when they talked about these. Okay. So what are you hoping, Mandi, for us to be able to do today? Do you want a recommendation or do you want- Yeah, so the referral is for both a clear consistent and actionable designation, but also a recommendation on whether to adopt. So I guess given the potential issue with soliciting, my request today would be to recommend the Council adopt 3.8 as presented and also declare it clear, consistent and actionable. And 3.36, we could either potentially change it from the board today from the board to the police department or hold off on that until Thursday the board meets again. So I could talk to them and see what they say, I'll know on Thursday when I meet with them tomorrow on this. So we might just wanna hold off till the next meeting maybe before that declaration to see, in some sense, it makes sense that I screwed up and probably should have put the police chief. But maybe the chief doesn't want it or maybe they've talked to the chief, but I can talk to them and then I can touch base with the chief too before the next meeting to see which one's more appropriate. My whole goal is to get it with the appropriate people and the fee out of the bylaw. Jennifer. I guess that was sort of my question because I was gonna say, so we won't vote on it today pending what happens at the Thursday Board of License Commission, which would be fine if we vote it today, then if the Board of License Commissioners is comfortable then it could go to the town council meeting on the 15th or you'd wanna bring it back here to GOL first. I could go either way. So I think the in-holders one is more important to move forward quicker. And so if we don't have any problems with this as GOL, I would ask that we declare that that way. The Board will probably finish with it. It can sit here before it goes to the meeting until the Board knows what fees they would set until we get that confirmation. But I believe a lot of the renewals come forward in the second half of the year and in the fourth quarter. And so giving them that authority in time for them to potentially, I don't even know whether they wanna change it right now, right? They may come in and say, we're leaving it at 50 and 100 for this cycle, right? I don't know. But if they're seeking- I just wanna give them that authority. I would like to give them that authority and that option before most of the renewals come through. My guess is there are not many soliciting licenses actually issued. I have no idea. I'm not a clue, right? So that one, in terms of getting the authority to the right places to me a little less time, you know, dependent, does that make sense? So that one I'd be totally willing to wait until we figure out which person or commission is the correct one. Yeah, this is all common sense. So, and I think you already hear a consensus on the 3.8 and the, so I think we can recommend it to the council and call it clear, consistent and actionable. And the other one, I think we should wait just in terms, I'd like to, I feel like it'd be quicker to pass it with the idea that it defined later, blah, blah, but I don't think that's a good process. So I move, I guess, to recommend to the town council the amendments to 3.8, license fees, blah, blah, blah, and declare a clear, consistent and actionable or however that should be said. I'll second that. And I think you said it wonderful, Pat. I do too. Yeah, blah, blah, blah is a good. I think that I have a lot of experience for years together, so she understands. Just to clarify though, Mandy, we don't need two separate actions. The one action can cover the recommendation and the clear, consistent and actionable. Okay, so I think, yeah, Pat's motion. You seconded that, right, Mandy? Yeah. Okay, great. I think they're gonna read that back. Atheney, would you like to read that back? I will translate the de-angelists into plain English in a minute. Please. All right, so. Into fancy English, because blah, blah, blah is plain. So let's vote on that then. Let's start with you, Jennifer. Yes. I'm a yes, Pat. Aye. And Mandy. Aye. Great. Okay, and I just wanted to second that I would have been fine moving forward with the second one as well with the caveats in it, but I think that Pat's point about process is good. And so I'll just make a note and you'll let me know when you want me to put that back on the agenda. Yeah, I think it's good for us to not vote it until we know exactly which place is going. So I'll, it should be able to go back on the next meeting, but I'll confirm. All right, great. Okay. So moving on. Sorry, excuse me, I just, I'm working only on one screen today. Okay. So we have two other bylaws that at our last meeting we had agreed to review. The bylaw 3.23 peaking or appearing into a place of habitation and then 3.22 discharging of firearms. I did have an opportunity to speak with Chief Livingstone about both of these bylaws. So I could share with you, would you, Mandy, are you in a position where you can pull those up for us? Do you want the bylaws pulled up? I know we have the bylaws and then we have the notes that were offered from the last GOL, right? Well, let me just share with you. I think the bylaws will help me to remember a bit what Chief Livingstone talked about. Yeah, give me a second. Sure. And I'm just going to check this. Just to find the right ones. I don't have any attendees, so. So there's the peeping and peering one. Perfect, and we can start with that one. I think the recommendation or the suggestion potentially for this one was whether or not to include drones, I believe it was. And I spoke with Chief Livingstone and he quite frankly said, if we got rid of this bylaw altogether, he would not be unhappy. Yeah, he just doesn't, he said he's maybe had like one instance of this and it's just not, it's not something that normally would be handled through a criminal enforcement type of avenue. Like basically there's like another pathway that happens as a result of peeping or peering. And so he just said that if we got rid of it, he would have no problem with that. I don't know what you all think. What's the pathway? Yeah, that's my question. Like trespassing and stuff? Yeah, I like it. Is it other state laws? Exactly, exactly. That it doesn't, it's more like if somebody were doing this, it would go into like other state laws like Mandy just mentioned. And I'm so sorry, my notebook, which I did not bring to New Jersey with me, which had a couple more notes in it, but that essentially he said that this bylaw really has never been used to enforce peeping or peering and that he would be fine with it going away. So- Is he saying that peeping and peering hasn't happened or when it does, they use the other? Exactly, like the times that it does, which it has happened, but at the times that it does, it doesn't, this bylaw doesn't get evoked, basically. It's not like something- Oh, go ahead, Mandy. Sorry, I was just gonna ask, sorry, but interacting, is that because the state laws are more likely to be upheld at the district court level than the general by, than our town bylaws so that they actually get better enforcement by not using this one over others? That's exactly right. He said when it gets to like a district court, like this bylaw wouldn't, it doesn't really affect the situation like the state laws do. So this, that was his overall take on it. And he really sounded like, I mean, he didn't straight up say like, get rid of it, but he said, if you get rid of it, I won't be, there would be no problem with that on my end. Because he's saying they really don't use it when the incident happens, when something happens. Yeah, like they don't go, they can't go criminally enforced the $300 fine every time that gets escalated into a different track that is not, you know. So, but if you guys want, I mean, one of the things that we talked about is like in, okay, let me just, and please stop me, anybody, if you feel like I'm going beyond what this agenda item is. But one of the things that's sort of out there, and that I have spoken with Lynn more recently about is that a lot of these bylaws are going to need to be looked at in terms of now having press, which is a potential new enforcement body that is, you know, available to us now. So we're going to have to have conversations with the police department, with the press department for a lot of these different bylaws. So a handful at least. Yeah, I hear what you're saying and that makes really good sense, Michelle. But on this, in terms of this one, it doesn't say who's responsible. So I don't think in terms of Cress, it's, it wouldn't matter who we sent because it's not listed in the bylaw that it would be done by the police or be done by Cress. And it does seem to me, clearly there is some permission to peep and peer according to state law. But if it's, there, I think there's something about keeping it that I like, but it seems silly. So I know I have friends in Northampton who have had someone who was peaking and peering on their property and I know how it upset them. So I don't know. I think I saw Mandy's hand and then Jennifer. So this one, only police can criminally enforce anything and can write a criminal citation. And so the fact that this one has non-criminal disposition, no provision made, it can't be enforced non-criminally, which means there doesn't need to be an enforcement by. Only non-criminals enforcement can be done by anyone we designate. Thank you. So that's answer to that one. And I won't go into the Cress thing because that's not on our agenda. But I say if the chief thinks this one's not the way to enforce the peeping or peering issues that we have in town that they prefer other methods, then why keep it on the books? I guess my feeling is kind of, I'd like to get rid of the ones that we don't ever use or that they don't find helpful to clear up the books in some sense. And so if this is one that the police don't use even when it is violated because they've found other methods of citation more helpful than I would support recommending rescinding this one completely. Jennifer? Yeah, in this case, actually I was just gonna ask Mandy Jo because I do think you're being, and having gone to law school is relevant here. I mean, is this, I mean, it's just interesting to me if there's a state that the courts may not really care what little Amherst said that they're gonna look at state law, is that what the chief is also saying? You know, I don't know. Because I don't practice, but I've heard with the noise violations, one of the, and this is just anecdotal, that our police can write as many noise violations in a weekend sometimes as they want. And then if they write them criminally, they show up in district court to do it and the district court just waves them and takes them right off. Whereas maybe the district court takes more seriously a violation of state law instead of a violation of local law. And so maybe that's why they choose to use for something as serious as peeping, right? Because yeah, it's not like I don't consider that serious. That maybe they've found that the best way to sort of, you know, in coupling go get the citations to stick, get the charges to stick is to use the state laws. Well, then let's get rid of this thing. I agree. Pat, you ready for another motion? Go for it. No, I'm gonna second this time. I'll make that. I moved to recommend the town council rescind general bylaw 3.23 peeping or peering into the place of habitation. Second, DeAngela's. Great. Okay, Jennifer. Yes. Pat. Aye. Mandy. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. This is where when they write up how you vote, some constituents gonna say, why did you? Yeah. But we have an explanation. I always say that I have a family member who does peeping and I want to keep them solvent financially. You know, I want to say something because this is so minor and has nothing. There's always yeses and ayes and stuff. And I thought I'd love to share why I say aye and not yes. And Sarah Schwartz, who was a counselor in the first council was very much ordered and knew Robert's rule zone of order and et cetera. And it is appropriate to say aye when you mean yes. And I don't care which we say, I say aye because I'm respecting Sarah. And I just wanted to say that because I don't know why. Because that's the kind of day it is. You know, I've thought about that online. Sometimes I feel like if the few people before me said yes and I say aye, do I sound pretentious? But maybe I'll just say aye. Yeah. And sometimes if there is a bunch of yeses before me, I say yes too. I mean, you just get triggered a certain way. I've started doing it because I feel like it's clearer for people listening that I'm not just answering to my name, I'm actually voting with an aye versus a yes. Anyway. If I start saying aye, I'm not being pretentious just so you won't. No, you're not, honey. No. We can add this to our next UL meeting for an amendment to the rules and regulations. We would like to make sure all councilors say aye. No. What do you say? Is it, what is the opposite of aye? So aye or? Nay, I think. I think it is nay, but I don't know for sure. I don't think anyone uses nay though. I think they all just say no. Nay. No, that's not good. That's hysterical. All right. You're saying that, Pat. I love when like something comes to you and you just, you know. She was an important voice on the council at times and I don't know. So she changed me around that. Very minor, but. All right. Now what, Toots? All right. Now on to firearms here. So if you would bring that up, Mandy, I would appreciate it and I'll, okay. Actually, Mandy, can we bring up the recommend, actually, I don't know if you can do side by side, but can you bring up the recommendation that was in the packet, this one, or maybe that's the, even if you can only do one, bring up that one. Give me a second. Which, what's the document title? Yeah, let me just go ahead and look. Is this the one of the table identified, bylaws identified for future consideration or the GOL report on bylaws? I think the table had some good information on that one. Also, what about, what has the supreme court affected any of our ability to do this? So just wondering. My guess is, given the KP law thing, it might not, that was dealing with licensing. Yeah. Okay, so give me a second. Do you want just the table shown or the two next to each other? Whatever, if you can, if you can do the two, that would be great, but if you can only do the table, that's fine too. You'll have to give me a second to. That's fine. Put it up. Oh, Mandy. That's not helpful. Mandy, I'm gonna work. You should go back and you should, on a night that you just feel like laughing, watch the GOL meeting that you weren't in attendance for. We fumbled to share our screen to edit in real time. We were very grateful for you. Right. Don't tell her, I just gonna get a big head. We did it though. We did it. Four, three proclamate. I don't even know how many there were. There was a lot that day. Okay, so. No members of the public were present. Right. We didn't encourage viewers viewing that one. All right. So this one, we didn't, so Chief and I had a short time to speak and we didn't get to speak in super detail about this. I told him that I wanted to hear from the committee and then he and I could speak again. But he did not recommend any changes to this, although he said that he would be open if we wanted to have further discussion about this recommendation. And so I thought that Mandy and Pat, you were both, were you both in the committee that? No, maybe I was. Pat was. Pat, do you remember anything? No. Okay. Okay, so you don't remember making this particular recommendation or ask this question? No, I honestly don't. I wish I did, but. So I think if people, once they've read this, if I could share the actual bylaw, it might help people understand what's being said. And it might trigger some memory. So this one is, do shotguns and air guns still stay excluded? And then what's the difference between fouling peace and shotgun? He said there, I believe that he said that they're used interchangeably is what he said. Which then begs the question when you see it, fouling peace is excluded from this bylaw, shotgun is not. Yeah. Or one of the two, right? Like they're, they fall under different ones. So if they're interchangeable words. I know, I know. So let me pull up the bylaw. Yeah, because there was also something that he said about like it being very rare. It like, we talked about hunting a bit for a moment. Let's see. So this says you can't discharge a fouling peace, but you can discharge a shotgun. Unless, although now that I read it again, it says it gun fouling peace firearm is meant to include everything. And then it says, but you can discharge shotguns, air guns and firearms for these particular reasons. So a shotgun, I mean, a fouling gun, oh, foul is just for killing birds. I Googled it. I assume so. Yeah, that's why we were talking about hunting peace. Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, so the first sentence says firearms can't be discharged, right? That's what the first sentence says. And then the next part is, except these particular firearms can be. And it is air guns and shotguns can be and firearms can be for specific things. Yep. But even if you can discharge them for specific things, you can't do so within 150 feet of a rail trail. That's on the next page. Yeah. And that's on there too. Yeah, that's the area. So it might not be inconsistent with itself. That's kind of what, like when I talked to him, he said they're interchangeable. Yeah, it didn't sound like he felt that it was, there was an inconsistency at all. But stepping just for a moment for us to like step, aside from what Chief Livingstone said about the particular recommendation of the last GOL, just looking at this by-law, is there anything that anybody raises as a concern or a question or a flag or anything like that? I can, these damn public meetings, they make it hard to share personal circumstances sometimes. Yeah. The Chief wants us to keep this one, right? Yes, absolutely. Yeah, no, there was absolutely no discussion about removing this. And he didn't feel like it needed to be changed. But again, he said that he would be open to discussion about that. What was the, again, Mandi, the potential recommendation? Could you just... That table said the committee recommends future consideration of whether shotguns and airguns should be, should continue to be excluded from the provisions. Additional clarification about the difference between a fouling piece, which is not excluded and a shotgun, which is excluded. So you can use a shotgun, but you can't use a fouling piece. Would be advisable given that the two terms are interchangeable and common use. The committee also recommends two non-substantive amendments. The first is to reference the MGL laws relating to discharge. The second is to proactively expand the scope to apply to any state rail trail to avoid amending the bylaw if future state rail trails are developed in Amherst. I think those second two were actually done. Yes. Those two, the non-substantive, because they now reference the MGL and the other side instead of specifically saying Neuartic rail trail says state rail trail. But is this... Is what this is saying is that right now... Do we want to exempt shotguns and airguns from the provisions of MGL 26912E or whatever, right? Which would mean that you can't discharge. Right now, yeah. Right now you can discharge an airgun or a shotgun. And if we remove A1... Then you can't. Then you can't unless it's in accordance with... One of these other things. Well, one of those other things of lawful defense of a person, humane, all of that. Or I guess, I haven't read 26912E but... Or if 26912E allows you to do it, right? I would be in favor of taking that out personally. Me too. I would too. So the question I would have for the chief is about airguns. Are paintball guns considered airguns? You know, would removing airguns from this exception eliminate the ability to play paintball or whatever in town? It does say in C2C by a person lawfully on a target trap or skeet range to establish for these purposes. So paintball could be done where it is in a paintball, Hoosie thing. I don't know how much people run around Amherst doing paintball elsewhere. I would just want, if there's, you know, if that, I would want clarification as to whether if we removed airguns, something like paintball ranges and paintball games would be still exempted or not. Does that make sense? And also, what about, like, I think that paintball should be allowed on somebody's land, on their own land. If they set up a paintball course in their backyard and they're, you know, that's, that's sport. People do it for birthday parties all the time. Absolutely. My kids, I will be honest, my son and my sort of step child, they have paint guns. And so, but we would never use them anywhere else but on our property, you know, or at a birth, like you said, like if there's a, so do you want me, do you want us to kind of like hold this and I can ask Chief Livingstone those questions? I see Pat. I've got one other question after Pat. Okay. I was just, I just looked up airgun and it basically is a gun that fires projectiles pneumatically with compressed air or gases. So it has velocity and it can do harm. So I think it needs to be included. And removed away from the exemptions. Is a paintball gun, Pat, considered? Could you see that anywhere? It fires paintballs through pneumatic air pressure. So it would be considered an air gun, in my understanding. I didn't catch that. Try tapping above to edit. Sorry. And what else do you use an air gun for? So instead of using, so an air gun could be used instead of, you know, so ammunition gets fired out of a weapon either through compressed air pushing it out, right? Or through, you know, the creation of an actual explosion pushing it out. And so a firearm creates, you know, most guns creates that explosion, right? If you think of an old school civil war type where there are lighting things to create the explosion to press to push it out. An air gun does it through pneumatic type pressure and air pressure. So it could be any type. I'm not, I mean, is a BB gun or something air? Probably, yeah. But that can cause harm, right? So I have no experience with guns. I had, I don't mean to understeer it. I just with the air guns worry we'd be going too far given some uses of what air, some classifications of what an air gun is. So I'd just like to talk to the chief about it, mainly. And then I have a question about discharge of shotguns. In two, I don't see any exemption for hunting. And I believe in Amherst there is some hunting grounds, especially towards the notch. And so that could be why number one was originally included was because you tend to use shotguns for hunting, not traditional handguns, right? And so I would want to talk to the chief about if we remove one completely, have we just eliminated hunting in Amherst? Would it be totally unconventional to call chief Livingstone during our meeting right now and see if we can get them on the line? Probably. Dang it. I'm prepared. You're muted. It does seem that we could, I'd like to see us muad hunting for purposes of hunting in appropriate sites or whatever you'd want to say, two, two. And I'm getting more and more, I think we should leave air guns alone because of paintball and other things. I think so. I'd like to see that change happen. I think that not having a prohibition against shotguns is not a good idea. No, I just want to make sure we don't prohibit hunting. And I would say we could add it. Yeah, so I think we need to just talk to the chief. Yeah, talk to the chief and then maybe come in with potential changes that would eliminate maybe shotguns in one, but add hunting in two, figure out what air guns are and what they're used for. Okay, so because I want to be, I'm gonna probably end up sending him an email and I just want to be very clear. So what we're recommending is to, first of all, we want a clarification on air guns to see if paintballs are included in that and what else may be included in that. We want to get rid of shotguns and then under two, we want to add hunting and there must be some language like in state approved areas or there must be some like, I don't think that there's just random hunting grounds. It has to be like approved by some state, you know. People who need hunting licenses, but there are hunters that hunt in Amethyst Brook conservation area during hunting season. I'm not sure the state has specific hunting areas. Certainly state land does get hunted. I've seen the signs, but private land, if you've got a large enough private land, you can hunt on your own land. But isn't that covered under G? That's where I'm a little bit confused here because I will say I was up looking. No, so G is if a fox, if you're a farmer and a fox or we don't have wolves really in Amethyst, but if a fox is coming in and eating your chickens, you can shoot the fox. You're not hunting it per se, you're protecting your livestock or your property. That's G1 and G2 is the humane way to kill animals raised as livestock sometimes. Just like B2B, when a horse gets injured, they tend to be put down by shotgun. Could we add a number three potentially here that talks about hunting on your own land, like given that this is talking about being your own land? Well, but then you wouldn't be able to allow friends to hunt on your land if you put it under G versus just hunting as an extra H or something. But I think we need language from the chief. Okay, so we'll ask for language. Yeah, because I was up at like the solar, one of the solar arrays in North Amherst and somebody was hunting and it the shot, I mean, I felt like it was gonna hit me. It was so close and it was kind of, it was scary. And I was actually, I was with Cynda and she didn't know where it was coming from and it was out of season. Aren't there certain seasons that you're allowed? Yes. So I think we should definitely, yeah, get that language from the chief. I think we just need the chief's language because we would wanna include things like within appropriate season, you know. With licenses. Licenses by people with licenses during that particular, there's bow and arrow hunting seasons, there's all sorts of different hunting seasons. And also different seasons to hunt different animals. Animals, yeah. Okay, okay. Do we have a hunting bylaw? Do we have a bylaw that refers to any hunting or anything like that? No, I think so. But I do wanna protect hunting. I'm totally opposed to guns, but I wanna protect hunting. Hunting is not in the general bylaw. The word hunting is not in the general bylaws right now. Right. Okay, that's interesting. So would that be worth exploring with chief Livingstone a little bit? Just to see if that- Fishing, hunting and trapping license is unlisted, but no. Oh, but let's see what that one's for. Cause that one I just came up with, right? Yeah. For hunting, so yeah, hold on. So that one is in licenses and permits, denial, revocation or suspension for failure to pay taxes is what that one is. So that's where the license is. Can you look at that? What did you say, Pat? Yeah, that I wanted her to lower. Okay, so it's in the tax paying. Right. You can't suspend that license if you don't pay your taxes. That's the only one that's popping up. So that's the only reference in the bylaws. Okay. Does this body think that a bylaw should be written for hunting if we feel like that's something that we wanna protect but have recognition around? The state has so many rules around hunting that I think it would be very complicated for us to- Delve into that. Delve into that. And then you get back to the same thing with that hold up and quarter. Do they want you to, like the Board of Licensing use the state laws? Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, I have the three pieces here that I can ask Chief Livingstone. So we're not gonna make any recommendation on this. We've had a discussion and we're going to get some questions answered and then we'll come back to that one. Is that fair? Yes, we need more information. Great. Okay. So that was all we had on our agenda today. I did want to cover future agenda items. I wanted us to choose a couple more bylaws that are on that list to review for our next meeting. But I also, so this equity lens review process has been on our agenda since we started working together. And I had a proposal that I wanted to just put out there to plant the seed. And I really want Anika to be here to have the full conversation around this. But I wondered if before we go on to decide on future bylaws and future agenda items, if I could just plant that seed quickly since it is on our agenda for you all to think about. And then when we hopefully Anika will be able to join us at our next meeting. Does that work for everyone? Okay. All right. So I've been giving it a lot of thought and I looked at different equity lens review models that are out there. But what keeps coming to me is that this body, its charge basically is to review things for clarity, consistency and actionability. And we have talked a lot about what that means. I think we have some written documents about what clarity, consistency and actionability. And I've actually heard some controversy around or maybe not controversy, but different viewpoints about what clarity, consistency and actionability mean. Specifically when we were doing the plant medicine, sorry to bring that one up, but it did sort of evoke some like, well, are we talking grammar here? Or are we talking the actual content? And so what occurred to me is that what if we made a recommendation to include equity? So we had clarity, consistency, actionability and equity, which is something that we would review all documents for. And then if we took some time to sort of make sure that we understood what those four, what those four pieces actually mean to this body and be able to further clarify that to the full, like have a discussion about those particular qualifications that we're looking for when we review things. Because to create an entire process outside of what we already do seems like in some ways, equity should be included in everything we do. We should be looking at everything through that lens. And so why are we looking at clarity, consistency and actionability and not equity and then having some other process for that that may or may not get enshrined into the process of the council's work. And so that was my thought. And I see Jennifer, your hand is up. No, I'm sort of getting a little aside. Could you share with us maybe after the meeting just send us some of those models that you've seen that would be really helpful. Yeah, for the next meeting in the packet, I'll include what I have been able to find. And they don't, to be honest with you, what I have found isn't really in relationship to municipal government. So more like in organizations, in educational institutions, things like that. So we are sort of, at least from what I could find in terms of creating this. And I see Mandy, your hand's up. Yeah, initial thoughts, because I haven't thought much about this. And it's not that I don't support an equity review. I wonder if GOL is the right place to be adding it. Not, and so GOL might be the right place to define what equity lens review means. But if GOL is not doing the substantive review and the substantive review is done by TSO say for whatever parking plans or these water regulations say, or CRC looks at some zoning by law, if they pass it off as we're good with this and then it comes to GOL and GOL is like, you know, equity-wise, this is horrible. Doesn't it have to go back then to CRC or TSO? So shouldn't that review be done at the time the substantive review is done to make sure substantively, because I see it as more of a substantive thing than a non-substantive thing. That doesn't mean that GOL can't have a role in figuring out what does an equity lens review look like. And so maybe that's where our role and our recommendation to the council lies is, hey, we think all of these regulations, bylaws, whatever these other committees are reviewing and substantively need an equity review, here's our recommendation for how to do that. But I wonder if, I guess, where in the process should that review happen is sort of my concern over more than it should happen, right? But let's put it in the right spot. Yeah, I really appreciate that. And if I could just quickly respond, I do think it needs to happen with the body that's creating whatever policy they're creating or whatever they're looking at in the substantive piece. But I also, so maybe there's two things that happen. Maybe it is creating and making a recommendation on a process for all bodies to use. But then when it gets to GOL, we're the last line. Like we're the last people that get to look at basically everything. So to me, it seems like if we're looking at clarity, consistency, and actionability, we should also be checking that whatever groups were working on something substantively also dealt with the equity. And so it gets that final check. And that's, you know, and by building it in and by adding equity as one of our guidelines, I feel like we're ensuring that whatever substantive process for equity occurred, it did occur and we're just sort of declaring it. You know, as we do with clarity, consistency, and actionability. I think I saw Pat and then Jennifer. So please. I just want to say that I agree with that. I developing an equity process, I think does reside in this committee. And then it does need to be applied by other committees. And then, and therefore I think Michelle's right, what's the review? But I think it will be an area that we're going to as this committee have to really look at carefully because we still can't deal with substance. And so it's going to be very interesting, but I think a very possible process. And I also have, in addition to what Michelle is going to send out, I have the equity and empowerment lens from Portland, Oregon, Multomam County, which I can send out to people. That would be great, Pat. That would be great. And I'll try to even, there's nothing that I can create a packet for our next meeting now and start adding to it, right? Okay, I'll do that as soon as we sign off so that Pat, you can even throw it in there as well, if that's easy too. Jennifer. Yeah, I did think that that, I think it's appropriate for GOL to help create the lens. And I did understand that as, either an assignment or a role that it was agreed we would take on. And I remember with the plant-based medicine because we were asked to review it more substantively. And I asked the question during the council is could GOL review something for substance? Because I hadn't understand that was our role. And I was told, well, whatever the council asked GOL to do, it can do. And I did understand it that that had come to us. So I think it's appropriate for us to at least develop it and then send it back to the council and then it would go to the other committees. Great. Okay, so it sounds like there's some consensus that we're gonna work to develop a process that can be recommended to the council for all committees to use. And that we will also discuss adding it as one of our guidelines of clarity consistency action ability to include equity so that we can ensure when that document gets to us as the final place it goes before it comes back to the council, it's been reviewed, it's been, that's been included in all of that. And I think that developing the actual process because I think we think about equity and we think about, at least I do often I'm thinking about racial equity and social equity. Also, we have so many varying opinions in the community. We are not all of like-minded. And so I think it's important that we like broaden our definition of what equity really means beyond just racial equity or social equity but to include equity of just voice and things like that. So I don't know, I'm rambling now but that's my initial thoughts on that. And Pat, were you gonna say something else? You're muted. No, okay. All right, so Pat's gonna put something in the packet. I'm gonna put some things in the packet if anybody else comes across anything about this and we'll add it to the next agenda for a bigger conversation. Okay, so we want to, we don't have anybody in attendees. I'm calling for public comment but we don't have anyone here. And so what I'd like to do is get really clear about our next meeting and what we want to include on the agenda. I do know that we will be responsible for at least part of the process of the town manager review which will be coming up soon and I'm set to meet with the Lynn when she's back from vacation to discuss what we'll need to know for that. And I think Pat and Mandy will also have experience with that. But Mandy, would you pull up the list of bylaws that were recommended for us to look at? And maybe we can decide on two more or even more than that since we don't have, in your memory, Pat or Mandy at this time of year other than what could come to us as a referral from the council and the town manager review process are you aware of anything else that is just seasonal for us? I can't think of anything that's seasonal. I mean, there are proclamations and things like that but we've got that on a schedule. Right. Mandy, do you have that? I was just gonna say, I think there's a couple of proclamations coming or should be coming some of those annual ones that we should check on, but... Yes, and I am looking right now at potential future agenda items on our agenda. Also, did Paul at the last meeting review the bylaws that he had been asked to look into? It was in the packet, but that was it. Okay, and do we have to take any further action on that? Given that he, I mean, there was a motion that came from the council with respect to that, but I don't, and I guess there's nothing else we would have to do. Let me just see here. This isn't the document I wanted. I wanted an easier one. So I have, if you look at the agenda, it's also, I think, on there, if you're just looking. Yeah, we do wanna see, I guess, what, what... I found the right document. Okay. I just opened the wrong one. Okay. Okay. So, we just, this one we just made a recommendation on. And discharging, we're... We're working on this one. We made this one to CRC. Okay, great. Soliciting, we should wonder what that one is for. Since we're looking at soliciting anyway, I wonder what the... How is that different? Yeah. What were they saying with it? Hold on. I can look at, okay, are you gonna, cause I can also... I'm going to give me a second and then I'll share that one. Awesome. Let me just find it. Okay. Revisit the exception section, especially in relation to seeking contributions and then needs a KP law regarding retention. Would that be related to like, it wouldn't be elections? Campaigning. But just under the state? Hold on. Yeah, we need to look at the exceptions. Yeah. So this is the soliciting by law. That's the exceptions. Contributions for non-commercial purposes from other than their own members. Organizations seeking contributions for non-commercial purposes from other than their own members. So if you've got a nonprofit going around seeking contributions, the nonprofit might have membership like some Boys and Girls Club has a membership site. But if they start door knocking, seeking contributions other than from Boys and Girls Club members, they're supposed to notify the police department, I guess. But what are non-commercial purposes? A donation to Boys and Girls Club, a donation to pro-abortion legislation. Commercial purposes would be Amazon soliciting money to paint their cars. I don't know. Oh, I see. Okay, okay. We don't have a lot of commercial solicitation in our community, do we? Yeah, so commercial solicitation, painting of houses, right? Yeah. I mean, if somebody- I've had people come here who wanted to paint my house. So they leave something like that. Okay, yeah, yeah, right, yeah, okay. So the exception, we're gonna, and the exception to what? The exception to what? So let me pull that one up again. So it's on there. We visit the exception section, especially in relationship to seeking contributions. If it's retained, we need to be sure it aligns with recent case law. Okay. So really, this is a question for KP Law. Yeah. Yeah. In order, okay. And do you feel, Mandy, that that in, does that impact the soliciting discussion earlier? I think the only way it would impact the soliciting discussion earlier is if KP Law is like, dude, you need to repeal this, right? You know, if we're keeping it, they're still going to, in theory, be a license issued. The fee would still be there. It's who issues the fee, right? So the only reason it would have impacted is if KP Law comes back with, you shouldn't even have this. Okay, based on that case law that they're referencing. And the by-law, you can- I have a question. This is all items in like, the charter and our by-laws, but they've already, so we're just reviewing their legal or they wouldn't be there now. Things change though, you know, legislation changes. And we just went through a by-law where we got rid of it because what, which one did we get rid of peaking and peering? Or no, it was the other one. See what I mean about my memory. The gathering on town common we got rid of, or something. And so what by-laws are no longer necessary? What, and what needs to change? And where are clarifications that have to happen? Because none of us know what we're talking about when we read it. Yeah, right. So I'm just wondering who flagged these? I mean, I'm just curious. The by-law review committee, which was a committee with several lawyers and people on it and myself, Evan Ross, Alyssa Brewer, and we reviewed all of the by-laws when we were changes because we moved from town meeting to town council. So there were changes that automatically had to be made. And you did it at the beginning of the last council when you were first to council. Right, yeah. And like four or some plus years ago, which is why my memory is weak. And then GOL took it on. Right. So that committee, as Pat said, that committee was tasked with doing non-substantive changes to bring, well, they were substantive too, but to bring the by-laws in conformance with the new charter, meaning get rid of every reference to select board, get rid of references to town meeting. Okay. So it was non-substantive and now we're doing the substantive. Yeah, and so in that review, they came across things that they had a lot of questions of that were more substantive. And they said, look at these, but we think it's outside of our charge. And so it took GOL two plus years and this is where we got. And now GOL finally has time to look at things. Okay, okay. And the zoning by-laws, we were charged with doing those as well. We made minor changes, but we sent that to the planning department to work and review. Okay. So for soliciting, I'm gonna inquire through Paul to KP Law about that one. And then I'll also report that back to you, Mandy, just in case there's any impact that is in needs immediate. And then, all right, we'll continue looking at these. So I mean, street numbering of houses and snow and ice, both relate to safety probably, and our short by-laws. I don't know what the, I'd have to look up what the by-law review committee wanted us to look at with either of them, but they might be the most logical next ones. The snow and ice was who was responsible, literally for the sidewalks outside their homes and things like that. And the street numbering of houses, there's kind of a lack of logic. Like my street goes 2133, but that's not gonna change because even if I built an accessory dwelling unit, it would have to be 21A or B or something like that. So, you know, there's a, if you just ride around and look at mailbox numbers, because it's fascinating, and I do not see us organizing or changing the whole town. That's a little quickly. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. That one was what, 3.39 and 3.40. Okay. Oh wait, that's the wrong one. Actually, yeah, no, that's the wrong one. Let me find the right one. Are you looking for the chart, as opposed to the narrative? Yeah. They're sort of similar, but yeah, the chart seems easier to follow. Okay, so. Numbering on any given is your regular numbers to be required so they can, oh, so it's also the irregularity, but also should we require better? Visuals. Visuals, yeah. Emergency vehicles and yeah. Yeah. This is also something to consider. Put it right, the word 30 out. So we can probably talk about that one next week. Okay. I'll add that. And also I just thought about the rental registration by law piece. I know there's something in that, and then that's not on our agenda here, but just in terms of really clearly for the police and fire to be able to identify, I have gone by so many houses where you can't even, you can't even see what their address is, you know what I mean? So is there, you know, something there? Okay, and then snow and ice. Delete. The committee recommends consideration of future amendments to incorporate the policy of the town for DPW to clear sidewalks from snow and ice from certain sidewalks. In other words, the DPW now does some clearing and no one knows what they learned. So I think the committee's recommendation was, can we at least reference that in the bylaw somewhere? Okay. You know, like the DPW shall provide a, you know, publish a list of streets that they are responsible for clearing X, Y, Z or something, right? Yeah. So they will clear some sidewalks? They do clear some sidewalks. Maybe downtown. They do downtown. They do wildflower in my neighborhood for some reason. I'm still not sure why. But we've heard different reasons, but yeah. One of which is they actually on wildflower, the town owns a large piece of frontage. So they have to do that part. And so one of the reason we've heard is they just do the whole thing then, I don't know. Yeah, well, you rich people, you know, how that goes. So those two look like we could probably have that discussion, those discussions next time. Perfect. Okay. And does this discussion require, are there any questions from DPW superintendent that we would want to have answered for this discussion or not really? Like, is there, should we find out right now what's available if there's a street list that's already. Yeah, I think that's, yeah, okay. Because we'd wanna know why different streets why these different decisions have been made. Perfect. Like the town used to clear Allen, I can't remember Allen would, it's a private street and the town used to clear it because there was one house on it that was the beginning of the property and there have been constant fights with the people who own the street about whether the town should clear it or not because there's access to Amethyst Brook, et cetera. Yeah, okay. There are issues. Okay, Pat, go ahead. No, I was gonna bring up something entirely different before we leave, so. Well, I'm just wondering if we should just pick maybe two more right now because I don't know that we're gonna have anything major on our agenda for the next time given that we have one council meeting and I don't have anything that I'm aware of. Well, we have the equity lens. Yeah, so we could just really dive into that if there's nothing that's urgent here and we have some questions that we need to answer on these other things. So maybe you're right, Pat, if everyone's good with that. Yeah, I think this is the time to do it because we keep pushing it back. So this time to do that. Okay. It would be great if Annika could be here but if she's not, we can still start the conversation. The other thing is, and this is what I wanted to bring up about our process with the equity lens, we should be including Pamela Young the way we include the planning department in zoning things. And I think that would be critical. If you look at some, yeah. Yeah, that's a great suggestion. That's a great suggestion. Yeah, and should we include Pamela and Jennifer? Well, that would be up to Pamela probably. Yeah, she's the director and if they were both here, that would be grand because Jennifer knows Amherst even better but it's yeah, she'll probably bring her everything. Okay, so I should attempt to invite her to our meeting, our next meeting. Yeah. Okay. All right, and our next meeting is August 17th. Is everyone that's here able to attend that meeting at 9 a.m.? Yes, yeah. Okay, great. And let me just, we already adopted our minutes from last time. Let me just take a quick look here. Were there any other announcements? I don't have anything that wasn't anticipated. Did any other members have any announcements? Athena has her hand raised, yes. I just have a quick question before you wrap up. I want to make sure because we have agenda setting this afternoon, I want to make sure that I'm bringing what you're ready to bring. So it sounds like you'd like to move forward with bylaw 3.8, those changes more quickly. And so those could be on the next council agenda if there's space and also the peaking or peering. Is that right? Or did you want to wait for both pieces of the license fees and soliciting to be ready before bringing those up at the council? Go ahead, Mandy. Can I just request that you wait on 3.8 the license fees until after the BLC meeting tomorrow? Cause that's when I'll know whether they're ready. The referral was to both GOL and BLC. Right, but I don't think you voted on 3.8. So those were those. No, we did. We did. Yeah. 3.8 was the. Oh, yes. Okay. Yes. It was the other one that you didn't. Until we know whether BLC is ready. So it might be able to go on for first reading if the BLC will be ready in a month and a half to institute fees. But I won't know that till tomorrow. Okay. But are you saying, Mandy, the common, the first one, is that going to be included? Well, that's the one. I don't know whether they're going to be ready. The one we voted on for in-holders, lunch carts and common victuallers. The referral to, the referral for my sponsorship was to both GOL, which has now finished. It's for you. Okay. So to BLC and part of the BLC referral was something like to ensure that they are ready for instituting the fees at passage. So we could probably do a first reading, but the second reading may have to hold off Athena until they're ready to adopt fees. Something like that. Or we could hold off until BLC has met on Thursday. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'll tell you. We have time. I don't think we're finalizing until next Wednesday. So I think that that makes sense. And then for peaking or peering, that one's ready to go. Right? That one's ready to go. Yeah. That one's ready to go. Okay. Thank you all. All right. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Then I'm going to move to adjourn at 10, 24 a.m. And thank you, everyone. Thank you. Have a great week. Yep. Bye-bye. You, bye.