 And oh, George, I wanted to give you a heads up. Emily has a hard stop at 130. Do you think you'll be going that way? No, we will not. We will be done at 1230 if not sooner. Terrific. Okay. Thank you. Sure. You're all set in the attendees. Oh, I'll bring her. Thank you. Sorry, sorry. All right. Seeing the presence of a quorum, I'm going to call this meeting of GOL to order. It is September 8th and it is 1032 AM. We're going to start the meeting. We're going to start the meeting. We're soon to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. And instructions will be provided if needed. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings. In real time via technological means. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This morning with Pat. Yes. Thank you. And Mandy. Present. And Darcy. Yes. And Sarah. Present. And Shawnee is a guest Shawnee. If you just would say, hello's, I'm sure you're audible, but just to check. Yes. Thank you so much for having me. You're welcome. So I can put the agenda up on the screen. If you'd like, we're going to move it around a bit and there've been some changes since I sent it out to you. We have a little bit of business to do right at the start. We should have done it at the last meeting, but your chair. Forgot. We were to decide how we want to continue to meet. Over the next month or two. And so while I am trying to find. The share screen button. I'd like you to begin to think about. I'm not sure we have many options, but I want to hear from you all. As to whether we want to continue on soon, whether we want to meet in person, want to do hybrid. I need to tell Lynn and to tell the council. So that's the first item. I'm going to put it up on the screen. On this on our agenda. And I'm going to put it up on the screen. Now, so you can see it. Hopefully everybody can see that. Is that large enough. And make it a little bigger. No, that's pretty big. Let's try 200%. Okay, there we go. Okay. So discussion vote on how to go. We'll meet. Okay. Any thoughts from my colleagues. Or is the answer obvious that clearly we're going to be on soon, or we're going to be on soon for the next month at least. So maybe the only question is when do we want to revisit this question? Mandy, please go ahead. Yeah. So the vote that. Brought this to the committees was through September 30th, which is this meeting and one other meeting. So I think that's a good. Or. Remote, I guess. The way the language of the referral or. Whatever that was called was. So to me, that doesn't really give us a lot of options. And it's beyond this meeting, one other meeting essentially. You know, I think. Given what we've been told about hybrid. So I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think it's because I think it would overburden our staff. We need to. You know, prioritize some in some sense, their well-being and their work too. So the fact that there's no in-person only option. I think. Pretty narrow. For one more meeting. Sadly remote. So I'm going to propose a motion. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about the council. I'm going to propose that we continue to meet. By a zoom. Until September 30. And at that date. If the chair remembers. We will revisit the question. Sir. Second. George, would you. Would you entertain. A friendly amendment to extend that. Because. You know, we're having this delta variant surge right now. It seems kind of like a waste of time. To not. I can agree with you, Darcy. I guess the only thought is that we're basically responding to something that council sent to us. And at the date on the council. Referral or whatever we want to call it with September 30. I'm not again pushing it further, but it goes beyond what the council asked us. Any thoughts on the rest of you on that? Yeah. I think it does seem like we can say. I think we're all in agreement to stay in zoom until the end of September, but this committee can decide now whether it wants to continue that longer. It doesn't. Isn't dependent. And then if there's some major change. Okay. Yeah. Cause I agree with Darcy. It's a kind of a waste of time not to. Deal with it for several months. Okay. I don't know what the date is. I don't know. I think it would be October. It would be, um, I'm going to get the date or I don't, what are thoughts about the date? I'm torn because the council specifically voted September 30. And I think we should stay with that. Even though I agree that it's a waste of time to do this every two meetings. But also, um, I think at some point. Um, there's always going to be new variants. There's always going to be things and we have to start trusting vaccines and that they will work. Um, and, and, um, accepting that this is probably a. Item that is a virus that is going to be with us. Forever. Um, and we're going to have to find ways to live with that. And so I don't want to. Help people with COVID. That's important for immediately. And remote only meetings, because I think we can do it safely in person. And with masks and with distancing, if need be. I mean, our kids are going, my daughter right now is in school, seven hours a day with a mask in a full room. So I would object to doing anything other than what the council sent to us, which was September, September 30. Yeah. We can't, we can't. You can't really accept the friendly amendment until the, the seconded anyway. But. Yeah. I feel like, um, the people that are most at risk are those that are older and have preexisting conditions. And of course those that are unvaccinated, but even the ones that are vaccinated. So, um, that's what's happening right now with the search. And so yeah, kids are not as much at risk. But older people are. And our council is full of older people. So, um, You know, I, I, uh, I, I don't want to have this argument every month. Um, So. I second your, um, Motion George. And request that friendly amendment to at least go to the end of October. All right. So we have a motion on the floor. It's to, um, and the October date. Um, would be. What would it be? Um, we have October. Sixth. 20th. I think it'll be October 20th. Yeah. October 20. It would be the date if we went to the end of October. Um, For the discussion. I've seen none. I'm going to move directly to a vote. Again, the motion is to continue to meet by zoom. Until October. 20. Let me just double check that date. Quickly. But I believe it's correct. It is correct. Thank you. Um, so to meet the date of October 20th, I'm going to move directly to a vote. Um, again, the motion is to continue to meet by zoom. Until October. Thank you. Um, so to meet until, uh, through October 20 and at that meeting, October 20, we'll revisit. Um, the question. Um, so, uh, let's go around the horn. I'm going to start. Oh, with Pat. I'm just going to go by the screen. I pat is yes. Mandy. No. Um, Darcy. Yes. Uh, Sarah. I. And the chair is an eye. So we're going to. Uh, it'll be four to one in favor. Um, we will continue to meet by zoom until October 20. And at that point, um, we'll revisit the question. George. Yes, please. Uh, just as I started to go through my calendar, I, I'm going to be a way. For the meeting on the 22nd of September. I just want everybody to know that now. Okay. Pat will be absent. I'll make that note. Thank you for telling me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So look on the screen. Uh, we have next two zoning amendments. Um, I'd like to postpone those for a few minutes and come back to them. Um, we do not have the, uh, attorney's reviews. Uh, this morning, unfortunately. And the reasons for that are somewhat complicated. I'm willing to go into that for a moment or two. Um, we, there are some documents in your folder. Um, and we could discuss those if we wish. Um, and we could look at and vote on. Um, then we have the Puerto Rican proclamation, which I'd also like to postpone for a moment and go directly to India and Pakistan. Since we have a guest, we have councilor ball meld here. Um, she is the council sponsor of this. And I can't, can anyone tell, uh, Shawnee, please go ahead. Yeah. And we have a resident sponsor here and as a, in the audience, Alina Durrani, if you could bring her into the meeting. Okay. Um, So I'm going to stop sharing the screen for a moment. And I'm going to see if I can do this. Um, Ah, participants. Let's see here. Attendees. There's Alina. And I'm going to, I can allow her to talk. Oh, sorry. Hang on for a second. Promote to panelists. Wow. That is power. Okay. Alina, I'm promoting you to a panelist. Let's see what happens. To the power technology. Very good. All right. So Alina, welcome. Um, if you would like to unmute, that would be great. And, uh, You may show yourself if you wish or just the screenshot is whatever you prefer. But, um, we're going to, I'm going to put up on the screen now, the actual, um, Proclamation. And, um, I'll put this away. And here it is. And I'm going to make it a little bit bigger if I can. Zoom. Whoops. Okay. So hopefully everyone can see that clearly. George. So we have, uh, Proclamation 2020 21 India in Pakistan, 75th Independence Day proclamation. I hope everyone's had a chance to look at this. Our usual custom Shalini is, I think familiar with this, but Alina, maybe not. Um, we tend to go through it. Um, not necessarily line by line, but, um, sometimes we do. Um, but we start with any, um, Concerns or questions people have from the committee. Um, our job is simply to declare this clear, consistent and actionable. Uh, we do not engage in a discussion about the merits of the proclamation or whether we agree with it or disagree with it or blah, blah, blah, blah. But we're simply telling the council when we vote that this document is, is clear, consistent and actionable. So we tend to be just looking at, we do look at the language. If there's any need to change format, that sort of thing is fairly technical, not very exciting, but we've had some good discussions, I think in the past. So that's where we're headed. And, um, I'm going to see hand, Mandy's hand is raised. So I'm going to begin with Mandy. Yeah. I, what you just put on the screen was not what was in the packet. I don't believe. Uh-oh. So, um, I, which just means it'll just take us a little longer to go through because I think some of us will be reading it for the first time. Um, I, okay. I did get the third. Um, this is a version three. I guess the first question is for Shawnee, is this the correct version? My understanding is it is, is that correct? Okay. So I want to apologize and thank you all for entertaining this last minute. Um, and yes, we did make some edits. So basically the first three paragraphs pretty much were added. And the rest will, I mean, that's where the bulk of the change is. Oh, let me see. Yeah. That's where the bulk of the changes. And then after this, uh, we got some more feedback from, uh, Indian and Pakistani residents that, and those are just minor. That's just switching. Like this is a sensitive issue. And we want to make sure that we are alternating India and Pakistan going back and forth. So just a little bit of that order, but we'll come to that later. Just want to give you a little time to read the first three paragraphs. Okay. Um, so. First thing that I would ask is that make sure the names are spelled correctly. Um, I assume that is correct. So Alina and Ambrine and Sanjay, their last names are all correctly spelled. Yes. And do we want to add doctors to the name Alina? I don't, Alina is a PhD student. Do you have anything to add at this point? Okay. Um, but I know that Ambrine is a doctor and Sanjay is a PhD. Is it customary to add that to their names? That's a good question. Um, I don't recall that we've done that in the past. Um, we pretty much put down whatever is submitted to us. We don't add things. We don't add titles unless someone sends it to us that way. And, um, I don't know if my colleagues have any thoughts on this. I'm comfortable, I'm comfortable adding titles unless the individual has requested it or unless it's in the original document. Anyone. So I guess my thought is we're going to leave it as is. Unless I hear otherwise from my colleagues. I can just speak on behalf of the residents that I think it's good to acknowledge that they're doctors. Um, I don't know if that's a good question. I'm, I'm, I'm not sure if that's a good question. Cause I'm bringing the dentist and Sanjay is a PhD. So. Colleagues. Thoughts. I'm okay with it either way. Yeah. That's a nice strong feeling. Okay. So we can make that change. So we'd be, um, Dr. And Dr. Sanjay. Give people a moment to read, um, your hand is up. Okay. Give people a moment to read the first three paragraphs. Mandy. I'm in the second paragraph. Yep. The second line is significant transfer of capital from India to England. I know when it later on, it talks about how it was partitioned into two independent nations. And you talked about the sensitive nature. Is it just India to England or should we be referring to both? Yeah, that's a good question. Um, Alina, do you have any perspective on that? Um, it was India before the partition. So this is okay. Thank you. So I have no issues with, um, any of the three paragraphs in terms of clarity or consistency. Um, anyone else. Um, I have, and I hope everyone else has had a chance to read the remainder of the document. I had no concerns with clarity consistency. Um, with the remainder of the document. Um, So Mandy, please. Um, the 1947 partition whereas needs a comma. Okay. Um, I see. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything else, Mandy. Um, just in the now there force, which we're not too right now. Okay. So before we go there, any other concerns, questions, problems with the language? I don't see any. Okay. Now, therefore be it resolved. Okay. Um, again, just quickly back up for a second. We are confident that it is four o'clock on September 24th. That's, that's a fixed. Okay. Thank you. Number 24. Okay. Thank you. Mandy, now therefore comment. We're trying to move from hoisting to raising. Oh hoisting versus raising. Okay. That's my only other one. Hoisting is there. It's the fourth lineup from the bottom proclamation by hoisting the Indian and Pakistani national flags. Mm hmm. Okay. Okay. Any other comments, concerns with the now there for clause. So I have one. Relate. Not to the now there for clause, but to the two we're considering today, which is this one. And the Puerto Rico one. Oh, I'm sorry. Because although the Puerto Rico one that was in the packet didn't talk about raising the Puerto Rican flag. And I went back to the 2019 proclamation and we did. And that started on September 23rd and went to September 29th. And so we're going to need an extra flagpole. I guess what I wanted to ask the sponsors here is. What are the feelings about sharing the flag polls also with the Puerto Rico flag or do we need to consider dates differently? Because of the overlap of those two matters. Why couldn't we not change the alter the Puerto Rican dates? Is that a fixed week that, or is it just traditionally it's been that week, but it's not. This sounds like this is tied to. Events. Outside of Amherst. Where to Rico one is tied to the pro independence movement and the. Grito de la race rebellion on September 23rd. Okay. That's actually closer. We, our original thing was August 14th and 15th. So. It makes sense to keep the Puerto Rico and since we've already organized and invited people so we can't really shift the day around, but I think we're okay with sharing the flags. I mean, it shows the diversity of art and that's kind of the idea is to show we welcome and embrace all cultures and people. So the thought would be that we would have the flags on the flagpole. Sharing at least for a certain period of time, but we would have the flags on the same and that'd be fine. Yeah. Okay. I had checked with Alan those up and he had checked with, yeah, and he had checked with the, I believe Gilford is the one from DPW who gave this idea that we would have to equal flag additional flag balls because we have one where we have the current, but then we were like, you know, where, how do we put the two flags? We would have two identical flagpole. So we do have then three poles. Okay. All right. And they're already in the ground, et cetera. No, just one of them is, and that's why we needed the whole proclamation and town council thing to allow for two more poles to be temporarily put in. Okay. So they would temporarily put up a poll. That's my understanding. Yeah. They wouldn't be sharing a poll. They would have their own separate. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Well, except the Puerto Rican flag would be up on one. Are you, you're adding two more temporary ones. Yeah. Okay. I think George needs to communicate to Paul. Yeah. This, this crowded flag issue. Okay. All right. Guilford and DPW and Alan Snow can prepare for it. Yeah. Okay. It sounds like Shawnee's had conversations with Alan. And he's had conversations with Guilford. Is that correct? Yes. All of this needs to be coordinated together in line. Yeah. In view that we have a third flag here. Okay. All right. I will reach out to Paul in this. Right. And there were a few more, just very subtle switches between India and Pakistan order. Do you want me to just send it to you or just say it? No, let's do it now. Okay. Yes, of course. So the first line would be where the first whereas is India and Pakistan. Yeah. Yeah. It's just changing it. Yeah. We're going to, yeah, we're going to switch it down a little bit. And it was pointed out that Pakistan celebrates the day one day before. So later on we switch it to Pakistan being, so I'll tell you, so starting here, it's the first one is switching it to India and Pakistan. And then going down to number one, two, three. It's the fifth one where it says, where is that midnight between August 14 and 15? So over there it will be Pakistan and India. Okay. And then after that one, two, three, where it says Indian and Pakistani, we're switching it to Pakistani and Indian Americans, leading with Pakistani there. And then the last now therefore. Yeah. It would be proclamation by raising the Pakistani and Indian national flags. I think we could go in that order since we're saying that Pakistan had celebrates one day before. So we can even raise the flags in that order. Okay. Good. Any other changes? Everything else is okay. The order is fine. I think so. Yeah. Okay. All right. And again, I really thank you all for including this in your agenda. I know you all have long agendas and, and I hope is really that this kind of also invites the Indian and Pakistani residents who might be a little disconnected from town politics. I've invited the community participation officers to have a table there with all the committees and, and even in our just this organizing this up new friends along the way. And it's really been a wonderful process. So thank you all for supporting it. Thank you for all of you for bringing this forward. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Go ahead. I move to declare the 2021 India and Pakistan, 75th independence day proclamation, clear, consistent and actionable. Second today. All right. So it's motion has been made and seconded by Pat. I don't see any further discussion. I'm going to go immediately to vote this time. We're going to start with Sarah. Hi. And Pat. Hi. And Darcy. Yes. And Mandy. Hi. And the chairs and I, so the vote is five zero. And so I and I will be in contact with Paul about the flags. And so thank you again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being present and assisting us in this. And I look forward to being present on the 24th. Is that correct? Yes. And it's at, you said four o'clock. Let me get this into my. Four to five. And it sounds like he will be having more than just a flag raising. There'll be an opportunity for people to mix the mingle. And there will be. Community presentation officers present as well. Yes. And I hope a public space. Where we can gather in front of town hall. So that's anyway, but this is great. Thank you both very much. And. Thank you. We're going to move on to Puerto Rico. All right. And I'm going to put this into my phone if people will bear with me, September 24th. It's a Friday. Interesting. Okay. And four o'clock. So. Stop sharing. I'm going to put Puerto Rico. Declaration or proclamation up on the screen. I'm going to put this. Actually, I'm going to put this over here for the moment. And let's get your screen up here. And this is Puerto Rico. Let's get Puerto Rico up here. Let's get it. So this is sponsored by Lynn. I'm not aware of any other council sponsors. I'm not aware of a community sponsor. So at the moment, it simply has the council sponsor. And I made a few very small changes. Prior to the meeting. One was just literally a spacing element. And of course, introducing the council sponsor. And I've got a suggestion for the end, which we'll come to. I'm going to put it up here. At first, Open it up to my committee members in terms of other changes, problems, concerns. With this document. In the, whereas that talks about the defense of the United States and all of the wars. Oxford comma after Iraq. I believe. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And in the second to last, whereas the positive contributions to town, to the town and local community in 2019, we capitalized town. The tea in town. That's correct. Thank you. All right. And then I had changes to the where now therefore clause. Let's hold on that for just a second. I had a question again, would, you know, we have time today. I thought we weren't going to have any time today, but we do have time today as we'll learn in a moment, but the order of this, the order of the whereas clauses. I'm not sure it matters. Yeah, it doesn't matter. I think it's fine. Getting to microanalyzing this. It's not good. Other thoughts. It sounds like everyone's okay with the whereas clauses. I don't see any other hands. Okay. So let's look at now. We, the Emerson council officially proclaimed September 23 as Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican heritage day. That should be a period. Right. Andy. Yeah, so I went back to the 2019. Yeah. Proclamation. Which this one must be a slightly earlier than that. But that one puts September 23, comma 2021. Yeah. And then we put the year in, I guess, because we do it every year. That's correct. We do. And then after heritage day, I don't think it capitalized or fully capitalized Puerto Rican. I think it just. Initial capped those. The name. But after heritage day, it was a comma. And then yes. And then pretty much what we just saw. Yeah. And further recognizing this proclamation. By raising the Puerto Puerto Rican flag. From September 23 to September 29, 2021. To help cultivate awareness. For all residents of Amherst. Oh, I'm spell September, right. There's a, yeah, get rid of it. Yeah. So now therefore we, the Amherst town council officially proclaims the turn 23, 2021 is Puerto Rican heritage day and further recognizing this proclamation. Further recognize recognizing this proclamation. Recognizing that's fine. By raising the Puerto Rican flag from September 23 to September 29, 2021. To help cultivate awareness for all residents of Amherst. Okay. And then my contribution was to get rid of this here on through voted set our hands language. And simply replace it that voted this whatever day of September 2021. Okay. Any other thoughts, questions, comments. Then I'm going to make the motion to declare the Puerto Rican heritage day proclamation. Do I put the date in this or not actually. What's any thought on that. Do we want to put the 2021. Do we want to give it the year. So that each year it has a different date or do you just want to keep it. So it would be as we did with that. So I would be declaring the 2021 Puerto Rican heritage day proclamation to be clear, consistent and actionable. Second. Second have it. So we have emotions been made and seconded. Okay. And any further discussion. I don't see any. So I'm going to move to a vote. I'm going to start with Darcy. Yes. And with Mandy. Hi. And Sarah. Hi. And Pat. Hi. And the chair is also an eye again. It's five zero to declare the 2021 Puerto Rican heritage day proclamation clear, consistent and actionable. Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to put that. All right. Let's go back to the, let me find the agenda. Okay. Let's get that up on the screen for a moment. There's something to look at while I blather on here. We had originally planned to have two zoning amendments brought to us from KP law. And through various series of delays and snafus. We had a lot of, a lot of issues at the moment. We have neither in any formal. Shape that we can actually. Vote on in terms of the KP law comments. The, the ADU. I thought his comments were there. There were Pat, but unfortunately I did not make clear to him. And he did not understand that the document he was given. He had three tiny little changes to a pre-existing bylaw. I thought he knew, I just didn't even think of it at the time, but it was stupid. He needed to be informed that this entire document was a rescind and replace. And he needed to look at the whole thing. And once he learned that, obviously that slowed everything down. It's unfortunate that they do tend to wait to the last minute to do this, even though they've had it for like two weeks. They tend to wait until the day or two before. So it's unfortunate. But at least that was my mistake. And that's unfortunate. Mixed use. He is in communication with. Chris and with the planning department. He had some specific concerns he wanted to raise with them. And he, in his communication to Paul last night. And in Paul's communication to me this morning over the phone. He seems to think that it'll have that. Sometime later today, but that doesn't do us any good. So we will not see these unless we see down below. I have an item for discussion of future agenda items, but we will not see these until September 22, even though I'm sure they will be finished well before then. But September 22. Still works given the calendar that Mandy has put together. Given the 90 day deadline that we're all under. In terms of voting on zoning bylaws. So we could still make this work on September 22nd. And that's what I told Paul, but I also told him, I would obviously raise it with my colleagues. We do have the option of calling an extra meeting. I'm not sure that makes sense in this case, but that's an option. And we do have some material in the packet that we could talk about. If people have thoughts about it. But we cannot really vote on it because we don't have his official statement. So first things first. Are people okay? And I'm particularly thinking of you Mandy, because you've been keeping track of the schedule. According to what you've given us and what I've seen, the September 22nd would still work in terms of the timeline. It does. And so I'm okay with that. You know, I'm obviously disappointed in the delay, but it's not. You know, Kp law is what it is in terms of when they get us things. So, but the September 22nd would work. Just for, for the rest of the committee, it's likely that it would not be just these two on September 22nd. It would also be potentially apartments and parking too. So we could possibly have four. In fact, we would be expecting for by September 22nd. And I think we can handle that. But that's. And we do have the option. I mean, it's certainly we are free to add a meeting. And I normally we do not do that. We've already considered that and we'll talk about it later this, this morning in terms of the bylaws for future consideration. When we're dealing with zoning bylaws that are under a 90 day clock. I think we do have to consider that at some point, no matter what the zoning bylaw may happen to be. If it's running up against that clock. And GOL is the last step in the process. There may be occasions. It doesn't seem like this is one, but there may be occasions where the chair may ask you to consider an extra meeting simply to deal with that. I don't think it's necessary here. And I hope it won't be necessary at any time. That's a possibility. Anyone have any thoughts on any of the documents that are currently in the folder related to either ADU's or next use. Or do you want to wait until the 22nd? So the next item on the agenda is review of the proposed change to the rules of procedure 5.2 public hearings. So I'm going to, unless I hear otherwise, I'll stop sharing for a moment. I'm going to put the agenda away. And I'm going to open up that document. And I'm going to share it with you. But I think actually that view is pretty good. I think that's pretty large. Okay. So this came to us as a referral to deal with the question of public hearings and the fact that we don't have. An explicit statement, our rules of procedure that would allow various council committees to hold public hearings. We have done this TSO has done this and. And so community resources has also done it. And so I think the thought was that we should just add something to 5.2, which is the public hearings entry in the rules of procedure. That just makes it clear that these, this authority is granted by the council to various council committees to, to do so. And so I've had initial version, Mandy also had a look at it. And so we're actually looking at Mandy's version. And so I'm going to read it. And then open it up to discussion. This is not changing any existing language, just adding language to 5.2, which is just to the initial paragraph. While some public hearings may be required by MGL, the town charter or by council rules of procedure, the council may choose to hold a public hearing on any topic it chooses. The council may also designate a council. Now here I use subcommittee. I'm wondering if we don't usually use that language. So I think Evan is very fond of it. I'm wondering if it's just the, the council may also designate a council committee to hold public hearings on its behalf. Any thoughts about subcommittee versus committee. We don't use subcommittee, at least I don't, I'm not familiar that we use it. I don't remember that we use it much. So I'm suggesting that we just have committee. Any thoughts. That works for me. At the present time, the community resources committee CRC has been designated by the council to conduct public hearings on zoning adoptions or changes as required by MGL 40 a in section five. And there's a footnote and the town services and outreach committee TSO has been designated by the council to conduct public hearings and any permanent changes to the public ways per general bylaw 3.14 and town council policy regarding the public ways to see, and that has a quick. And the footnotes are below. I'm just stating that per the first one per mass general law 40 a section five, the town council voted on October 7th, 20 simply gives the date when this happens September 7th, 2019 to designate CRC to hold public hearings as required under MGL 40 a section five and on August 2nd, 2021 town council voted to designate TSO to hold public hearings required under general bylaw 3.14 and town council policy regarding the public ways to see thoughts on this language, thoughts on this addition. George, please go ahead man. I'm sorry, Darcy. As I said, at the town council meeting, I don't see why this is necessary. I don't, I, you know, I don't see why we're spending our time on it. We already voted to allow those things. So why are we adding it to our rules? It just seems, and several people voted against referring this to this committee. And so I continue to. Wonder why we need to. Tinker with our rules. All the time. It just doesn't seem necessary. And we definitely don't want to, you know, you wouldn't put in the rules at the present time. That does not belong in rules. Right. Yeah. So. I mean, that whole section of what's happening at the present time. That sentence. I mean, I don't have that much objection to the first couple of sentences, but after at the present time, that doesn't make sense to have that in our rules. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, Mandy. I basically agree with Darcy. We have rules. We have votes that relate to the rules and to continually add those votes that might affect a rule or. Keep going back is, is an exercise in craziness to make everyone crazy. Right. You know, if, if people deem it necessary, I think the whole starting at the, at the present time could be deleted, but keep maybe the footnotes. If people really want to see what ones have been voted and just put them at the end of the whole public hearings on its behalf, keep the footnotes or even just consolidate the footnotes into one footnote that says here are the votes that have happened. But again, if we put that in the rules and a vote changes. Yeah. Right. And all right. Yeah. And so. I would be okay with adding the first, I guess it's two sentences up to hold public hearings on its behalf. I believe the rest. Okay. I would be okay with not even doing those two sentences. So you share with Darcy the thought that this is, this really not needed. Yeah. Yeah. So you did manager. It came from Lynn. Yeah. Lynn felt that since we were having various council committees conducting public hearings. There was some, and I think she's right actually in this, there was some confusion or lack of clarity about their right to do so. Now maybe that isn't the case. And if one reads through all the fine print, I think that's a good point. So I think her thought was simply to have it in the, these two sentences up to the various details that have been mentioned here. But the first two sentences. I think are helpful. And simply clarifying that the council may designate a council committee to hold public hearings on its behalf. I think that is a valuable statement. For clarity. Yeah. I agree with Mandy and Darcy. The first two sentences. Feel fine. At present time. We're just giving a description of some examples of committees who have done this. I don't see that as appropriate. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think Mandy's right. Once you get into at the present time and votes that are held on such and such a date. You are getting into a territory that really is not appropriate for rules. Yeah. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that is appropriate for a rule. So what I'm hearing and Sarah, please speak up. If you wish, but. Too much, George. Yeah. The council may also designate a council committee is important. So for the moment, I'm just going to put it and strike through it. And the only other question is whether. Again, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I'm not sure if things were done, but again, does it belong in the rules? These footnotes. I'm not really sure they do. If Lynn really wants a notation somewhere. Don't put it in the rules. Put it on the council pages. The web page. Okay. All right. And on the two committee pages or something just notate. So it should be notated. On the council page and the committee page, but it should be notated. Okay. So. What I'm hearing is that. The committee is at least the majority is happy or willing to accept the first two sentences as an addition. But would remove. All of this. So I'm going to delete it. Or try to delete it. Well, I might do that. All right. I'll sort this out someday. I'll fix that. When I have a moment. So the time allocated to public hearings that stays. That, that the time allocated is an A in the rules. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. When, when you got rid of the T and an extra deletion, you got rid of the, it was A to A, B, C, D and E. Okay. All right. I think if you just undo what you just did a couple. Go through a couple on dues and then redo the delete. You'll be fine. I think. Just. Okay. I think you just have to be careful on what you actually delete. This is why I wanted to leave. But don't, don't go just to the. Period. Instead of. At the very end instead of the extra space. After ending. Yeah, like that. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. All right. And that should remove the footnotes. Yes. So that's it. All right. So we have before us a, a small change to rule procedure, 5.2 public hearings. And so I'm willing to make a motion. To how does the motion, how do we want to word the motion that. We recommend to the town council that they adopt this change to 5.2 rules of procedure, 5.2 public hearings. As presented. By GOL on this date. Is that language sufficient? We'll basically recommend. We're recommending to the council that they adopt this. This change to the rules of procedure. And it's been made and seconded by Mandy. Any further discussion? Sorry about that. I need to get my phone off. Any further discussion? I've seen none. I'm going to put my phone on airplane mode and I'm going to go to a vote. And we start this time with a chair and the chair goes, I. Mandy. Hi. Pat. Hi. I see. I think I'm going to abstain because I just feel like it's so unnecessary. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the vote is foreign favor and none against and one extension. All right. I'm going to put that. Into the hopper. All right. We have review and adopt work plan for council referral bylaws or future consideration. I'm going to put a document up on the screen. And we're going to look at it for a few minutes. I don't think we're going to spend a lot of time on it, but I'd like to get your input and suggestions about it. And we do. And so let me do that. Let me just open that first. And again, let me share the screen. Here we go. This may look familiar to some of you. We haven't looked at it in quite a while, but here it is. And I believe it's Mandy who went through here and made these further annotations based on the last time. We actually talked about this in any substance, which believe it or not seems to have been in March. That's a terrifying thought, but that's. And so. I'm wondering if at this stage of the game, I'm simply going to have to create a report that simply acknowledges that we're at a certain point. And that's as far as we can get. For instance, start with the very first one. We, you know, I've simply not gotten anywhere. With the human resources director. We just had them replaced. So. Mandy. Yeah, I was going to say in some sense, I agree. We took some action on some bylaws we haven't on others. We're coming up to the end of a term. I think maybe we address each bylaw with some sort of vote in this committee on a recommendation as to whether to. The council should. Continue to have the referral. Have these bylaws referred right now, they would continue on to the next committee and council, unless the council votes not to continue the referral. And so I think it would be helpful to the next council. If we decide or recommend to the, to this council, whether say 2.4. I think we should continue to sit in GOL until something's done or whether we just say it's just not important enough right now. You know, given that it doesn't appear. The staff has put an importance on it type things. And so maybe we just go through and vote each one of these. Whether we want it to continue on to a new council or not. If we haven't done anything, there are some that we've gotten answers for and then we can make a recommendation. Exactly. Right. And, but the ones like this one, for instance, I mean, one option also is for me to arrange to meet with Paul between in the next two weeks or so, or at some time in the near future and go through items, particular items like this and get a sense from him, whether he thinks it's realistic, given the current state of staff to deal with it. Get one more because I just have not had any feedback from him for a long time from any of these. And so I could arrange to go in and see him and take him through very specific items like this one, not the ones where we can make recommendations, but ones where we're stuck and get a direct answer from him as to whether he thinks they can be pursued in the next month or two at the most. And if he thinks not, then we'll come back and decide what we want to do with them. The other option is for some of these to actually recommend the committee. I'm not referring it to GOL. Refer it to the manager or a specific committee. I know there's a bunch of like concom concom and ag com stuff on there. Like maybe if we actually as a council. Specifically referred that. To them to look at. Instead of trying to go through back channels. That's a good idea. Right. So that could be part of. I pity you for the memo, you'll have to write George, you know, you have to have a vote on each one of these specifically. To refer to a committee to Paul or just sort of give up. Or do something, keep it in GOL. We'd have action on them all. And then we'd know what we're doing. So we have some time today, if we wish to do, go through these, at least start going through them. And for instance, the very first one would be something. And we'd have to go through them all. And then we'd have to go through them all together. And find out whether this is going to be. There's any possibility of it being actionable. In the next month or so. The next one. Maybe simply that we could vote that this is, you know, we've done everything we need to do. There's no problem with bylaw 3.6 legally. And I'm not sure what this means. And he, I assume, Ryan. Has questions about the language because of its vagueness. I'm not sure I had it. I know, I know exactly. I'm not sure who the he is. Cause I don't remember having any problems with it. This one might be one where it simply goes in the report. That this has been vetted and it's fine. We have no changes that courage to trust. All that those questions were addressed. And so this, this one can just be was taken care of. So can I make a motion on that one? Okay. So we're going to go ahead, Mandy, please. I move to recommend the council take no action on. Bylaw 3.6. General bylaw 3.6. Okay. Hang on for a moment. To recommend the town council take no action. I think that's how we worded some of the other ones later on. We'll get to. To recommend the council take no action. Okay. Okay. All right. Motion to recommend. General bylaw 3.6. I'm just going to use them to be sure. Yeah. 3.6. This does not mean we're going to vote year and yeah, I just want to get it down. That's all I'm doing. I just want it written. I can take it out if we need to, but I just have the writing. So on this date, a motion that may to recommend the council take no action on general bylaw 3.6. That's fine. The way it is. Any further thoughts? All right. Most been made. Is there a second? Do we know enough? I mean, I don't know enough about this to vote on it. Well, I think yeah, we have the problem also that some of this has been, been worked on a long time ago and now we've had a hiatus and we've also had a change in committee membership. I think you're going to have to trust us here. Trust the previous members of the committee. And trust the work that was done. It's been described here in the, in the red, various conversations that were had various emails back and forth with Nate Malloy, which on Hornick. And the only other option is for you to examine this bylaw on your own and come up with some concerns you have. But I don't think any of us want to continue with this. Unless someone has a specific concern or issue. And so we were brought this by the bylaw review committee. They presented us with a series of things we needed to do. We have done them. And in some cases, in this case, we have done them. And I think there's a sense that, that, that we're finished with it. Yeah. Yeah. Did we reinstate the original language of the bylaw? After a comparison with the old bylaw. No, we did not. I think the understanding was that, that was not necessary, that there was no problem with the language. I guess I would just, if we voted on it now, I'd have to abstain because I just don't know enough about it. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I think it's a fair question. I agree with you. It's just been a long time now. And we do have the minutes from March 17th. It says he has questions about the language because of its vagueness. And I just have no recollection of who he is. Whether that was John Hornick, whether that was me, whether that was Nate Malloy. Given the red above, it's probably you and John. Have questions. What to do. Some of those bullet points even mean or what, why were they referred and all. So it's just. My conversation with John was that, that he really had no desire to go there. Didn't have any issues with it. And I wasn't going to get anywhere with John because he's mind is on other things. Nate was simply looking at it from a legal perspective and said, everything was fine. The original comment is, as Darcy pointed out, came from the bylaw review committee itself. And this is all we got. Which is they suggested reinstating the original language of the bylaw. And say, and they suggested you need to do comparison with the old bylaw. And that's all we got. And I have no recollection now. Right. What was going on when I was on bylaw review. I wish I did, but it's too long ago for me. And so the other thing is that all of these were. Functioning bylaws. And this one in particular. I don't think there's a problem with it, but. That's not a good reason, but. Yeah. You know, it's not like it. There's some legal hole in it or I don't think, but again, it's an opinion. Right. And you can see from the very top. It says this could quickly be accomplished. Through an order to the town manager. So another option is to. Well, yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry, George. I apologize for interrupting, but I'm just looking at the committee recommends a couple of comments. If it hasn't been done, that could be checked and quickly done. And that should be part of the recommendation. That's really clear. So in the report, we would recommend that. And in the report. I'm sorry, George. I apologize for interrupting, but I'm just looking at the committee recommends a future review of this bylaw. In once identified the trust document should be linked to the bylaw. That seems like something that we can remit. That can be done if it hasn't been done. But in the report. We could suggest. I think. Right. We could, in other words, our way of getting this off our plate is simply to. Recommend the council take note. Well, actually we're not at this point, we wouldn't be recommending because in the report, we'd be suggesting that. Except it's not the council we're telling to do this. Who are we actually instructing to. It's really the town manager. We're saying to the town manager. That these are his bodies or he's in charge of them. That this is what should be done. So we could recommend the council take no action, but in the report, it would include some of this language that came from the original bylaw review committed. The other option is for the chair who has volunteered to take this on to go once again into the, into the breach. And track down John Hornick. And in the midst of all the other things that he and I are doing, try to figure out how we're going to do this. And I think all in all honesty, that's just not going to happen. I don't think it is critical. I really don't. So this could, we could move on the motion that Mandy has presented. People can vote as they feel, but if it does pass, then in the report. This language could be for each. I would, and it would be for the town manager. I think it's a good idea to take under consideration. And I certainly can follow up on that as a chair at some point. So that's, yeah. So we have a motion before us. Has it been seconded? Is anyone. I don't think it's been seconded. Okay. We have a motion. It's been seconded. And then, and so for the discussion. My thought is that if this were to pass. That the language that is here would go into some of the language. We're going to the report and it would be addressed to the town manager to take these steps. Okay. Take the steps on the left in the left hand column. Yeah, I think. Right. I mean, that's not all of it because it has been determined that it's been legally established and everything. No, it would be the idea of linking this would be a step that we would certainly recommend the town manager take that we would not take, but he would take. But again, Darcy raises a good question. This came to us. To look at the original language of the bylaw and compare it with the old bylaw. And I know I haven't done that. And I asked John Hornick to help me with it and he didn't do it. So that's not something I'm sure we can ask the town manager to do. Yeah. Well, that's, that's an interesting thing for the bylaw review committee to be recommending, right? Like why would the bylaw review committee. Suggest. Reinstating the original language if they. We're recommending something different. I just don't understand that. There's some other body that was recommending that, you know, or someone in the council or, you know, somewhere along the line, like I don't, I don't get that. And then look at the bullet point just above it. Yeah, other recommendation. I had no, I had no idea what to do with that. So I have a feeling that we're just going to let that go. And because we just don't have a bandwidth for it. And if somebody on the housing trust has a concern or somebody from, you know, the, another counselor has a concern, but this is all we got. I did my due diligence. And I guess what I'm telling you is that at this point. All we can do is recommend the linkage. And in a report. And then say that the committee recommends the council take no action. That's what I think we're at at this point. It may not be satisfactory, but that's, I think at this point, given. All that is transpired. That's the best we can do. Is there some way that we can also refer it to the affordable housing trust to. You know, just. For their, for their information, just in case they want to act on it in some way. I think that one option Darcy is for me. Before one option would be for me, I can do this. I can reach out to John. John Hornick one more time. He does get back to me. We can have a conversation. I can tell him we are finally moving on this. And it does he wish. I don't know. Does he think that the housing trust would like to be involved in this, or does he just want it to go away? And I then could report back to you at our next meeting. And depending on his answer. We could then have the motion and voted on. So that's what I could do. I could simply say that. At this point we have a motion. It's still on the floor, but it's still on the floor. John Hornick. One. Last time. And I'm going to put brackets around this. Because I think at the moment we can't really vote on it. But I can hold it here. Just to remind us that we were at the point of doing that. But reasonable questions been raised about this column. I can bring them to John one last time and see. Do we have a language to the fact that we'd like the housing trust to look at the language? Do we have the, do we have the. Proposed. By-law that came from the by-law review committee that is like a. A non clean copy that shows all the comments on all the different by-laws just. I can try and find it. I can't have a whole file, full of stuff that it might be buried in there somewhere. I think at this point the thought Darcy is that it's really up to. The housing trust. To decide if they have concerns about the language of this document and the old language. And if they do. Do they want to look at it? And we would be simply recommending to them that they do so. Making that recommendation if they're not going to do it. Mandy. Yeah, I was just going to say, um, we could change the motion from recommend the council take no action to recommend the council refer to the housing trust. For possible action or for further. For follow up. And again, with that motion as well, what I would suggest before we vote on it today, it's just a suggestion is that I reach out to John and talk to him a little bit about this and see. Um, what his thoughts are, because it seemed pointless to recommend something to a body. If they're really not at all interested in doing it. And don't have a concern about it. My impression talking to John, which has now been many months, was that he really had as long as the legal thing was settled. He had no concerns. But I need to confirm that. And so I'm going to suggest is I confirm that report back to you one last time. I'm going to leave it in brackets just to, uh, for my sake, just for notes, but yes, I think the motion, it sounds like the motion, uh, is we're going to withdraw the motion. And you accept. Is that acceptable to you? Yes. Okay. Um, so we're going to withdraw the motion for the moment. And I will reach out to Hornick. On this one. I'm going to leave it in brackets just to, uh, for my sake, just for notes. But yes, I think the motion. It sounds like the motion, uh, is we're going to withdraw the motion on this one. Um, the next item. Uh, so, yeah, this is another example where I think I just have to go to town to Paul and say, you know, um, given bandwidth and given realities as just something you think realistically can be managed, um, in the next month or two. And, um, if not, then I think we would simply recommend that to the council that they take no action. But I have to reach out to Paul. No, it's a reference here to Darcy. I don't know if Darcy has any thoughts on that, but, um, Oh. All right. So this is, um, okay. Um, I think we have a motion. So this has been taken, right? So that can go. That's been done. All right. So that goes in the report. Um, Next one, littering and illegal dumping. Mandy said bylaw 3.16 is still not ready for any decision. She said there was a question of places that should be added to the illegal dumping and littering violation under this bylaw. This, this is one that Dave Zomek said, um, that needed to go to concom and ag com to see whether they wanted to add stuff in. There's a whole memo on it. Um, so I would recommend at this point that we formally refer the bylaw to concom and ag com, ag com. It makes concom at least. We're recommending that the council refer. Yes. Yeah. Motion to recommend. The council refer 3.16 to conservation commission. And agricultural commission for review. And it also go, oh, I guess I'm just thinking. DPW is the entity that has to actually pick it up, right? We could add the town manager into, because we can, we can only say to him for staff departments. So this is basically a motion to recommend the council refer 3.16 to, to the TM. Um, in the hope that or with the suggestion that or in the hope, something to that language. So recommend to refer to the town manager. Um, To what? To, I think it's just the town manager concom and ag com for further review on, um, places that should be added. Okay. Motion's been made. There's second. Second sorts. Thank you, Sarah. So on this date, um, emotion has been made in seconded to refer to recommend to the council referral. Um, I'm going to go immediately to a vote. Um, Sarah. I. And Darcy. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy. Hi. And the chairs and I, so the vote is five zero. Um, on five, nine, eight to refer. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Nuisance. Um, so as you can see, the purple text is the most recent. He said that she asked that by law 3.26 be referred to the town attorney, town attorney responded. Um, Next step, we'll be bringing this to TS. Oh, oh my God. Darcy, we got to do something about this. Let's put a stop to this. She said the next step should be bringing this to TS. But they could also deal with it as a committee. I'm sorry. Who's they. Uh, they was GOL. Oh, okay. All right. Well, Daniela said she would like to add this to the next agenda. And that was in March. Oh Lord, help us. Um, All right. Thoughts on this one. So this one, the memo, which is not in this packet, actually has potential language from the town attorney to add. And the question is who should do that? GOL or TSO. Okay. And this has to do with a nuisance house. It seems like a nice GOL. I'm sorry. TSO task. Why don't we give it to TSO. Yeah, but then if it goes to TSO, do we have to have it back in GOL? Yeah. Just to make sure the language is clear, consistent, actual. Then why don't we just do it ourselves? We might, we might like their thoughts. We might like their thoughts in terms of, you know, town serve. Maybe not. I mean, this is basically about. So basically what happened. I'm sorry. It's all definition on what the definitions of things are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think we'll be at it at a next meeting, ideally, or soon where we look at the memo and we look at the language and we make a decision on it. And then that becomes part of the report because we'd be, we'd be recommending to the council that they adopt. That they adopt this change to the, to the bylaw. And maybe it makes sense to keep it with us. So what we need then is, and many can help me with this is just the, I need a copy of the memo. From the lawyer. And so this, this would be. This should be taken up. GOL ASAP. Memo. And bylaw. And packet something to that effect. Is that fair enough? So we're not going to, we're not going to vote on this. This is something we're going to choose to deal with. And I need to get this stuff together and put it in a meeting packet. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. This is a bylaw 3.31, which deals with wetlands protection. This I think probably is again with Zomek. Not heard that no response. So this, we might simply vote to make a motion to refer this to town manager. And to the con to concom. Yep. So. Motion to. Refer. Excuse me. Motion to recommend. That the town council. Refer. To. TM. And to. Concom. Second. Further discussion. It does seem like at this point. This has to. Be dealt with by them. And they have to decide what they want to do. Okay. I'm going to go to a vote unless there's further discussion. Start with the chair. The chair is an eye. Pat. Darcy. Yes. Sarah. Hi. Mandy. Hi. Okay. Nanimous to refer to town council. Okay. I think this is probably going to be the same. Okay. Okay. Andy will talk to Zell Mac, put more pressure on Zell Mac sent to emails. And then I'm sorry, then there's no, apparently no many meeting minute notes. Notes. Anyway, there's nothing here. So, um, Sarah, do you have anything. About this bylaw. That's important to the right to farm one is what we're on now. Yes. Yeah. Right to farmers. Right to farmers. Actually. It's very, very important to us. Um, it started to go through when I was on ad com. And then when my husband was vice chair is when they finished it. And, um, Jamie Wagner was actually also. Uh, really pivotal in this. So this is incredibly important. And it's something that the ad com worked on. Um, I would say. I guess I would almost wonder about asking some of the, the ad com members who originally were on it, maybe for some input. Um, As well. Wouldn't have to be long. Um, But I, my, my part of my feeling is that. Adcom is the one that, that dealt with it. It's really, really important. Um, A lot of their rights and I don't know if I necessarily want it just. I, as a farmer, We want it just to go back to concom and that's it. So would you be interested in referring recommended time council that this be referred to both concom and ad com. Yeah. And I don't know if it's appropriate to just, if there's any way to reach out to members that were. On the ad com while this was formed because it was a pretty big deal. And they went through a lot to do it. I mean, At least two people I could think of would be my husband and Jamie Wagner. But I mean, there would be minutes on. You know, who was there and who else was. Jamie might have even been chair at the time. And the thought I'm reaching out to them is that they would attend some of these meetings. I'm wondering about it because I, I know that we're saying that we want to make sure that we, you know, keep this really powerful. I would also want the people who originally drafted it to make sure that it stays powerful. And you know, there might be things in there that to someone else, it might not seem important that they're in there. The people who originally drafted it would know exactly why certain things were in there. I just wanted to keep it powerful. And I just don't know. I just think it would be good input. So that kind of language could be included in the report. And you could help me with a couple of sentences just to make sure that it says exactly what we wanted to say. But we, as a committee, at this point, I don't think we have any further role other than to, you know, a one of exhortation. And, and so forth. So what I'm thinking, Mandy, go ahead. I think we could include in a motion to recommend that the town council refer this to ag com. And also that ag com and further recommend that ag com speak with the original drafters of the motion of the bylaw. The original, I'm sorry, the language original. Proposers. I don't know what the right word is, but. Let's try proponents. And the bylaw. I think we could include in a motion to recommend that the town council refer this to ag com. And also that ag com and further recommend that ag com speak with the original proponents of the bylaw. And when I write the final report, I would consult. Sarah. This is not in the motion, by the way. I'm going to put this somewhere else. Just a note to myself. I like it though, George. I think they should all. So motion is, it stands at the moment is to recommend that town council refer to ag com. And further recommend that I come speak with the original proponents of the bylaw. And when I write the final report, I would consult. Sarah. I think they should all with me. We could put you on here too. Do we want to include any other body? Is it ag com sufficient? This originally, this didn't involve, this is just ag com. Right. That's it. Right. Yeah. And do we want to do always include the town manager, refer to the town manager and ag com. Or not. I have no idea. I mean, I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know. As long as it gets to ag com. Yeah. That's what matters. I think that's it. So refer to ag com and further recommend that I come speak with the original proponents of the bylaw. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second sports. There are seconds. Any further discussion. Seeing none. I'm going to go to a vote. Start with Sarah. I. Andy. Hi. Darcy. Yes. Pat. Hi. Good morning. Chair is an eye again. The road is unanimous five zero. And then I will make a note to note to self. Sarah. All right. Can I interrupt for one second? So George, did you make that motion or Mandy? Did you make it? I made the motion. At least that's my recollection because I'm just making motions as I typed them. Okay. Thank you. Bye, Sarah. Okay. Great. Thank you. And. Okay. Next one. Ryan said bylaw 3.49 was also Steinberg's assignment. Okay. He said that this should probably be on the agenda for next time. With the actual language of the bylaw. Oh my God. Okay. I think this is one we need to check with people. We need to check with people to see what might need done. Or what the board of licensed commissioners has done. And right. So I've had very brief, very, very brief conversations, a conversation with. So this is the, is this the rental registration bylaw or part of it? Or is this a separate, this is residential residential rental property. Is this the registration bylaws as a separate bylaw? This is a separate bylaw. I just don't know. I should know what I don't. So I guess. All right. Where does this go to? I think this one's a discuss at a later meeting. So we have to come back and, and so what do you want me? I mean, I've already committed to a couple of things. What should I do to prepare us for this? We're going to need, I mean, Andy was supposed to reach out to more. I don't know that that happened. I could talk to Andy, but I'm sure he's probably doesn't remember any of this either. I'm talking to him later today. I could ask him about this. And see if he has any recollection. But if we bring this back to GOL. What do you want from me? You want the bylaw itself. So basically review and clarify language that was done. I'm not sure. I guess it was done. Create a reference to section L, non-monetary penalties. So. And a plea to Mandy. And then. I could look at this. Well, over the next couple of weeks and talk to Rob or reach out to him regarding. Just this in general. And then come back with some additional information. Maybe I'm just not sure we have enough information right now to even know. What to do. But what you're suggesting is that this is something we still have work to do on. And it has to come back to us. And. And the question then is who's going to prepare this for us. And right now you're offering. To do at least some of that. And you can also be communication with me. And if you need help or if I can help, I will help. So at the moment. So. Mandy. Well. Research. And I'm not sure what to do with that. But what you're suggesting is that this is something we still have work to do on. So. So. So. So. Research. And I'm using that word loosely, Mandy. I'm not asking you to do, but just research. And. And speak with more. Thank you, Mandy. And she will also reach out to me and I will help in any way I can. But so that's something coming back to us. Okay. Oh, could I just ask a question quickly? Please. Responsible person. Meaning. Is that the definition we're looking at here? I would think yes. And so your question is. Or just, just that clarification. I'm just clarifying for myself. What this, what we're talking about here. I think that that's something that Mandy will help us with when we actually look at this for real and deal with it as a committee. I think that's what we're going to have to do. I don't think we're going to answer it right now. I think. Because the text says that the committee also recommends consideration of the definition of responsible person. And then in the other column, it says that it's been done. So I don't even. Right. I don't know how to square those. So hopefully Mandy gets some clarity on that. And we will discuss it as a committee. Zero energy. So. Ryan said by law 3.5 sent to Darcy for thoughts. Darcy said she had already consulted this by law with the shardic consulted on this with the zero energy test force. They didn't have a problem. She wanted to double check that they weren't other recommendations. And Ryan said he will find a red line document. Send it to do mine. Which he probably never did. But I just. Yeah. Darcy, your thoughts. Well, with regard to the, just those. Couple of. Changes. In the bylaw. They were the, they were not a problem for the zero energy task force. Okay. Okay. And I did double check with them. And again, they said there were no problems. In terms of the issue of just clarity of language terminology. That was not. They had no problem with that. Yeah. They, they agreed with the changes that were suggest. So the committee recommends that town council consider that to define term building and building addition is confusing. Because the term is building and building addition are both defined earlier. And then modified by this later. And I did double check with them. And again, they said there were no problem with them. In terms of the issue of just clarity of language. And again, that was modified by this later definition. So there does seem to be some confusion in the actual language. What you're saying Darcy is that. I mean, I think the bylaw review committee fixed the confusion. Didn't they. I think they did. Yes. Yeah. They, there was. So why is this. Yeah. All right. I think that it just didn't make it through the town council process. There were a few things that didn't make it through. So what we would be recommending. It sounds like is that the council approve. These changes. Yeah. Then the question is having a document which shows what the changes are. We need to know what they are. Right. And that is back to the, the statement at the end here that the chair was going to send a red line document. A bylaw 3.5. So. I'm going to highlight that. I'm going to highlight that. And Darcy, if you, if you have the ability to check and see whether you ever got it, you probably didn't, but if you did, that would be good to know. I will see what I can track down. But it sounds like in the report, we would be the motion would be that the council accept. The changes. This is where I'm confused. Changes made by. We, apparently we didn't vote on this when we voted. The approval of the, of the new bylaws. Right. So what changes are we going to be voting on? And who made them. That's why I'm confused. We better find out. All right. So. This is highlighted. I need to find the document. I need to find the document. I need to find the document. I need to find the document. I need to find the document. I need to find the document. I need to find the document. Darcy's understanding is that. The zero energy committee. Right. Looked at this. Or looked at something. And had no problems. But. Maybe they were. Maybe they weren't fixed by the bylaw review committee. I'm not sure. These things come to us. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what they've done or they left certain things. That needed to be attended to. So my understanding of what this says is that there are some things that needed to be attended to that they didn't get to attend to. So if there is, if there are changes to this bylaw. Other than, right. I don't even know who would have made them. Or did they make them and just get it, not get a chance to. Yeah. I don't know, but I know that I sent the. You know, red line version to the zero energy task force. If you could, if you could track that down, if you have the ability to check your end just, and if you find that. Send it to me. Because I'm going to have to find that document. And probably the first thing I do is email you and ask you if you have it. And then I'll start looking if you don't. Okay. So that's that. Alright. Personnel board. And also reach out to a manager for about three. He wants. And he will once again reach out to manage an HR director. Yeah, this sounds like something simply has to be, we recommend it referral to the town manager and to the personnel review board. At this point. And I could take, I'll take it up with Paul. I mean, I would, you know, at some point is simply willing to meet with me on this. We would just go through a couple of these and see. We can speak to him first before we do anything. That's that makes sense. Yeah, didn't we already in priority one. Say that. This is this back home. Are we just. Why is this double noted? Okay. So back up. There's different changes. I guess they don't ask me. All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think we're going to be in priority two. I think our copies of whatever we decided earlier. So this too, share to reach out to Paul. Right. So this is one of the, again, I will reach out to Paul. And we aren't going to take any action on this yet. Right. All right. So. Sorry. Don't make people dizzy. Okay. Let's see if this sounds like the same thing. 3.3. Yeah. Okay. So I'll just have a list and I will ask to meet with Paul and take him through it. And I don't know how soon that will happen, but. Then we have a number of items. These are things Lynn was going to do. I don't know if she's ever had a chance to do it. I wouldn't be surprised that she didn't. I don't know. How people feeling. We could stop here. We've made some headway. We've got some things I need to do as chair. Do you want to continue on? It's 1208. We don't have any minutes. So the only thing that remains on our agenda. Is to talk about, we have a Fincom. Resignation. We need to talk about. Briefly. And we need to talk about how we're going to proceed. And the, which is right now, largely this and zoning. So how are people feeling at this point? I would love to be able to end the meeting early. It would be helpful. I think we've made some good headway here. And more than I thought we would. So I'm willing to stop at this point. With Lynn's assignments and we'll come back to this at the next meeting. And I'm going to turn to the issue of the Fincom. Resignation. Which, you know, I've been thinking about that. Okay. On a couple of levels. One. Part of the reason I didn't vote for Ms. Schiffler was because of the new children and I thought it would impact, but we're not really allowed to ask those kinds of questions. So it was kind of sad when. I don't know if I remember the person's name. So maybe that's a silly thing to do. But. What was his name? I believe the thinking of. He was a, a works actually in the schools, but not in our community. I think that's where you're thinking of. Right. Yeah. And I think she's been a good member. I think that's where you're thinking of. Right. Yeah. And I'd have to go back and look at. This is a good question that just when you have. Resignations. That, you know, what then, what happened? We don't have any. Rules governing this. It's, it's pretty, and maybe that's okay. Maybe that's fine. But here's an example. It would seem that we would always have, no matter what happens. We would always have to post and we'd always have to. I mean, we just can't go to some. Right. That just can't. So we, the question, I guess I wanted to raise with all of you. I have a conversation later today with Andy as chair of finance, which, which it seems appropriate just to see where the committee's at. But. The question for you is whether we want to proceed to fill that position. And the larger question is who actually gets to make that decision? Is it made by the, by us? Cause we're the recommending committee. Is it made by the chair of finance? Is it made by the president of the council? Is it made by the council? That it should come. The chair of the finance committee. But the committee is required to have three resident members and four resident members are critical beings on that committee. So I, I definitely want the person replaced. And if we have to go, you know, and we probably do need to go through the full posting process. I see Sarah nodding and I, she's right. You know, It's a council because we go. Yeah. It's not a, it's not a chair's position. That's not appropriate. I don't think. Okay. All right. So the council. I think the position definitely needs to be filled. So I'm just looking for a moment. At the language that we have spent an enormous amount of time crafting here. This under vacancy. This is the only language that I know that exists that would even apply to this other than us just weighing it as we're doing it right now. So it defy and we haven't adopted this. So this is not any official language either, but assuming that we do adopt it or get something like this gets adopted. It tells us when a vacancy occurs. George. Well, when a vacancy or in penny basically occurs on a multiple member body appointed by the council, the chair of the council committee responsible for recommending appointments to council for that body who doesn't need after consulting with the committee. So that's the only way to do that. So that's the only way to do that. So that's the only way to get to the clerk of the town council for publication. A vacancy notice. So the language. Pretty much says that, you know, when this happens. No matter when it happens. After consulting with the committee. You post a vacancy notice. And off you go. But what if the committee says, I don't think it's appropriate to, to let the committee, I think Manny Joe has definitely has an idea on this because I see it. But I don't, I, I think that those are our rules. I don't, I don't think it's appropriate to let a chair or committee decide that. But no, Manny Joe has something to say. Yeah. So I think if there's a vacancy, the process starts to fill the vacancy and the consulting that we were drafting into whatever language was, I think was, to see if there were any changes to the notice that the committee may want not should the notice be posted. I think it was, Hey, here's what I intend to post. Should I, you know, do you want any changes to it? Or did I include everything, things like that? You know, I've never consulted a committee. I think it was, I think it was, Hey, here's what I intend to post. Should I, you know, do you want any changes to it? Or did I include everything? Things like that. You know, I've never considered it. There's a, I've been notified. There's formally a vacancy on the associate members of the CBA. And I've never considered it. Not. Something we wouldn't advertise for, you know, and that you'd choose not to advertise for. So I would, I would recommend putting the advertisement out. Let me just for the sake of argument, imagine it's like. Like a month. Right. From the time the position is going to, would have been ended anyway. You know, is there any flexibility here, any ability to, to use judgment? Or is it even if it's like in two weeks or three weeks? I know somebody for whatever reason has to resign. You know, and the term ends in three weeks. Well, then they would be replaced anyway, or the search would happen. So I don't see the problem. We wouldn't automatically just immediately post the notice. We would wait until, you know, we might wait a week or two or two weeks or three weeks, whatever. We would, you know, but in this case, for instance, it does seem that there's no question. A vacancy occurs. We consult with the committee. We have to make sure that the language is appropriate. And the language, by the way, in the current document that we're going to present to the council on, on Monday coming up is vague. It, you know, it's so we might have to make a change or we might just leave it vague, but right now all it says is after consulting with the committee. So it doesn't, you know, I think Mandy's right. That's probably what we intended. But it doesn't say that it just, it sounds like it could be read in a way that we go to the committee and say, do you want to fill this or not? You know what Mandy's saying is no, we go to the committee or really what we mean is the chair. And we say, you know, we're going to post this notice. Is there any change in the language that that's, you know, appropriate? Because otherwise it's going up, you know, in the next day or two. Sarah's got her hand up. Sarah, please. You're muted. Okay. I just think that the other discussions we've had about. A chair of a committee and, and how much. Influence they have and also a committee's influence. I just, I feel like it should just go out. I don't know that we want to give a committee. That. Kind of power. I just. And I know what you're saying about, well, what about just in common sense, but I feel like. We have rules for a reason, but that's just my, that's just what I think. What I'm hearing is clearly a sense from the committee that there's no question. I mean, I'm having a conversation with the chair of finance later today. For a number of things we're going to talk about, but one of them, the principal one is to consult with him on this vacancy. And you know, what I'm hearing from my colleagues is that I'm not consulting him to get his opinion on whether we should proceed or not. Because he doesn't have a say on that. What I'm consulting him about is whether there's any need to alter or change the language of the, of the vacancy notice. That's what I'm hearing. And. And that's the understanding at scenes of this committee. I mean, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I have the language up on the screen. What we have voted on. And are proposing to the council to govern exactly what we're doing right now. And the language strikes me as maybe a little vague. And I'm not sure we want it. We don't want to take her with it today. If we take her with it, it would have to be at the council meeting. And I'm not sure we want to do that. But I think you would all agree. I think I'm not going to give up on that. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I think we need to suggest that when a vacancy occurs, the recommended committee chair or the designate starts the process. And they consult with the committee. But it doesn't say. What they're consulting with the committee about. It doesn't say that, but it says shall submit. The bulletin board vacancy notice. So. All right. So that would seem. Read on it. Good. So it's vague, but the point is that it's not about yay or nay. Right. Good. Okay. Fair enough. I mean, the other thing that a chair can do is say what the needs of the committee are, and that might affect the language of the advertisement. Right. Right. No, exactly. I think this is also a good example of why we need this document. Because right now, there is no official language on this at all. Andy may very well think that he has veto power. And there's nothing that says he doesn't. Maybe Lynn thinks that she gets to decide. There's nothing that says that she doesn't until we adopt language like this. For the council as a whole. It's the Wild West. Correct. You just like Texas. Right. Yeah, who, but I mean, that's my understanding. Now I will make the case as strongly as I can, that this is our decision, and we're going to go ahead and do it. But at the moment, there's nothing official that backs that up. That's my understanding. So another reason why I think what we struggle with for many months is actually worthwhile. I would argue the thing that backs that up is the fact of our charge is to recommend to the council. Make recommendations to the council on appointments to finance committee. Right. Then members of the finance committee. Well, there's a vacancy. So without anyone telling us make a recommendation to fill it. Right. Per the charge. Right. But it seems it's perfectly possible under the current lack of clear guidance that this committee could say, you know, we just don't want to fill it right now. We're going to wait. Now we're not going to do that I understand but there's nothing that forbids us from saying, you know, we'll wait, we'll wait. I mean, you know, whereas this document seems to say, you need to do it. I think the document is important and the saying saying that we need to do it because there's too much manipulation that could happen if a committee can say, oh, well, I don't feel like filling this now, because the six people I want to have apply are all on vacation, or whatever, you know, making a, you know, I think it, you know, I think we can move forward with this sense. We looked at this and we said this was an important issue. We're making a recommendation on Monday and I think we need to act as if it's in place. If the chair of finance committee wants to say well not until there's a vote that's fine but I think we need to. Okay. Good. So that is it for what I mean I had featured then items was the question of do we meet again next week and that was partly related to the zoning bylaw issue and I think we resolve that we can wait till the 22nd. And the other had to do with these bylaws for future review. And thanks to all of you today. We've actually made some progress there. And so that's that you can spend a time on it on the 22nd, if you'd like. I'm sure I will. I'm sure we will be here. Do we have any, I just want to see if we have any public president I don't think we do. No, we don't. Okay, and so then I'm ready to declare this meeting adjourned and consistent and actionable. Thank you all for your hard work today and enjoy the rest of today. Thank you everyone. Bye bye. Bye Emily. Bye bye. Thank you. Bye.