 Caloka to order at 8.33 this morning and here we all are. We're going to make this a quick and efficient meeting this morning. One of the things that we talked about last week was minutes, I will admit I did not have time to read minutes, although they are in thanks to George, they are all in our folder. So I would take a vote on passing the minutes, except that I will tell you right now that I would not be able to be informed enough to do that. Does anyone feel informed enough right now to do that or should we make sure that we all are for our next meeting? I'd prefer to wait. Alright, then absolutely we will. But I do have a question about them if we have a second. Certainly, yeah. We list members present, we list members absent. We also have a category called others, which we have up to now been including members of the public. And I feel like members of the public should be allowed their privacy. If they want to speak in public comment, then their name is entered into the record. But if they're here just to observe or do whatever they wish to do, I don't see why we should be entering their names in the present category. I know we've done that in the past, but I think I just have a question for the committee whether just, is that appropriate really? So my understanding from my times on committees is that, yeah, you don't, unless they stand up and want to make a comment, you don't, they're here. Then that's, I agree with you. That's exactly how I understand it. Anyone else like to have, we, so I would agree that we do not have to do that. And if, is our present minute taking? Well, I think we shouldn't do it actually. That's what I'm saying. We shouldn't do that. I agree with you, George, 100%. I don't think it makes sense. So I can ask our current minutes taker to make sure that she does not do that and we'll make that our policy and we'll let her know. That raises another question that we should discuss. The current system is that we have someone usually taking minutes, unlike today. And then it goes to either Darcy or me. Darcy and I put it into a fairly crude format. I make one or two correct spelling errors, sometimes in certain numbers just to sort of make it a little clear instead of just a string, right? But I try not to play around. I don't play around with the content, but occasionally I have to correct a typo or I put some kind of header to try and organize it. But people should be aware of that. That's what I'm doing. If they don't want me to do that or if that's inappropriate, but I'm doing it simply to make it easier for anyone reading them, including ourselves. I also did this time, I strike the names of the public that we present, because I felt that it was inappropriate, so I want people to know that. Even though in the past we've done it, we haven't really talked about it. So in at least the minutes that I put into the folder where I was conscious of what I was doing, I would delete any name other than a counselor or some other official guest. And names of public were not listed unless they spoke in public comment. So are people okay with that because that's what I did? Yeah, we just kind of all went around and we just everybody nodded. We agree with you. I think we can vote on it. And we can vote on it, but we all agree that consensus that absolutely that makes sense and that will be our policy. Also, I apologize that there's only been a posting agenda with everything that's been going on. There hasn't been a nicely written out agenda, which makes fitting anything into minutes a lot easier. So I will make sure that when I'm posting agendas that I actually have one that if I realize that it's an extra step for you or Darcy to fit them in. I mean, I can make sure that I do. I make sure that you have an easy thing to fit everything into and or we can talk about whether or not you would like me to do it because I don't want to have extra work. No, I don't like the cherishing. Would having, you know, how I usually did like just a nicer, ooh, sorry, agenda for. It obviously helps. No, it certainly helps. Though sometimes, and again Darcy can speak to this as well. You know, when you're looking at it, you're making sort of an editorial judgment and one editorial judgment would be just not to touch it. You just, you know, literally just put a header, you know, headline, I mean, don't put anything except highlight things. I try to highlight motions so people can see what the motions are, but I don't play around with the text at all. But I prefer, I would prefer this just be done by one human being having two people involved is really, but that's the way it is. Well, not necessarily, I'm wondering, so Phyllis usually puts them, like she types. She just types them straight up, you know, just so I'm wondering if I have that posting agenda. If I could show her how to be able to use like a template and then be able to put it in, I could do that. I could work with her and she seems like a really quick study. So she could be taught how to do this. And the only reason we're doing it is because we're putting it into this format. She could easily do that herself and then it's just one person. We read it. If there's a problem, we raise it. And now basically you're dealing with two people. You're dealing with the no-taker and then you're dealing with a member of the committee, either Darcy or myself, who makes minor editing changes. And you have to trust us that we're not changing. I trust you guys, but I don't want to make extra work for you. So what I'll say is that I will make a concerted effort to make sure that we have an agenda that's set up. That's easy when you take minutes to fill things in where we hit them. And that I work with Phyllis. I think that it would be pretty easy for her once I show her how to do it for her to then do that. So I will make a point of doing that. And then she would just send them to us and that would be it. Yeah. So I can definitely do that. And I believe I'm responsible for this Monday's notes, which aren't done yet. And I will get done soon. And what's happening today? I see Phyllis is not here. No, she's not. She told us she wasn't going to be. She's going away. And she may not be here then. I think the meeting after this, I'm not sure. She was going away to just take a little vacation. Okay. So I will definitely make sure that I get on that. But either of you would like to take, you said Darcy, that you were feeling that it was your turn today? Monday. Monday. I don't know. Darcy, I'm going to ask you a favor and you're not going to like this, but both Evan and I have to make, it's not much. I agree, but we have to make a presentation. I assume this morning, don't we? Both of us have to say something. So it would be kindness if you would do it today. But if you don't want to, I'll do it. I'm happy to take care of Monday's minutes because essentially I was going to offer to do that from now on. But if we can get a system where it's just one person and it's done, then we don't need it or me. But if we do need this two person system, I was willing to say, let me just take that on because it is an editing task. But that's really also your call. You've been doing it as well. So you may prefer a different system. But if you'd consider doing it today, I'd appreciate it simply because Evan and I have things to do. Not that you don't have things to do as well. I actually have a big meeting tonight too, the first meeting of the energy. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. All right. Yes. All right. I can take minutes. And I'm pulling up our meeting packet, but it's, and I just like to say to everybody on this committee that I really appreciate all of you and I would like to acknowledge the fact that the last month has been very difficult. And very stressful and a lot of hard work. And I realize we're all really tired today. But I just want to say I really appreciate all of the hard work that this entire committee has done. Like we're an excellent committee. That's how I feel. And I'm more than happy to help everybody in any way that I can. Yep. I'm pulling it up. It seems like it doesn't my computer doesn't want to connect. Okay. I just asked good clarification on how we're going to do things today. So I was hoping that you and George would give your reports. We would do that and then we would vote on them. Let me clarify. So George and I each have a report with recommendations for our CV and PVC. We also, and I just added them to the packet because I assume we should consider them at the same time have appointments from the town manager for our CV and PVC. So that we could either say we're going to take our CV first and do my recommendations and Paul's recommendations together as part of our CV and then go to PVC or we could do town council appointments first. So me and George's recommendations and then go to town manager recommendations. Is there an order in which we should do this by committee or by appointing authority? That's a very good question. My OCD would say that we do yours and for each committee we'll do, we'll vote on the town managers for ranked choice voting on yours. I would, yep. Does anybody have an objection to that? So you want to do all of ranked choice voting at once and then do all the participatory budgeting? I have no problem with that. You're okay with that? Okay. All right. Then let's do that. For whatever reason, my computer is not, my SharePoint is not coming up. So I have read everything, but Evan, would you like to start? Do you feel that that's... So you have in your packet and it's also attached to the public meeting posting. So it's been available to the public since Friday. My recommendations to the ranked choice voting commission. So to give you a little bit of background of what happened, me and the town manager and the town clerk hosted interviews last Wednesday. We had nine interviews scheduled for Wednesday in person that we did back to back. And then we also had one phone interview that we conducted very early Friday morning. For that one, it was just the town manager and I, the town clerk was unable to be there. After the interviews, we all had a discussion to see how we felt about the candidates. And it was maybe surprising, although I think it was clear from the interviews that we each listed our top six candidates and we all had the same exact six candidates. And so that made it really easy. I should note one person did during their interview withdraw their application because of time commitments. They sat down and they said, I'm going to be honest, I don't know if I have time to do this, but let's talk. And by the end, that person had decided that they did not have time. And so at that point, the town manager and I had a very brief discussion as to who would appoint, who which ones would be town council appointments, which ones would be town manager appointments. And then I wrote my report. And so the three people I am putting forth are Tanya Lease. She is a mathematics professor at Amherst College. She was, had a really in-depth knowledge of the mathematics behind elections and behind ranked choice voting and literally what mathematical formulas work best for representation. Really interesting perspective. She had also aided Amherst College and their selection of their new mascot, the mammoths, which they had used ranked choice voting for. I'm also putting forth Jesse Crafts Finch. Jesse is a business owner and a software developer. He is, he was enthusiastic about this. He's also been affiliated with voter choice math, which is how he heard about this. So he's had an interest in ranked choice voting for a while. And I think having a software background would be really useful because there's going to have to be a lot of computation involved in ranked choice voting. And he also asked really good questions about voting machines, which was an aspect of this that I hadn't previously considered. And so I thought that was really useful. And then John Bryan, John was a, worked at, is retired. He used to work at UMass. He had a really great background in communication and writing and also working with large groups of people and personnel. He's also been one of Margaret's, our town clerk's election workers for a long time. So had a really good insights on sort of the election worker staff training that would be involved to successfully implement this. So together I felt that those three people had a, each had their own thing that they brought to the table. It wasn't, you know, three mathematicians. It was sort of a communications and staff. It was a really great thing. One thing I mentioned in our last meeting was that I, OKA had not provided either George and I with sort of evaluation criteria. And so at one point I was asked, how are we, what are we looking for in candidates? And I was caught a little bit flat footed because I hadn't put, I had, you know, circled this around in my mind, but I hadn't put pen to paper on this. But the main things I looked at were, one, I wanted a commission that had a diversity of skills and experiences. So we had actually a fair number of mathematicians apply and I thought that was great. But I also didn't want a committee that was majority mathematicians. So I felt sort of like, you know, having a software person and a math person and also a communication person was a really great balance. And you'll also see that reflected in the time manager's recommendations. I also wanted to see that they had inability to collaborate with other people. Obviously this is a committee that's going to have to produce their recommendations by September 1, 2020. If they meet twice a year, I mean twice a month, they're looking at only 25 meetings to get this, thinking of how many meetings we've had. 25 meetings is not that many meetings to propose an entire new system of voting for Amherst. And so the ability to work together would be really critical. And then I also looked for two things that I think were my personal opinions. One was candidates who demonstrated existing knowledge of ranked choice voting and that there's different types of ranked choice voting. So when they would bring up that ranked choice voting isn't simple and there's multiple ways to do it. To me that showed some base knowledge of ranked choice voting. Tanya used to live in Somerville and so was very familiar with Cambridge's proportional representation voting. Which I thought was a really good background. So if they showed that they knew what it was and that they knew that there wasn't just one way of doing it. And the last thing was I gave some preference to candidates who acknowledged challenges of ranked choice voting and critiques of it. I think there were some people who came in and said I would like to work on this. I don't know that this is the best system for voting. And we'd say why? And they would give very well-reasoned arguments for and against it. And that was really useful because if we had just a committee that was just gung-ho ranked choice voting is the best system of voting we could ever have, then we wouldn't have some of those critical discussions I think are needed to figure out how best to do it. So acknowledging the challenges and the critiques of ranked choice voting I thought was really important. So that's the criteria that I used and so I'm happy to field any questions on either my criteria, the process or the candidates that I'm putting forward. Evan, I think you did an amazing job as usual. Really amazing job as usual and I very much appreciate it. That helps. One question I did want to ask you is just a housekeeping question is since we sent you out without really talking about qualifications, the other thing is that usually we've made it like our protocol to send information about the board to people when they apply. And I realize these are two boards that we dare brand new so it's hard to say. But did you have anything? Because I just feel like things got so rushed that you probably didn't. No, we didn't. So one thing that you may find interesting and I almost just did this for fun is in the supplemental information you'll see a description of the process that we used for planning board and zoning board that was our adopted process. And you'll see strike-throughs to where things didn't occur for this committee and it's the majority of the document. Part of that is because I do think that we got caught all of a sudden having focused so much on planning board and ZBA that we went, oh we have to do these two and there's a time constraint on them. But you're right, the other thing was that we just didn't have a whole lot of information other than what was in the charter. But what I was really impressed about was that the majority of interviewees and certainly all that I selected, one it appeared had memorized the charter language around this or just read it right before they walked into the interview, but either way. But also had really thought critically about what the role of this committee would be and what they would be responsible for. And so to that extent I felt like at least for my pool of candidates we didn't even really need that. Yes George? Just a question about the experience of the interview itself. I'm wondering if your experience is like mine that we go in with a set of questions but there's a fair amount of, we have other people asking questions in our interviews unlike yours. So there's a fair amount of give and take. It's a little bit more informal. All the questions get asked at some point and answered. Though on occasion at least for me some of the questions were asked by another member of the interview team or they came out in the course of the conversation. So I didn't have the feeling that I was going down a list and there's a fair amount of, of course as you will learn there were four people present in my interview part of the interview team. But it was a collegial informal sort of process, not one which I feel you probably were under because you were alone and you were following a set of questions that pretty much you. So was that your feeling too or your experience or how did it go just as an interview with, you had at least three present at one point, right? Right, so I would agree. So I brought in, I approached the town manager and the town clerk with the OCA questions and I said my understanding from my committee is that I am limited to these questions. I personally cannot ask any question that is not on this list. But of course the town manager and town clerk were not subjected to that restriction. And so what we did was we had that list, we each had that list in front of us and we used those as sort of our base questions and we alternated who asked what question. The only difference was the town manager and the town clerk were allowed to ask questions not on the list and often did. So what that meant also was these were 15 minute interviews and so we had our OCA list was eight questions I believe. For some candidates we went through all eight questions. For others because the town manager or the town clerk felt compelled to ask a different question that sparked a different discussion. There were some candidates that didn't get asked every question on that list. Although I would say that those questions were often indirectly answered in answers to other things. So it was a very sort of collegial conversational. I tried to, I kept myself to the questions that OCA had adopted. But one question just to throw out there that the town manager asked of almost every candidate that was not on our list that was really great was, and I'm going to try my best to paraphrase from a week ago, was something along the lines of there are a lot of different ways to do rank choice voting, a lot of different models. What values would you prioritize in choosing a model? And that was actually a really great question because people, you get to hear what people, what was on the forefront of their minds. So some people said we want people who, I want to see people who are elected who represent the middle ground, right? And some people said I want to see greater representation. Other people said I want to see, you know, greater turnout. And so you got to see, and that wasn't a question that we had, but it was really useful. And so it was sort of a very casual environment. I'm sure it was much less structured than planning board and ZBA, strictly because it was the joint appointing authority. And there was a lot more flexibility for both the other people present. So I guess, I don't know that we'll ever have to appoint committees or boards again that are brand new. I know that when we tried to, OCA tried to come up with its questions for interviews, that one of the people that we did speak to to get some input about what would be some great ideas was the town manager. So what I'm wondering is, is it now is our pace hopefully pretty soon? We'll start to slow down a little bit. We should make note of the fact that we'll need to take the time to come up with some kind of an informational packet. Because I want to make sure that we do that across the board. And also then make it one of our, in our decision tree. That if it's for something brand new or very different, we could ask different people before we, you know, as we're writing our questions, we could ask input from other people, you know, that might be more specific to a certain board. If we think that through and that that makes sense to all of us and then vote on those questions. I know if Alyssa were here, she would, I have a feeling she would say something around the fact that we have questions and there are questions. But we can talk about that the next time we decide to do something like that. But I definitely if, and I know Darcy's doing minutes, those are things I want to look back at and make sure that we added in or at least discussed. And just a question to you guys, how did you, did it feel, it seems like you had a good experience in doing your interviews that way? Did you feel at all like maybe there was more information solicited that you felt like we had said we didn't really want? Would you, is there any part of you that felt like you might want to do this similar to the way that I did and do yours sort of like, I mean, it's not by yourself, but being the only one who can ask questions, you know, they would be, it would be more time consuming, but we won't have so many committees to be doing it once. Is there any feeling about that, either of you, either of you? I always feel in any circumstance that it's good to have at least another set of eyes and ears. And so in my case, there were three other sets of eyes and ears and it's still, I thought worked well. At some point that could probably get unwieldy, but I thought it didn't in my case. Then I certainly benefited from, it sounds like Evan did as well, from the questions and give and take of the other members doing the interviews. So I would always prefer an interview situation, which has at least two people involved and maybe even three. And also asking questions? Yes, yes, absolutely. No, it's a more natural and people, as Evan pointed out, questions will be asked that you just never would have thought of. And that's why it's nice to have at least one or maybe even two other individuals present. That's really good knowledge to have. Yeah, I would agree with George. I think it was a nice, it was nice to have sort of their input, but also their questions, their responses. It also made it easier and honestly just from a logistics perspective. I mean we did nine 15 minute interviews, there was no time between them. And so we each took turns of who started the interview and whoever started the interview introduced the committee, introduced why there were different people in the room, sort of explained the joint appointing authority, introduced the process. And it was sort of just nice that I didn't have to start every single interview, right? It could be handed off to someone so you could catch a breath. And it was nice to distribute the questions a little bit. And different, because there were different personalities in the room, different people interacted. And so there were some people that I feel like I'm having trouble connecting with. But then the town clerk could jump in and ask. And so I think it was really useful. Having gone through that, it made me appreciate so much more what you had to do. Because you had the same workload except it was, we know you had a double the workload and it was all on you. And this committee owes you a drink or something. We'll all go out later. Well, and just to share, so for me, I think it was two days and it was back to back. It was 15 minutes. And I think what do we have like 23? It's all blur now. So there were quite a few. And I will say that I actually, when I had the questions, I spent a good two days grilling my children and my husband and making them pretend that they were different people. And having a chance to, you know, but seriously, like I think you might have found when you were asking questions that you, they have to be natural. They have to have a flow to them. And I also started timing myself. So there was that feeling of making sure that you made someone feel comfortable and that you, you had sort of an internal feeling of timing, you know, without like actually putting your, you know, stopwatch there. And, but I found it really interesting and exhilarating to meet so many people. And I really enjoyed it saying that also I've run my own business for a long time. So I have done interviews like that for, for people who apply on the farm. So I think that I think that definitely helped me feel more comfortable in that role. But it's good to hear about how everybody did and how they felt about it. Darcy. Yeah. I know that these, some of these committees are different from others, especially in that rank choice voting has some chosen by the town manager and some by the town council. So I, you know, like the relationship that we have to our co-interviewers is different really depending on the committee. And Evan had said that, you know, you kind of took a straw vote at the end of your discussion. And I'm wondering, I think it's really good to have the discussion, but I don't think that the straw vote part of it is necessarily a good idea for all the different committees. Because then it puts us in a position as the deciders of not necessarily, you know, going along with the decision of the other people. Like I don't think you probably didn't do that. Did you, Sarah? Or did you? So I was encouraged by our president to, to be open. This is my first time out, right? To be open to some input or at least be able to feel like I could ask questions of those people if I felt like I needed to. So I did leave some space for that, but I didn't, I specifically did not solicit anything other than questions that I would have about process mostly. I did get some, some input a little bit about, you know, their takeaway. But I think you're a hundred percent right, Darcy, that this is a town council appointment. So while I appreciate staff tremendously and they're a great help, especially as we're starting out, that when it comes to appointments, and this is going to sound a little weird maybe, but in order to keep it pure, to make sure that really is a town council appointment, that you really have to be making a lot of the decisions as a town counselor. And one of the things I tried very hard to do was to listen to everything I heard from other counselors and to make sure that I brought all of you with me into that interview. And we saw the vote, we had a very long discussion in town council. So it's evident that I didn't, a hundred percent, you know, I couldn't really bring you all in with me. So, but I would say, yes, trying to keep it so that you respect everybody who's in there with you. But you're also really making sure that you are there as town council, as a town counselor. Does that make sense, Evan? Yeah, of course. I'm not quite sure that I, so going into the interview, the town manager and I had had a discussion of the process that we would use. And we said we would meet briefly after the interviews to discuss and see if we could figure out who we wanted to appoint. And the conversation was, we would, at the end of the interview, we would say, here are the people that we like. And if it just so happened that we named the exact same six people, and the town clerk did too, and that was really useful. But we had had the discussion beforehand of what if we don't name the same six people, and the conversation was, well, then it would be clear. If I was to name, you know, Jane Doe, and he did not, then Jane Doe would be my appointment automatically. So the conversation that took place had to be, since we agree on the six people, who gets who, right? But the conversation was, if we don't agree on the six people, then the people who we don't agree with, that will determine who appoints. So I don't think the characterization of the straw vote necessarily ceded any authority to the town manager. It was just getting a sense of what the feelings were in the room. But there was always an understanding that if we didn't agree on those six, the people who we disagreed on would be our appointments. So I think that we had in the town manager and I had confirmed that beforehand as well. One other point I did want to, I meant to mention when I was giving my first report, that I do think is somewhat exciting about the three people that I put forth is these are three people who have never served on a town board or committee, who have never been involved in any town's political, in any political debate in town. All three of them when asked why, they said, well, I've never done anything in town before, and this seemed like a great opportunity. And they were also recruited in very different ways. So Tanya was actually recruited by Mandy Joe because Mandy Joe had gone and spoken to her class in the fall about when their class was doing something on ranked choice voting. They had a couple of people come in and talk and Mandy Joe was one of them. And then Mandy Joe said to her, hey, you should consider it once the council is formed. Jesse Krasfinch, voter choice MA, had reached out to him and said, hey, did you know Amherst was doing this? And he said, I had no idea. And they said, well, you should apply. And John Bryan saw it on the town's Facebook page. And so what I think was really interesting was these are, we keep having this conversation about new voices. These are three truly new voices who have never been involved in deliberations in town before in any scale and who learned about this through three very different means. And I think that's important for us to consider in our outreach and communications roles of all of the different ways that we can reach people. I agree with you 100%. George. I'd like to make a motion. Absolutely. I'd like to move that we accept Evans recommendations for the ranked choice voting commission and that we forward these three names to the town council for approval. I second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. That's unanimous. Sorry. I moved into, of course, now that I closed it out, I moved this morning Paul's recommendations into the folder. I did that at the meeting. So they should be there for people. My computer actually seems to, oh, it's back. Okay. Mine was not doing anything for a while. So nice to see it working. Okay. So the document is, it's a word document. It's TM underscore our CV commission. So this is an interesting position because these are the town managers appointments. He's not here to speak to them. Right. We could just talk about them. The other sort of awkward part is I was there for the interviews of these three people. So unlike any of the other town managers appointments, except for the ones that we'll consider next. Yeah. If you have questions, I could answer them. But if we feel like it would be inappropriate for me to defend the town managers appointments, then I would happily stay quiet as well. Well, I feel a little comforted too that in addition to the information that we've received that when you made your list, these other people were on your list. So that, yeah. Did you make that motion, Evan? Did you make that motion? I'm so sorry. Okay. This is my SharePoint right now. And it wasn't my SharePoint this morning when I woke up and checked my email. But for some reason, nothing's opening in my mail is not opening. So I'm, I don't know why that would happen. I've turned it off and turned it on a couple of times. At least I have my opening screen, but this is my mail. So while I am informed and I have read them, I am now flying blind as far as making a motion goes. So I've read the information. I'm aware of the information. I have a question. Thank you, George. Evan, do you have in your materials the answers that, and I wish I had asked this about the previous ones too, but I also really like Paul's question. And maybe we should think about having a question similar to that in our interview questions. But the values question, do you, can you give us their answers of the people that Paul recommended? I cannot off of the top of my head. I brought in each person's CV and I took very sloppy sort of notes all over the CV as they were interviewing. So it would be, it would be in my notes, but I wouldn't be able to remember. I remember generally what people said, but I don't remember who said what off the top of my head. And I would also say that not every person was asked that question because it really depended on how the conversation went. So some people, there was one person in particular that I can think of that the answer to the first question went on for about nine minutes. These were 15 minute interviews. And so we only got about two questions out because we also made sure we, the one thing we made sure the two things that every single person was asked was why did you apply? And then do you have any other questions or comments for us? And so not every person was asked the exact same questions. So I don't remember off the top of my head what their answer to the values question was. What was the general array of answers to that question? So I think that the two things that really, three things that came up commonly. One was better representation, right? Making sure that the electorate feels represented by the people who are voted for. A second one was, or second two actually had a lot to do with picking the model and the approach. And one was legitimacy. People have to feel like their elections are legitimate. And then the second one is transparency. And those two are tied together because with a normal election, right? You look and you go, okay. Evan had 100 votes and Brittany Spears had 1,000 votes. So clearly Brittany wins, right? But in ranked choice voting, a lot of it's done by a computer and there's tabulation and people don't see that. And there's a feeling that because it's not as intuitive that whatever model we choose and however we roll it out and however we implement it, needs to prioritize making sure people feel their elections are legitimate and making sure it's transparent to people how we got the result. Because if they see that Brittany got the most votes, but then Evan is the one who's elected, there's going to be a lot of questions. And those were the representation, legitimacy and transparency with the three most common things I saw across the board. So one thing I think that Darcy's question also brings up that I struggle the best is that we can't record the interviews that we have. I think that once you do interviews, I think there's some things that you, I just didn't feel comfortable sharing. So that's one of the things I guess we want to think about going forward if we're thinking about, you know, a completely public process. Would that make everyone feel more, this is just something to mull over. Would that, do you think that would make like more counselors feel more informed and more comfortable about the final appointments that we make? And I'm just, I'm just putting that out there for something for us to think about when we, we rethink this whole practice. Yep, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure everyone read the report, but I do just want to make sure everyone paid attention to what Paul transcribed from Carol, who was by Rob Robertson, which is that he has lived in Amherst for 20 years and done nothing but vote and pay taxes. And now he's ready to stand up. He was very passionate about, I've done nothing for my community and it's time. And I thought that was, again, a lot of new people. So I would like to make a motion. I would like to move that we accept the town managers recommendations and that we forward these recommendations to the town council for their approval. A second discussion. I think this is an impressive group of people. I think that Evan and his co conspirators have done a very good job in getting a diverse and very qualified pool. And I, for one, am excited to see what they will come up with. They seem to have the requisite skills and background experience and enthusiasm. I represent a fairly diverse group of citizens. It's something that I think many people are excited about. And I'm at least speaking personally impressed by this pool. I have one question. Is one of the first people appointed the man that brought it to us originally who was trying to get it going and know the person I'm talking about? I don't know the person you're talking about. I do know one of the people, but I don't actually know which one. I know it was one of the men. This is a 50-50 male female. But anyways, did say that they had first gotten interested in RCB by attending charter commission meetings and had been a part of sort of pushing the Charter Commission to include this in the charter? But I don't know if that's the person to whom you're referring. I forget his name, but he's the person who was pushing us to get it going soon due to the deadline. But it's men who give public comment. I don't think so. Yeah. Are we ready? I just didn't know if the discussion was done or if we wanted to look if we're looking up the name and wanted to have that before we took the vote. Do we feel ready to vote with or without that name? While we're waiting, I want to step out for a quick second. I personally just talked to each person at the inauguration, I remember. At the reception, he made a point of talking to each one of us. I guess I assumed that he was one of the big organizers. Was that our inauguration? Oh, one of the very first meetings. It was the December 10th meeting of the council. It was Andy Anderson. And Andy Anderson, I believe, had many people who interviewed had been in touch with that person. But I don't believe Andy Anderson lives in Amherst. It's all for that. Well, it's not so sometimes I get just this for a screen, isn't it? It is and there's nothing on my screen. And then if I it does let me sign into my computer, if I hit the what I need to for SharePoint, it just comes up as a big screen with an E. And then mail comes up with I'm an envelope. So I'll just see if that changes. I would say I'll be taking a trip down to I.T. after this meeting. Okay, we need a vote, right? The town internet. I'm on too. It's who you know. It's who you know, really. I apologize for the fact that I did not use my mic during any of that. I did not find the person you were looking for. Evan did, and it's not the same person. Rob Robertson, who is the person that isn't the person you're pointing. Robert Robertson is among the town manager's appointments. He is not the same person as Andy Anderson, right? But we can see where the confusion was there. Absolutely. Absolutely. Nothing gets by this committee. I seconded it. So I asked for discussion. We have had discussion. Do we feel that is there any more discussion? Hearing none. I will then call the question. All those in favor, I. I. And that is unanimous. Thank you again, Evan. George, you're up. Yep. Take your time. So you have in front of you, hopefully, or read the recommendations. I'm sorry. You have in front of you the recommendation, and hopefully you've had a chance to look at it. My experience is very different from Evan's. There are five slots that were to be filled, and we had four candidates. So we actually are short of candidate. So that had some, I think, impact on our deliberations. So there were many other people who expressed an interest, but they never went on to the interview stage. So the only people that came forward for interview were four individuals, and I'm recommending two of those four. One of them, actually, anyone have questions about, because participatory budgeting is a very new idea. And so I don't know if I need to try to explain it to you. No? Okay, fine. Because I wouldn't do a very good job. So I'm recommending Meg Gage, and I'm recommending Elizabeth Larson. Meg is someone who has been involved in this for quite a while, and she's very passionate about it, and she made that clear in the interview. She's quite knowledgeable about it. She actually has gone to Cambridge, spent a day in Cambridge where they do have participatory budgeting, and talked to people and watched it in action. She also impressed me with her desire to get young people involved. In Cambridge, you can be as young as 12 and vote in the participatory budgeting process. And they also have a lot more money than we do. So anyway, she is clearly knowledgeable, very enthusiastic. I did ask her directly. This was not on the sheet. I did ask her if it became clear to her that this was not appropriate for Amherst. Would she be able to vote that way? And she said she would. So that was a question that I was concerned about. And then Elizabeth Larson, again, brings a number of, I think, appropriate skills, familiarity with numbers and with budgeting process. She, too, expressed a very obvious passion for a more democratic town government and the idea of being more accessible to the broader public. She was brought into this process, I think, by the whole charter experience of the vote and got her engaged in Amherst politics and aware of it. But she, according to her, she has had no other prior experience with the town government. So these are the two that I want to bring forward. In the meeting, after we were done, we discussed the four candidates for the five positions. And we, I think there was agreement that all four were good candidates. And what we decided to do is just to split up. Paul took two and I took two. But I didn't face the challenge that Evan faced, though it worked out nicely. We didn't have to do a straw poll. We just had four candidates. Evan? So I think this is something for our committee to think about, although I actually don't think it applies to this one. One of the, if you go back to our process diagram, one of the options is that the committee can declare that the pool is insufficient and go back and recruit more and say, no, so there's a few things I'm going to say here. But, and these aren't questions for George, but I think they're important to talk about in the context of this. And so this committee always has the option of saying, the pool is insufficient. We're not going to move forward until we can enhance the pool. To me, having four applications for five slots would be an insufficient pool. I'm not suggesting we do that because this committee has a time constraint, right? We will run a foul of the charter if we don't. And so to some extent, I think that we have to accept an insufficient pool and move forward. I'm happy that it sounds like the few people who did apply were actually qualified. You're not putting people on who you don't feel are qualified just because they applied. But I think this committee at some point in the future needs to have a discussion of when do we decide that a pool is insufficient, right? When do we decide that we're not going to move forward? I think that's a discussion that has to happen before interviews because it doesn't make sense to send someone out to interview an insufficient pool. Of course, this is the second part of this. I don't know when George got the CAS for participatory budgeting. I know for ranked choice voting, I got them 48 hours before the interviews. The interviews had already been scheduled. And so I had no idea how many people I was interviewing until I got the interview schedule 48 hours before and the interviews had been scheduled. The problem with that is if we didn't have the time constraint and we decided that the pool was insufficient, we would have already had interviews scheduled by the time we knew we had an insufficient pool. So I think there's two conversations that this committee needs to have not today but in the future that this sparks, which is one, when does this committee deem a pool insufficient and decide not to move forward until we get more applicants? And two, I think we need to have a serious conversation with the town manager and town staff about when we get CAS because we need to get CAS before interviews are scheduled because if we are in charge of appointing in the future and we decide that we don't have enough applicants to move forward, we need to know that before staff has scheduled interviews. So I would say on that that I agree with you wholeheartedly and that has been conveyed to the town manager and his staff, I think where the confusion was is that the RAC has a very different protocol. So it's going to be, and I will have Paul come to talk to us about this but there's already been communication and I will definitely follow up on that, that OKA's process is very different than the RAC's. It doesn't make one better than the other. It's just having the CAS, I would say, maybe two weeks ahead of time and then not scheduling interviews until the OKA interview designate has a chance to look and can deem say, yes, this is sufficient. No, I think we need to do something else and it gives you enough time, whoever that is, to approach the rest of OKA and then we, like you said, we need to figure out what our next step is after that. So I would agree with that. Lynn? I think this fits in. I don't disagree with what you're saying at all but I do think this fits in with the larger issue of needing to re-look at the entire process. Yes. And that is, I mean it's, that's painfully apparent from the ongoing questions that have been raised and that is not to diminish the work of any people in this committee. I have to say, I didn't realize we only had four applicants for participatory budgeting. We had five, did you say? No, four. Four. Five spots. And unfortunately in this case, you're absolutely correct. There's a time constraint we have to appoint this group. Basically, because I know a couple people that are being appointed, it's actually a very good group. Yeah. So I don't think it's, but I think some of the problem on this one is nobody really knows what it is yet. Right, right. It's a committee and therefore, for instance, seeing Meg Gage on there who was part of the ongoing discussion with the commission is very useful because she can bring the perspective of the commission and, you know, what did they think it was? It turns out that this kind of committee exists in a lot of other towns as well. And I've learned that from Kathy Shane, who's looked at this kind of stuff because she's the finance committee person appointed to this as well. So it's got its work cut out for it. But I think all of this conversation is a point at which you can all take one big deep breath and say, okay, let's step back and look at the whole thing and timing and everything else. No one on this committee disagrees with you. This entire practice will be ripped apart, done over, deeply discussed. Yeah, yeah. And input sought from the council. Of course. Thank you. Of course. George. So just to continue the questions, they're obviously welcome, but the evaluation criteria modeled a good deal on what Evan put forward or what I used, again, given the fact that there was a positive candidates. But I did feel that the two candidates that I put forward fit a number of these criteria. So you can look at those if you have any questions. There were four people present in my interviews, myself, obviously, Paul Bachman, member of the resident advisory commission, Connie Krueger, and then Sonya Aldrich, who is the Comptroller and current finance director, interim finance director. So there were four people present because it was a joint appointment. And finally, just for my sake, demographics. My editorial comment is there. Excuse me. And I apologize if you really don't think it's appropriate, but I felt I had to say something. We only self-report, and so I wrote down literally what people gave. We're talking about a pool of four individuals and three of whom gave information, one did not. So I feel personally that this information is important, important in the aggregate and should be removed from the individual. I just feel uncomfortable presenting this for a particular body because it's fairly obvious to anyone who pays attention. You can identify pretty much who's who. And I think what we're interested in is not a particular body, but the overall result. So anyway, there's an editorial comment in there if you want to read it. Anyway, the demographic information I don't do. I'm not a computer literate. I can't do charts and all those beautiful things. So it's just written out. So that's that. George, you did an awesome job. I know. Again. It's boring. Evan. So I want to echo, I think, what the president said, which is that given the very small pool, we were very lucky, I think, with the people that did apply because I think that these are all really great people to serve. So we still need one more. To that point, in the discussion afterwards, after we had done the interviews, we agreed that all the candidates were, we had favorable views of the four that we did interview. And so Paul, I took two, which covered our responsibility and Paul said that he hoped that he could find some more people. So he's hoping to do some more interviews and we may get another recommended person in the next few days. But that was the way it was left. And because yours are covered, it's now his responsibility. But I think that these are great people. And so with that, I'd like to make a motion to accept the recommendations put forth by the OCA Designee for the Participatory Budgeting Commission and to forward these recommendations to the Full Town Council. I second. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. That is unanimous. So we are just going to wait for, to see if Paul is going to put forward three people. Paul has put forth, his recommendations, he's just put forth two. So there'll just be a vacancy on the committee temporarily. Oh, so we can, we can. Yes, we can vote on that. Yep, absolutely. So I'm really bad at making motions. Evan, do you want to do it? I can do it. The town manager, George, do you want to do it? I would make the motion that we accept the town managers recommended appointments to the Participatory Budgeting Commission and forward these names to the town council. I second. Discussion? We see here a definite diversity of age. One of the candidates is, represents the youth component, which is nice to see. And the other belongs to the retired component. So I thought that was, that was nice. Both were definitely interested, but have a lot to learn. And I think both were, the town commitment was something that they needed to have spelled out to them. So we'll see. Any other discussion? Further discussion? Because I believe they must make a recommendation to the town council by December of 2020. So they have about 18 months, which I guess is the same rank choice voting. Is that correct? In other words, both of them are doing. I think rank choice is September 1. September 1. So they're even under a shorter time. Well, let's get them going. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. That's unanimous. Next. So our agenda today had a sort of blanket consider recommendations from the town manager. So I did at the beginning of this meeting, move his LSSE appointments into our folder. I don't know if we want to consider those today. I've read them and looked at them. I have my own opinions. I feel ready that I could do that. Is two other people want to take some extra time until our next meeting to do that? I would be more than happy to consider them today. I read his memo when it came out. Yeah. George. Constitutionally, I'm uncomfortable with getting appointments. And this may just be my lack of not doing things at late hours or very early hours in the morning, but a little uncomfortable reading appointments and at the same meeting and then approving them. So that may be my fault. But that's the situation I'm in. Is there a time, what's the, I mean obviously we'd like to get these things moving along. Our next meeting is very soon. Not next Monday. Without Memorial Day. Yeah. We're not meeting on Memorial Day. Oh no. I thought that was it. I know you're eager to do that, but no, I'm sorry. So we're actually two weeks out is what you're suggesting. Right. And so the thing that I would say is that, so we got those names. Well, for me, it feels like a while ago. We're going to be getting recommendations from the town manager for committees in rapid fire. I believe that the email that he sent us, there was maybe six that he said that was going to come our way. So what I would say to this committee is I can send you, I can resend you Paul's email. There's, there's, and there'll probably be more. So we're looking at maybe six to 10, which means I think that everyone needs to, I'm not, I do not think that you should try to read these on the fly and say, you know, I agree. But what I think everybody, and I can try to send some reminders, gentle reminders that, and, and re-forward things or say, hey, did you, did you see these names? Because I'm feeling like, you know, as they come in, we'll need to look at them fairly quickly. Think about our questions. Think about how we feel about it. Because at our next meeting, which is now it's actually far away, we, we should be voting on as many as we feel comfortable with. And I would say if we're starting to get, you know, almost 10, we should feel fairly comfortable with, I would love to say 10, but at least eight. And if people need to, I don't know if you want me to send you coffee, if you need a reminder and more than happy. So one thing I, keep yelling into this, one thing I think we need to consider is, so per the charter, right, we can either positively approve. We can reject or we can let the clock run out and they become effective within 30 days. So this committee, we can choose to look at these today or we can wait. However, this committee doesn't meet again until June 3rd. Right. So we could meet on June 3rd and say, okay, we're going to forward these and the council has to vote on them tonight. But if you, in other words, the council, the full council meets June 3rd and June 17th, right? Yeah. You're within that 30 days still, but you're starting to run up against the clock. And we're going to have other appointments to do. So I think it's something to consider that we actually, we don't have to do anything with these. And so we can vote to send them to the council today or we can sit on them for a little while because there's no harm in not forwarding them because we technically don't have to do anything. So if, if I'm fine voting on these today, but if other members of the committee feel like they need more time to look at them, I'm fine waiting because even if we don't get to them, they still become effective within 30 days. So that being said, I would say that I myself feel like, and this is just me, I'm only one person here, is that I like to be able to feel comfortable with what's being forth if there are people who are being put forth so that I feel like I have some knowledge of it. And I feel more comfortable being able to say, yes, I read it, we'd like it, please consider or not. So your point is completely true and valid. And then again, I'll just bring it to the point that I'm going to bring it up to everybody because I know we've been under a lot of time constraints and different committees and the town council in general. But if other people on this committee feel the way that I do that you want to feel like you read it, you know it, you feel like you can say, yes, go ahead, town council or I don't think so. And even just letting the clock run out. Just to keep in mind we need to, I think there's like 10 that are coming our way and there's a few that are already there. I can try to make sure that I send you like another email just so that you know you've got it. So I will do that as chair is make sure that I, you know, really send these to you and maybe even ask you just to reply that yes, I got them because I would feel better in myself that the next meeting that we have is very time sensitive that we can all be able to say I've read it, I've looked at it. I know my three options and I'm ready to pick it. So, Darcy. We did get these at our last meeting and when I just looked at them and I was amazed to see that I have already read it. Okay. And it seems like these are not, there's like no particular controversy around them and several of them are people that are already on the commission. I'd be fine voting on them today. I would feel uncomfortable as George said if we had just gotten them today, that does make me feel awfully rubber-stampish agreed. But since we got them on Monday, we've had a couple days to look at them and, you know, I don't know, normally, I mean, the descriptions look reasonable. No one has called me and said, whatever you do, don't appoint this person. So, I'm okay with pointing them today. Evan. I agree 100% with what Darcy said. I'd be fine voting today. The one thing I would say that maybe I would like communicated back to the town manager who's not here today is I think it's great that he gave these little profiles for Stephanie Jackson and for Victor Nunes Ortiz. I know Sarah Marshall and I know Rebecca Demling. I don't know Meg Rosa. And so to have the profile just has served on the LCC commission since 2015 to me is a little insufficient because what that says is we have to provide you a description of their qualifications if they're not on the committee, but if they're on the committee, I don't need to do that. And I guess their qualification is they're on the committee. But especially in these early phases, I think we could communicate back to the town manager that it would just be nice to have a profile for everyone because reappointment doesn't necessarily have to be given. Agreed. So I'm still fine voting for these because I looked through them. I've done my due diligence. But going forward, I think it would be useful to have more of a description for incumbents as well. And I think that we found that even with planning board and zoning board of appeals, and we all decided that as we're looking through this practice again that we would take a harder look at the CAFs, where the questions on the CAFs actually maybe demand more of a minimum of what people provide to us. And also, again, we brought up that maybe sending them questions ahead of time that they give us a written answer. So I think that it's just reconfirming the fact that we really feel like we need that. And then, you know, anybody who's going to, you know, say okay to appointments also needs that information. I'm willing to vote on these. I think part of the problem is clearly me. I need to get used to this process because I should have looked at these in advance. You've been busy, George. I know, but so I need to simply get clear on that. So I do my work. But the only question I have, we simply don't know how large the applicant pool is. Is that what we've, in other words, and that's something we're not going to know or he's not going to report that to us. So we don't know how many people applied for this, whether that he was like, he just got the number that he needed. We just don't know. And we're not going to know. Is that where we're at? From what I understand, that's true and that he will only, he won't give us that information. And then the rest of the demographic information, he's going to kind of ball everything up and then give it to us quarterly. Yeah. So I mean, that's a discussion that we can also have, you know, for, and I think it's very telling for what we feel like that we would need for information. And then also what town council itself, like why they would be in a quandary. So I think that's an illuminating point that we can get at. It just seems to me that that basic bit of information would be of some use to us, but maybe not. I think it would be. What do people think? Just, you know, if you've got 13 applicants and these are the people who put forward, or he just got, you know, just the bare number he needed and these are the people putting forward, do people feel like that is something they would like to know? I would kind of feel like I'd like to know that. I'm not interested in the names. I'm not interested in reading the CAFs, but I would like to know how large the pool was. Darcy, this would all be made completely simple if we just got the CAFs automatically when people applied for anything. The full council, the OCA, everything, it would just make things so easy. Well, there we disagree on that, but I'm just asking about the number. You want all that information, though, don't you, George? No, I don't. I'm not interested in second-guessing his choices other than simply getting a sense, I guess, and maybe it's just curiosity, so I can live without it, I guess. I'm not interested in second-guessing his decisions. I would like to know how large the pool was from which he had to choose. Sarah? Sarah? No, it's okay. Go ahead. So, as I've made clear before, I'm not interested in seeing the CAFs, and I don't want to try to compel him to do that. I don't know that I need the exact number of people who applied, but I do think that this committee should maybe consider, in our report, having maybe some feedback to the town manager. And so the two things that I'm hearing, one of which was for myself, is it'd be nice to have fuller profiles on people who currently serve on committees that the description for an incumbent cannot be they already serve on a committee. And then the second thing is maybe a more thorough summary of the process, because what you're asking for is really not, was it 12 people who applied or 13 people? What you're asking for is, was there a large applicant pool, or were you in a participatory budgeting situation where you were really trying to get people? And you don't need exact numbers for that, right? I mean, that can be descriptive. You gave us exact numbers for participatory budgeting, but you could have said there were fewer applications than there were available slots, and that would have conveyed the exact same thing without the numbers. So I don't think he, me personally, I don't think I need the exact numbers, but it would be good to have a better description of the applicant pool. I will say, based on third-hand knowledge, this commission was one where there were not a lot of people who directly applied to LSSE, and they often reach out to general interest people. And so this may have been one that didn't have a particularly large pool. That would have been useful to know. I don't necessarily think we need the exact numbers, but it would be, so maybe one of the things we can do is start compiling, as we go through this, start compiling a list of requests to the town manager, because he is, I mean, he's open to feedback, and the other thing we should consider is, today we're considering three sets of town manager appointments. The town manager is not here. Maybe because he's busy, maybe because he had no idea that we were going to be doing this. But in the future, I'm wondering if we should be, if we should consider whether or not we want to request the town manager's presence to be able to defend his choices in the same way that George and I were able to defend ours, and Sarah was able to defend hers in the future. Lynn? Yeah. Two things. You have an email. Evidently, they had a shortage of staff upstairs, and that's why Angela wasn't able to be here to take your minutes. But I don't know what else might be going on. But nevertheless, I think it is appropriate to ask him to be here. When you're going to have these discussions, he may not always know you're going to have the discussion. So that's something that you as chair need to coordinate with him. The other thing that, I mean, again, I personally would prefer that each town manager appointment set come with a recommendation from OKA. I really don't like the idea that we just let it expire. Right. So if you can act appropriately, that's fine. You could act on the morning of the third and then just give a verbal recommendation. But again, that's not exactly the best practice either. But as we are approaching the summer months where there's, for instance, three weeks between the two council meetings in July and then there may be as much as four weeks before the next meeting in August, there's going to be some issue here with the 30 days. And so one of the things you might talk about is even though a 30-day period might expire, at least give something as a communication from OKA anyway, even to say, gee, we're pleased that these were appointed and we looked them over and although the 30 days has expired, we either agree or whatever. But again, I think the separate from the conversation about the appointment process of council-appointed people like you've been doing, I think the process for this side of recommendations, it needs to be looked at. There's pieces of it that you may not be able to tweak like you'd like to, but there's other pieces of it like having the town manager present when you discuss the appointments would be part of that flow chart that you review. I agree with that and we can compile some things to, you know, ask and see, you know, float up by Paul and see what he thinks. The other reason why I think it's important for us to get some idea of how many people applied it again. Like Evan said, it could be we had a large, beautiful, varied bunch or not so much is that we are also outreach and that's one of the things that we're going to have to really kind of get up to speed on. So we are also the ones, I mean, RAC feels that they are working to find people for town manager appointments and the community participation officers also feel that way. So town council needs to also be actively recruiting people. So that's one thing that George and I and Darcy and our subcommittee of outreach we're talking about and I'm hoping that maybe even we can meet some during the summer a little bit. I'll try to make it fun because I do think that's something we really need to kind of get up to speed on helping and make sort of a more firm cohesive structure in which we do that. And I don't know if I said that because obviously I didn't have enough caffeine but so that's one of the reasons why it's kind of a circle for us appointments and outreach. Evan, George? Well, I'm willing to make a motion that we accept the town managers recommended appointees for LSSC and that we forward these to the town council. Can I edit that motion? I think we need to say with a recommendation for approval and I'll second that. Discussion, hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. And that is unanimous. Well with one in one person absent. Yeah, it is. Well, pretty much. I mean, there's, go ahead, Evan. So, yeah, same. And I just finished one. Looking at our posting, we've done almost everything except for review and prep reports to town council 6-3. And so a logistical consideration is chair, I assume will be prepping a report for the council on 6-3 based on our two meetings. Although I don't necessarily know that we need a written report of the meetings. But we do, we do, we do need, my assumption is for RCV and PBC, that we will follow the similar process to planning board where we will send the two reports from George and myself to council, but with a cover letter that describes the votes and the deliberation. Someone needs to prepare that cover letter. I am more than happy to do it since half of the recommendations were mine and I would love to take some work off of the chairs plate because she deserves a vacation. But I'm also willing to give that to someone else if they would prefer to do it. I'll buy you some coffee if you do that, Evan. No, I think that that would be great. I think that you also did a really good job on helping me with my cover report. The time frame goes is that everything, the cover letter, the report, report to town council should all be done by this Wednesday around 11-ish so that it can all be sent, it gets sent to Angela, but Margaret is the one who is the keeper of all things. And so getting everything in by around, at least by like 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday will mean that they can be posted in enough time for town council to work on them, which would be Thursday morning. So do we all feel comfortable? Evan, do you... Yeah, so I would follow, because I said... It was the same way. I'll follow the same process that we did to submit the last report. So it goes to several people and it needs to be part of the... Okay, yeah. So it'll be those things... The exact same process we used for the last one, I'll follow. So just making sure it goes to Angela, it goes to Margaret, and that it's made really clear that they need to be attached to the packets the same way that they were last time. And there is a little written guideline on that, and I would... If you feel like, oh my gosh, I don't... No, I think I... I don't understand it. I still have all those emails from when we sent the last report. So I would be more than happy to help you do that. And I... We already have a template going to report out to Town Council in a report, you know, like a votes, votes, votes kind of form. My... I'm not sure what's going on with my computer. I think it should be able to be fixed by IT, like today. Is it okay with you if I just check in with you if... So my thought is I'd probably just take the planning board and ZBA one and just adapt it. And just do it that way, yep. And then of course I can always run it. I wouldn't want to send it in without review by the chair. Yeah, yeah. That's great. I think we're fine with that. And so then I think the next thing I'd like to just make sure that we know timelines and that things are okay is checking in with Darcy about how things are going along with Finance Committee interviews and prepping for that. Angela set up interviews for June 6th, which is Thursday morning. And attending will be Paul and Sonia. Okay. So that will mean that it won't be on the agenda for the next, for that June 3rd meeting. No, wait a minute. Yes. June 3rd or the 10th? Why not? So if your interviews are on the 6th, right? Yeah. Then your report has to be posted 48 hours in advance of our meeting so that doesn't give you enough time to write the report. Your interviews are already after that deadline. So we won't be able to discuss it as OCA on the 10th either. So your report. Why not the 10th? Because you won't have time to post it. Oh, the 6th to 10th. The 6th to 10th is only four days in the weekend. Oh, I see what you're saying. Right. So OCA will have, so your report then would need to be posted by 9.30 a.m. Thursday, June 13th so that we could discuss them on June 17th. And then the council could potentially vote on July 1. Which is fine with finance from what I gather. Okay. Then we're fine. So, yeah, go ahead. I have a question for Darcy. Have you seen the CAS? Yeah, neither. Wait, so that's something I will definitely, I'm going to be here for IT. So maybe I'll, depending on how busy everybody is, or I'll send an email again and ask for those. Obviously staff's been very busy, but I will request those again. I know. That'd be kind. So the other question I had was I think I saw something that Kathy said she was going to try to get you the description of the committee by the end of this week. Knowing that they're overloaded, but if we possibly could, I would love to see that and have that go out with a packet just because we're trying to, you know, keep that process together. When you say go out with the packet to the interviewees. Yeah, even if they're sent. Yes. Even if they're sent a little bit late, if they could, you know, if they get them, even just two days heads up and that. So the other thing is, is that that should also be on your table when you're interviewing. Right. That's one of the things that should be on the table. So if we can do that, that would be wonderful. Right. Kathy also, I was planning to meet with me to talk more about, you know, like this spread of different possible skills that we might be looking for if we wanted to get a balance. Right. So that is hopefully going to happen this week sometime. Excellent. So I'm thinking that I have a lot of work to do to make sure that we stay organized, but I will definitely do that. Evan, I thank you so much for volunteering to do that extra work to make sure it goes out in time and just get a hold of me. I mean, if you have run into any problems or need some help. Yep. So now it's time for public comment. Okay. Wow. Yay. What I'm supposed to do that? Where's my gavel? I know I need one. Yes. I was actually going to bring my ball peen, but I figured it's too hard on the surface. So on that note, I would like to make a motion for us to adjourn. All those in favor. Seconded. Okay. All those in favor. I thank you.