 Thank you, thank you. So pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 or suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. This meeting of governance organization legislation is being conducted by remote participation. It is now 1030 in the morning. And we are being recorded for to check quickly with my colleague colleagues and also with our visitor to make sure it can be heard. And can hear so Mandy. And Sarah. Present. And Pat. Present. Darcy. Yeah. Okay, and Beth. Yep. And Dorothy. We're going to get to your item for some time. So please be patient. We're going to start with Beth. This morning. And so I'm going to put the. Agenda up on the screen. Just for a quick second. Hopefully you can all see that. Well, now you can't. So we're going to pretty much follow this order as it's on the agenda. We do not have items number six. There is no Southeast Asian heritage proclamation. So that will not be on our agenda. And items 10. We're not going to be discussing this morning. And we do not have minutes. Or if we do, the chair has not seen the minute could possibly be. That's the reason anyway. There are no minutes in your packet. So we're going to start this morning. Wait, George. I also did not see an Arbor month proclamation. I went back and I didn't see that. It is actually the proclamation from last year. Yeah, we'll talk about. Yeah, it's not okay. Well, we'll decide what we want to do with that when we get there. But okay. Anything else about the agenda? All right. Yeah, go ahead. George, there, there, there were minutes in the packet. I emailed you about them, but you have on the agenda. I think March 31st minutes. Anyway. Yeah, I think we're on the subject anyway. So my fault. So it's off the agenda. I'm going to close this then for the moment. And I'm going to. One of the suggestions we're going to use the draft that I sent this to Beth. It should be in your packet, which is a managerial went through this very carefully. Thank you very much, Mandy. Both bylaws. And we're going to use that. I also went through it. And made a few very minor changes. But Beth has seen the one that Mandy Joe has been working on. So we're going to use that this morning and just go through it. And hopefully dispatch it fairly quickly, but we'll see. So I'm going to open the store with the storm water bylaw. And I'm going to open that. And I'm going to try and. There we go. Sorry. Those quickly. Okay. This is the storm water bylaw. And I think that's pretty visible. My thought was to start with Beth and whether she had any concerns or questions or changes to make. Based on what she's been able to see what she's been looking at. So Beth, I'm going to start with you. Um, I think that's all right in the storm water bylaw management bylaw, that you had concerns about in terms of Mandy's changes. Um, no, in terms of the formatting, I think that's all fine. I think there was a couple of spots in the, in the definitions where she was asking about certain words that then weren't actually used in the document. Right. is used. So I wanted to just talk with you guys if we maybe we just want to change the language a little bit there so that that information that's included in the definition still gets included but just gets worded a little bit differently. So I thought we could look at those a little bit but the rest of it the formatting is all, it's all great. It's all fine. Thank you for doing that. Okay, it's all right. So many my understanding, and this is my ignorance is that in these bylaws. Any term that is officially defined gets capitalized. Apparently, is the rule. Is that correct. The rule we've generally used. I believe it makes it clear. I mean it looks weird in the middle of a sentence but it makes it clear that you have to, that there might be a definition you're not used to for that word. So what I had to do, and it was exciting and I'm sure you did something even better was basically turn out the definitions. It's a handy, because it's the word altar, for instance. Yes. So, um, so I have nothing I made very minor changes, I believe they're marked here when they occur and they were just matters of capitalization. I'm one or two places of punctuation. But I'm assuming everyone's had a chance to take a look at this. And what I'm going to suggest is that we go through it section by section, not line by line, but particularly looking for any places where I've made changes to make sure that everyone's agreeable, or if people have any changes they wish to make, they should speak up in each section. And also, we'll obviously highlight those places where there was a question about, you know, whether the wording is as Beth just pointed out, there are a couple places where we might want to make some changes. So I'm going to start we were okay with the header. I think everything is fine there. So this is purpose and authority. And again what man has been doing here essentially just fixing the formatting and the capitalization of the terms that are defined. I don't see anything I'm just going to scroll slowly but please either ask me to stop or speak up this. My eyes are fixed on the screen. Again, this is just capitalization. So here. What change that I make. It's not very clear is it. So much for an extra space or something. Yeah, I must have been a space. Yeah. So much for track changes. All right. So this is a small change low impact development that was just capitalization. I'm impressed. You're able to do this. It's really, this is very difficult. Okay, so again, no problems here. Yeah, sorry. This is existing lawn in Massachusetts stormwater management standards are the two definitions that I think that wants to talk about good. Okay, thank you. All right, so yeah. I was just I think I think Mandy probably just highlighted that as a term that at least that's what her comments said that didn't show up anywhere in the document. And so we may just want to change a little bit I think when you go down to exemptions there's something that refers to existing lawn it may not use that exact term existing lawn but it. You want to go down to the exemptions and you can see where it is. Let's do that now. Okay, let's go. Pardon. Try not to get dizzy folks, but there we go. It's number six where we say maintenance of existing landscaping gardens or lawn areas. So, it's there. I mean it's not a very exciting thing. I mean maybe we just take it out of the definitions anyway. Or we change the definition to existing landscaping gardens and lawns or something like that. Okay. All right, let's go back up. I'm sorry, go ahead. I would just say, we might not need to because landscaping and gardens. Beth I would guess is different than the lawn definition here and I was searching for the full term existing lawn. I know. Yeah, and it's so I didn't search for just lawn or just existing. So I guess I have less concern now seeing where that references because it's part of even though it split up it's it's used despite being split up. Okay, so you're okay just leaving it as I don't know whether other committee members are. Do you want to capitalize law just as somebody if somebody has a question because we probably should in number six. Okay, so that's a gunner number six. And now the question is where I can do this. Okay. Good job George. All right. All right, so we're just going to keep moving along. Again, Beth speak up if we're skipping over anything. Is it back to definitions. Actually going sorry thank you we're back up to definitions and we just existing lawns. So, next sec just low impact development. Again just changing highlighting the capitalizations I don't see anything here. definition. Yeah, I think maybe yours isn't highlighted because if you're not. Yeah, if you go up a little bit the Massachusetts stormwater management standard. I think Mandy had the same kind of comment on that. Thank you. All right, so what do you want to do with this guys. Yeah, so this way in the rest of the bylaw we refer to the stormwater handbook. So what I'm thinking is that maybe we change this definition to be stormwater handbook that contains the Massachusetts stormwater management standards. So this definition is kind of talked about but again it's talked about a little differently in the actual bylaw we do use the word stormwater handbook later in the text. So we could just change the definition to be for the store for the term stormwater handbook and that means the latest version. It may be amended from time to time of the stormwater management standards. Is that all you need to do is change this first part here. Yeah, I would change the definition would be Massachusetts stormwater handbook. It refers to the handbook later, right. Right. And the company handbook. The storm message storm handbook means the list that would that make sense means the latest version has made the amended from time to time of the stormwater management standards of the companies while that's defining the thing by the thing. The title means the title, right. That doesn't make sense. Well, I think it does. Because it's issued because it's a title of a document. You know, and those standards issued pursuant to buy so so I, you know, I think it's okay to reuse stormwater handbook in the definition. Okay, so this could stand as it is for where it's used to make sure it's always capitalized. Yeah, I think that's, you know, and I think Beth can help us find that. Okay, so this could stand then so messages of stormwater handbook. All right. By the way, just realized. Okay, okay track changes are on so. All right. I don't doesn't. Okay, there, there I am. I just want I wanted to be the author. All right, enough humor. Anything. Again just changes changes capitalizations. All right. Some formatting changes here no problem with that. Again I must have. I guess I introduced the semicolon. I don't know what to leave us in a space. So here I just capitalized lawn. I'm adding again. So number three of administration right where you are. Yeah, is where the word handbook needs capitalized. And this one says stormwater management handbook. So maybe is that how we define it upstairs up in the definitions did we use. Massachusetts in there. We had Massachusetts stormwater handbook. Yeah, so we should probably use the same wording. Okay. Just get rid of Massachusetts. Oh, we get what you want to just get ready. I would change the definition to stormwater management handbook. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Before we go on, do we want to then add the word Massachusetts in front of stormwater management standards and the definition. Sure. So here means the latest version as maybe a minute from time to time of the Massachusetts here. Or here actually should be here. Are both places. I would say just the first one before the actual standards. So right here. Because And then we know then when we know what state we're referring to not that it should be obvious, but I know. And you don't want to insert management here. Because we're calling it stormwater management handbook you want to have it stormwater. Yeah. Our life is so exciting isn't it. Come on guys, you know, this is actual work we're actually getting something done here. And I just I want to give our newbies a sense of what what life is really like and feel well. All right. So I'm going back to administration. And I don't see any changes here. Again formatting enforcement. Again, I don't know what they like to lead but it doesn't say right to lead an entire paragraph for all we know. Storm management system right that's just formatting by law, and that is it sports fans. Any further thoughts concerns questions changes. Please if you would. Can you go up to the title. Well, there you go. I moved to declare the stormwater management bylaw as amended at the April 7 2021 GLL meeting clear consistent and actionable. Second the Angeles. All right, we have a motion has been seconded I don't see any further discussion so I'm just going to proceed immediately to vote. And I'm going to start with Darcy. Yes. And Pat. Aye. And Mandy. Aye. Aye. Sarah. Aye. All right, five zero synonymous. Very good. Let me just make sure that gets saved. Close it. It should close on it. Okay. Stop share. Okay. Second is the ID by law. I'm going to open that. I'm going to move this up here so we can see it. So again, we're going to do the same thing. We're going to go through it section by section. Again, the title. So the illicit discharge detection and elimination bylaw. George. I haven't memorized it. All right. So. Sorry about this. I have this. Okay. So share screen there. Let's move this up here so we can see it. So again, we're going to do the same thing. We're going to go through section by section. Okay. So this is the ID by law. George, can I ask a question? The right ahead. Beth, do you have any concerns about this? Because if, if. We're all doing okay, maybe we can just go ahead and vote on this. Um, yeah, this one. I don't think had any. Besides a lot of the formatting and capitalization. Um, I didn't see anything. So. Right. I thought I had one, I had one question under definitions. But other than that, that was the only thing I had. Could we go there then? Well, let's go there and see what happens. Elicit connections, reads. Well, let you read that sentence. And tell me if that makes sense to you. Tell me. No, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to purse them into my colleagues. It's illicit connections means an illicit connection is defined as. Oh, that's not English that I'm. In bylaws, English often goes out the window. So I think it would be means either of the following. Yeah. That simplifies it beautifully. And we just so means. Let's just for the moment. I'm just going to put a strike through there just so we don't lose it. This is a connection means either the following colon. Any capitalized. Andy. Any location. Any trade or conveyance whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows the list of districts. I think the rest of this is fine. Is it either or though either, either of the following. Or is it any of that? Is it either? I mean, either is a little strange. I mean, I think it means either of the following. Or is it just means any of the following. I think it's any. No, I'm going to ask. Then we could just go to means any drain or conveyance or approved. Well, no. Or any. I mean, there's, there's a semi colon in the middle. Yeah. You could just go to any, you know, I don't know. It's either or, isn't it? It's either of the following. And then you have this long. You know, train wreck of a clause that causes here. Or. And Beth, I'm just going to ask you is that that those are two very different things. And that's why it's either or either this. Or this. Yeah. Is that what it is trying to say? Or it does say. Is that why it's either or. Or any drain. So a drain conveyance connected from a commercial service. The other hand is. Which is not been documented. So one hand of it, it's drain or conveyance connected. The other hand is just what the top hand is. It's also a drain or conveyance. What's the difference. But, but once that one is connected to the drain system. Okay. All right. Okay. And one isn't settled. Okay. Good. So it sounds like all we need to do is take out this. The other one is connected. Yeah, they both are. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Okay. Well, somebody. All we need to do is take out your highlighted part. And just leave it as it is. Okay. I'm going to take it out. So it was the connections means I do the following. Yeah. I'm not going to argue about it. All right. People are satisfied with that. Okay. Yeah. Again, just, I think. Just quickly I made again. So I think that was the only thing I had that I thought I don't quite understand that sentence. But other than that. I think any changes I made and there weren't many. Just capitalization, that kind of thing. Stormwater I capitalized stormwater. I assume that need to be capitalized. Because it is defined. And that's, I think it for me. Anyone else. I'm willing to entertain a motion. I'll move. What? To declare the. Elicit discharge detection and elimination by law as amended on April 7th, 2021 at GLL clear, consistent and actionable. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Pat. So we have a motion that's been seconded. I'm going to go right to a vote and start this time with Pat. Hi. And Darcy. Yes. Sarah. Hi. And Nandy. Hi. And the chairs and I. So again, it's five zero unanimous. To declare this. So let's save it. And let's close it. And let us say thank you to Beth. Thank you. And allow her to go back to her, her regular job. Great. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good rest of your meetings. Good day. All right. All right. We're going to go on to review the charge for district advisory board. And again, I'm going to put something up on the screen. We should. We have gotten. An email from Arlene. Which I'm going to count as basically. Public comment. And I will put that up on the screen in a few minutes. With some suggestions. And in fact, well, let's just, first of all. I have the right one. Yes, I do. Okay. So I'm going to put this up on the screen. And we also have got a communication. It's in the, in the packet, I believe, I hope it is from the council. Excuse me from the town clerk. Sue Audette. And that's the purpose of this. Entry here. And I think it might make sense. The entry where George, I'm sorry. Where it says staff support. Gotcha. You've seen that your chair has made this. Line entry. Not because, because of that communication. So maybe, but I want to show it to you first. And then the rest of this, we still have to determine the makeup of the. The body. That's TBD. Otherwise this was sent to. Lynn. And she did send it an email to. Sue to have it sent out for legal review. I don't know for, for a fact that it was, but I think what I want to do now is we've got this here. I'll put it back up in a minute, but I want to go to the sues, the email. Cut communication. I want us to read it and discuss it. So. Bear with me for a second. Well, I dig that up. So. I believe this is it. Got everything stacked up here. It's quite a, you'd be impressed. It's about almost 30. Not quite that many, about 20 files. This folder. All right. So. This is the email. Can everyone see it? Do you need to have it in law? I don't see it. Oh, I'm sorry. I got to share it. Sorry. I'll get there. I'll just be a smile, sir. All right. It's called comic relief watching me do this. Let me just make it a little bit bigger. Yeah, my old eyes can't see that. All right. All right. Of course it makes it so big. We can't read it. All right. So. Let me just open it a bit. Excuse me. Sorry. I'll take that out later. All right. Lynn reached out to Sue. With the request that this, that it's ready for state level review. Sue got back. She says she hasn't submitted it. But she had a question. And so. And her suggestion had to do it's down here. I'm sorry to scroll like this, but this is, this is her communication. She says, I have a question regarding the second draft of the DAB. Just notice that an IT person was left off. Now I could not find the first draft. I looked and looked and I'm sure it's obvious, but I couldn't find it. But essentially in the first draft, there was an entry for staff. Support. That's why I put it in our version. And it was taken off. And so. In my opinion, having someone from IT with GIS experience is absolutely crucial to the process. I do not remember, I do remember 10 years ago when Sandra was involved, we relied heavily on Mike Olken, who was our GIS expert at the time. She then reached out apparently to program manager for the census division. And he highly suggested a GIS expert as part of the board as well. And so she mentioned, so this seemed to be quite relevant to what we're dealing with. And so I want you to see it. And I think we need to discuss. And if we do, we have to decide how it's going to be added. Is this. This would go under staff support. Or would it say, because here the suggestion is they actually be a member of the board. So we have two suggestions, staff support or member of the board. And the first one is, could we put them put, you know, we have a non-voting member per the charter. The question is with the charter, having said nine members, plus the town clerk as a non-voting member ex-officio, can we add yet another ex-officio member? Or would it have to be staff support? Isn't the limit is nine. Is that correct? Voting. The question is the charter, the charter, if you look at the composition section of the charge, that quotes what the charter says in terms of composition. Can we add to that composition for non-voting members? Sure. That that seems add. Non-voting. How would we word it? Add under non-voting member. It would be two non-voting members, town clerk and. Staff GIS. Yeah. Staff GIS expert. I'm sorry. Yeah, personnel. Someone from the IT department. Someone from IT who has GIS experience. Something like that. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I take it everyone's seen this, they see the communication between Lynn and Sue. If it's not in the pack, it'll be added to the packet after the meeting. I'm going to stop sharing. And I'm going to go back. To. The charge. That's right. One. And so we have. Let's start with composition. One. Your screen, George. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thinking since I can see it, you can see it. That's not the way it works. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So again, how's the view? You want it any larger? I'm good. My eyes are good. Okay. Speak up if you have problems seeing. So under. One non-voting member. This would be two non-voting members. Yes. Let's start with that. I have a question about that. Go ahead. What do we see is the significance between. Making the staff person, a non-voting member and just being staffed to the committee. Well, I guess the first answer is that we had someone from the state. Strongly recommend that they be made an actual member of the board. So that, that's was soon made that point in her email. So that's one reason. And it also, I guess, would pretty much require that person to be present. So that's one reason. So that's one reason. So that's one reason. Where as a guest staff support, you'd call on them when and if you needed them. Whereas this sort of says, we expect this person to be present along with the town clerk. Whenever this committee meets. Now, maybe the differences. It turns out to be, you know, no real difference, but. I would add one other potential difference. Which is our authority. We can probably. You know, under authority ad members, but given how the charters written, we might not be able to dictate who the staff support is other than town manager or designee. So. So you're saying that we're, we are designating who they are through this mechanism. Of non-voting members. Yeah. And so I would say. I'm going to, I'm not saying this is going to be a done deal. I'm just going to put it here for us to see. Member of it. Staff. With GIS experience. Yeah. Numeral one to two. And you'd have to do that up above in the block too. To non-voting members member of it staff with GIS experience. And then I'm sorry. Up. Up here. Yep. So too. So the person with GIS experience would probably contribute. Technical expertise around. Figuring out. Where the boundaries are and the, the, the different. How many people are in. Where people lived, right? Because they don't know how many people are in households. So they would just, they would be contributing. Information about boundaries and stuff like that. Right. I think that would be their main contribution. Everyone's going to have the same information in terms of which parcel has how many people in it. That's what the census provides. And I think that would be the, the, the actual drawing of the maps and boundaries and. Stuff. Right. Yeah. I could see where we would really need to have that. Because there's these questions, a good one. I mean, and maybe the differences in that great. But if you just required under staff support. That. A member of it staff with GIS experience. And then the committee calls on them. Whenever needed. And then the committee calls on them. And then the committee calls on them. And then the committee calls on them. And then the committee calls on them. And then the committee calls on them. Is an alternative. It's also a question of whether, assuming we go with the. Adding that the non-voting member. Do we even need staff support? So do we take this out and just put them on the board. Do we have both? I think we could take out staff support and have them in as non-voting members. I think that the reason it's like the nine voting members on the finance committee. I think that's kind of clear. I think that's kind of clear. I think that's kind of clear. I think that's kind of clear. To bear. In the conversations with the committee. But it's up to the committee to do the actual voting. I think that's. Kind of clear. This would then would be different from what it was 10 years ago, 10 years ago, I assume that this person was not a member of the board in any capacity, but did provide staff support. I'll just go back to the first slide. And I'll just say that the person. I think that's really clear. I think that's the reason why. Susan email. That we take out the staff support line. Sorry. Been taken out anyway. And just make this person. I'm a non-voting member. Yeah. I guess my feeling about it is that if we had any way of making both of them. Staff support. That would be my preference just because. They basically have a seat at the table. And they need one. Well, I'm not. They need it. They need to be able to give their expertise, but not they don't need a seat at the table and decision making. So the charter commission deemed that the town clerk needed a seat at the table by writing it in the charter. So you can't change the clerk's non voting member status. So you could put the member of IT as staff support instead of non voting, but. I think because boundaries are so important, right? To proving that you're, you're doing something fairly. I mean, everything that I read about it yesterday was, you know, the boundaries themselves have to make geographical sense as well. Right. Cause we don't want any salamanders or. So I mean, in that respect, I would think that they, you would want to have them have a seat at the table. I was thinking about it. I mean. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I just said, I don't, I, I think it's probably not worth arguing about. It's probably not going to make that much difference because whether they're staff or they're a non voting member, they will literally be at the table. You know, but it does send a kind of message. And I don't think that they would want to have a seat at the table. I mean, it does send a kind of message. And I do, we do not know what the reasoning of the state official was. And I don't think we have the time, but we could, I guess, take the time to try and understand. Because I think as, as Mandy pointed out at the last meeting, town students and cities do this very differently. I mean, some places it's done by the town clerk and that's it. So maybe this state official envisioned a much more active role for this GIS experienced person. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I just don't know. So again, I'm just playing devil's advocate. It is a change from what we did 10 years ago. It's not a major change. It does seem like just making staff, putting in the staff support line is what. Sue had originally suggested. She didn't make an argument at all for putting them on the board. She just noted that a state official had thought it was a good idea. But we don't know the reasoning behind that. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Giving them this kind of quasi official status. To a unknown staff member with GIS experience. It does seem like a position that would be suitable simply for staff support. So I would just. And I don't know where I stand on this. When it's staff support, they don't have to be at the meeting. Right. And so it doesn't mean the staff member would choose not to be at the meeting. I think that's a good point. We only want the staff support. After the fact, not during the meeting more of, we'll talk at the meeting and then we'll send the staff. Get us a new map. And so I think our thoughts should potentially think around, would we want that staff member. To be at all the meetings. Or not. Or are we okay with the potential of the members. To be at all the meetings. If we want them at the meeting, we should keep them as non-voting members. If we want the. If. If we feel it necessary for them to be at all the meetings, we should keep them as non-voting members to not give the board that opportunity. If we don't want the staff member at the meetings. Because they're not a member and we'll just tell them new maps to draw based on this. Maybe that would seem to be their prerogative. I mean, we don't want to over manage this. What I'm saying is if we want them at the meeting, we should not give the board that opportunity to. Not allow them to come to meetings. Well, I think the town clerk would make a fair amount of noise. If she found her key staff person wasn't being invited. I'm feeling right now. Let's. This is my suggestion and we can decide quickly. Put it here. Have it just one non-voting member. So those are the two options. I think that's a good idea. Sounds like many likes the idea and maybe, so do we want to do a quick vote or just a show of hands? And I'll just go either way, but I would suggest let's just do staff support. Leave it one member. That's what happened 10 years ago. It meets Sue's concern. Sue's obviously wants this person there. And I'm sure she's going to make sure that they're there. And the other alternative is many suggestion, which is, you know, we want to make sure that the board doesn't ignore this person. I think that's a good idea. I don't know exactly, but that's, that's the option. So just a straw poll here. Any, it basically comes down to Sarah and Pat. Do you have any strong feelings one way or the other? I think I'd like it to be non-voting members, but I can go either way. I don't want to waste more time on this. There is more important stuff with this. Great. Sarah, any thoughts one way. Or even though they're for GIS experience, I'm wondering if they also need some context. So it makes sense that they would be there. That's how I'm leaning right now without looking into it further. Okay, fair enough. Much better than my non-reason. All right. What I'm hearing is take this out. Yup. There are two non-voting members. And. John Clark, a member of IT staff at GIS experience. Good. Okay. Okay. The next item really also involves an email. So I'm going to stop sharing this for a moment. Let's make sure it's safe. I'm sure it is, but. Let's just close this. The next item is a communication from, I'm going to treat this essentially as a. Public communication to the committee. Let me just make this a bit bigger before I show it to you. I'm going to interrupt for one second. Say I may sound really cranky. And my vaccine, second vaccine yesterday and right now I'm. You know, a lot of muscle. Yeah. And I'm fine, but I'm kind of, I don't know if I'm going to make it through the whole meeting. So. Thank you for sticking it through for. Yeah. I'm not leaving. I have some things I want to talk about on this. Okay. Well, if that becomes an issue, Pat, let us know. I know. Thank you. All right. So this is a communication from our Adrian. To Lizzie. Who's obviously speaking as a, as a citizen, not as a representative of the League of Women voters. And she has two thoughts, one on composition. And one on show. Actually she has three thoughts. But the first is on composition. So why don't we, I'll read this out loud. If you can follow along. So I reiterate reiterate the importance of a nine member independent body selected from our 10 Amherst precincts to reflect the diversity and demographics of those precincts and having a positive impact on those precincts. So I think that the importance of a nine member independent body of composition is equally distributed among the districts as possible. And to be exclusive of elected officials and removed from political perceptions. Citizen involvement is Amherst culture and tradition. DAB membership by precincts is most strong representative of communities of interest, which is in charge. Five of our draft. Leveraging the assets of a nine member precinct based non- member independent body of composition. So I think that the importance of a nine member independent body of composition, rather than a comparison to nearby towns where it is done by their lawyer or town clerk has pointed out during the discussion last week. So one comment about composition. And a strong argument made by this individual. That there be no political figures on this board. And that they basically represent strongly. The 10 precincts of town. Okay. Any thoughts, let's start with that. Any thoughts on composition. Right now we have two political officials tech technically. So let me start with Sarah, please. So looking at this, it seems like, you know, either you do or you don't have them for the most part, at least that's sort of what I have seen. And I think that's, that's, that's, that's my feeling, even though I know that's hotly contested, whether or not having one completely independent or, or not majorly to the same result, but I'm leaning towards having it just. What Adrian says that we have done and she prefers is having it just to be members of the public. Pulled this way. That's how I'm leaning. I feel like it, it. That way it seems. We just be without political. Pull or influence. So I have two things to point to make a point of. And one is. I disagree with the reliance on precincts. I disagree with the reliance on precincts. I disagree with the reliance on precincts. That made sense when you elected people by precincts, but we don't now we elect people by district. And the only reason the districts are split up is to make shorter voting lines, which is a good thing, but that doesn't mean we should continue to. We should be able to reinforce a precinct mentality. We should be enforcing and reinforcing the district mentality of five districts. And so, you know, if, if we are to go to nine members, I would highly object to trying to spread them out among the precincts versus continuing to spread them out among the districts. We are, we will be splitting into five, this board. We will split into five initially. And so that's what we need to be focusing on. As my feeling is five. So, so that's, that's the first comment I have. And related to the makeup, the second one. I just want to, and, and I understand the concern. And, and I'm. I don't know which way I will vote depending on where this committee comes down. But I did want to point out that the charter commission specifically left the possibility of having elected officials on the DAB, on this board. And I want to point out that because in sections 9.6 and 9.7, which are the requirements to periodically review the charter and the bylaws every decade. The charter commission specifically indicated that members could not hold elective office at the time using the words, all members of the committee shall be voters not holding elective office when appointed. That language is not used in this section 7.4 relating to this advisory board. And which just says the town council shall appoint district advisory board composed of nine members from diverse geographical areas. So in some sense it made a decision to. Not require elected officials, but not require no elected officials. It basically said we're going to leave it up to the town council to decide. But I wanted to point that out that. The charter commission did specifically. Envision the possibility of putting elected officials on this. Board. Okay. No, go ahead with Darcy. She had her hand up. I guess I would just say, you know, we heard from two members of the League of Women Voters, Adrian and Phyllis Lair. And. They were both really strongly pushing. From a League of Women Voters perspective. That this should be a, you know, that the composition should be all residents. And I hadn't thought about it that much at the last meeting. Until I think it was Pat who brought it up. But I, I, I get that now that it makes sense that they're not be elected officials on the, on the, on the board. I think that's where I would come down on it. And it doesn't, I, you know, I think that. Adrian made a point here that. That. To the extent that. I mean, I don't have any problems with using the precincts as, as. Helping to organize this because that's, that's how we still vote. By precinct. And. So that, that doesn't bother me. Is that your hand, Pat? Yeah. I've got several things. One of the things Mandy, the. Charter commission. Left it open. Which meant that it wasn't. Particularly important. So while I have, and you know that I do. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's great respect for your interpretation, et cetera. You served on it. It doesn't mean that your assumption about this is accurate. And to me, leaving it open says, okay, the, the council needs to decide this. And I think it's critical that there are not be. Any elected officials on this committee. And. Adrian says it much better than I. And she talks about. Removing it from political perceptions. I am, I need to say that I am. Really frustrated. And tired. Of the political misperceptions that happened at our council meetings. You know, particularly Mandy Joe got raked over coals that shouldn't even have been there. And there's a consistent pattern on the behalf on the. By some counselors. And I will include myself in that sometimes to. To do that. I'm offended. By the fact that Mandy Joe had to defend herself by a misinterpretation by a member of this committee. I am offended. That there's consistent manipulation of what gets said in a variety of places. Including that this is the power committee. And it should be broken up. And I really, really want this to not have any counselors on it. So that the people who decide. That they want to make a political. Issue out of it. Don't have the ammunition. And I think it would, you know, for. And I'm, I'm, I'm actually, I'm not sorry about how angry I am. I once confronted Alyssa Brewer. For something that she was doing that I felt like needed to. Happen. And I'm going to do that now to every counselor. Who thinks that they can dump shit. Excuse my language. On other counselors. That doesn't mean we don't criticize. Understand, but, but your argument here is essentially you want. No. You don't want any. I don't want any. I like to keep it focused on that. If we could. And not get into the other stuff. Cause. Yeah. I'm sorry. It's all right. Darcy. I'm sorry. I want to hear from committee members first. So I've heard from Mandy. I've heard from Pat. Sarah. I think I've heard from everyone except the chair. Is that correct? Does anyone wish to speak before the chair? What's his foot in his mouth? Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, but Dorothy's not a member of this committee. And we'll go to Dorothy as soon as we finish going through our own deliberations. Okay. And we will go to Dorothy. I assure you, but. I'm sorry. The only votes that count here are the five of us. And I just, I'm getting a sense of, maybe it's really a question to Mandy before we go on. I'd like Mandy if she could to, cause right now I'm leaning in the direction of no political figures. So I guess I need an argument or some sense of why she thinks or might think, or one could possibly think that having people with who are currently serving. Cause right now it's what it would have to be. I guess. And so I, I, I would say that's a really good question. And I do have a few council members who are currently serving on a committee to, to redistrict. Why would that be a good thing? It seems like. From the, on the surface, it would be not a good thing. Do you have any thoughts on that? I don't know whether I can answer that one. Because my, my thinking on this. In my past comments, I tried to say, I'm not actually sure where I stand now. I did go, I was there. I actually have a question. Council on this one. I wanted to point out that in some sense, the Charter Commission left it up there without having a strong feeling whether counselors or elected officials should be on it or not because they didn't say, no, you can't. But I, I'm, I, the question I had for the rest of the committee, we focused on the counselors, but the charge right now has two members of the board of registrars to our, our, are the members are my fellow GLL members. I haven't heard stances on whether those should remain board of, whether we should remit keep those the same or whether we should move to all nine being somehow district chosen from wide geographical areas or whether we're thinking about going to seven, but leaving the board of registrars on there. Like I said, I, I guess my initial thought was the council's the one that votes the districts in the end. Number one and number two, we actually have been elected as counselors to represent the town. And so I think you could make an argument that we potentially bring special knowledge if you want to say that in terms of the neighborhoods and all that other what's in this charge. The, the neighborhood common interest in neighborhoods places where people live congregate recreate worship shop and learn by, by, that we might bring special knowledge and I'm not saying we do, but it could be argued that we might to those ends due to the fact that we've had to campaign throughout town or throughout parts of town and potentially have learned where those general areas are potentially more than others in town. And I'm not saying that is actually a case. I just want to say that, but you could maybe make an argument. Pat and then Dorothy. Yeah, I want to. I'm thinking about district two, which is my district with Lynn. We cover the whole east side of Amherst. We're made up of two former precincts. And the neighborhoods are extremely diverse. And it seems to me that in many of the districts, the former precincts are different. And I, that's why for me, I like the precinct mentality. It feels more connected to the people. And, and so I would like to keep that. I don't know if I'll survive if it's, it turns into districts. I really, really. Believe that we need to keep off people from the council. Off this committee. You know, I hear what you're saying about special knowledge. You have certain knowledge of the town. But so do I as somebody who's working class or was working class, who is involved in the mobile market outside of my district. So that argument doesn't feel as strong to me as it does to you. I'm going to go to Dorothy next and then Darcy. We've talked a lot about how are we going to get a more diverse council and to encourage people to run when they see how long our meetings are, how much work we have. I think that the, this would be a great opportunity for people, non-council members to gain experience in town. And then it could be just as the town meeting in a much larger way was a place where people thought about town government and what their opinions were and what their role might be in it. So I would very strongly say, I think that town counselors should not be on it. We're all very, very strong. We are all very, very experienced. And we would, without, no matter how hard we tried, we would overwhelm other people, even if we said nothing, because it would be assumed that we might know the answer. So I just think it's better not to have town counselors. And I see the precinct structure is still very workable. There's strong feeling within it. And each district is made up to precincts. And I think the precincts have different personalities, maybe not all of it. But certainly in our district, they have slightly different personalities that we get together very nicely as a district. So those are my thoughts. And I realize I'm just a guest. Okay. That's right. Thank you, Darcy. Yeah, I would just like to, to note that the, the League of Women Voters was recommending that all nine be residents. And that's what I had originally suggested. So that would include not having the counselors and not having to, from the board of registrar. I just want to talk a little bit about the precinct versus district. The precincts are for voting only. They are not. They are not how we choose our counselors anymore. They are not how we choose select school committee members. They're not how we choose library trustees. We choose those based on districts. The districts are what we're dividing into the precincts when divided may end up being more than two per district, depending on what this district and advisory committee decides and what the law requires. The precinct mentality is a holdover from a different form of government. We have a city form of government that divides us into districts or the equivalent in Northampton is wards. And that's where we need to be concentrating. And that's where we need to be saying those are the per, per the charter, the districts need to cluster centers of common interest together. When you move on to dividing into voting precincts to keep voting lines short, you're going to be thinking about a completely different type of division than clustering neighborhoods. I'm considering where people live congregate, recreate or worship. You might, when you've got your district, which has to be by inhabitants, I don't know the state law, but when you have to divide that into precincts, you might actually try to divide that into the number of voters in each voting precinct instead of the number of inhabitants. I know we have in very districts a huge number of different voters. And that might be something by law that you might be able to divide your precinct voting precincts into that you can't use to put your district in, into, and we're starting with the districts. And so it's the districts that need to have the common interest. And, you know, a pad, I think your district is one prime example. I don't know what you, you said, and you identified that they have some very distinct, the neighborhoods in there have some very distinct ones, some of which may actually have better common interest with someone in a different district right now. And so maybe when you're dividing into common interests, you might be able to divide that into different districts. And so I think that district two residents may say, well, our southern part better goes with somewhere else. And our northern part better goes somewhere else. And that's what we have to be. Thinking about as we're thinking about the composition. Things like that. I'm hearing a distinct consensus. I'm hearing a distinct consensus. I'm hearing a distinct consensus. And so I'm talking to the councilors on this body. And that's sort of the direction I'm leaning in as well. But we still have the question of, and I'm not saying that's resolved yet, but that's where the sense that I'm getting. We still have the issue of whether we want the registrar's. And my initial sense was, and still is to some degree that they do bring. A degree of. And they would be a valuable addition. And they're also obviously residents of Amherst. And since the numbers are never going to work out beautifully on nine members. And you've got. 10 precincts. We've got nine members in five districts. There's no way to do that math that I'm aware of. No matter how you slice it. So we have a moment or two thought Darcy's already expressed her view that she wants at nine residents and no one from the board of registrars. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Some thoughts on that place. I agree with you, George, that they bring expertise that would be valuable. So keeping the board of registrars people that on would be a good thing. So I would disagree. I still would like it to be. All. Community members. Although perhaps if we're saying that they are people that bring expertise. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that has either staff support or non-voting member. So that there's still, you know, maybe non-voting members. So that they're still there for every single meeting. And they're able to bring their expertise to the board. But I still would like all residents. And I think that what. Mandy Joe is saying has, has merit, right? I mean. I don't like the fact that we have districts. You know, I, I'm still not used to it. Right. But I mean it's a old holdover. And I feel like if the town has made the decision that this is what we're doing and, you know, nobody's trying to overthrow us and bring us back to town meeting. I think in some ways we need to be able to embrace that. And then open ourselves up to, to be curious about where that brings us. So maybe what we do is that there's some way that we can really, you know, be curious about how we would put nine people on and, and really try to in our, our own brains really. We're really putting ourselves in now we're in districts. So how would we make that possible? I think that there's a sort of a mental change over that needs to be made. And I think the more that we can come at it with. Knowing that we have a natural resistance to change, because all humans do, but at the same time we're being curious about how we then are now making it equitable now that we've, we've changed. That makes sense. I actually like Sarah's suggestion of potentially adding a third member, although now we're getting to a large. Now we're at 12 people. And yeah, 12 people. At a meeting, but if, if, if we want them for that expertise, and maybe we take it down to one instead of two at that point, I don't know how many board of registrar's members there are, but I believe Sue I'll debt as clerk is technically on the board of registrar's too. And so maybe we can reduce it to one, a third non voting member as the board of registrar's make it nine. Require that those nine members. Represent all five districts, something like that with no more than two from any one district. I'm just worried a little bit about there's going to be time crunch. We'll look at a moment, I hope before we're done today at my projected timeline for this. We're envisioning that they would start meeting fairly soon after they are appointed. And they won't get the actual numbers until what is it the end of September or is it the end of November? Now it's the end of September, I think, then they have to be done by the end of November. So, and that may change because of factors outside of everybody's control, but there's going to be a question of just getting up to speed and then they don't have a lot of time. And I'm a little concerned about having basically a body composed of just citizens without anyone who, you know, on the actual body that has some real world knowledge of the electoral system and the district things and the precincts and that registrar's on the actual body. I'm just really concerned about that. And so having at least one member, and maybe even two, but at least one from the Board of Registrar's on the actual body would give it some, you know, grounding in just the realities of Amherst's voting system, as opposed to nine people all trying to figure this out while they're also under a time constraint to get this done. So I'm still reluctant to just make it staff support or make it excuse me, make it a non voting member. But because I'm just wondering, and of course, then that sort of implies that that person would then become the chair. And that's not necessarily what I would be wanting, but in a sense it's sort of leading that direction is that who in this room actually knows something about how this actually works. And obviously the town clerk does, but she's a non voting member. It's going to have to be somebody amongst those nine. That's going to have to be take the lead. I don't know. I don't know. I just, I'm worried about nine people trying to figure this out on the fly. Just citizens before, and it's, you know, some of them may be lead voters. I mean, I think I understand your, your reluctance. And I think as new council members, we know what it's like to be overwhelmed. But I think, and so I understand that. You know, we've seen this before with nine citizens and we have to remember that many of our citizens have served on boards or committees or counsel or League of Women's Voters. And I think having at least one registrar, I mean, it's kind of like, remember the old days when we had encyclopedias, like we have nine very intelligent people. But then on the shelf, right on the shelf, we have the encyclopedias so that if we need to know some expertise, we have people in the room who can voice their, their expertise. And I guess that's what I'm looking at. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. I agree. And then if you do put somebody on the board as a registrar, there might be the sort of the implication that then they would become the person everyone would look to and sort of say, well, you should be the chair. And I think that that may not be good either. So we're hearing perhaps a suggestion, nine residents. And we'll have to talk in a minute about how to be, what we're looking for. But essentially nine residents reflective of the, of the community. And then the town clerk and a, a staff member with JS experience. I can't even remember now. We make that staff support file. I think we did. Thank you. So just be two, so two non-voting members, one would be the town clerk. And the other suggestion would be a member of the board of registrars. Non-voting. How does that sound? So nine plus two basically. That would be nine plus three. Yeah. The third, the third is staff support at my memory. And I get it. You can tell. Right. No, we had them all as non-voting members. Okay. So we did put them as non-voting members. All right. So it's nine plus three. Okay. All right. How do people feel about that? So that, that you do have a board of registrar member there in a kind of support function. Along with the GIS and the town clerk. And then, but the body itself is nine citizens. Yeah. And the language that Mandy Joe suggested about. Um, you know, she had graphically dispersed with no more than two from each. Make sense. Right. Well, that's. At least one from each of the existing five districts and no more than two from any one district. Is the current language. Correct. No, because we had five residents. The current language was one from each of the existing five districts. So I'm hoping you're writing that down because we'll come back. I mean, again, this is great. I'm changing my copy so we can then share my screen. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so I'm hearing consensus for that. We'll come back to in a moment when we put the charge back up and we go through that aspect of it. Okay. So we're going to move on to the next slide. But, uh, uh, Miss Teresee has also a, uh, question or a suggestion about the charge itself under the composition. And here is the language that she has proposed or the ideas that she's proposed actually. Proposed districts have well-defined borders, main thoroughfares, river streams and railroad tracks. Okay. And then that a new map takes into consideration polling places and then the next slide. So we're going to move to a different section of the discussion. Maybe we start with the last comment first. Mandy, I think it's made clear that, that look, we're moving to a district system. And so we need to start thinking differently. Um, so I'm wondering if the second comment. Um, really is appropriate given what. Uh, the realities are now. Pat. It seems to me that voting still have the voting places. Um, are in precincts. And, um, I don't know about this, but each district has two polling places. Is that accurate? Uh, and it, and though. Yeah, right now. Mine doesn't. Right. Yeah. I wasn't sure about yours because, um, I mean, in the sense that there, yeah, there are two places, but they're in the same building. So maybe that's the point. Yeah. So in my. Yeah. So basically if we're getting rid of the word precinct, and I'm not having a problem with that, I think there was some clarity about that. Um, and I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. But still, you wouldn't want to have one. Say nothing changed and district two was the same as it is now. One polling place for district two. Uh, could be quite, um, Troublesome in terms of lines. And so I'm not sure which districts have that, which, you know, so I would like to see the number of polling places or the polling places where they exist in neighborhoods. So can I address that? Please go ahead. It is likely that every district because of state law, if you look up to the district advisory, the discharge, the third bullet point will need to be split into two or more voting precincts because given our population and dividing into five, each district will contain more than five at 4,000 inhabitants. That's just as it is. Um, that doesn't, so we don't know how many voting precincts you, the district advisory board will recommend within each of those districts. It could be two. It could be three. It could be four. Um, No voting precinct, my under my memory of state laws that no voting precinct can have more than 2,000 inhabitants. Um, I think, um, which means in all likelihood there will be at least two voting precincts per district, but, but the district advisory committee could decide to have more. The goal of the voting precincts is to shorten lines. Um, And so, so we'll see. I guess I, I look at that second bullet point and I have a big problem with it mainly because I feel like. We shouldn't be drawing. District lines based on where we want people to vote. We should draw the district lines and then. You know, and then split them up and then find an appropriate location for them to vote. Um, it seems backwards to me to start with, well, we can't change our polling locations. And so we have to keep everyone in the same polling location. Um, so it seems almost as if it could violate some of these requirements that are written into our charter and state law. If we start from the bottom and move out instead of start from the top and move down. Um, May I ask a question about what I'm just saying. Um, specifically to Mandy's comment because I have. No, specifically to Mandy's comment. Yeah. Darcy, just a moment then. If you could, could Sarah go ahead, ask a question. So I can understand that reasoning. Um, I guess what it makes me think of is during the pandemic, when we tried to change polling places. And so, um, one of the things that all of us thought about was, is there a good way to be able to educate people as to where their polling places are. So I, I am ignorant of how this, except for all the looking into what I did yesterday. I'm just wondering if there is something as part of this charge or some responsibility somewhere where, you know, it looks like this will probably have to be done. That some, you know, there might be more polling places or might be different. But I'm wondering if we could start thinking now or make it part of the charge of this committee. Um, to, to like immediately as soon as those polling places are established, that we start to get education. Out around where people would be voting and. Yeah. So you might be able to do it as part of the charge. I think the more appropriate, since the council has to vote the final districts. Um, and then the polling places, I assume would be set after the districts are districts and voting precincts are set that as part of the vote adopting the districts and the voting precincts, the council instructs the clerk. At my, my initial thing would be the council instructs the clerk to send a postcard to every register voter that says, your new district is X, your new voting precinct is why you will vote at Z. You know, to every single registered voter, because, you know, that would be my thing. I absolutely agree. We're going to need massive amounts of education. Yeah. I think that's, Darcy, could you, you've been waiting patiently. Please go ahead. Um, I guess. I fervently hope that, um, this whole process doesn't have, doesn't, isn't more complicated than it needs to be. When we already have precinct lines. Um, and even though we're not thinking of them as precincts anymore, that is where we do our voting. So, you know, I would, even though there may be changes and we may end up with, you know, two, two voting districts or three in each current district. If we, I would think that we would want to have a preference to state a preference like the second bullet here where. We don't, we don't have to mention the word precinct. We could just say. That a new map, um, takes into consideration existing polling places. And, um, results in the fewest changes for town residents, you know, because otherwise we, we did hear this during the, you know, when we were, when we had the issue around polling places in the last election, how, how much it could affect voting, um, if people didn't understand where the polling places work. So, um, I guess I just, I really hope that we don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. How many. So, um, I guess I disagree and I'm going to mention one other thing. There are districts, um, the last a decade ago, the precinct lines had the, the committee had a specific charge and I objected to this at the council meeting that said students should be distributed amongst as many precincts as possible or something like that. Um, so now we've got precincts that one could argue specifically dilutes the student population voting, um, voting, voting. I don't agree with that. I'll say that right now. I think if that word student were replaced with other words, a lot of people wouldn't agree with that language. Um, so we've got districts, we've got precincts and districts that were based upon lines that might have specifically diluted certain voting populations and to then say, we're going to try and not change those lines as much as possible. I think is wrong. Um, you know, when you're, we've got districts are larger than voting precincts. When the lines were drawn 10 years ago, you were drawing to approximately 2000 people of 30, 10, we had 38,000 3800 people per precinct, right? Um, and so there was one census block that had more than 4000 people in it and it needed split up on purpose. Um, you now are likely not to have any census block that is larger than 8000 people, which is approximately what each district is going to have in it. Now that we're dividing by five to say that we can't to say we can't to direct the district advisory board to not to change lines as little as possible when those lines already split census blocks up. I just think is wrong. Um, and constricts them too much, especially since we are in a new form of government and we're going from splitting the initial split of being 10 areas to an initial split of five areas. I'm not, I'm not suggesting that we not change the lines. I'm suggesting that to the extent possible, we not change polling places. So in other words, there are people that relates directly to the lines because you're polling places related to the line. No, I understand that. But, uh, Yeah, so I'm just saying the few I, I, I guess I agree with this wording that the, that the League of Women Voters go forward. Um, well, this is actually not the League of Women Voters language. This is the residence language. She's only speaking as on her own behalf. She does append a document from the League of Women Voters, but that's simply FYI. It's not, she's not been sent by the League of Women Voters. She does not represent them. She's speaking in her own voice here. I guess I feel like it's, it's vague enough. So it's just, it's just promoting. You know, keeping the polling places that we have. Right, but it seems the redistricting purpose, the whole purpose of redistricting is to ensure that districts have approximately the same number of people. Um, and it has to do with it, just a general principle of fairness. It's not about, uh, you know, making sure that everybody is happy with where they're voting in the physical space. Um, so it seems like there's a detention here between what these, this board is being assigned to do and desire to make sure that we upset as few people as possible. Um, and I'm not sure that they're convened. Their purpose of their charge is not to upset people. Um, obviously they're not seeking to do so, but somebody's going to say, well, how come I've got to go here now? And is that what they should be worried about? I don't think so. They should be worried about making sure that the districts are approximately, you know, geographically. And in other words, what the charge asked them to do, as opposed to this, which seems to say, in addition, try to, you know, piss off as few people as possible. That's like, I mean, yeah, I mean, that's, but that's really not what they're being asked to do. And I don't see how this is going to, you know, a, it's not precincts. That's the first problem. We're talking about districts now. Um, and B, it's not about where you physically vote. Um, right. This whole process is not driven by, you know, making sure everybody's, you know, happy with where they physically go to vote. It's about making sure the districts are fair and representative. That's going to be big enough challenge. Um, so I don't really see, um, the merit of adding this. Um, they're going to have enough challenges in this language. It doesn't seem to be relevant to their actual charge. Yeah, I get what you're saying. And, um, I'm, I'm kind of behind the eight ball on this issue because I, I'm not aware of, uh, you know, I wasn't aware of any, you know, plans to do a major change based on population students or whatever. Um, and I don't know what my opinion is about that. But so I'm, I'm coming from the perspective of, just, you know, making things as least complicated as they need to be. So, um, and fair, obviously. Right. Right. So, um, sorry, someone's had Darcy's hand. Okay. Anyone else. Um, there's someone in the attendees that's had their hand up. And since we recognized counselor Pam before it might be. On an issue, it might be wise to recognize that person too. Okay. We have a time for public comment. Are you suggesting we do public comment now? I guess you already technically allowed public comments through counselor Pam. On this issue. Cause that's true. That is correct to have. So, um, Uh, If we can, um, Reach if the person who is in the audience wishes to address this particular issue, um, we will have another time later in the meeting. If there is something else that we can do. We will have another time later in the meeting. If there is something else that you wish to speak on, but if you have a thought you wish to express at this point. On what we've been talking about, uh, for the last hour. Um, please raise your hand and I'm not sure I can see their hand. So hopefully someone can. Because their hand is up. Okay. All right. So that, that's already been taken care of. So if, uh, we could allow them to come into the room. You may not. Okay. Oh, it's you. It's me. You may not allow me to come into the room. Dorothy has to leave. Ah, that is true. That would, that would. So as part of public comment. Yeah. So please, if you would, um, Identify yourself and, uh, Where you live. And where you live. Um, Lynn Greeksman. I live at 83 flat Hills road and district two. Very much. Go ahead. I want, and, um, Let me just, um, in full truth tell you that. My previous organization, uh, Supports the secretary of state. In the redistricting process. So it's actually something I've spent some time on. I've enjoyed this conversation. I think you're making a great decision. Uh, but what I didn't want to do was have it come to the council. And then bring up my issue. My issue is how are you going to make sure that this committee. Represent. And I mean, BIPOC. Of Amherst. And I. I feel that given our goals of the council. That that is a critical piece. And I don't know how you want to try to rate that in, but I didn't want it to come to the council without having said that. Okay. That's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. Um, I want to go and put the charge back up. We obviously we, we're facing a number of challenges. One and not the least of which is time. We do have some things we really do have to look at in terms of, of the, uh, proclamations. Um, and so I want to leave. I was hoping to leave at least half an hour for that. Um, and we're almost at that point. Um, I don't think we're going to resolve this today, which is frustrating, but I don't, um, I think we've made good progress. And I think we can try and sum up and maybe make some changes. We've made some changes already to the document, but I don't know that we're ready to, uh, to, to finalize it. Um, and so it also raised the question of legal review, because now we're making potential changes to the charge itself. And so, um, my understanding is it hasn't been sent out yet. And so, um, it sounds like we can't send it out since we're no longer talking just about composition. We're also talking about, uh, some of the language of the charge. So, um, can I, I would like to put that charge up for a moment and see if there are any changes we can agree to by consensus right now. And then I'm going to suggest that we're going to have to come back to this at our next meeting. Um, I don't want me to do the share. Actually, that would be great. Thank you. Maybe if you could put, um, so I should stop sharing. So I think I just will do that for you. Okay. Making it bigger. Don't worry. Thank you. Um, So in red is changes from last week. Um, the three up there. There's the voting members and non voting. Members. All right. Okay. And my sense was, and then people speak up if this is not correct, that, that there seems to be consensus for this. Um, format of composition. Um, okay. No more. And again, and Darcy, go ahead. And we want to add something under, um, nine residents to, um, to require X number of BIPOC. I think I would very troubled by that quite frankly. I would be very troubled. Um, Yeah. Um, Well, I don't know. Um, I just think that, you know, we have our council goals. I think everyone is aware of it. We will be the ones doing the, uh, we certainly could put this. It could be in our, um, selection criteria. Um, in other words, we are going to eventually we, this committee will do the, uh, interviews and do the, we don't be hopefully the only ones during the outreach, but we will be doing the interviews and making a recommendation. So I would think that would fall under our discussion of selection criteria in relationship to the town council goals, but putting it into this document, I would be deeply troubled by that. Um, So I don't know if people see that distinction, but I do. Um, We want basically nine citizens, uh, who represent the town in terms of geographical space. We, when we set our selection criteria, it seems that might be the place for us to articulate publicly that, uh, given the town council goals, um, we're going to be looking very much for, for representation from the BIPOC community. But, um, that's up to the people in the community to, you know, present themselves to, um, so we'll do outreach. And so does that make sense to people that I, I don't think it should be here. It should be in the selection criteria that we hammer out, uh, in the next month, uh, before we go to, uh, interviews. That's my two cents. And that's off the top of my head. I'd be interested to hear if other people think that. Is something. That we could put in, it would be hard. I guess it would be hard to require, but, um, it's, you know, we could say with a, you know, a number of BIPOC members proportional to, uh, BIPOC population in the town or something like that. But anyway, um, we could also be getting our selection criteria, but that's always mushy as we all know, you know, it's also dependent on who, who puts themselves forward. I mean, you know, you cannot compel people to serve on this committee and also depends on the quality of the people who put themselves forward. I would be very reluctant to put somebody on, on this committee, simply on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Um, if we didn't feel that they were qualified or they didn't feel that they could do the job. Um, so there are a whole host of criteria that we use. Certainly one of them seems perfectly appropriate, given our council goals, um, to, to be, to involve outreach to and hope that we would have at least one or two members from the BIPOC community on this body. Um, but then you get into questions of proportional representation. Um, you know, and I can give you the figures if you like, according to the census. Um, and, uh, you know, roughly 70% of the population of Amherst is, is registered as white. Um, we really want to get into that. We want to get into the percentage of population. I think that would be, be foolish. Um, so I would suggest that this is, as it stands, it's fine. Um, but I agree with the comment made, uh, by Lynn earlier, and I think the comment that you were making as well, uh, that this is a serious concern. And when we do our selection criteria, it's something that we can articulate in writing. And we certainly would guide us in our attempt to, uh, in our recommendations to the council. But I don't think we could presume, uh, how it's going to turn out. I think that would be a mistake to say it must be X number or X number or must represent this percentage. Um, I think it's a terrible mistake. I think Pat had her hand up at one point. Pat, please. Thanks. Um, I basically agree with George, um, in that it should be in the selection criteria because if, for me, if we were going to add that it had to be a certain number of residents from the BIPOC community, then I would want to add a certain number of residents from the inter-married socioeconomic groups. And so to me, let's look, and that may be something we want to do. Uh, we don't do that very well. Um, so for me, it is in the selection criteria. And then for those of us who really care about increased engagement from the BIPOC community and the socio economic community who, uh, who are hitting poverty levels and stuff, Then we need to go out and recruit those people to apply. So I'm going to go with George on this one. Pat, you said exactly what I was going to say. Yeah, it's not that this isn't important and it isn't. It isn't that it isn't a stated council goal. But I think in this document that that's not would not be wise. So we're, I think for the moment, we're okay with nine plus three. But we still have the question, maybe we just have to come back to it at our next meeting. Again, time is an issue here. We'll talk about that a little bit later. I'm sorry. I'm Andy, if you could just do we want to. I think we should we need to look at the language here briefly. Yeah. It had a recommendation regarding bullet two that I haven't heard a lot of people talk on. I wonder if we, we haven't talked about it because we're all okay with sort of rejiggering bullet two for her recommendation, which was to essentially add streams and major thoroughfares and I don't know what was it. Well road tracks. I'm trying to figure out why those things are important. Right. Well, I think she was just better wanting to define what will define the limits. I don't know. I think that actually might be manager and you might know this but I know that I read that somewhere when I was reading about Jerry Mandarin and Massachusetts that in order to that that the the geographical boundary lines also had to make sense and some of the ways that Massachusetts came up with boundaries, making sense so maybe I could look back and see where I found that because I did see that wording somewhere. But I think that it's used. It might be part of the chapter 54 language. Yeah, it prevents Jerry Mandarin. I assume that this language of the charge is essentially the language that was used 10 years ago. It basically is other than the changing precincts to districts and adding this last this bullet. I'm really reluctant to take it with this, especially given. Well, I just, you know, this seemed to work fine. I don't think we suffer from. I mean, it gives the guidance. To figure out what they mean by well defined visible limits, but I don't think that's our job. And I don't really want to get into it. This was what was the language used 10 years ago. It seems perfectly adequate. And I think we just have better things to do and I don't see how we're going to resolve this one where the other, as long as the language is districts not precincts. I think that this is sufficient. And it's going to be the job of these nine citizens, and they're they're non voting colleagues to hammer this out. And I don't think we should be looking over their shoulder. Railroad tracks streams I mean maybe I assume the language is taken from something and I'm sure it's perfectly fine but I don't want to get into it. So do we that other well defined visible limits include those things. I think that they're going to have to figure that out. I'm not sure I want to try and figure that out, because we could spend hours deciding, you know, the streams rivers, mountains, you know, tunnels, I mean, for God's sake. You know, how many railroad tracks we have in Amazon. It's ridiculous though if it's it's part of how congruent I mean if it's as part of it somehow we do congressional lines if it's in there. Because that's where Jerry Mandarin comes from because there were borders that literally looked like a salamander and they stuck Jerry's name on it. I don't want to spend a wicked lot of time on it but can just can maybe confirm with someone even counsel that this is actually part of, you know, Massachusetts law, and that we would consider putting it in there just seems like a compromise to me. I mean, what is a federal census block boundary and this does not expand our charge does not explain what that is and I think. I think that would be something that the this board would have to deal with. I mean, why are we trying to do their work. I mean this this language is what was used 10 years ago. We're telling them to pay attention to these things and not saying all the things that they might need to pay attention to. Because we're going to rely on their common sense and good judgment and right as opposed to ours which is, you know, we'll see to the pants, you know, based on some suggestion by. So I guess I would just like to leave this as it is but I'm hearing that there's a desire to at least entertain the language that was represented by this resident so if you want to add that language or. Again, I section two of chapter 54, which is referenced right above in terms of the laws, every ward which is the equivalent of a district shall constitute a voting precinct by itself where shall be divided into precincts containing as nearly as an equal number of inhabitants consisting of compact and contiguous territory entirely within the ward and bounded so far as possible by the center line of known streets or ways, or by other well defined limits that constitute block boundaries recognized by the United States Bureau of the Census. So that's what's in state law. They would read, they would read that in other words the part of the first meeting or second meeting would be to read that and have that language spelled out to them in detail so why are we doing that. It's right there. So I think we need to leave a certain amount of room for them to do their job. And here's the actual MGL citation. And they have a board of registrar person president of the town clerk present. So I just think, why are we doing this. Why are we trying to re engineer the wheel here. That's they'll they've got it. Right. But it wouldn't do any harm. What's what's the harm of putting it in. Because we're going to then debate what goes in what doesn't. So let's put the language up there. You know, why not mountains. Well, we don't have mountains. How about hills. You know about how about roundabout. What Mandy read George was pretty much what is in this bullet. I didn't hear anything from the. What is it. Sorry. Thank you. Chapter 54. I mean that. That's what it says. It says exactly what's there. So I didn't hear it say streams rivers and railroad tracks. So that's why I'm seeing, and that's the language that we were looking at earlier as a proposed addition or a change. And I'm sitting, no, let's just leave this as it is. And there's the references for them to read. And they can debate themselves. But if people want some specific language, Sarah, for instance, was sympathetic to putting that language in. Let's get it up on the screen. And let's, you know, decide what we want to do with it. My suggestion is leave it as it is, but we could put that language up. And tell me why you think that makes this any clear or any better than than what the MGL above tells them, and they'll go read anyway. I'm not trying to think of a stream that's wrong. I'm just wondering, and I can't, I can't. I mean, there's no rivers and Amherst. Okay, so George, let her speak. I'm sorry, please. I'm so I'm saying is, is that I understand what you're saying. I'm just telling you that my recall from looking up gerrymandering yesterday and looking up how redistricting is done is that this language is actually somewhere and it actually has to do with the original gerrymandering that began in Massachusetts. So the only reason why I'm arguing for this, I can't find it. I'm almost even wondering if we could ask, you know, our town lawyer or something I, I, I think it's worth considering this particular thing, because that's how I remember it is that this is important when it comes to gerrymandering, you know, protection laws in Massachusetts that's the only reason and I can't find it right now. That's my only argument, George. And my argument basically is that we need to get this thing going. And it's in the MGL and work 10 years ago. And we really need to get moving. So that's my argument. So what are the thoughts from colleagues. Do you want us to want me to send this out to KP law and have them know, I don't think so. I'd like to have a question. Please go ahead. In terms, are we trying to get this out today? Or is it coming back next meeting? Well, if we could agree, if we could agree that this charge as it stands is perfectly adequate. And we have already it seems agreed that the composition of the body is nine plus three. Then I think we are at a point where we could just say, this is, this is done. Otherwise, we're looking at two more weeks. And I really don't see the value added here at all. But that's one book, the one thought. So if people want to do this, then we will put it off till next next time. And in the interim, I don't know really what to do. I've noticed I heard to send this to KP law. I've already suggested to go to the state official but the thought is you shouldn't really send it to her until it's ready. I added a such as streams, reverse or railroad tracks, which isn't a requirement. It's just a, in the way this is worded, it would be sort of a example of what well defined limits could be. I can support that change. I can support what George is saying of not putting it in there at all. So the such as is fine and with that change, I would be ready for a vote on the whole charge. Sarah. Can I just ask a question, just because again we're, we have two documents and I'm only looking at this one. Is there other language in that was suggested by the resident that people want to include. Or, you know, was it just streams rivers or railroad tracks. I mean, for that bullet point, yes. And then there was also suggestion for another bullet point about that one was about keeping polling places. Yeah, I think that one I think we've eliminated because of we're talking about districts here not precincts and I thought we felt that it's not about voting places this to charges about something else. But so we're just this language adequate sufficient to satisfy people's concerns and others they offer illustrations. But it's not exhaustive. Did you scroll back up George. I think I believe yes, Mandy has control. Oh, to their Darcy. Yeah. Yeah, I think we had agreement on the composition right. Yes, I believe we did. Okay, nine residents. At least one from each of the existing five districts and no more than two from any existing district. And then three non voting members time clerk IT staff with GIS and a member of the board of registrar. Let's hope that one of them is willing to do this. But I guess we could just say well, I'm not that spot remains vacant. Right. It means it's it's non voting anyway. Okay. So I think we're at a point where we could vote on this but I need to hear from the rest of you. Are you satisfied with this is what someone prepared to make a motion. I'm always prepared to make a motion generally. Well, Mandy, please go ahead. Move to recommend the Districting Advisory Board charge as amended at the April 7 2021 GL meeting. There's a second. Second to Angela's. We have a motion we have a second any further discussion on this, because the thought is that it is ready to go out for legal review and get this rolling. Any thoughts on that. Seeing none and prepared to move to vote. So I'm going to start this time with Mandy. Sarah. Hi. Pat. Hi, Darcy. Hi. The chair is a yes. So it is five zero unanimous. We have voted to accept this charge. And I will send it out later today and ask that it be given. Actually, Mandy, you'll send it to me and I will send it on. Okay. What's next on the item agenda is the actual process in timeline for recruiting. And I'm wondering, I'm sorry, mental health awareness week proclamation that Dorothy's been so patient on. Yes, I understand. But as I warned her. Oh, oh, sorry, I thought you were moving on to something else. No. District advisory board thing again. Sorry. It's still DAB and it's the timeline and process. And maybe the answer for that is it will be for the next meeting. It's in the packet. It's just, it's just sketching out a process and we're not going to make any decisions today. And I guess my main concern is that if you see that I'm missing something, there's a step not there. Don't worry about the date so much that just sort of ranges. And who knows what they'll turn out to be. But if you have a problem with something's missing. Right, that's where I could use some help. And then in terms of days, dates in terms of ranges of time, as opposed to specific dates. But I think we can save that for next time. And I hope you have a chance to look at it just to cast your eyes on it. Okay. So I was going to move to the mental health. Yes, I thank you Mandy and thank you Dorothy for your patients. But I was going to move to the review the children's mental health week proclamation. And I'm going to put that up on the screen. So, let me close something here. And let me open something. And let me share. And put this up on the screen. How's that for visibility. Do you need a little larger. I'm going to leave it there for the moment. So, this is being sponsored by counselors brewer Pam and Schwartz. I want to start with a community sponsor question because just very briefly and not that we're going to decide on this but my feeling is that generally speaking these kinds of things should always come from. There should be a community sponsor connected to it. So, this one doesn't have one at the moment. And so, maybe that's no big deal. In other words, counselors, I guess are perfectly free to offer their own proclamations and ask the council to proclaim it. But I feel like just as a matter of sort of procedure. And sort of just the whole purpose of proclamations is to connect the communities concerns with the council. So, what do people feel about that you feel like, you know, generally speaking, these sorts of things should, we need to have a council sponsor that's required by rules. But shouldn't it really be coming from a community group or individual as opposed to the counselors, or no, may I speak to that. Please, Sarah. So, Alyssa and I actually had had to just a coffee talk conversation about children's mental health. And then the next day this came across and we both said, wow, we're just, you know, talking about this. And it's something that you know everybody has causes right and so this is something that I think Alyssa and I, and I'm assuming Dorothy feel, you know, strongly about. So we said we would do it. I reached out yesterday to civil. Ben Mayor who's who sent us this the from the parent professional advocacy league I called her and I sent her an email which I forwarded to both the other sponsors, telling her that we, you know, we, we need a community sponsor and giving her the timeline that we need to have a GOL. I have not heard back from her. So I totally agree with you with what you're saying I don't think people can just scattershot, you know, to different municipalities of, you know, a proclamation and then, you know, whatever we do whatever that seems empty to me. But because I care so much about this, I, I'm wondering if I could maybe just have. I have two counselors who are sponsoring this saying, if I do not hear back from civil, you know, would we want to, you know, do we, the three of us or is there someone in the community that we know either a pediatrician, or psychiatrist someone recognize the community that we could say is, you know, does this mean something to you would you be willing to be the community sponsor. That's open to what other people have to say that's just where I've gotten. That's, that's the thinking behind what I've done with this and that's how far I've gotten with the work. I want to just clarify that we do not have a requirement that there be a community sponsor I'm just raising the question. And whether in what sort of philosophical question about these kinds of proclamations that come without some individual or group from the community behind it. So it's not, it's a question. So, we're going to go to Dorothy as we hand up I'm going to let Dorothy speaks and she is one of the sponsors. I thought about community sponsorship is a good idea in general, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. When the request came out I thought about it and I said okay. A person who is a provider, a counselor might feel it looks self serving to put forward this proclamation. The ideal group is one that if it exists we we don't know haven't looked at it yet, which would be a parent group. And if such exists, it would be great to have them co sponsoring this. I think one of the reasons this is so important to some of us is that there's very little work at this time in reference to children's mental health. I think there will be more because as I've said at a number of meetings. I think that we had a year which will have impacts that will be affecting us for a long time. Although, and your desire in general for community sponsors and we generally have gotten them. I think we should go ahead with this one. And I know that Sarah has been working hard on doing it. I think there's a little it's a little difficult to get it and you have what you have are three people who are counselors who are also mothers grandmothers and whatever who feel strongly on this issue as community people as well as counselors. Okay, thank you. Pat. Actually, I wasn't going to speak to that so if Mandy Joe is going to speak to community sponsors. I would prefer her to go. I have a different issue. Sorry, I was just going to say. I don't think a community sponsors necessary. You know, it happened to be drafted by someone that wasn't necessarily part of the community that was sort of seeking things out but we found three sponsors on the council who feel strongly about this. We've heard them say they want to go forward that that follows our rules and that satisfies it and we should go forward. Okay. Well, I want to I'm off this topic I wanted to go to the whereas I'm very grateful for this proclamation to the three sponsors. And then I just have something that I would like to change a little bit so as I had I raised this initially because it's a concern I have, and I wanted to hear what the rest of you thought. And clearly there's a consensus that the fact that there is not a community sponsor is not a barrier to this we have no rule about that, as Mandy points out. So, I still have concerns about this but it's for another time clearly there's a consensus here to go forward so let us do that. So we want to go through it whereas by whereas if you can. And Pat it sounds like you had a particular. I was looking at the second whereas where it says 20% of children and youth. And so, number one I thought that needed to be divided into two parts. Number one, whereas it being 20% of children and youth, all the way to before age 14. And then the second sentence bothered me because it was not reflective of disparities that we have in mental health services, both to disparities around socio economic and racial or ethnic makeup so I've rewritten. I made my own whereas and I wanted to share it with the sponsors to see what they thought. Okay, whereas children and youth with the most intense needs. Children and youth who are members of racial and ethnic minorities or ethnic but anyway that's my racial or or children and children and youth who are not insured are frequently understeer underserved in the areas of in the areas of in the areas of presentation, access, quality of treatments and outcomes of care. And you want to strike this. Yes. But you know it's up to the sponsors but I feel like we need to have it and I apologize I do not have track changes. I'm not sure who are not insured are frequently underserved in the areas of presentation. Thank you. Access. Quality of treatments. And outcomes of care. So we need to have it and I apologize that do not have track changes on because I am not Mandy. So it's amateur hour here. So, after having made the changes and output on the track. So comments or thoughts on this from the sponsors. Do we need to raise our hands. Please just speak up. Go ahead. I'm really grateful that Pat focused on that paragraph every time I read it over I, I, I spelt that the, the parallelism the structure was not correct. I don't know if you started with the first part, a statement that this is true. These problems are true for all children are, but this particular two subsets that she mentioned are less apt to get any care or have any coverage. I think that's really three subsets because children with the most intense needs. Sometimes they're, their family has money but the need is in terms of care. Anyway, I thought that was a really good clarification because that paragraph really did. I stumbled over it every time. You took the time to really kind of work it out. So I appreciate it. So I hear, I hear one sponsor very strongly supportive of it. Any thoughts from the other sponsors Sarah. I think that's. I think it was well thought out and I'm very appreciative that you took the time to do that. Thank you. Darcy I'm sorry I was at hand. That was a thumbs up. Oh, okay. Thank you. Mandy. Yeah. I don't know if they're similar thing, but it's not as intensive. As Pat did in the last whereas. It similarly had that semi colon in the middle of it. And so I would have just added the and and a new whereas there. And then create the new whereas. And instead of putting the theme in parentheses and quotes, I would just set it out by commas. I just want to. I just want to register the fact that I have suggested a substantive change. And that at times on GOL that works. Thank you. And we've now gone over into a separate page. That's all right. So I'm sorry to scroll around like this. I don't want to make me dizzy. But I do think we need to go through it just one last time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't need the community sponsor unless between now and when we vote. Our council or sponsors have found. Someone. Right. That's, that's fine. If they want to. If they want to understand that's, that's what we've agreed. So where's the residence families value their health and mental health. That of their families, therefore. Whoops. Okay. That's, that's, that's a problem right away. Okay. That's why we do this. We have a semi colon. We don't need a semi colon. I don't know why there's a therefore. We don't want to therefore. Residents of Amherst, their health and mental health and that of their families. And our proud to support. And our proud. Well, I mean, in a sense. And our product, right. I wonder if, if we just, it's just the first clause and that's it. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a good point. Because what we're calling on, I assume at the end. For people to, we want to call that awareness for the residents of Amherst, though, that they will. Become more supportive, but it seems like you're starting out with that assumption. That you really can't. I don't think I can make this claim. I'm hoping that this will, I take one of the purposes of this, maybe the main purpose is to increase awareness. But I would suggest that we get people to support these sorts of things. So I would suggest deleting it. What are the sponsors? If they wanted, how do they want to word it? Because I think it seems here. This is kind of your goal. What you hope will happen. Is that people will go support this. So I would suggest striking it. But. I certainly don't want to therefore there. That's a very special word in this document. And it seems like you've got the cart before the horse. So I would take this out. You're just talking format and style. We state the case. And then we say that you therefore were the result at the end of the document. Is that correct? That's what I'm suggesting. So I'm going to take this out. Unless I hear somebody saying, no, no, this is something I want to make a separate whereas or blah, blah. Can I just say that I think that this was. Oh, sorry, Pat. No. I was reading. I'm sorry. I apologize. No, no, no. I didn't realize I was reading the loud. I'm just, just going to state that that the painting a picture. That's something that the person who sent this to us. So. Parent professional. Advocacy league. That's, I think that's what they're trying to. In this, one of the big things they're trying to do is to sort of. Highlight something that they're doing. So I don't know what Dorothy, Dorothy has said, she's okay with it. I just wanted to bring up that, that I think it comes from the initial sponsor and I have not heard back from them. So I would be okay taking it out unless I. You know, We don't really know what it refers to without. So that's this, that's this whereas down here, but I'm still up at the top. I want to make sure that before I hit the delete button, I have the agreement of the sponsors to take this sentence out. Okay. Sounds like I do. Going once. Going twice. Yeah. So where's the rest of the members value their health and mental health and that of their families and whereas 20% of children in youth, United States live with a mental health condition and 50% of all lifetime instances of mental illness begin before age 14 and whereas children and youth with the most intense needs. Children and youth who are members of racial or ethnic children and youth who are not insured. comma. No, no, are free. Thank you. Frequently underserved in the areas of presentation access quality of treatments and outcomes of care. And whereas children and youth with mental health needs in elementary middle and high school are more likely to be bullied. Absent suspended expelled or failed to graduate and there's right. I'm sorry. Oxford commas after middle and expelled. Elementary, middle and high middle middle comma. Well, that's not a common George and high school comma. No, no, not after high spell. Thank you. Thank you. And whereas recognizing the early warning signs of mental health needs and obtaining the necessary support comma assistance. And treatment gives children and youth better opportunities to lead full and productive lives at home in schools and in their communities. Come after assistance. That's right. Whereas the involvement and partnership of family members in the assessment and treatment of children and youth is essentially the positive outcomes and whereas our nation's future depends on the health and well-being of its families and their children and whereas children's mental health awareness week was developed by families of children with emotional behavioral. Mama. And mental health needs to focus on the needs of their children and families and whereas, and here I take, I want to take this out. Is that acceptable? Because What did you take out? I want to take this. I'm sorry. You said this, we are, what is the this. Yeah. Yeah. I highlighted this. This year's theme referring to. Children's mental health awareness week. Okay. So the theme of children, children's mental health awareness week. Is painting a picture of hope for the future. Okay. I think it's fine. Yeah. You're right. You're right. Thank you. Thank you. Now, therefore be it resolved that the Amherstown council proclaims the week of May 2nd through a 2021. The children's mental health health awareness week to help cultivate awareness for all residents of Amherst voted this. I guess we'll let Athena figure that out. Day of whatever. Okay. George. Yeah. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good paragraph to help cultivate awareness. To some, and I don't have the exact words, but perhaps, you know, towards taking some steps. Maybe awareness. About the extensive mental health needs of children in our community. Awareness. Of the mental health needs of children. Of the mental health needs of children. Of the mental health needs of children. Of the mental health needs of children. We might have a chance to do something with some of the federal money that's coming in. It's, it's. I mean, you know, after we talk, I mentioned summer school at the meeting yesterday. I heard on the news that Charlie Baker is talking about. Summer school, school going straight through most of the summer. So I mean, there may be money coming. That could actually. Be helpful in this area. We might have a chance to vote some. We might have a chance to vote some. We might have a chance to vote some. We might have a chance to vote some. See if you like this. So to help cultivate for all residents of Amherst awareness of the mental health needs of our children. How about cultivate in all residents. Thank you. And awareness of. Thank you. Lots on that. I'm good with it. There's the almost the entire document. All right. So I'm prepared in motion. We accept 2021 children's mental health awareness week proclamation as amended. On April 7, 2021 as clear, consistent and actionable. Second. Been made and seconded any further discussion. Seeing none. I'm going to begin with the chair chair votes. Yes. Mandy. Hi. Hi. Darcy. Yes. Hi. So it's five zero. Thank you very much. Let me save this. I will send this on to. Ah, so this is for the month of May. Right. There's no flag or anything involved. Part of our new process that we're not going to be able to sign on today is whether we want to set a, I'm supposed to communicate to the council clerk. But I'm not sure how long. This should be made available to the public. And so this is for the week of May two through eight. That would be my assumption. Correct. Yeah. Okay. All right. We have one other. We are over time. I understand that. I understand if people have to go. I don't have a life anymore. I'm sorry. All right. Alright. Thank you. That's all right. Yeah. Hope you feel better, Pat. Yeah. What I'd like us to do is get through the, we have the Arbor month proclamation. I'd like us to make a decision about that. And then I do leave. We have a moment to talk for briefly about what happens to proclamations once voted on by GOL. And then we're done. When we'll talk very briefly about what will come next. I have a suggestion for that too. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how to raise it. So that's where we're headed. But hopefully within 10 minutes or less. Can people bear me? Bear with us there. Dorothy, you're free to go. I figured how to get out of the meeting. I can eject. Now, can I eject her? No. Bye Dorothy. Thank you. I'll get you a big red button, George. Thank you. I want the one where I can eject myself. Like in the jets. See me floating down into the Bay of San Francisco. All right. Enough nonsense. I want to put this up. So that is, I'm going to move that back. And I'm going to open this document. Look, we, I did not hear back from anybody on the Arbor month. Okay. But so I just took. What we did last year. And, and went through. Just makes, you know, and we could just send it out. Or we could just say, look, you know, it's not our job. To celebrate Arbor month. So I need some guidance here. When we don't get any kind of, and this goes back to my earlier question, you know, it's like. Why are we doing this? I love trees. I'm all for Arbor month. But, you know, it's not our job. So I get a lot of other things to do. So why, why are we doing this? If the shade tree commission didn't put it forward and no counselor did on their own after having done it for a number of years, I would say, just. Let it go. And if somebody complains, we'll explain to them why and encourage them to, you know, in the future, pay attention. But it's not our job to. To tidy up the proclamation and send it out. Because it doesn't even have a council sponsor. But I just, so. I'm going to keep this in my file for future reference. But unless I have a strong objection from the rest of my colleagues, I kind of in Mandy's court here. We just didn't hear back from anybody. How did it come up in the first place? It was, it was great. I mean, we created this list of proclamations and it was on the list. And, you know, it was coming up. And so I reached out to say, you know, what's, what's going to happen with this and nothing. I got nothing back. I did not reach out to the shade committee. Committee because I didn't know. I didn't know who sponsored it. Even that. I mean, as you can see, when this was done last year, the sponsors not on here. I think it's Alan snow. I could get ahold of him. And I kind of feel like this is important. And I absolutely adore the shade tree commission. So they could just do this on their behalf. And then I could reach out to them later and say, look guys. You know, I can give you that information, George, or I'm willing to do that. Cause I know that as chair, you have a ton to do. Well, since I'm the one that said, oh, I love trees and I love the tree commission. I'm willing to help you in any way that I can. Well, it's already April and, and this is should go before the council next meeting on the consent agenda. And so what we could do is in deference to Alan snow, which is one of my favorite people in this town. And I can send it on to Lynn and say, please put, put this on the consent agenda. And in the meantime, Sarah could reach out to Alan and just let him know that this has happened. And that he may also be hearing from GOL chair. And just to improve communication in the future. Sarah, do you know somebody on the shade tree committee itself? Alan is probably the. Is Claire Bertrand still in the shade tree? Claire. That's good. So let's not cut this to the quick. I think Sarah makes a good point. We've been doing this. Let's just do it. And maybe what we do, George, is just let them know the process and say, put a reminder on your phone or something. Like we won't necessarily remind you next year, but here's our new process. So let's do it. Let's do it. Let's do it. And maybe what we do George is just let them know the process and say, put a reminder on your phone or something. So let's do it. So let's put a reminder on your phone or something. So let's put a reminder on your phone or something. So let's put a reminder on your phone or something. But here's our new process. Yeah. Good. We can just see it. I'm sorry. Yes. I can see it. How come you guys can see it? Object permanence. What. Yeah. Okay. Remember you elected me chair. Okay. I tried to warn you. None of us wanted it. I know that's how I went all my elections. All right. Okay. So this is something we went out last year. It was fine. You can see. There was some punctuation change. I mean, just basically semi colon and usually we bold this. I can go back and bold this later. And we took this out last time. And I assume we're going to take it out again. This whereas multiple events are planned because I have no idea. I assume that's not true. I just don't know. So it wasn't in last year. So I'm going to take it out. I'm going to take it out. I'm going to take it out. I'm going to take it out. I'm going to take it out this year. So. I remand in the town of Amherst. And we urge all residents support efforts to predict their trees and woodlands. Comma and to support. I'm town's urban forestry program. And I'm putting the date of 12 because that is when the council meets next and this really does need to go out. Give you a moment to look at it one last time. You see any typos or anything that strikes you is. Sarah, do you want to be a counselor? Sponsor. I'd be glad to be a counselor sponsor. Sarah, definitely in Darcy. So. And. Again, I apologize to you all. Are we actually making it now? Our official policy to put. Yes. The council. The council sponsors are. And it should actually, does it actually go in the final document or not? That's a question. For our. Council clerk who. I think it has been. Yeah. She may have fled. I don't blame her. Come here. I leave it. You leave it in. Thank you. Council sponsors are we just said. Darcy. Thank you. Sarah Schwartz council sponsors. Thank you. And actually it's not in parentheses and it's left. Justified or whatever. It's left. Not centered. Thank you. And you need to fix the spelling. What misspelled sponsors. Yes, I did. And that's how I spell. The capital M. Who needs a capital M. Darcy Darcy. And then you and the capital M. I've been misspelling Darcy's name for years. Thank you. Do we normally put counselors in front of that? I think we do. Thank you. All right. George in the last whereas get rid of the. And that you just struck through. No. Actually delete it. So, so should be a period. Yeah, you've got the period there. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you. I sure hope the trees appreciate this. I can't get them to vote for me. I tried, but. You know, Darcy, your hands up. Darcy, please. What we should also say. I think we should. Whereas trees can increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas. Wait a minute. Why don't we just add a. I guess we have clean the air. Why don't we just add in that list? The third whereas. So trees can replace the erosion of our precious top. So I went in water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen. And I'm sorry. Yeah, right there. Right. Western carbon sequester. And. And provide habitat for wildlife. And in a windstorm, fall over and hit your house. No, I will not put that in. And not even say. Sorry. A vote for you. Right. That's the ultimate insult. Okay. Good. Anything else? You got the bold of the now therefore. Thank you. So this, this is ready for prime time. I think. Shall I make the motion? Please. To declare the Arbor month proclamation as amended on. April 7th, 2021. Clear consistent and actionable. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Sarah. I'm going to go right to vote. I'm going to start with the chair. Who's a yes. Darcy. Oh, Darcy, your hand is up. I apologize. No. Yes. Yes. Okay. Mandy. Hi. And Sarah. Hi. Okay. So the vote is four zero with one absent. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. To accept this. As amended. As clear consistent and actionable. Is it. Messed up down there. Okay. I'm sorry. How so. Wait a minute. It says. Oh, oh, never mind. I think he just has to accept all the changes that were marked. Okay. I'm just going to hit save and hopefully that will do it. Okay. You have to just accept the changes. Cause you had track changes on. At one point. Oh God. I hope that didn't mess up something else earlier. Cause I so unused to this. So under review. The track changes wasn't even on. Well, you did at one point, go to accept. All right. Here we go. It's on that. And you should have an option to accept all. Okay. Thank you. All right. And we don't need that. Well, there you go. I'm going to stop. I'm going to stop. I'll fix it. Thank you, Athena. Exactly. She's just looking at putting her head in her hands. Where do we get these people? All right. Good. I'm going to stop sharing. Like to put that. Yeah. Thank you. That was. Yeah. All right. On my list. I wanted to say something about what happens to proclamations once voted on by GOL because we have still. Athena present. And. If I can find it quickly. I can't. Bear with me. Hi everybody. I'm going to have to boot you in about six minutes. Okay. So maybe we're going to have to. We're going to have to boot you in about six minutes. Okay. Let's do that. He wants to have another public comment, but you should do part of the agenda. All right. So we have a public present. So I get the answer as soon as you ask, because I can't see. Yes. If someone wishes to speak. No, public is left. All right. So there is no public comment. And I wanted to talk about the process, but we're going to be booted. So the only final thought I want to have. And I think we're going to have to have a meeting where we just do. A bylaws. We're going to have to have an extra meeting at some point and sooner rather than later. And I know you're not going to like that, but I think we're just going to have to have a meeting where it's just focused on bylaws and that's it. Because we're just not getting anywhere and people have done some work and we're making some progress. But today, obviously we don't have time. And so I'm not going to ask us to decide now. But I really think we have to consider. Meeting again, I would assume a Wednesday, just be back to back like we did this week. Or this, these two weeks where we, the only item on the agenda is bylaw review. And we just work our way through it because we really do need to make some progress there. And we're finding that, that when that gets thrown in with everything else, we just don't get to it. So I don't have any quick thoughts on that other than. Never. Darcy, please. Yeah, I guess I have some suggestions that we don't have to think about now, but about how we could save time. Yeah. You know, on proclamations and stuff. How we might be able to get through them faster. Okay. You could send those to me perhaps as an email or whatever. And I can share that with everyone, but. Just process question. Sure. Process suggestion. Mandy or thought. I'm never. Oh, I'm not generally in favor of extra meetings, but I think the bylaws that we were sent however long ago, we really should make final decisions on and get them to the council before the end of our council term. So in that sense, I'm supportive of figuring it out. I guess I would say, can we wait till June. To do that. Or, you know, simply because April's been really full this last two with this weekend and all. And then. Pat goes into budget meetings. In terms of finance committee and all. And so maybe June might be the best time to try and add a budget meeting. I mean, and not before that, if we're trying to reduce how many meetings, each of us has to go to with many other things. And the thought would be, this would still be on it. We've still put it on the agenda for every meeting and maybe we'll actually get to it sometime before that. So, but okay. So the thought is June. You at least are open to extra meeting if necessary, but June would be your preferred time. Is there anyone who feels that they simply do not want. Well, maybe let you think about. I think I sent you an email about the farm. And so if there's something I can do to help, I would be more than willing, but I'm definitely. I can meet again about bylaws extra. Okay. So we're looking at June is the suggestion. I hope we won't need to do that, but I'm really worried. Because meeting after meeting now, we just can't get to it. Okay. Final thought and now I'll let you go. Again, just sort of future business coming. I think that, again, add to our workload, I think we owe the council a kind of, you know, the next council, a kind of reflection on making the job more manageable. Suggestions that we might have. I mean, this is something we're going to think about. And then I think we as GOL need to just go through, and this is on the chair at large part, but I'm going to need your help at some point. Just go through all our processes and documents. There's seven of them that are currently on the GOL. So, I guess what I'm asking you to give some thought to is what, if any obligation you think we have as a committee to the next council. From the point of view of what we can suggest. About making this job more manageable. And some of the challenges of it. And then separately, but connected. Is we as a GOL committee, just going through and making sure we're happy with everything that we've created over the last basically. Two and a half years or going on three years. So that's something I'm. Looking for in the summer. Heading toward the fall. But I think it's something that we need to be in the back of our minds. Think about whether we want to do this. I think we should. But part of it's the chair's job. He will spend some time going through a lot of this and prepare it for you. But this kind of. Message to the next council. And suggestions is something we should think hard about. Because I think we all are aware that many people are reluctant to take this job. Because it seems to be just too much. And we need to think hard about how we can address that. And that's, I think falls within our. Our, our, our business as GOL. I don't have any brilliant ideas at the moment. I'm hoping you will all have some. But I think we do owe something like that to the council that's coming after us. Or just say. This is an impossible job. So if you sign up for it, be ready. I don't like that, but so. I'm nothing more. Any other thoughts, future agenda items, people. I'm going to be speaking with Darcy. Later. This week, we're going to talk about the situation with rule of procedure 10. 10 and where. That goes next. Just to let you know. And I'll just be speaking to her alone. But that's coming up. Anything else on the agenda for next time. Thank you all. Thank you. Athena as always. Thank you. Emily. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. As always. Thank you. Emily. And. See you all this weekend.