 Governor's Order. Members of the public may listen in. And here from the Board of Registrars are D. Shabazz, Jamie Wagner, Jacqueline Gardner, and Susan Audette. So since we do have a quorum, then the meeting will now come to order. Okay. The first thing on our agenda is the election of a chair. And I am happy to take that role. It gives me no added responsibility or authority. It's just for keeping the order of the meeting. So I appreciate that, Sue. But can we as the Board of Registrars elect a chair? I was just going to say I was going to continue and say unless somebody else wants to take that role. So if somebody else does want to take that role, I suggest that the four of us each put our nominations out as to who we would like to be chair. So I nominate myself D. So I nominate myself D. Okay. Jamie? I nominate Sue Audette. Okay. And Jacqueline? I nominate Sue Audette too. Okay. So the consensus is that I will be the chair. Do we have a second? I can you second out your nomination? I don't know if you really need to second. I'm just being extra conscious. I'm not familiar with the whole. Yeah. I ask about process. So that means you don't have any voting power as the chair. Just no, it's no, no, it's just to keep the order and call on people. And so the vote, was there an actual vote so we could have it on record? We can, yeah, we can. Let me just get that. And excuse me, Sue, I'd just like to remind you that you need to do a roll call vote because we're on, we're remote. Yeah, I appreciate that. I thought that's what that was. So do I, okay. So again, voting on who the chair will be for the duration of this meeting. So D. Shabazz vote. Excuse me, I'm sorry. What do you mean by that? Yeah, what it would be is there was a motion to nominate you and D made a motion to nominate herself. Two others nominated you. So at this point, you would say something like, okay, do I have a motion then to approve to add that as the clerk for the purposes of this meeting? Okay. And then someone can just say so moved. And then you would take the roll call vote if there's no further discussion. I see. Okay. I kind of cut the thing in half. I got you. Okay. All right. I do have one question though. Is this going to be at every meeting or is this from now on? As far as like for you facilitating the meeting because that's what I'm assuming this is for. This is for just this meeting. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. For the agenda is headed in the agenda. Just this meeting. Okay. All right. So then do I have a motion to approve Susan Audet as chair of this meeting? So moved. Okay. And then a vote on this motion. We'll start with D. So are we, we haven't voted yet. I just in terms of process. Hello. Hello. I can hear you. Everything just froze up on my screen. Shawna, can you hear me? We can hear you. But yeah, you did freeze up. Okay. Okay. So I just as, as, you know, the chair, assuming the chair's position, what powers does the chair have specifically with the board of registrars? This is new because we haven't had a chair. So I'd like to know as a member. Madam clerk, would you like me to respond? Nope. I think she's frozen again. She has. The purpose of the chair for this meeting is to facilitate going through the matters that need to be discussed. And and the chair has the ability to recognize people to speak. And, you know, kind of takes the votes and records it records the roll call votes. Okay. So and it's only for this particular meeting. What happens on the next meeting on Monday? Yeah, I think the clerk's intent here is just to address this meeting. And on Monday, if they're, you know, there could be another vote for a chair of that meeting. In most and most boards and committees, they, they do elect a chair for the, you know, the entire but I know you guys haven't done that. And, you know, it's usually probably fine. It's just here, you know, we need to kind of figure out how to move through this. And so yeah, I get it for, you know, efficiency, but it's just unusual also to have a non voting chair. So I did see something like that in the, in the chat or the Q&A there, the board of registrars is comprised of four people, including the town clerk. And although yes, she's an ex official member by virtue of her position, she is a full voting member and has the same rights as every other member of the board. Okay, well, I just and nothing personal against Sue, but I just object to, you know, the town clerk is as the chair. Okay, I would say I see that, you know, we're having minutes of this meeting kept so we have a record of that. All right, my computer just kicked me out completely and closed down on me. Sue, let me just bring you up to date. There was a few questions asked questions about whether as an ex official member, you could be the chair and about what authority there would be in that position for today and also whether this was intended to be a longer a point of election to chair just for today. I indicated that my understanding of your intent is that it was just for today and that on Monday, you would all need to readdress this issue. That's right. And the agenda says the same exact thing. It says election of a chair for this meeting only on both agendas for today and Monday. Okay, sorry about that. I was talking and then the computer just died. I've just moved into this office on Friday and there's a few little snags. Everything got moved on me. All right, so where were we at? So we motion to approve was made and seconded and now we're on the vote. Yes. Okay. So starting again with D. So no, I vote no. Okay. Jacqueline. I vote in favor of us getting a chair so we can proceed with this meeting. Is that what you mean? In favor of me being the chair. I think that was the motion made. Yes. Okay. Jamie. I vote to have to chair this meeting. Okay. All right. And I assume I have a vote. I'm nominated myself and I vote yes. Okay. So motion to approve Susan Adette as chair of this meeting today has been passed. Three to one. Okay. Okay. All right. So the next. Can I ask one question? I don't know. Going forward, can we set another meeting or we need to talk about that separately to nominate a chair of the board of registrars just as a whole? Is that something I can throw out there? Yeah. You know, to create another meeting for that just so we have that going forward. So then we don't have to do this every meeting. Yes. Definitely. No, that's okay. I actually think going forward we should have some maybe rules of procedure on board, you know, on in place. So yeah, something for future discussion. Can I make a motion? I'd like to make a motion that one item be added to the agenda not foreseen prior to the 48 hour posting and ask that attorney John Boniface's letter to the board of registrars be added to the agenda and that he's able to make an oral presentation about the contents of the letter. So we have a motion on the table. We want to vote on this whether to allow it. I think we as a rule of procedure we have to vote if there's a nomination made. We have to vote on that. Okay, so then so I made the motion. Yeah, you make the motion. Then I move to vote on this motion to allow attorney Boniface's letter. Well, so you need to see if there's a second and then if there's a second, then you can open it for discussion. Then you can ask for a motion to, you know, I mean, and then you can allow you to a vote. I'll second it. Okay, I'll second it. All right. Okay, so then we have discussion. Yes, at some point in time, I would like to give my viewpoint on what happened at that particular meeting on the 21st. Okay. That's okay. At some point in time. And I agree, Jack. I think since I was not there, I had a doctor's appointment. I think it would be helpful in hearing attorney Boniface's letter because it might provide an opportunity for that discussion. I'd appreciate that. Okay, but I think I have a response already in that in my comments. Well, hear it all out. Hear it all out is what I say. Well, for now, the motion is to whether to allow the letter attorney Boniface's letter be a lot added to an agenda item for today, and which was seconded. So any other discussion on this? Would this, sorry, I keep switching backwards on my phone to my email. Is his letter, would it apply more to the meeting on Monday topic or I'm just trying to, like I said, sorry if I keep disappearing or not, but I keep trying to go back to his letter. I think that it'd be really, oh, I'm sorry. No, I say, I just don't know if it would apply more to today or to Monday. So yeah, so the the letter is to, you know, allow him to speak about, you know, three to five minutes to the letter as well. You know, and I think this would be helpful pertaining to the second meeting, but particularly to procedure right now that we're currently in. Attorney Goldberg, do you have any suggestions or thoughts or, you know, ideas? Certainly. As long as the chair didn't anticipate that this matter might be raised today, within the 48 hours, it can be added to the agenda. The question of whether it's more more related to today's discussion or Monday's discussion is certainly something to consider. You know, the board has in front of it, a particular thing that needs to accomplish today. And, you know, in my view, at least the open meeting law issue is separate from the issue of the certification, which, you know, and the status of the petition, which is what we're dealing with today. The other thing just so that everyone is aware is that there is no requirement that any other person be allowed to participate other than in the public speak portion of the meeting. So that's up to you. So essentially, that boils down to it's a policy decision of whether you all want to go in that direction today. And if so, you know, whether you want Mr. Boniface to be able to speak as well. Under the opening law, you know, again, it's not prohibited. If it wasn't anticipated at least 48 hours in advance, whether to do so is a decision that you all need to make for yourself. Thank you. Well, I think it's kind of misstating, you know, his argument and the discussion. It's really about process. And so if I could restate the motion. Okay, go ahead. So, yeah, so I'd like to, again, make a motion to add Attorney Boniface's letter, but to have him present orally about the contents of his letter that he sent to the board of registrars on yesterday. So again, it's unforeseen in prior to the 48 hour posting. But I asked that he be able to make an oral presentation about the contents of his letter. Do you have some suggestions to the length of his oral presentation? Three minutes? Okay. Okay, I'm guessing I don't know. Three to five minutes. I mean, all right, just all right. It's on motions on the floor. Any discussion? I guess I would be willing for just a short amount of like the three to five minute range to hear what he had to say, but I'd also like to just make it known that I would like to have him formally present on Monday. If he's just kind of giving him a background of what's going on, if it pertains to the open meeting law and trying to keep these two subjects separated, I think that I would like to see him back on Monday and be speaking on Monday regarding it. But again, if it's a short amount of time today and he's just giving an overview and then that will give us time to think about what he says over the weekend to prepare for Monday, then I'm open to that without much, you know, additional time being taken up so it doesn't kind of muddy what we're trying to accomplish with today's meeting. Okay. Thank you, Jamie. Anybody? Yeah. Any other comments? Jackie? Yeah. I just want to reiterate that I would like to respond and I think that my response will also cover his commentary too. You don't feel at this point ready to respond? You want to wait until we get into the… Let me ask you this. I have a written response here as far as I'm concerned and this is what I was going to discuss. I have no problem as far as like I'm a terrible typist, which is why it's handwritten, but I guess over the weekend I could have it in writing. Okay. But that's in regard to the appeal. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No, the motion in front of us right now is to whether to allow Attorney Boniface's letter and him to speak on this letter today. Sure. As long as I get a chance to respond to it at some point in time. Okay. All right. We'll be playing next week or whenever. Okay. So then let's take a vote on the motion to allow Attorney Boniface to speak to the letter that he submitted yesterday. So D. Yes, I'm in… Since you made it, I know. Well, I'm just being… Jamie. Yeah. Okay. And Jackie. Yes. Okay. And I also vote. Yes. Susan. Yes. Okay. So motion has been approved. We will allow an additional agenda item of Attorney Boniface's letter received yesterday to be discussed and spoken to by him during the… We can add it to the public comment period, I suppose. Is that appropriate, Lauren? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. So let's see. Where are we right now? Yeah. I think that brings us right up to the public comment period. Okay. So can we speak first to just get that and then it'll be important to hear the public on all sides? Do we need to vote on that or can we just… I'm going to first announce that the public comment period, we have set aside 15 minutes. So who would ever like to speak, please raise their hands. We will call on you and let it be known that any opinions spoken during this period are not supported by the Board of Registrar necessarily. They are personal opinions of the person speaking. Okay. So… So do we know account of how many people are speaking and just to make things fair and valid? Yeah. That's the next thing. I need to see how many hands are up right now. Okay. So let's see. I see five hands up right now, including John Boniface. So oh, hands are going up. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. The other thing that's important to add, if you don't mind, is if you're on Zoom and you've dialed in, you press star nine to raise your hand. Thank you, John. Technical support. It's always helpful. Yeah. I see a phone number. That's right. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 hands. Does that look right, Sean? Yes. Okay. We've allotted 15 minutes. I'm going to… We can push that up a little if that's all right to 20 to give people two minutes to speak. Yes. Does everyone okay with that? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Then we will start to begin this public comment section of our meeting by allowing John Boniface to speak. I can handle that, Sue, if you don't mind. When we had that technical blip, I lost my co-host. So if you don't mind just right clicking and making me co-host again. I will hold on one second. There we go. All set. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome. Thank you, everyone. This is John Boniface. Can you hear me? Yes. I am an Amherst resident, longtime Amherst resident, as well as an attorney with more than 25 years of experience in constitutional and voting rights law. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the board of registrars of Amherst with respect to the contents of the letter that I delivered to the board on May 5, 2021. This meeting is scheduled for discussion around the appeal the petitioners have filed with respect to the certification of voter veto petition and the meeting scheduled on Monday is to discuss the open meeting law complaint the petitioners have filed with respect to the April 21, 2021 meeting. However, there's a critical question before this board as to whether it can in fact make a determination on the appeal of the petitioners today before deciding the open meeting law complaint. Now, attorney Goldberg is here to argue I'm sure as she has already in writing before the town council and to you Ms. Audetta's town clerk that the ruling of McCarthy v Secretary of the Commonwealth is binding on this board and that that ruling would prevent this board from having the authority to hear this appeal because in fact it has already engaged in certifying the signatures via the delegation that it made to the town clerk on April 21. But the entire premise of that legal analysis that attorney Goldberg puts forward is based on the claim that the April 21, 2021 meeting was valid and that all actions taken at that meeting were valid and that can only be determined first by deciding the open meeting law complaint if the petitioners are correct that the open meeting law was violated on April 21 and that all actions taken on April 21 by the board at that meeting are null and void. Then there would be no basis to go forward in deciding this appeal because the board would have to in the first instance review the signatures that the petitioners put forward for the voter veto petition. So this is a critical process question. I'm not here today to testify about the contents of the open meeting law complaint. I will do that on Monday at that duly scheduled meeting. I'm here today to make clear that this board cannot proceed with deciding this appeal until it first decides whether the actions it took on April 21, 2021 were consistent with the open meeting law and if they were not those actions were null and void and therefore the review that the town clerk's office conducted of the signatures is null and void and the board needs to start de novo and new in reviewing those signatures. The second part of the letter that I want to bring to your attention is a direct and serious conflict in having the town attorney with all due respect to her having her advise you on your actions as the board of registrars at this meeting. The town attorney has been representing the town council, the town manager and the town clerk on this matter. The board of registrars charged with overseeing all matters pertaining to elections in the town of Amherst including local ballot questions should not be advised by the town attorney whose clients in this matter have interests which are directly adverse to the interest of the petitioners. The board of registrars must act independently and with adherence to basic principles of due process as guaranteed by the US constitution and by the massachusetts constitution. I urge this board to retain council who does not have such conflicts of interest or at a minimum to contact the division of open government of the office of the attorney general massachusetts to advise you on your actions today. Thank you. Thank you for your information. All right next hand up on the list is Jeff Lee. Thank you Sue. I'm Jeff Lee, resident of Amherst and I don't understand why much of the town council and its administration have their backs up over the library petition and why petitioners have been met with so much hostility and so many roadblocks. This petition does not have the power to stop the jones library expansion. It simply asks that the appropriation for it be put to a townwide vote which is a perfectly reasonable request for a project of such size and impact as the jones library plan. The petition was signed by well over five percent of Amherst registered voters and the citizens are right to wonder why so many signatures were rejected and why the tedious task of certification was assigned to an inexperienced assistant assistant clerk who for some reason felt compelled to complete it without help in less than 24 hours when the town charter allows 10 days. The town attorneys may argue that the section of the charter outlining the voter veto petition process does not grant the right to appeal rejected signatures or review the correctness of the invalidations but neither does the charter prohibit such a sensible action. Dragging out the certification question by putting it to the courts is not in the best interest of the town nor of the petitioners. The only people who will benefit are Amherst attorneys KP law. Amherst citizens look to the board of registrars to be unbiased and thorough in guaranteeing that all voters rights are protected. Please review the rejected signatures including the more than 85 for which signer affidavits have been submitted and do what is best for Amherst. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Next person on the list is Josna. Is it Reggie or Reg? Sorry about the name but Josna. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Josna Regge. I live on 96 Farview Way and have lived in Amherst for 31 years. I'm disturbed that the petition drive conducted so painstakingly during the pandemic was certified and turned down so quickly and so many valid signatures were rejected. I collected petitions in my neighborhood and my house was a collection point for signatures on that voter veto petition. Several of the town residents in my area who signed it had their signatures rejected. They were shocked because they were longtime residents and registered voters in the town. They went to the additional trouble to fill out affidavits and go and get them notarized. I find it very disturbing that one in five of the nearly 1100 Amherst voters who signed the petition had their names thrown out. That's it. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Jazza. Okay. Next name I see is Maria Kopicki. Thank you. My name is Maria Kopicki. I live in South Amherst. I want to thank the board of registrars for convening this hearing. The examination and counting of petition signatures is a very serious business. The petition at issue here in seeking to allow voters the opportunity to express their will is particularly important. Humans are fallible creatures and mistakes are inevitable, particularly in such repetitive and detailed work. The law provides a full 10 days to accomplish the task of petition certification. And yet it appears that a single individual completed the enormous endeavor of reviewing nearly 1100 signatures and addresses in less than 24 hours. We have gathered abundant evidence that well over 100 registered voters had their signatures rejected in error. We have provided over 80 affidavits from signatories confirming that they signed. We can demonstrate that the signatures are theirs and the addresses are accurate and match voting roles. Common sense that these be reviewed objectively and errors corrected to achieve an accurate accounting. Failure to correct these mistakes disenfranchises not only the signatories wrongly rejecting so many signatures resulted in an inaccurate certification, which in turn denied the entire voting population of Amherst their right to vote on this issue. I implore you to reverse the rejection of erroneously disqualified signatures and certify that this petition easily met its obligations. As members of the board of registrars, with your responsibility to oversee and ensure fair and accurate petitions and elections, you are the stewards of the voices of the people. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Next hand is Denise Barbare. Denise, you'll have to unmute yourself. Now can you hear me? Yes. Okay, my name is Denise Barbaret. I have lived in Amherst since 1987. I have a very distinctive and a very flamboyant signature. I have been very politically active in town. I've been a member of town meetings since 2000. I've been on town boards and a lot of people know my name because of that. I believe my signature has probably appeared on dozens of petitions signed over the last 20 or 30 years, yet somehow my signature was rejected. I'm not particularly given to conspiracy theories. I tend to be a reasonable person, but at this point absent any other at particular explanation about all I can conclude at this point is that my signature was rejected due to my activism, and I find that to be deeply disturbing. Thank you. Thank you, Denise. The next hand is Rita Burke. Thank you. Thank you for calling on me. My name is Rita Burke. I've been in Amherst since the 1970s. I am a retired town employee. I was a 10-year member of town meeting. I submit my voter registration update form annually and have lived at my current address for over 37 years. Quite candidly, I was gobsmacked to learn that my signature on this petition had been disqualified, and that I learned of this only because I was one of several petitioners who requested information on those that were. To discover that one person, apparently without any assistance or oversight, had the power to disqualify my signature and those of many others, without apparently, as far as I've been able to determine any just cause, pushed me beyond confusion and irritation. How could this happen? And why has the town appeared so reluctant to be as concerned about it as the voters are and should be? Regardless of one's opinion about the Jones Library project, and there were people who signed the petition who are in favor of that, but they were also in favor of putting the vote about it town-wide to voters. That's democracy. But regardless of one's opinion about the Jones Library project, everyone should be concerned about the flawed process that has occurred. And most importantly, that their voter rights have apparently been suppressed. I remain gobsmacked, irritated, confused, and Amherst can do better than this. Thank you. Thank you, Rita. The next hand I see is Martha Spiegelman. Martha, Martha, you have to unmute. We're not hearing you yet, Martha. Can anybody else hear Martha? I think Martha, I'll give you another minute to try to make this work. But if not, then we'll go to the next person. And maybe in the meantime, you can try to figure out what's going on. Shall we move on? Everybody okay with me calling on the next person? She says in the chat, she, hello? She says in the chat, she doesn't know how to unmute on the phone if the instructions can be repeated for Martha, please. Sean? Yes. So it shows Martha is unmuted on the phone, but let me just look. The code on the phone is star six, to mute and unmute on the phone. Yeah, she's in the chat. Okay. So is Martha also dialed in to the meeting? Because Martha... Says I am on phone. Okay. I am phone. Okay. Yeah. Martha, if you could just let us know what the last four digits of the phone number you called in on, then I can unmute the phone line. I'm going to type your answer, maybe. Six, seven, seven, nine. You see that, Sean? No. Yeah, six, seven, seven, nine. It's in the chat. She just sent it. Yeah, I don't see that phone number. It's in the Q and A. Six, seven, seven, nine. No, I know she's showing up as just her name on mine here, too. Right. So here I can... There she is. I'll post the dial-in information into the chat, Martha, and if you want to move on to the next person, then we'll hop back to Martha, if that would be appropriate. Will we get Martha connected? If I could. I'm wondering if she's connected to Zoom on her phone. And if so, she taps the screen on the bottom left corner. I see what you're saying. Yes. Yeah. There should be a mute on mute button. Yeah. So Martha does appear unmuted on Zoom. Oh, she just said her last four digits are six, seven, nine, nine now, and she is through her phone. So what we can do is, Martha, if you want to... I'll put the instructions on dialing in into the Q and A, and if you follow those instructions, you should be able to dial in on your phone. I think you're connected. You're probably connected from a cell phone, but you're connected through the Zoom app. And for whatever reason, that's not allowing you to speak. I feel like I could do that. So just take me a moment to... I'll paste that in there. I don't know if you want to go to the next person, then come back to Martha. Or if you want to hold on. Why don't we go to the next person in the light of time, and then come right back to Martha. Okay. Okay. All right. So the next person on the list is David Liefgau. I guess I withdraw my comment. Okay. All right. Thank you, David. Sean, that didn't take very long, so should we come back? Yeah, I still have to find the information and paste it. So I'll move on to the next person. So the next person is caller 7-9-3-4. And you will need to hit star six for the person who dialed in. Hit star six on your phone before you can speak. There you go. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm caller 7-9-3-4, also known as Martha Spiegelman. Oh, there she is. Okay. Fantastic. Okay. Well, my name is Martha Spiegelman. I am a voter of Amherst for at least 35 years. And I only want to ask a question. It's based on my talking to people like Denise Barberette and Rita Burke and several others who were amazed that they were taken off the petition. I think that the office of the clerk ought to explain to all of the people, maybe 80 or 90 or 100 of them, why they were taken off. What is the reason that voters who have been registered in Amherst as voters at their home address for many, many years were eliminated from the petition? That is my question. And I think that the office of the clerk should explain to each one individually why they were removed from the petition. Thank you. Thank you, Martha. This will be in the discussion part of our meeting. I believe we will be covering that. Okay. Next person on the list, I see CJ G. Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. This is Carol Gray. Thank you for holding this hearing and allowing the public to weigh in. You have very important jobs to keep the voters' voices and votes recorded accurately. And I appreciate that you're hearing this appeal. It's a great concern that more than 200 signatures were excluded, many of whom, we have 89 affidavits so far and counting, many of whom were registered voters and we believe they were wrongly excluded. Of the people who were excluded, 62 were excluded because of signature, so it had an S next to their name. Signatures don't have to be legible to have people allowed to be voters. What should have happened is if there's a signature and it couldn't be read, you then go to the address and you pull the voter registration form and see if the person's signature matches the voter registration form. When we asked the assistant town clerk if she did that, she said we don't have to do that. But if that's the case, then that means that anyone who has a signature that might be in any way artistic or hard to read is then not allowed to sign a petition because they're being disqualified immediately. And it can't be that way. Legally, signatures are required to be the individualized stamp essentially of the person, but they don't have to be legible. Legally, they have to match what's on the voter registration forms. And so that 62 people were disqualified because of signatures and it does not seem that there was the matching done that would have been required to see if these were actually registered voters because of the affidavits we submitted, 44 were signature disqualifications. So that means we found the people based on their address. We went to them. They said, yes, I'm registered to vote. Yes, it's at this address. And yes, that's my signature. And we've compared their signatures with the affidavits and they match. And so remember that there were only 22 signatures short for this petition to succeed so that we have 44 signature affidavits shows that there's a problem here and that these we have to think of this in terms of voting rights. Essentially, a petition is your vote. And in fact, your signature on this petition is then opening up the referendum to the entire town. So we're actually talking about voting rights for the entire town. But for those 44 people who voted to have a referendum and had it thrown out because their signature couldn't be read easily. And no one took the time to cross reference it with a voter registration form. That really is egregious. And it's a form of voter suppression, even though I don't say that it was intended that way, I think that's the effect. There were also 162 signatures that were disqualified for address. So of the address ones, we've submitted 86 affid sorry, we've submitted there are there we've submitted dozens of affidavits for addresses. And a lot of the address violations were because of things such as missing an apartment number. But but when I I spoke to I spoke to the secretary of state's office and and one of the staffers there I just asked over the phone and by the way anyone can call in and ask for guidance. I asked them if if missing an apartment number was grounds for disqualification, they said no, usually that's not the case. If the signature is matches what's on the voter registration forms and the address is clear, it doesn't matter that they're missing the apartment form and yet the apartment number and yet more than 24 were disqualified because of apartments. In terms of the number of affidavits that we have submitted, we've submitted 45 for address issues. One of them was from my neighbor. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I just want to remind you of the time you've now on four minutes. Okay, I'll finish this with this sentence. Thank you. He has finished he has lived his address on Shea Street for 45 years and yet his signature was disqualified. I would like to say in terms of the open meeting law violation, you have a right to redo that prior hearing and and even though at the time the delegation may have seemed like a good idea to some with the open meeting law violation. If you think that this process was not done justice. If you think that having 89 people submit sworn affidavits raises concern for voting rights in our town, we urge you we plead with you to give integrity to this process because right now many people are very concerned that voting rights have not been respected in our town. We urge you to take another look. You have the right to do so by reholding that hearing which the Attorney General's office told me that is a remedy that's open to towns to rehold the hearing that was done in violation of the open meeting law which I'll address in more detail on Monday. Rehold that hearing and you can decide to do the certification yourselves to look at the the evidence that we provided you because you just can't you just can't minimize the importance of voting rights and we have to have a process. Thank you, Carol. I'm going to have to cut you off. We're all right or a 1049 I believe we started the question and answer period more than 15 minutes ago. At this point I'd like to were there any other hands that were up originally that I have not called on because we're going to do 10 people? Does anyone recall? Adrienne Turizzi's name was up in the initially I think it was it went down by mistake I think. Oh she went down again. Oh she's back up again she's keeps going up and down. Can we vote on whether we want to allow the public comment session to continue a little longer or are we finished with it? We've we've exceeded the time allotted. Well you know I think we if we want to vote on it but I'd like to make a motion on something different in light of what we heard. I don't know as point of order I just don't know if we need to vote to extend the comment period first and then another discussion on what we heard if we should vote first to allow if there are a couple more people would like to speak. I would make a motion I would move that we allow four more minutes or two more people because I think that's what I just thought there there was two more hands up to allow them to speak and then maybe D can make her motion after they speak for what you were going to be not to interrupt you D but just to maybe let them speak first. Yeah or because we're dealing with the public comment we need to decide whether we continue or not so you vote so you move that we we allow the last two people to speak okay. Yeah and allow them just a few minutes. Okay they should be allowed to speak. Okay Jackie G2 okay we'll continue then with the public comment session. Okay so the next to hand we see is Daniel Denton Thompson. Yep hello. Hi. Well I'm a little I'm a little annoyed because I have lived in Amherst all my life and when I saw the petition I signed it like I usually you know sign everything with my root of my original signature and when I told my signature was rejected I found that very weird and saying that I didn't live here and I lived at this address for almost 14 years with my mom and my mom was a little surprised too because she signed the same petition I did and her signature wasn't rejected and so my question is why my mom was a freedom writer she fought for voting rights and she taught me a lot about voting rights sign petitions everything that you can you know you stand up and believe for I did and now my signature has been rejected because I don't live in Amherst and I've lived in Amherst all my life I've been I was born here you know via Northampton and I've lived here all my life I went to school here and I lived here for almost I pretty much lived here for like almost 40 years is that before the next year so my whole thing is you know if you have people who are overwhelmed and they just have one or two people on or just one person on hire more people or don't take a vacation if you know you're going to have something that's going to be this big and people have objections to it or you know or want to have a debate about it or they have a petition that they want to sign keep the people on then you can go on a vacation after the fact or then you could do all this other do everything else you need to do but hire the people that you need to put in because I'm a little annoyed about this and this is a thing it's like the people voted everybody in here to pretty much you know do their jobs and not cover or or negate or pass it down to somebody else's doesn't have the experience so that's all I have to say okay thank you Daniel and the last person whose hand I see up is Tomas jaw hi yes this is a marlige mate from South Amherst first of all I just want to thank the board very much for convening this meeting and planning another meeting on Monday I do think this is a very important issue and I am glad that the board is going to pay attention to it and consider it one thing that was highly concerning to me as I was collecting petition signatures was well what took place after the signatures were processed there were several elderly individuals who signed the petition papers one was a gentleman who approached me outside of town hall and asked if I was the lady involved in the petition drive and could he sign and I said sure of course his hand was shaking substantially I realized he had a very significant tremor with the result that his signature was fairly faint although it was legible to me and the address was legible and later I found out that his signature was disqualified and I suspected had to do with his faint writing similarly there's an elderly couple from whom I also accepted signatures whose handwriting was also a bit faint or scratchy you know very long time residents in Amherst and in looking at the disqualification data they too were disqualified and so at least three elderly people that just I as one canvasser became aware of were disqualified and I can't help but think that the process that was too aggressive and that we do not want to negate the voices of the elders in our community who may who legitimately wanted to sign this petition and express an opinion as need for a referendum and and so again just if we can keep in mind that we do have elderly people in the community there are people who may have a slight mobility issues which will then have some effect on their signature and may cause a very slight variation and I just I would love to see some due diligence applied as individuals are not disenfranchised thank you very much for all your work okay thank you all right I do not see any other hands up um is there anything in the Q&A that um may be a hand yeah Adrienne's to Adrienne to Rizzi's hand keeps going up and down I don't know to be appropriate uh turn on the microphone for her just to see if if you want to see would you like me to cut down my hand has been up yep yep um okay let me see where is she thank you there she is okay oh but thank you and I'm I'm so sorry for the technical glitches at my ends thank you my name is Adrienne to Rizzi and I'm speaking this morning uh strictly as myself this is a personal comment thank you board of registrars for holding this meeting I think I'm going to begin with the premise that we all agree that the work of a democracy is to protect and ensure the vote of a voice of the voter I was not involved in this voter veto petition and for me it's not a matter of whether I support or oppose the library for me it's all about voters rights the rights of the citizen to petition our government and obviously it's been said under our national state and certainly our local Amherst home rule charter that we do have the right to engage in a voter veto petition so I want to commend the bor this morning you are a local independent body and your process this morning to engage in and to review the process as well as to examine the original petition signatures and the signed affidavits this morning is a work of democracy at work and at its best so thank you very much for this morning it is a good morning and um I wish you good speed thank you thank you Adrienne all right um okay I believe that is everyone um I I do see one last hand Hilda Greenbaum has her hand up as well oh okay okay one last okay Hilda I just want to say that I've lived in this town for 60 years I have never seen anything like this happen in the town of Amherst and I am mortified I am shocked and I want to know how and why and I wanted the person who was responsible to be accountable I'm sorry that Susan was on vacation at the time I hope that she's not held responsible for this mess but I think she's a wonderful person for town clerk I'm thrilled that she's gotten the job but I need to know how something like this happened and that it never happens again I also wanted to know how many people were attending the meeting from the public if you can let me know about Sean does it look like 29 people okay all right thank you Hilda all right so um does that look like everyone has had a chance to speak it looks like David Wetzkow has his hand up I don't know if that's again remember if it was before or not yeah I don't see him I'm not seeing him okay um all right well then if no one else has a comment um excuse me um David Lithgow does have his hand up I can see it on mine can you see it yes oh okay okay there it is all right then last comment David Lithgow I apologize for taking your more time I just like to point out that you know I've changed my mind back and forth so many times in this town you know originally I was for town meeting now I'm for the council manager government I've been absolutely astounded at how well our representative democratic process has worked and I've been so impressed by the volunteers and all the committees and their professional work you know warm fuzzy every time I think about Amherst democracy at work should be an example for Maricopa County when I first zoomed into this meeting I was going to urge that the board of registrar just follow the law and not revisit the certification process on the assumption that the certification process was conducted properly but I have found all of the people who zoomed in and to speak to their affidavits and to testify to the fact that they voted for the petition while while I'm sorry they signed the petition I absolutely 100 I believe they they have the right to their that opinion and that it should be honored and I have found it quite persuasive that I found their testimony quite persuasive and so I've changed my mind and urge you to revisit I would like to point out that two of the people on that list that I know personally when I called them to find out if they had signed the petition based on a fully informed decision about the library renovation project and spent an hour with each of them explaining my point of view and then sending them to the February 16th finance committee packet because their concerns were with the financing you know after that they regretted the fact that they had found they had signed the petition now that's anecdotal evidence that some of the people that signed it did not make an informed decision but that you know notwithstanding that fact based on what I've heard today from people that did sign it and whose signatures were disqualified I've changed my mind I think you should revisit it thank you and I'm sorry to take your extra time that's fine thank you David all right um now I don't see any more hands and all right so um then we'll move on to the next section um I'd like to make a motion oh go ahead Dee okay so in light of what we just heard with David Lithgow and and everyone else but particularly attorney Boniface I think I'd like to make the motion is to adjourn this meeting um and to postpone any discussion of the petitioner's appeal until Monday I think yeah that's that's my motion without you know going into further discussion I think we should I move that we adjourn this meeting and postpone any discussion of the petitioner's appeal until Monday's meeting and then we can you know address the open meeting law complaint at that point okay is there a second I don't hear a second Dee so in light of no second motion has failed is that correct Lauren yes okay okay well I'd also like to address um you know if it was brought up that there's a conflict of interest by attorney Goldberg um if you could address this conflict of interest potentially here in terms of you being the attorney for the town uh the town council and the town manager and your presence at this meeting um madam chair if you recall that is one of the issues that um we were going to discuss as preliminary matters today and I'm happy to do so now at your discussion yes please do um so thank you for your question um I am the town attorney I work for the town I represent the town and not any particular entity in the town the actions that the clerk's office has taken um are the actions that are being uh question today I do obviously have great respect for voter rights um and believe that it's appropriate that if if people believe that their their signatures were improperly uh not counted that there is an appropriate form for that and that appropriate form is not at the level of the board of registrars in the McCarthy case which Mr Boniface referenced earlier the court makes very clear that there is one discrete function that the board of registrars may undertake and that one discrete function is comparing the name on the petition to the name on the list um the way that this is done uh in in Amherst and everywhere is that the the address is looked up and then the address and the name are compared to the to that on the list if they um if the clerk or whoever is doing the certification recognizes um under the the specific rules relative to certification that the name can be certified then it is if they cannot then it is not um there is actually no authorization for the um board of registrars to revisit I'm sorry not to revisit to review the voter registration cards in connection with this process there is a process at the state level for state-level nomination papers and petitions uh for a review by the registrars before it goes to the um state ballot law commission for its review but there is no similar authority at the state level um you know I'm happy to show you I'm happy to show you the regulations I'm happy to show you the Secretary of State's booklet that says that there's no ability um and with respect I read your memorandum so I do appreciate you sending that to us I did read it but you're not addressing the conflict of advising us as the board of registrar an independent body the town and advising the town council and the town manager so and it's it's just a conflict I see uh here you may continue yes thank you um so we the the law firm of KP law represents the town and the board of registrars is a part of the town while there is a statutory authority for the creation of such board it is a board of the town is appointed by the town manager and I believe confirmed by the council in every town with a town meeting form of government it's appointed by um the board of selectmen there's a process for appointing there has to be names sent I mean there has to be increase excuse me sent to uh the local town committees as well as to the state committee if the town committees don't return the board of registrars is a town entity and there is no conflict for me to represent the town in this matter sounds like you're representing the the clerk and all with all due respect and not the board of registrars so it's a matter this is a matter of what the board the board of registrars is to consider independent of uh the town and of you attorney Goldberg um madam chair through you um the the town includes the board of registrars the town includes the town clerk and includes the town council it includes the town manager representing the board of registrars and the town clerk is not a conflict it is consistent with the the towns um with the the um representation of the town and there you know there just there is no conflict just for your information we represent cities and towns throughout the commonwealth I have represented uh clerks and boards of registrars in elections matters uh that um you know executives approve of or don't approve of and that has no relevance so to your point that you're representing the clerk as an employee of the town and not the board of registrars I'm sorry I didn't say that the clerk is a member of the board of registrars period by statute a full member of the board of registrars a non-voting member of the board of registrar voting I don't know where you got that impression that is absolutely untrue I think we just talked about that earlier in this process when she pointed his chair no you asked the question of whether she has the right to vote and I said she absolutely does there is nothing that says that chair cannot cast a vote on any matter before a board and you can look at any of the other boards and committees in town a chair does not lose their right to participate simply because they're acting as chair yeah I just see this matter is different with the board of registrars acting independently so I'm going to disagree and I want to be on record of disagreeing and objecting to your presence here within the meeting so on record yeah well I'd certainly also like to note that this is a public meeting and anyone can attend including me I was asked to be here and am here to help guide you all the board of registrars certainly if you are asking a question that is can we revisit these signatures then I can answer that should you revisit the signatures I can't answer that that's a policy decision should there be further action taken at the superior court level I can't answer that that's a policy decision but what I can tell you is that based upon my 20 years of experience with election law and with representing cities and towns that the board of registrars has a single discrete function with respect to certification based on the McCarthy case there's a key to the reasons why a name was not certified it is not a personal thing it is not a rejection of someone's uh residents and amers it's not saying that they have a nice signature or not a nice signature it's objective criteria intended to avoid this in my opinion it's intended to avoid putting the board of registrars in a situation where they're required to be handwriting experts and intent experts there is no ability to do that and I think you know someone pointed out earlier 1100 signatures nearly if that was the case nothing could ever be certified and move forward or not be certified and not move forward this is state law towns don't have the right to make their own uh state their own laws relative to elections it's very clear in the home rule amendment certification is provided under chapter 53 section seven and chapter 950 cmr 5502 03 and 04 it it's not I'm not here to debate about that I'm here to share with you my knowledge your legal advice and which we appreciate and I've read also about the signatures and as Carol Gray a member of the public pointed out um some of these signatures were disqualified and we from my knowledge as the board of registrars did not see these signatures it that decision was made on our behalf it sounds like from Amber Martin and again it's not personal against her but it does sound like it was a bit rushed and so I believe as a board as a board we need to revisit it and that's why I'm making the motion to uh you know adjourn this meeting so we could take that up on the Monday meeting well I just I'd like to point out and I'm not sure that you're familiar or recall but every new registrar in town is provided with an authorization form to allow the clerk to certify and to use the signatures so whether or not that meeting was at issue last Wednesday and I don't believe that it was uh or the Wednesday that things were certified um that is irrelevant and and in addition and I think this is extremely extremely important um the the the process is meant to allow and a dispassionate comparison between the names on the list and the names of the petition there are typically signatures many of them rejected by by city and town clerks as they go through this process and that is why the law says that city and town clerks have to certify no fewer than uh two fifths percent more than is required by law this is this is technical and it's not intended to disfranchise people but it's also intended to allow government to function there is an avenue to challenge this that is in court in the superior court this the the clerk and the board of registrars have no jurisdiction and also I just want to say one more thing about the complaint and and being rushed that the response was provided as I recall that that process was undertaken with due diligence so that the petitions could be released because when they're not certified they're not able to be released so that they were able to be released and so that the petitioners themselves could decide what action was appropriate to take next so if if anything the the process was undertaken in the short period of time that it was to facilitate getting that information out to all of the petitioners um and and so you know I also really think it's important to point out that town officials are presumed to have undertaken their their work in a manner consistent with law that's the presumption so it is possible do people make mistakes I'm not saying that there's not mistakes it's possible but the place where that is addressed is not at the local level and um I assume that um you know the the rules of statutory construction are familiar to many of you but just in case I mean you look at a statute and then you look at a chapter and you say well what authority was granted to people in this statute and was that same authority granted in another statute that addresses nearly the same topic and the answer is it matters and 55 b section six addresses the rights of candidates appearing on questions appearing on state balance it does not allow municipal review and as I said the state's election booklet indicates that very clearly um the McCarthy case makes it very clear so I appreciate that attorney Goldberg but do you agree that April 21st um there was a potential violation of the open meeting law and if so this is null and void and that means we're able as the board to review the signatures that they should be reviewed through you madam chair if I can respond yes you may um not no I do not agree that there was a potential open meeting law violation the Wednesday that the signatures I mean the Wednesday that the board met that's number one and number two even if there were the board has no ability to void its own legal action the action was taken there is an ability to go to court to do and a judge an independent third party will make the decisions on whether they agree or disagree with any challenges that are brought forward and post election testimony or post signing testimony such as the affidavits can be accepted by the judge at the local level there is no process for that under state law there is no process so again I I appreciate that so many people are committed to um you know making sure that this process was undertaken correctly and I certainly understand that if um I have lived in a place for a long time and my signature wasn't certified that it would be a problem for me I would be upset but I also know that it says right on the form that you can print or sign and you need to sign as registered and the provisions under general laws chapter 53 section 7 and the regulations make clear what is acceptable to certify and what is not again there is a factor for this it is appropriate to move forward and as you know ma'am I'm also an officer of the court I have an obligation to tell but to provide the information that is correct um just because someone might like that information better than someone else doesn't mean that there's a conflict so I do appreciate that attorney Goldberg um I think I'm just as a board of registrar and my fellow board of registrars that I know take transparency as seriously as I do I think it's important that we get advised by the AG's office the attorney general's office I have sent a letter to them and um I'm hoping that they will respond promptly to advise us independently about what the town's attorney of this process it's about the process well the attorney general doesn't have jurisdiction over anything but the open meeting law and if you have a complaint under the open meeting law which I know there was already filed there's a process for dealing that and that's what we had up on Monday um it ultimately uh you know the board um gets to decide how to proceed I don't see any reason to delay today I don't think it's inappropriate in any way and I don't think any uh hearing on Monday or any meeting on Monday is going to change that um it in the interim uh there were people who filed both complaints that their names were not certified and there were people that filed complaints that their names were certified that they didn't want to be included on the petition and it's under state law there is neither option available to the to the board of registrars so the the the point of holding this um meeting today is to make sure that it's compliant with both the spirit and the technical requirements of chapter 55 b seven which says you need to meet within four days of the last day um to file objections last day to file objections was Tuesday today is the first day that um possible to meet on this and so this was the day that the meeting was scheduled for again to provide the public the residents the voters of Amherst as well as you all with the information that they need to know to decide how to move forward so if there's a violation um with the open meeting law because it was filed with the open meeting law uh for the state um and through the AG's office then it will be null and void the attorney general has the power to nullify whether they would is a different question the court also has the power to nullify don't have to go to the AG first um but again that's up to the court what was undertaken here was a proper process to certify the signatures consistent with the authority that the registrars had already provided to the clerk again the goal was to make sure that people knew that that was happening that's why there was a meeting it was not to uh authorize someone to do something that they wouldn't normally do it was instead held to provide that notice to the public that that's what was happening in any event though it's irrelevant because the board of registrars have each given approval for the use of their name with reg with certifications and that's the only way that the clerk's office could get that signature um so again i'm not taking issue with the fact that people are upset i'm not taking issue with the pact that it with the fact that it appears that many of the people who you have collected at not you um that the petitioners that have collected affidavits from have raised issues it's just that the board of registrars can't do anything with it the petition as certified fails to have the number required to move to the next step it is not in apparent conformity with law and it cannot be changed by the board at this point a court has jurisdiction under chapter 56 section 60 of the election laws um and i don't know a different way to explain but i feel like the allegation or the suggestion that i would be acting on some sort of interest other than the board's interest is it's it's offensive to me um i have no personal interest everyone who got on the the uh public speak said i'm a resident of amherst and i've lived here for x number of years i'm not a resident of him the outcome here to me is not the point of this discussion the point of the discussion is what does the law allow you to do and what should be the next steps for the petitioners if the um board has no jurisdiction that and i don't see any conflict in that i don't see any problem with that and um in fact that's my job um that's my job no matter what i think personally i have to report what the law says and then you all get to make a decision so it's not personal attorney goldberg so i appreciate that um we i guess we're over our hour so and i know it was posted for an hour um so i i move that we um postpone for the discussion of this for the next meeting madam chair if i may yes go ahead attorney goldberg when i'm meeting is posted it just needs to be posted the start time it can continue as long as it takes there's nothing in the open meeting law that were to acquire this meeting to be further delayed thank you attorney goldberg um i'd just like to point out that i i appreciate attorney goldberg's advice on this and i really felt it was useful in knowing what the law is we are not lawyers any one of us um knowing what the law is and able to make um in order to make an informed decision i thought was the most important thing here i didn't want to be basing any decisions on um incorrect information or incomplete information and so in that regard attorney goldberg has has you know this is her her role is to to tell us what we can cannot do based on what you know law chapter section etc yeah and i appreciate that sue and i know you're been in this position a long time and i i do appreciate your own experience and knowledge i'm i think having an independent um you know uh independent legal advice would be appropriate for us to remain independent as a board that's that's my opinion obviously but that's how i think it should function to assure transparency and that the voters are heard on either side i also want to point out you know the reference to the regulations for certification no we haven't discussed this but i've been certifying signatures for 15 years in this office the the town clerk as the one of the board of registrars and with signature stamp permission for certification from the board of registrars we've always done the certification of signatures based on the voter list obviously you know our board of registrars throughout the 15 years has not they have not been employees of the town clerk's office they have not done the certification it's always fallen on the town clerk's office and staff and we are given by the secretary of state a clear set of guidelines and regulations on how to certify at no time do we we decide we're not going to use any of those regulations um there's a whole list of things that we have to go by like number one somebody signs their name at an address okay we look them up according to the voter list which is in the state voter registration system it's electronic so that's what we're using it against there could be two people with the same name at the same address when someone signs their name if we can't tell that that's the exact voter who signed their name they're not going to get certified we may be able to read the name and breathe the address but if there's two people again say there's a junior and a senior and they don't specify junior or senior because there's no date of birth on that form that a person has signed there's no way to differentiate so that's just one circumstance in which we would not allow a signature um but again we're going by a state a document that tells us this is what we're using for certification purposes nothing else everyone is trained in this office in in following these guidelines um yet given more time and i i definitely appreciate your experience yet given more time the voter rolls could have been pulled to match those signatures it sounds like no that's not part of the regulations that is not part of the state secretary's uh regulations on how to certify a name um attorney goldberg do you think it would be useful at this point just to put up the um regulations for certification the board of registrars can see what we utilize yes let me just get over there okay but again notwithstanding the fact that attorney goldberg has pointed out and i have that myself and she can put that up too the um secretary of states board of registrars outline you know who they are the appointment and structure registration local list certification of signatures that it says there is no review process for non-certified signatures on municipal nomination papers or ballot question petitions as attorney goldberg has pointed out so it's a simple it's it's not simple but um if we don't have any legal authority to do this to me that ends the discussion but i'd like to hear your opinions so a couple things here let's let's go back to the i just just to let you know how certification of names happens okay standards all right madam chair yes um actually we can start right above there um because if you look this is um 950 sam r5502 and it it addresses the required actions by the registrars so right here is a reference to the to the need not certify more than two fifth thing that i was talking about earlier that's in chapter 53 section seven and in addition look at number uh 12 uh it says the registrars may authorize office i'm sorry let's look at 11 first the registrar's failure to require to comply with any requirement of 5502 except for 5502 seven shall not invalidate their certification and seven is that the facsimile stamp be used to certify the signatures so everything that the board that the board did through the town clerk's office is legal and and determine it not debatable about that and then when we get to the standards um we we get to um this process as as the clerk was saying here are the standards these standards came about as a result of the earthy case where the court basically said it's impossible for anyone who wants to challenge the actions of the um of the uh registrars or clerk in certifying names to guess why they were certified or weren't certified etc and so there's these reasons if the name isn't certified the reason has to be listed um perhaps even more um important though is if we get to a name is not certified substantially as registered it says the address is different even if only the house number is different or if a post office box number rather than the street address appears so that is the instruction from the state and again it it's not going to result in a perfect uh determination of everyone who is a registered voter in town it's looking to give the clerk's office and the registrars in some towns to be able to make decisions based on objective information the other thing is um and if madam clerk if you would indulge me um if i can go over to the um to the actual uh o'brien case i mean sorry the McCarthy case for one moment sure go ahead thank you sorry about this no i sent that just give me one more second again i apologize so of course this is assuming that uh the open meeting law um that there's not a violation so i appreciate you being very explicit with this attorney golberg i know i sent it earlier let me just double check i'd rather have you see the exact words okay i have to stop sharing for one second so i can switch back over it's in a different program in this case um and thank you for that comment um in this case which was decided in 1977 in the beginning of 1977 um the court was looking at a situation where a candidate uh did not um you let the the statute afforded independent candidates full adequate and speed a little bit uh oh lauren you're froze we'll we'll just hold off here while attorney golberg gets her computer working again okay okay my back you're back okay so i'm gonna resume this oh it's not there okay i can get it in another place this is my um my internet so attorney golberg the um the many affidavits that were submitted uh from my understanding um certifying that these signatures and that these folks are residents etc um are we to review these affidavits at any point as a board and michibas i feel like that's a that's a very important question and it's it feels like you should be able to but at this point where the board has acted the macarthur case specifically says as does the secretary's booklet as does state law that there is no appeal from a local from the decisions of the registrars except for the decision of a court under chapter 56 section 60 quote unquote post election testimony is very allowed in a very limited manner one because it can be used to intimidate and one because it can be used to try and and change people's um positions and so a court has the ability to request post election testimony about um about the intent of the signer about uh you know what the the decision was that the um that the registrars made the court gets to look at it anew so again the affidavits they're important and i i i certainly understand that anyone that signed an affidavit has a reason to be concerned that their name wasn't certified but nevertheless the way the law works there is one way to challenge that and that is at the superior court level um the the language i was going to read you from mccarthy um and my connection to my system at work just dropped out but essentially what it says is that um the board of registrars yeah um it says the there's specifically one role for the board of registrars at the local at the local level it says in general uh i'm sorry it says once that the board has done its job with respect to register um certification it is performed and they have no continuing duty the court concludes that in general the board is barred from reversing their positions on particular signatures after they have refused once to certify them and the case goes on to say section and this is specifically with what has been referred to as or referenced as that the clerk's office not doing due diligence section seven does not contemplate that's chapter 53 section seven that the registrars will make any independent investigation and this court has held that they are precluded to do so what is contemplated by the statute is a simple comparison between the two documents and that's it and again it's not i mean if the law it just sounds like the it just sounds like what you presented here is that the McCarthy ruling does not necessarily involve this situation where the original certification of signatures could be declared null and void again what you know based on a serious open meeting law um violation so i hear what you're saying but it doesn't sound like the McCarthy uh ruling actually applies in that case i'm sure for you i i feel i mean i keep i keep saying this but i think it's important for me to say again chapter 53 section seven and it's implementing regulations specifically authorize the board of registrars to delegate certification uh responsibilities to the town clerk's office in fact each of you have done that when you became a member of the board you signed a piece of paper that said that the clerk's office has authority to do that that is 100 consistent with probably you know 90 of the towns in this commonwealth it is unusual for registrars to go through that process because they have to understand how to use the state system they have to be familiar with the regulations and then they have to make a decision on that and explain it so again the open meeting law issue in my mind is a red herring at best um the meeting on that wednesday was intended to provide information to the public because there was a want or an intent to be transparent uh that is the reason for the meeting it did not give or take away any particular authority the registrars had that authority and when i was showing you the 950 cmr 5502 i believe it was uh the last section it said the registrar's work shall not be undone by any non-compliance with the above except if the facsimile stamp wasn't used to certify meaning someone has to attest that that process was undertaken so whether there was a particular vote it says uh in this in the regs it says again by um by vote or otherwise and and you know i it sounds like it's your opinion whether it's a red herring or not as you call it um i think having an independent um voiced uh legal voice in this matter through the ag's office in the open meeting law um compliance at the state level would be helpful uh for me as a board of directors i can tell you that um that they will only handle it in accordance with state law there's an objection filed the board has 14 business days to um can to acknowledge receipt and act on that complaint um and then notify the attorney general of the same and uh especially where there's an ongoing matter i can't imagine they would be willing to kind of jump into the fray before following the normal procedure i don't speak for them but in my experience they don't give out advisory opinions on things like this um so again if we're looking at this as just just the facts take away any outcomes take away what any of these decisions will mean the law allows the registrars to certify i mean allows the registrars to authorize the clerk to certify that happened here when the registrars were um appointed in accordance with the you know the proper process and to be kind of extra um transparent the board held that meeting to make sure that uh there was you know something on the record about it to make to be even more transparent so um sue are we able to ask for independent legal um guidance in this matter um i think we need it as a board i'd have to look into that day because this has never happened before so i don't know i don't know can i can i just say one thing when i was like looking at 5502 that was the one that said um the registrars may authorize the office of employees of a city or town clerk's office including the city or town clerk to perform all duties required by 950 cmr 5502 and this authorization may be accomplished by among other things a vote of the board of our registers in my opinion on the 421 meeting that's part of what we were doing then which i wasn't at i so i'm just saying that because like in the agenda the agenda made no mention of any petitions it's sad and i forgot why that's not on the agenda when it talks about the delegation of the authority and the duties under the amish rule charter sections 8283 and 840 town clerk staff and that's what i thought that the meeting was about on the 21st and i just elaborated on it with a bunch of pages and then i talked a lot about this stuff in 950 cmr 5502 yeah jackie i right and i i don't think we're disputing that we have the power to delegate authority okay on clerk's office that's not the issue yeah it's whether it's whether the board it's whether the board complied with the open meeting law is it's at issue i understand that and i also think that they comply by the open meeting law by looking at the rules and the regulations in the open meeting law too well from my understanding of the emails i received it wasn't clear that the meeting would have you all discuss the petition okay that's what i'm saying that was never brought up about the petition in that particular meeting that should have been something separate or whatever because again they still had that time window for it to um for it to be processed during that time too and may i step in um i think attorney goldberg has made it clear that um irregardless of the night or the 421 meeting giving the town clerk's office permission that was icing on the cake so to speak that was in the interest of being transparent and um it really was unnecessary because we already have permission to certify signatures and use facsimile stamps it was us it was a layer on a layer yeah and i see it that way but again at that meeting nobody mentioned anything about petitions and people could have called in on the zoom line for public comment and nobody contacted on it yeah i so again i see it as a uh we need guidance on a violation of the open meeting law oh no jamie do you have anything to add to this um other than i mean we are full aware of what was happening on the April 21st meeting turning over the authority to the town clerk's office to handle um these situations and i feel as though you know there was time for public comment nobody was on um i also feel that me you know from my position i felt that you know it was better handled by the town clerk's office having had um you know they've been familiar with this stuff they've they've done this stuff before so um for them to be able to handle it just made made the most sense um in that matter and i i mean i looking at um the complaint for the open meeting law i i mean i guess i'm unclear as to why um i mean it references in you know look the agenda what was being discussed so i mean it was it was out there and i'm i'm just not clear on where the um open meeting law violation comes in but obviously that will come up on on monday's call um but i feel as though we were acting and had acted in in accordance with what was expected of us okay no i think you all acted with uh the information that you had but the public um they didn't know what the meeting uh was about from from my reading of the open meeting law complaint so that was not clear all right i think we should table and go back to um what we're here for the discussion of the appeal and objection um if if you don't mind so we'll get it's quarter 12 so that we can stay on task here um in light of what attorney goldberg has brought to the table on what our rights are as far as the board of registrar's what our legal responsibilities are what we can and cannot do based on the law do you think we're ready to come to some kind of vote not in my opinion not in your opinion okay i think we need further advice independent uh legal advice okay um jackie i'd like to have a little more time to meditate on some of this stuff because i'm still my head is uh swimming right now because again what i had in mind as far as like for intentions what's going on i also have to take into consideration some of the stuff that the people were saying today um i'd like to know a little bit more about how the process was actually executed because um for the most part i just had a feeling um what was going to happen would be that the um uh the board of registers would would be on the vote voting process but seen as that never got to that part part we didn't have to certify it can you can you explain a little bit further i'm not quite sure what you're saying about yeah okay um after um i guess the signatures had been certified or whatever um or in fact i don't even really know if the whole whole um process actually was certified i know something got rubber stamped but i don't even know what it was i'll be honest without so i'm i'm just sort of like at a loss and i'd like to see have more information about what happened what actually happened because again my expectations at the meeting were totally different from what other people had to okay because again nothing was mentioned in that meeting about petitions and people are mad about the open that not being an open meeting law but um and again the way i see it too the agenda and i had asked about that as far as like that's the only agenda that you have yeah that was it okay that's on the open meeting law okay yeah and jay media confused um i mean again i know there was an email that went out that that spelled out specifically what um we were discussing on april 21st and i i mean i'm going to stick to i feel like um you know we we've shifted that rule over to the town employees i fully trust that they follow uh you know what the letter of the law is what says you know how to certify and decertify a signature i do feel that um they're more qualified to do that than we are i mean obviously i i think about you know i'd like to i'd like to know the process and and see this person's signature and see why it was just you know disqualified i guess i i would like to see that but i i feel that um if we follow that same letter of the law we're going to come to the same conclusion that the town employee who was certifying came to if you're following that um but i also i also feel like we we passed that over to them for their responsibility um i believe that they have no nothing to gain or lose by certifying or not certifying somebody i mean there's no personal um interest i would i wouldn't imagine from from the person doing the certification but i feel like we turn that that roll over to them and i i'll stick to the decisions that that were made um and i feel like you know we kind of you're acting in accordance with the law that that there's no reason why you know we wouldn't get the same okay but outcome that's that they got we're all still talking about the open meeting law thing again i want to go back to our rights as a board of registrars as a group of people in making a decision as to whether to put a name back or not and it's very clear in the law that we do not have the authority again there's no review process for non-certified signatures on municipal nomination papers or ballot question petitions it's the law right so and you know i appreciate what jamie is saying i too don't feel that any of this was like politically motivated i'm not trying to imply that i'm trying to just so it's clear um you know discuss that in the first case there was a violation of the open meeting law because the agenda on April 21st was not advertised as such that this is this was the discussion i was not even clear as a board of registrar because i had received an email to say that it was about passing powers on to uh the the town clerk and then it was it said that we were going to discuss the petitions and then i received a second email at that point to say oh no that was a mistake um it is about uh giving the powers board of registrars to the the clerk so again i had a physical that had been scheduled out a year i have a heart issue so it's important that i attend my physical and so being that that was not advertised as such to discuss petition um and signatures um i didn't see it as a reason at that point to cancel my doctor's appointment so it was unclear unclearly stated to us as the board of registrars and it was unclearly stated to the public therefore it is a violation as i see it they have a legitimate complaint i'm not ruling on the the the issue because i can't but i feel that the complaint is legitimate and that we should simply postpone this discussion for monday and you know call this meeting do we have a second is that a motion you're still moving to d yes oh i can make a motion yes so i move to um yes i i move to postpone this discussion for monday 21st 21st i'm sorry i move to postpone this this discussion for it's the 11th right right i yes okay my okay i'm looking at my calendar yes i know it's monday monday the 10th um and to in this meeting do we have a second madam chair oh yes yes attorney goldberg i just want to just to say a few things about the open meeting law so that we're clear um if you're continuing this meeting to monday you need to continue to a specific time date in place which can be zoom number two that um item would have to be added to the agenda it's not on the agenda now so it would be something that had been raised in the last 48 hours i guess that um that the town didn't anticipate or the chair didn't anticipate i'm not sure whether that's appropriate or not especially based on the concerns for compliance with the law um you know that's why there was notice given about the monday meeting so you know in theory um you know there should there should at least be some consideration of whether you all think that discussion of this issue was not um reasonably anticipated at the time that the meeting notice was posted jamey i can't hear you sorry no i was talking to my son he was coming over here okay um one thought is we could if if people want to if you all agree if we want to postpone this um we can reset a date and we can cancel monday's meeting and do it another day so can you repeat that attorney goldberg wide legally we are not able to continue this discussion until monday oh i didn't say you couldn't continue it until monday madam chair three sorry i apologize um under the open meeting law excuse me you need to have at least 48 weekdays hour weekday hours notice of a particular matter to be discussed and obviously there's not 48 weekday hours between now and monday i think it was at 10 is that correct but monday's is 230 i'm sorry isn't on the agenda from monday the discussion of the open meeting law that's the only thing on the agenda for monday but we still haven't resolved today's item well again um until the open meeting law question is resolved in my opinion this could all be null and void as attorney bonas at the start of this um had discussed attorney goldberg do you have any um again i don't in my view uh based on the law and the regulations and my experience with election law um in general i i don't see that there's um any issue and with the open meeting law under the open meeting law i practice municipal law i have done so for 20 years i give advice on the open meeting law all the time um the reason for me raising the issue of course is that i don't want there to then be a complaint that monday's meeting wasn't held in accordance with law so the the ability to add something to an agenda after the 48 hours uh posting period has um you know been entered is dependent upon whether the chair may reasonably and in this case the board may reasonably have um anticipated that this discussion of whether the board has jurisdiction over um over complaints and uh complaints to remove and complaints to add um is is anticipated and again okay i can't i can't make that decision i just wanted to stumble on something that is more procedural in nature yeah i i agree i see what you're saying now so thank you for explaining that so we proceed with our monday meeting which is a discussion of the open meeting law but we can postpone this discussion and set a later date kind of what i was saying okay sorry i put this on monday's agenda because we're past the 48 hour time i just need some explanations sometimes thank you all right well um then i guess the motion on the table d was um for everybody to postpone this meeting today to a later date and time specific um we would have to pick a date and time i know we were throwing out some dates the other day for monday's meeting um what did i i hadn't heard from jamie so i have um next week 13th or the 14th would work for me okay how does that yeah the 13th would work for me and the final final day as well okay 13th or 14th would work for me too okay all right so um why don't we say then today's meeting will be adjourned until may 13th um at 10 a.m okay sound okay yeah via zoom okay all right um do we have a second of that motion i second that motion okay all in favor we'll do roll call um i am in favor i am in favor jane wagner okay i'm in favor jocelyn gardener okay i okay i'm in favor okay all in favor all right uh i think i think as this concludes our business for today attorney goberg unless there's anything else um we can adjourn the meeting yes i believe there's nothing else on the agenda for today okay all right all right then all in favor of adjourning hi hi hi hi okay today's meeting has been adjourned thank you 12 12 o'clock okay okay thank you bye bye thank you