 So good evening. I'd like to call the select board meeting of May 7th to order at 6.04 p.m. Start with helping remarks, announcements, agenda review. And the announcements. You had mentioned a couple things that need to be added. Yes, just to be announced, we've got the city senate seat and the traffic here that has a lot of spot work. So we'll make sure we get to those tonight. Any other things on our agenda that need to be adjusted in any way? I think that's a no. So we'll get right into it. First thing on our agenda is a third quarter budget up to some of these options here. Take us through that. Right here. I'll have my work all the way through. It should be. All right, so we're three quarters of the way through the fiscal year. Actually, a little more, because duties will work until a month later. And I'm not going to bother going through all of the revenues that are written out here, because it's pretty detailed. And they're pretty much the same that come up every third quarter. It's all timing issues when they come in. The one couple I will mention, fines and forfeits. It's at 101.1% collected. And this is due to the unusual large zoning violations at the presidential apartments with an anomaly. I want to point it out. And then the other is penalties of interest for 118.7%. And this is up from the last few years. And we're watching this to see if this is a new trend or just outlier years. A higher trend could indicate growing difficulty of residents paying taxes, so this is one we want to watch. On the expenditure side, most of these were explained on the Floor of Town meeting Monday and we did Article 4A and where the savings are and where the deficits are. The deficits are in general government this year because of our health insurance deficit, which was about $385,000. Article 4A voted at town meeting Monday night moved $125,000 from community services to general government to help cover the $385,000 along with other savings that we had in general government due to the finance director position and other vacancies and savings in property and casualty insurance of $20,000. And there was also savings from the salary reserve we had there, which helped us cover the health insurance deficit. And that is covered at this point in time for no other emergencies coming up in the next couple of months. Snow and Ice, as of today, we were at $97,827 for deficit. We're trying to cover more and cover that with more savings in that functional area. And I don't know, I think that's it. And the price funds are as they should be at this time. There's just one correction I want to make under expenditures on legal services. At the end, this includes payments through, I think your copy says March should say January. Under expenditures, there's legal services. And at the end of the sentence, it says payments through March should say January. So we paid our illegals through January as of March 31. We paid more, it just happened in April. Are there questions for me, Sol? This one has a question. I think this is the only one that I'd have about the golf course, since we covered that in the last round. So probably nothing new to say. Now that she hasn't moved in here, too, I need to go back to Sol. All right, thank you very much. So moving on to our next item is the audit review. Any questions about that? Yeah, I'll do it briefly. And then, I think, we'll add in a lot, probably. The audit committee didn't meet, as always does. And it was a very good meeting. Basics are, I don't know if you've looked at the audit who said to us electronically, it contained what the representative from Melanson who was there was pointing out, Tonya, is that the presentation of the financial statements are really in a different format from how we in other municipalities look at budgets so that it's not always easy to take the presentation as it's made in the budget in the audit report and to make sense of it in comparison to what we used to deal with in the budget. She did point out several things that were particular significance, one that certainly got the largest amount of discussion was the OPEP discussion. And that's because, as you might call, the accounting standards changed so that they now were getting into a phase where a portion of the liability, which used to be just reported as a put-up, now has to actually show up as a liability. So we were discussing that at length in comparing it with the put-in-out material. It was just a more complete report. I think that the bottom line of what I would say from it was that she was also pointing out that they were with a number of communities. And she thinks that our efforts to not only establish but to actually fund trust is above and beyond most of the communities in that we are in very good condition. We have good plans going forward. And of course, we are all aware of the pension liability, which will be paid in something like 2026 or something like that. But many of them, once it's paid, it will come available. And so there was absolutely no concern, expressed what's over. The other topic that came up in a little bit of discussion was just what we're all aware of, which was the whole thing, trust fund discussion, so that there was no surprise information that came forward out of that. I think there was something that Ms. Aldrich just mentioned a moment ago that came up briefly in discussion, too. And that was the question of some lag in paying some property taxes to a greater extent than what we're used to. But certainly, we are in very solid shape in comparison to other communities. She did draw comparisons to other communities across the state. And she also pointed out that this is a liability that will be collected. So I think that the two things that were the takeaways were is that in looking at the financial statements, there was no qualifications whatsoever. So it was an unqualified audit, which is what you're looking for. And in relation to that, in addition to that, we had no management letter this year, which was an indication that we had resolved problems from prior management letters. And there was nothing new to report. And so that was important information also. And just generally, that her observations about our financial planning in town and the solid reserves that we have put us in good financial condition. So it was an excellent report. Did you want to add anything? Yeah. First, as mentioned, the company of the audit committees, there are the finance director and the finance and Shama Gada from the school district, and clearly represents from the finance committee, the school committee, the court of library, the trustees, the select board. That's that kind of report. Friday is the audit committee. So those are the people who are listening to the audit and asking questions. And also, I think it is significant that there was no management letter. We did release a piece to do diligence in following up on all the articles that were on all the items that were listed in the previous management letter. And there were no findings of recommendations for moving on that rose to the level of the people who were in the management letter. They always have suggestions for how we can think better and take those under consideration. But in fact, there are no actual better questions. So in the reserves, in years past, we've often asked the auditor to look at a particular area of operation to see if they had any suggestions specifically not to necessarily find fault or that sort of thing. I was curious if we had selected something this year for a deeper look from the auditor. Yes, there were two. Time for Xophis and Council on Aging. And those are things that I want you to look at next year. It's directly with the services and school. That was this year? That's coming up. Well, thank you very much for that. It's always good to hear it. It's unqualified. It sounds a bit upside down, but in this case, it's a good thing. So anyway, unless there's other questions, thank you very much. And we'll move on to our next agenda item, which is appointments under the transition provisions of the charter. Let's give Mr. Sander a few points to the good guidance for a little bit. Yes, I wrote a memo at the request of the chair, which I believe has been provided to you for tonight's meetings and the pack of materials. We are in a situation where we now have to observe the transition provisions in the charter. And the provision essentially provides that we are not to make new appointments other than maintain sufficient multi-member body memberships to have a quorum plus one additional member, so that committees can continue to do business. It seems that we're getting into that time of year where we normally go through the process of reaching out to everybody on three days and either indicating that you've reached a point where you've served for our policy had been essentially six years or two, three year terms, or that people are not eligible for reappointment, or that we're asking them what their interest in reappointment is. And what seems to be a logical alternative is to just continue all existing positions as holdovers and let people continue to serve up until the time that the council is elected and takes office and can make other arrangements that we should limit our appointments to numbers sufficient to reach the threshold or vacancies as they occur. So I suggest an emotion, which is an emotion sheet, that we continue appointments of committee members with terms ending on June 30, 2018 until replaced to reappointed by the town council to be elected in November or on November's resignation. That way, all of the committees can continue to function. We are placed in a position of making choices amongst existing committee members who may be interested in continuing to serve, and we leave maximum flexibility as directed by the charter to the council. Questions? It's brilliant. And so you're OK with the wording. We're getting more and more familiar with some of these phrases from the transition. So no appointment shall be made that do not meet this criterion after the charter is adopted. So since we're just continuing appointments, we're not calling them reappointments or new appointments. We feel like September, that means the spirit of giving the whole context of the entire process. Is that how it works? I think so because the purpose is to allow the maximum flexibility in committee appointments going forward to the council, but since in place. So the motion that I've recommended to continue appointments that would otherwise expire until replaced to reappointed by the council or on the date of the members resignation gives absolute control to the council for committee membership. And it is entirely consistent with what the purpose was of that transition provision. Not necessarily opposed to this method, but it's less sort of literal than saying form plus one. It does solve the problem of perhaps picking and choosing among the members that three people wanted to continue. And literally form plus one would have to do people off the island and create more contention maybe than was envisioned. I do think it would be hard for the council once they're up and running to have to go back and figure out, you know, do the people who continue, do they keep them on longer, or do they start looking for other people? And there's a bunch of issues that they'll have to face regardless of how we manage this. It's a little bit of an interesting set of problems. To me, if your appointment ended July 1 of 2018, it is a reappointment. We're calling it a holdover, but we are re-appointing. We're putting that person in the sea and sending the corridor for the council to then pick their own people. But I think this solves some of the problems. I don't think there's anyone we happy we do this. So the other question I had, Mr. Sandberg, in the motion, it says, elect in on November 6, 2018, we don't yet know if it will be elected on November 6 or the subsequent date. Personally, it depends upon the website. Well, I know. That's what I mean, so you are correct, I think. So I wonder if we might want to kind of fudge this. I was going to speak in the substance, but this is easy, just take out the words to be elected on the date by the council. When the council is elected, the council is the council. That's all. Like Ms. Krueger, I had some thoughts about this, because it seems we talked before about certain terms expiring at a certain date, because if we are allowing or empowering the council to make changes, this puts the onus on them to throw somebody out, which is not my preferred version. So off the top of my head, I'm very, very grateful for Mr. Steinberg for doing this. And I've been doing it, I guess, I would have thought about a limited term, so that the council had a chance to start with a clean slate, either re-appointing or maintaining. Because otherwise, we are basically influencing the way the council is going to act by appointing someone to a term of unspecified, unlawful or traditional like it seems to me. The one disadvantage to that is that the council is going to have a lot to attend to when it is in place. And the whole organizational and learning curve is going to be significant. And how it chooses its priorities to do business is really its decision to make. I thought about that question of be raised if we came up with a date, and there was an automatic expiration of all of these terms. It may put more pressure on them than they want. They may actually benefit from the flexibility that we were offering to them, because they have the extra choice to do whatever they would is correct, including the timing of when they deal with this particular issue. So I guess that was the counterpoint to it. Ms. Brewer. Well, apparently, we're just not going to agree completely on this one because we're down to it. But I would argue that continuing these appointments actually does have precedent in terms of, throughout the Commonwealth, people are often just on appointments until they get replaced. And so although we like to have the nice hard and fast rule of June 30th, that's not, in fact, almost true. In fact, almost every year, we end up holding people over without taking any official action because we haven't gotten information back. We haven't been able to act in a timely fashion to do something with their appointments in effect in July 1. And they continue to serve. They don't just go away and not continue to serve. And in some cases, they're denied, because they're not meeting in December, so it doesn't matter. But for others, that continuation is a typical standard. So that makes me feel OK about this, as opposed to calling it a reappointment for now to affinity whenever that may be that they get it done, or versus giving everybody that hard and fast date so that, again, as Mr. Steinberg pointed out, so that the Council has dealt with that. I mean, all these things are true. And it's just the matter that everybody said is just a matter of balancing those things. And I don't feel that we need to give the Council a clean slate from the standpoint of suddenly having everybody's terms expire, because in fact, the Charter talks about the fact that people who are serving will continue to serve. And they can get to it when they get to it. So they will have probably enough members that it's a quorum to get work done while they're sorting out what their priorities are as a Council, as to which committees become committees of the Council, as Council members on them versus remaining independent-type committees. And so as they sort all that out, it feels like this gives them the time to do that. And as long as we make it clear with some carefully worded language as we extend these terms, which doesn't have to be in the motion, something about the letter that we send that indicates that we are doing this in the spirit of the transition, as opposed to, because you should be on pins and needles that you're going to be fighting. But in all reality, you might be. So it's no guarantee of any length of time. But there was never any guarantee. No one has a right to a second for your term. And so there was never any guarantee that you're going to continue on. And in fact, we'll just be grateful if enough of them continue on to serve as a quorum at this point. Did you have your hand up? Go ahead. Also, I think what this does, actually, is the way the memo reads, is that it sort of freezes everything on the day of the election. So as we're going to continue with all of you who are there, it's that we're going to serve, continue on. And I think the letter would be an invitation for it to continue on, not to a point. It's not an appointment with the proper caveat that when the council gets organized against it into this, they'll have the opportunity to go. I was just going to have, however, say, in a case where we do this nicely, we wrote a letter and we find out three members have decided that they're done for different reasons and we're short. And we do need to do a new appointment either through an improvement or maybe if there's a vote, something to do with what I've already said in CAFs. And I would think at that point, we would try to honor the quorum plus one. So we may need to fill it up to quorum plus one in certain cases where we're going to continue with numbers. So does that mean we would still want people to send in citizen activity forms, either for that type of instance or to sort of bank up interested people that the council might want to look at? It's just yes to that. Yes. Well, we always do it. Well, so then that should probably be in that letter or whatever it's not. I can also see maybe making a little statement or maybe use these kind of things just that we've got these issues. Questions or comments? Are we ready for a motion? Sort of ready. It's all in a formally reading. I move to continue the appointment of committee members with terms expiring on June 30th, 2018 until replaced or appointed by the town council or the members' resignation. I have a second for the discussion. Well, just, I didn't know that you changed it from reappointed to appointed, so that is what we intended. We need to offer them. I don't know what we're talking about. I thought I said the words until replaced or, I'm sorry, if I didn't say replaced or reappointed, I meant to say the word I was trying to say. What I heard was replaced or appointed. Okay. And I just want to, I don't care for which one you want. It should say replaced or reappointed. Okay. Thank you. For the discussion, hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That's your move. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry for that conversation. You're welcome. I meant to say it. Next, our agenda is view slash two positions on people 30, 20, 18, and you tell me any articles. We have an opportunity, and we have a couple of them before you get into this. Could be a great discussion, but we do have one license, I believe, that we need to do, which we can do for the end, but we want to do it now, so would you rather do it now? No, we got it done, yeah. All right, let's do it now. So would someone like to make a motion? I move to approve the application on top of the campus Inc. for a special license to serve all alcoholic beverages at the Life Science Lab S330 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Kimberly McAllister, board member. Second, for the discussion, hearing none, all of your favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Is that unanimous? Wait a minute, the only problem is, is there a date on that? Yes, May 9th, 2018. Yep, thank you for, no you didn't, but it's a nice theory. I was looking at it going, what's missing from this? If I just read it, it'll become clear what's missing from that. Thank you. So it was all, what was it? May 9th, luckily, luckily it is on the agenda. Yeah, so it's May 9th. Just to make it into the motion. Just to prove it's not. So, thank you, Mr. Steinberg. Okay. All right, so now it's, if you take positions on April 30th, and you'll tell me your articles. So we've been discussing sort of, sure, I don't want to say the word allow, but you've got advice from the King Town Council about whether it's appropriate for telling me to say back about certain articles and we've kind of operated in a certain way. I think the moderator has changed his opinion about how we might approach some of those as far as just the mechanics of town meeting. And I didn't know if that would alter how we've taken our view towards certain articles. So I know that one of the members wanted to revisit at least one. So, I thought this would be an opportunity to have that conversation. You're right, I think that's very good. So, a few weeks ago, we took a position saying that we said that zoning amendment to change the supplemental dwelling bylaw essentially gone from 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet with the understanding that it would be used more. The unit could be slightly larger than I had promised, but at least for me, that night, I was trying to apply a very strict standard from my understanding of the K.P. Law Guidance document. And even though they had said, because it had to do with this affordable housing, we had, it was okay to go forward. But at that time, I gave a sort of conservative meaning on that, and I guess other people agree, because we decided to advise the town meeting shouldn't act on that. And then as this is unfolded, I realized that town meeting was going to be allowed to act on it. And so it didn't really matter that we made that distinction, that we could just go ahead and have town meeting take that action, so we could preface it. This was one that we had kind of looked at both ways, but at the end of the day, if the moderator is going to allow it to be acted on, maybe we want to take a position on the substance of the article as well. So I just, you know, I guess my own evolution, I was having second thoughts about that. So our current recommendation is to refer this to the planning board. And the idea that we didn't felt that we were being consistent with the transition provisions. However, if absent the transition, we're thinking about the article itself, if we want to take a different position, if ultimately the article gets moved. It's like what if we for all fail. Right. What would we say? Right. I don't know if we have a hold to articulate that. That it's a bad thing to be prepared for other options. Cause there may be several. It's 33. No, it's nothing else. Oh, okay. Okay, so does anyone else have, you know, I have second thoughts, it doesn't mean the whole board has second thoughts on this as well. I mean, again, I think that the problem for me is that we're caught without the adequate guidance because I can see a very strict view or a very capacious view. And it seemed that KP law leaned towards the latter but didn't quite take the one or the other. As far as this particular one went, and everybody's comfortable with the fact that we, I think we should write to tell the moderator what the appropriate motion we're asking for. And you should know some in or out order. It seems not inclined to do that, which is the second problem. In the case of separatical dwelling, I guess I figured if we're going to include our zoning, I can't see not doing the other ones because, you know, part of the idea behind the whole KP law memo was the idea of continuing normal business, and that could include not just urgently necessary but things that went under way for a long time, like the desire for affordable housing. We've produced no affordable housing through the cruiser Arizona, so far, basically. The separatical dwelling unit has a much better chance of producing additional housing at the workforce level if not affordable with the capital A. So it seems to be about the standard of allowing continuing town goals to be fulfilled and the likelihood of achieving outcomes in the near future that something will go into this is totally acceptable. Again, I could go either way, I don't care, but for me, that's the consistency is following what our paid attorneys tell us we can move this forward. So I was okay with what I said back when we discussed it, which was trying to differentiate it somehow to show that we were differentiating, that we weren't just saying everything. But as people have pointed out, the moderator has changed his mind about his view on our level of authority there. So I'm confused by, I guess, more so than our recommendation on this particular issue, which we could develop more fully because if we decide that we are going to have a position other than we don't think this was one of the things we should do, which we have obviously mixed feelings about, is that is still separate from the issue of if we have any authority, which the moderator doesn't agree that we do in this case, but I believe we still do in other cases associated with the transition to the chart. So in that case, if an article, that's a zoning article or any article that we don't at some point in this process believe is something town meetings should have acted on, do we just let it make its merry way to the attorney general, or do we say, hey look, we have a charter that says we're only supposed to do certain things, you be the big bad guy and figure this out, or what, I mean, I'm trying to understand what level not only our recommendations, that seems pretty straightforward, like we could go either way on article 33 in terms of making a recommendation. But if it passes, is it something that we're comfortable saying that's fine? Is there anything that we're not comfortable saying is fine that we would have to say to the attorney general, yes, these were okay, not because we said it two weeks ago, but because we believe it now, based on all the other circumstances, these are okay, but these are not, or we just not asserting any authority in this conversation. And I guess to some extent, it doesn't really matter until it happens. But I also think it's perhaps a bit unfair to tell meeting to say, sure, we just have positions on everything. If we have any indication that we might, in the future, say, you know what, we didn't really think that tell me we should have acted on these things, and so we're going to follow through in some fashion. It feels a little disingenuous not to mention it, but to tell me. So there are two that I would most likely, I don't know what the outcome will be, that I would most likely want to intercede in some way, looking for it was approved, but it, and I hear what you say about being disingenuous, but it's not something to be premature until we see what happens and we take that action. So we could say, we haven't decided yet that we have discussed taking such an action to see where it's from, but there's only two in the article 33, so I don't know what it's all about. So that's why I kind of pulled it out. And I think, you know, Mr. Bachmann at one point said, you know, if you follow the K.P. Law Guidance, you sort of have a rationale, and I was like, you know, I want to figure it out for myself, but now I think actually, since there are two that I feel strongly about it, it is a rationale for following lines, because we're saying those didn't make the cut, and our attorneys, in fact, said so, and they agreed, where's these other ones, you could go with it, but we're okay with it. So you're referring to, for example, you're referring to the petition article that's a brand new rezoning concept and the new concept around the notes by law, those are the two that's going to hold the analysis, too. Okay, I just want to make sure where we're, yes, those two things. And so I think we could maybe let, in fairness, let Hanmi know that those are the ones that we really find automatically haven't yet liberated on it, I'm not the actionist, but we might, I think there's something. So with that, I could make the motion to run at the time. We could still, we could either rescind the motion to refer, leaving that alone. If referral isn't acted on or approved by Tom, I would move that the select award recommend the approval of, it's a very well crafted. I believe the select award is being, because it's a motion to refer to the moderator, but the select award is in the motion. So I guess the first question is, do we want to still recommend referral? Should that fail, we would then support the main motion. We're doing one at Panther. I guess my question that I've always been struggling with is if we believe something should not be acted upon by Tom meeting, moderator disagrees and Tom meeting disagrees and Tom meeting acts on it. What does KP Law say that our authority is that point, or do we have any authority whatsoever to say, thank you Tom meeting, but we rule that, this is not allowable. That's permissible and expected under the Charter Transition Commission, then we ought to know that and be considering and discussing that. So that question was posed to Tom, the attorney and what town attorney said, select board could send a letter along with the bylaw to the attorney general saying that citing the town attorney's letter that you're doing with your support, this is in conflict with the recently passed Charter and we think that the attorney general should not approve it if the town can choose to do it. So that was one way to handle that. So I'm not willing to go that far, I would for the other two, perhaps when we get that deliberating on them and that's why we kind of find it possible because we talked about this before and we don't know, we can send that kind of a letter whether we prevail or not but I would not be interested in sending that type of letter in the case of article 33 because I think it's in a really great area and having now gone through the review of all the articles, that's what I mean. So I guess the question becomes do we want to still have our sort of default position be referral and then alternative to that then would be passage, is that or do we want to reverse those and recommend passage and if not then referral? I wish other people would wouldn't be in. Yeah, I'm fine with staying with referral and then passage if your referral fails because I think it could wait a little bit. I don't know that it needs the absolute non-alimenting sort of this and they won't be able to discuss this as well, so. I think that's kind of how I said my poorly worded motion was if referral was defeated we would then support. I guess, I think we're all asking the same things here. I guess my question would be if we were not dealing with the charter situation how would you vote on this? Because it seems to me if we're saying referral is appropriate but it can pass. I mean, it's not quite as if it's just as a playing board working out in the film motion and then saying if that fails it'll take the petitioners when they're fought for most to reject or improve but it seems to me if we're for it we should be for it. I guess I want to know why referral is it has to left over the previous conversation or is there a strong reason because not all motions are ready for action and we can have different opinions about the urgency. Yeah, I think it's going to come down to different opinions about the urgency. All things considered, I think we did all make mention previously that we don't have on this article, the content. It's just where are we drawing the lines and this one's not in the gray area anymore. I'm not convinced it's out of the secret or something area in term because in less of course barring any rescheduling motions which can always happen. This would be the first one that we would make that speech that says we have this opinion. This is uncharted territory for us. We're trying to figure this out. Obviously Mr. Slater you were planning to say something along those lines when we were talking about referral because we weren't saying the content was bad. That wasn't why it was being referred. And in fact in many cases referral is it's really good except and in this case it's good except we're concerned about this thing. And I think that the reason that it's unfortunate for perhaps 33 to be the first one out of eight that is like that but I still don't think it's completely unreasonable and it may not agree. But I don't think it's unreasonable that we would say this is how we looked at it. We are unsure as to whether or not this means the test in the charter but we don't have a problem with the content so we were thinking referral seemed like the best idea and then people say yes I agree. We shouldn't deal with the zoning because zoning should be left up to the future council. That could then set the tone for the other things or they could say yeah crazy we're gonna do this in which case we'd say well in that case we support it. So I don't know if we don't set it up with this one. But we have to land on one where are the other? Stay with the referral because of the rationale. So my motion accepted referral but should that not be passed because people want to vote on it then we don't have another position voted on the motion to say okay then we support. I like that motion. Okay I second that motion. So second it is. Second it's staying with referral and if that fails then we'll recommend it. So hard to believe. Right because that would be true for any of the others as well some of which we feel very strongly should pass and some of which we feel very strongly should not. Great all right so we made a decision. Right is it further to say? It's a plan and I just I think we should let the planning board or planning director know post cases so they may change their presentation I think their presentation is different. No other discussion. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Post. It looks to vote no. We probably will come back to 27 I think it is that has to do with the history property. Just to mention that one the trust is meeting on Thursday night where they're going to discuss a bit more detail that article of the motion was likely to be made perhaps perhaps more rationale around urgency necessity as one thing. I mean it's still on for vote as you said it stayed the way it was. What? It was our final position on article 27 because I don't have the one that was emailed to us the other day with the revolutions and we don't have one on our desk tonight but the one last one we got was the yellow was what our vote was for article 27. I think we've held off on that one. I think we're not yet I don't think we have. So we do have 27. So 27 may actually be the first one to re-rate and have this conversation about it whether we decide it's not consistent or not it may be an appropriate time to sort of weigh in on that because most everything before that is really. So we have two more things to talk about. Right, so. We have one more thing related to town meeting which could come up tonight. If there is a motion to amend or otherwise add money to a school budget tonight is as pure as possible. Is it our position that because we have supported the budget for the amount that it was in the town that that's where we are and that we oppose any addition? Is that, isn't that implied? Or did you want to? I just wanted to make sure of that. I just wanted to make sure that there was nobody who's going to take a different view on it. I was just going to say that's been a historical and philosophical position but Mr. Stroud would like to make that more explicit in one of those things that we couldn't anticipate before. Well, there is additional issues that come up because if this has to do with the regional school budget the whole question about how the assessment method works, how the politics of the assessment method work is kind of intimately involved in any tentative doing in different passing motions as passed. And I'm willing to say that those rules are beyond the usual who voted the amount and the system that we think is appropriate. I think that you should go ahead and feel free to say that and we did unlike so frequently when we don't have any heads up like we did last week. We did have something of a heads up that we've heard informally and so to say that does make it perfectly clear we've heard of it, we've had a chance to say open. But we chose not to change it. We're staying sticking with our guns so you should feel empowered. Okay, now we have something close to pass. So yes, on Friday, May 4th there is a tragedy and the covers pond where the young man died plus the pond and Chief Nelson will be in command of the scene and he's here. Days are long, he's here, if there are any questions or give a little more detail in the situation. Tough, tough day, really tough, really tough day. We got a call about four hours after three or something. We just sat around there and said someone was fine with the pond. So we sent all the troops down and right away I had part of the other four to a corner and Casey Meagel, Officer Meagel, put on the PFDs and jumped in to see if they could find the spot where the gentleman went down. His friend, he and his friend had an obstacle so. And the pond is cold, it's still cold. I mean we had snow last wave so. And so the streets had to sit on so it's gonna stay cold, if you're not used to that, if you're not a cold, you're not supposed to swim and act like an actor and act like an actor. And it's the cold with the sap you're starting to get. And then the cranking and cranking and that. So his friend began, we found there, he tried to try to get to do him, he couldn't do that, that's for sure. They phoned, phoned, phoned calls. There was a young lady out there, I don't know her name, but we have her name. She was out at the pond and she swam to the water. And she went out there and dove, multiple times, tried to try to track down the pond. She was pretty in the instrumentals and kind of pinned him for us where he wasn't bound by where he was. But we brought in dieting from Northfield, so we had way to district one. So some suns, suns, suns, and the state, state police. And then we had all our heartbeat with people. And we deployed a red, red, red, red breast, or red, red, red, red sweat. And one of the good things I've been thinking about is that it really works. All, he said, get an agent, an agent, an agent. And she came again, worked well to get to, to get to, and to all the, all the other, all the other guys that were coming in for the job. As Eva said, it was a tough day. But everyone worked well. They didn't get a whiff of, you know, so, so, so, trying to try and get them, getting them, you know, going back, back to shore. We, we, we, we, we, we abroad, abroad, our channel, channel, channel, channel for the young, young men and children. So, uh, sad, sad to say that, uh, today, his, his friend, and his friend's friend, their, their, their parents were, were, were, absolutely, had the phone call. They had, had, had, had human hands today. They were cleaning, cleaning, cleaning out of the room. I'm not going to talk more about it, I want his sister is in a walk-down for four hand at a great, great, a great, great, great year, tough, tough day. It's gonna, it's gonna forever, 10, 10 at the time they're gonna have the phone call today is never so hard... We even have a boat, it's a significant boat fire last week, the gentleman, young man. came about that close to who losing his life. But our guys did a great, great job in making it that that didn't happen. Spoken with his father a few times, talked to him last night. He's got this discharged laugh. Yesterday, he had an active. He's on the road to the recovery. He's going to be tough, but he's going to be OK. The dad just couldn't say enough about whatever they ever wanted to know about, you know, when I was a son. I let our folks know that I had them. When I talked to him that night, the same thing he said was that he wanted to thank us for, say, what he said was more important than what he was like. And he broke down. I mean, that's the call. I didn't know there was a call. But to have the testimony to our five front barmen, our police, our department, they all, they could discern from it and all that. Now, for the intent of the days, the days of son and son. My comment is really just to ask you to thank all of our staff and to thank you, but then through you, we went to thank all of the staff of the department and all of the others who were involved from other public safety projects and others that elsewhere who assisted me. Very much appreciate all of those done in both instances that you described. And I had heard that there may have been some complications in the main street because fire detectors, smoke detectors, may have been intentionally disabled by designation words or references. And if there's anything that we need to attend to, then you will let us know, please. One thing that I say a lot is that I'm the luckiest guy around. The work would be sold to him every day. We've got such good people. They work so hard. They did. They did what they did. I can't say enough about that, but I'm just damn proud of them. I just wanted to add, and I know we're wrapping up. I know Mr. Bachmann reached out to the select board when this was happening at Proper Time. I just wanted to say how my heart was out to the parents I've been thinking about that around a lot of people the last few days. I think all of us in the community are affected, but I understand the trauma that happens to Mr. Bachmann who was actually with Mr. Bachmann at the time. But we really just appreciate the work you do with just that this has deep resonance with us. We want Albar and people to be safe. Part of what helps us as the older is nothing that folks like you are thinking about. And we appreciate what they do every day. That's part of stuff. Thank you for coming in and talking to us. The only other thing I know that you all are aware of that on 5 o'clock on Friday, he said it was a very good time. So I will place us in recess for the evening, and then we will join at the end of the meeting tonight. And so unless there's any other questions. Just to tag on to what Mr. Bachmann said, maybe we'll take that apart in this room, that this board could write a formal letter to you. OK. That's right. I think the other thing.