 everybody is here. Or do you want a minute? All right, so I'm going to call this portion of meeting to order. This meeting. We're resuming the meeting. I moved to come out of recess and resumed the meeting from last night. Second. All in favor? All right. So yeah, we reached out to say if the candidates had any further thing that they wanted to offer, they could. And so I know at least two of the candidates are here and I think Lelitha had sent a statement. So if you want to make a statement further, you may. We're not going to take any further public comment though at this point. So either one of you like to go first? Or not at all. Either way, it's up to you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you for enduring such a long and difficult process last night with grace and determination. I appreciate everything you do. I think I have three points to make. It's been suggested that appointing my opponent here would be the democratic way to address this decision. I'm sorry. And speak a little more in the mic. I don't know if they can hear you back there. Okay. It's been suggested that appointing my opponent would be the democratic way to address this decision. While there is some facial appeal to that way of thinking with respect, I believe it is incorrect. First, the way we adhere to democratic values is by observing and following democratic institutions. In this case, the charter is clear. The decision is vested in the judgment of the council. If the framers of the charter had intended to make it an automatic appointment to the second place candidate in a previous election, they could have done so, but they did not. To argue against the deciding role of the council in this process is to argue against our democratic values. Second, while it is hard to tell what the voters mean by their choices, the clearest thing we can conclude is that what just a month ago two candidates articulated their positions and asked the voters for their support. And the voters did not support the candidate who came in second. I do not think we can infer that they supported him based on his showing in the election. Third, this is a different decision at a different office. The previous office was a two year term for an office that was vacated by a departing councilor. This is the remainder of a one year term. There should be no surprise that political and strategic considerations influence the choices of people seeking political office. It is absolutely true that I made the judgment that I didn't want to split the vote with another potential candidate, someone who chose not to run, that I agreed with on the issues. Nevertheless, that choice came with some potential risks, including the risk that I might not be appointed by the council, and the fact that, if chosen, I would be required to run for reelection after just one year. Throughout this process, I have been determined not to say anything negative about either of my opponents. I have spoken with Alex Geller and we both agree that this should never have become as hostile and personalized as what we saw last night. Still, the choice for you is who, based on qualifications, record, temperament, and what other considerations you deem relevant, is the best choice to serve on the city council. I suggest that based on my long history of service to the city, my knowledge of the issues, and my vision for the future that I am that person. Thank you. First, I'd like to thank all of you for really taking an enormous amount of time to carefully weigh this decision. It's been hard on myself and Jack and Alita, but I'm sure it's been just as hard, if not harder on you. So with that, there were some troubling discussions that or statements that were made last night and today on Front Porch Forum. And I just want to make it clear that Jack has done a great job supporting housing in this city, in this community. And I do not agree with a statement to the contrary. It's people like him. It's civil servants like me, civil servants like you that make this community great. And there's plenty of examples of Jack's work in particular and his contributions. And I want to make that noted. I do not agree with any of those statements. I also want to take the opportunity to make crystal clear that I am not conservative. I am not Republican. And part of actually one of the biggest reasons that I chose to run for this office in Montpelier is that it is nonpartisan historically. And that is an extremely appealing thing because it has the potential to avoid so much divisiveness. And that's appealing. That makes people want to participate in our democracy. Makes me want to participate in our democracy. And so that's a big reason that I stepped up. Yeah, I don't know what else to say to that, but I will just say I like to plan. I like to know what's coming down the down the pipeline. And I like to do it and prepare for whatever that decision is in a fiscally responsible way. I'm not anti government services. I'm not anti investment. I'm not any of those things. I like I like to have a good solid rationale for making any investment in our community. Other than that, I'll just say that your elected representatives and this argument that the election that was one month ago roughly isn't relevant. I just can't see that elected representatives are representing their constituents. Constituents spoke in the recent election 309 of them liked what I had to say, liked my platform, believe in me. Some of them are still here today. This can't be denied. It just can't. And really, as an elected representative, you are representing constituents. That's what this is all about. And that's what I want to do. And I hope you listen to the district to residents and their sentiment because you can make any argument that that those 309 votes didn't count. But it is a data point. And it is a reflection of people's thoughts and values and desires. We leave that couldn't attend, but we asked if anybody had a statement they could send it in if they couldn't appear. So she emailed this to us. I'm reading her statement. This is good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address the council last night and again today. I appreciate the time you have taken to carefully deliberate this important matter. I am unfortunately unable to attend today's council session as I will be at work and cannot abandon my post. So this written statement will have to suffice. I was deeply disturbed at last night's council session, primarily by the personal attacks made by Alex Skeller supporters against Jack McCullough. I don't remember his name or Norrie's exact quote, but Alex's friend and so called character witness from Worcester last night, maligned Jack's 25 years of service to this community by suggesting he had accomplished nothing. And at the end, another supporter implied there was some kind of conspiracy between the council and Jack to get him on to the council. If this is the caliber of Alex's supporters, what does this say about Alex himself, especially since he did nothing to distance himself from those attacks? I have said my primary points about who I am and why I believe I would be a good addition to the council in my letter of application, but let me reiterate and expand upon them just a bit here. There are a lot of ideas I would like to bring to the council, affordable housing assistance with daycare summer camp, establishing a long term financially viable solution for our failing infrastructure, roads, sewers, water pipes, etc. All of which will require a delicate, delicate balancing act between keeping taxes from rising and paying for what we need. I would bring to the table the viewpoint of the economically challenged in addition to the viewpoint of an immigrant, a person of color and a single mother. If these viewpoints and goals seem good to you, I am the best candidate. I hope that will prove to be the case. I'm sorry to see the selection process unnecessarily politicized. Good luck in your deliberation sincerely while we've mile wagging up. Thank you. So I think we're ready for a motion to go into back into So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right. So we're going to be in there and we'll be back hopefully today. But yeah, so we have a motion. I move that we come out of executive session. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. All right. So we have a statement to read first. And then we'll have a vote. So here we go. As members of our community, we have been saddened to see the recent vitriol personal attacks and absurd insinuations coming from a number of members of our community on various sides over the past several months. We put sides in quotation marks because it seems absurd to even use that language of division to describe our community is customary for the council to sit passively and not respond to individuals who attack us or others personally. Either in a council session or in a public forum. However, we are breaking that custom to call out this behavior. We candidates or into adopted as one of arms, the principle that is us or makes a comment that could offend us. We won't jump to the conclusion that they are a horrible person or intend to harm us. Instead, we will assume that like all of us, they're a reasonable person who is doing the best they can. This doesn't mean that we don't continue to disagree on issues. It is our responsibility to try to bring all perspectives to the table, listen to each other, and then each council member must form their own opinion based on that dialogue. We must remember that reasonable people can disagree. We are all members of this community and long after the contentious issue of the day is forgotten, we will continue to be members of this community. You are neighbors and we hope to live together in this community for a long time. We cannot require that our community adopt this mantra of assuming best intentions, but we are asking it of you. Please, before you speak, post or write, stop and take a breath. Before you make a hurtful zinger about the person across from you, remember that they are your neighbor. Disagree with their ideas, but don't question their motives, integrity or sanity. We acknowledge that we do not always live up to the ideals that we have laid out here. We all will still sometimes make thoughtful, hurtful comments, I'm sorry, thoughtless, hurtful comments, but we are doing the best we can. We know that you are too. As many have surmised, this particular decision was not an easy one. We had three very qualified candidates to choose from. None of them would have been a bad choice, and each would have brought their own perspective to aid in our future decision making. However, even though there was disagreement about who to select, there was no vitriol in our closed door session. Instead of listening to respond, we listened to understand. That led to several members changing their minds in multiple directions throughout the deliberation. None of us felt unheard or disrespected during the process. We chose to recess and reconvene so that no member felt rushed in our politics. Nor from the point the second place. Who is the council member? Your asset was the council missing. This is more of why the discuss sets, which made choosing among them extremely difficult. So before we vote on this, I just want to let people know that we have two council members who got to go catch a bus. And so they're going to leave. So we're going to vote and then we're going to adjourn. I will stick around though and be happy to answer any further questions. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Movement to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you all very much.