 to order the May 22nd meeting of the Governance Organization and Legislation Committee of the Council. It is 10.38 a.m. I'm about ready to declare that and we have a quorum and we also have probably off camera our president who is here in her oversight role as president. So I just wanted to put that on there and it looks like oh Pat it's you. Our minutes have rotated around the Pat. I would appreciate it if everybody would send me their notes. I'm not going to talk. Please think about that and we have a request for the minute taker to receive notes from everyone to help in minutes. So we are going to move forward with our agenda. I sent out a revised agenda yesterday based on the referral that we received from the council on Monday night so it did not make the 48 hours but it is fine because I had on their items not anticipated 48 hours in advance. So our first item of business is the GOL charge which we had a document for that got posted. Actually Evan yours is the one that got posted. So we should all pull that up. It has to be downloaded to see the track changes. There's a yellow highlight in there. Yes. Yes. So Evan would you like to speak to what you did to this between meetings if anything. So I did nothing to this between meetings. All of the edits that you see here were done during our last meeting and then at the very end of based on the discussions we had at the very end of our last meeting I uploaded that to SharePoint. So I have done nothing to this that was not discussed in the last meeting. Sounds good. So it looks like we're going to deal with the highlighted portion. So Lynn if you're trying to follow along this is the GOL revised charge revised 58 2019 that is in the SharePoint 522 meeting folder. And everything that is not highlighted I believe we had reached a consensus on so we will deal with the highlighted portions that we pushed off to any formal voter consensus until this week so that people could think about it. And so the first one I see is the second bullet point we were going to add which is advise the town council on matters of town governance and organization. And there was a question as to whether we wanted to add upon referral by the town council to that sentence. Thoughts? George? No you're just moving a mic. I don't even remember where people were last last time. So I don't remember either. So I can remind people. Excellent. I believe four members of the committee felt as though that was probably important and I believe one member of the committee had concerns about it. That one member being myself which was would this hamstring us if we wanted to proactively do something. I think that the consensus of the committee at the time was that if we wanted to do something like say recommend all town committees look at their charges we could go to the town council and say we would like to do this please refer this to us and then they could refer this to us which is fine but feels a little bit like why have that extra step and especially given the meeting schedule of the council versus our meeting schedule I don't think it could it could prolong something that could be done more expeditiously. So I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it but I do think that it adds an additional layer of bureaucracy that makes us slightly less efficient. However the concern of other members of the committee were that if it wasn't there there would be concern that this committee would just exceed its authority. Pat. I agree with you about what you're saying. I don't think it's necessary because it also I don't think that it's necessary because every we do get matters referred but we also do need some independence to work and I think that there's too much dependence on or too much concern about oh everybody's going to be afraid so I don't know that was totally in articulate but what he said George. I'm always suspicious about this count this body trying to expand its sphere of influence or power so I like upon referral by the town council. I'm also trying to get clear on the difference between bullet point the bullet point we're talking about right now in the next one advise the town council on matters related to the activities and operation of town government is distinguished from advise the town council on matters of town governance and organization everyone's clear on that distinction. Evan. Yes the second bullet that you're referring to the one that's completely highlighted was the bullet that we pulled directly from the December 10th draft standing committees put forth by the president of the council that we put in there as a potential alternative bullet to the second one so I don't believe we would ever keep both current bullets two and three there they're two variations on a similar concept but the second one was pulled from the very very first draft put forth to the council of what committees could do because we recognized that some of that that second bullet never made it into another committee's charge with that explanation does are members does anyone have a preference between the two bullet points if we believe them to be the same Steve number two so the one totally highlighted I'm sorry number one okay the the the the two the second one listed but yeah yeah but the non-highlighted non-fully highlighted one did you speak to that if you could you speak to that I'd like the brevity any thoughts that no I know you do that's why I look at you Evan I think the the main substantive difference between the two is actually the sentence including regular review of needed and evaluation of town services which is maybe implied in the second bullet but certainly more explicit in the second I believe this I think I said this last time I believe this bullet was pulled from any charge because one member of the council who does not currently sit on this committee felt as though evaluation of town services was beyond the scope of what a committee should do they I don't remember exactly as long time ago but there's an argument against it so I guess the real differentiation is do we feel like it's within the purview of this committee to do a regular review and evaluation of town services upon referral and I'm going to take my privilege and say I'm not sure that's within the original scope of our thoughts on the council's thoughts in terms of town services versus town organization those are two different things I guess that puts me in the first bullet point camp at that point but I think I'm leaning towards non not putting upon referral in by the town council into that bullet point even if I was there last week see I'm unpredictable so I imagine that at some point in the year somebody on this committee thinks let's take a look at inspection services and how they're doing let's take a look at DPW and how they're doing let's take a look at the fire department and how they're doing that does seem like something that a probably none of us would want to take on and be way outside of what we imagine this committee was supposed to be doing if you're talking about activities and operation of town government and needed evaluation of town services that's pretty much everything and and regular review of that so every year we could in theory look at every single department and and sort of decide how they're doing anyone want to take that on so I'm not saying it shouldn't be done um but and that's probably why it was written in the first place but um and I'm not sure where it should go yeah that's what I was just going to ask exactly where should it go um probably community resources no um yeah it's it does seem to be does it seem to the rest of you that it would be a normal and healthy function of a council to on a regular basis on its own um just take a look at town services and um how we're doing is that does that seem like so I I don't know um I would say not necessarily community resources you could argue it's finance is the service needed to be paid for you know you could argue that it goes under the budgeting issues um because yeah so Pat we were talking about on Monday that there are things that don't go anywhere and if we're going to expand our charge to take on things that don't go anywhere then we need this we need that in here maybe not stated about town services directly but imagine you're Paul and these people all report to you and you're their boss correct he appoints their department heads and he oversees their performance and I assume he evaluates them and now we're going to do that too that seems like am I not am I missing something here that seems like a gross overstepping of our authority as a council let alone as a committee so the charter allows us as a council to do that in terms of investigations so I would say a regular review in my opinion is that overstepping versus oh we see a problem now we need to look at that problem I think I think there's a difference between those two um which is why I guess I'm not too keen on that second half of that fully highlighted bullet George well it seems like the charter does allow us to do this if we see the need for it as a council but the idea of a regular review and evaluation of town services would seem to be a direct sort of challenge to the role and authority of the manager that's what he does now if we're not happy with the way the town is being run then that means we're not happy with the person who's managing it that's a different discussion but I don't think we should be regularly evaluating town services and um and Mandy's pointed out there is something in the charter that allows us to do it if there's such an unusual case arises but that's in the charter so I think this should be stricken we're still back then to the very first one upon the whole idea of what it means to advise the council on matters of town governance and organization which is why I liked upon referral at the town council um because hopefully they would tell us what it is that we're supposed to be doing um so I just want to sum up because I was going to do that after George spoke anyway it sounds like this fully highlighted bullet point no one's really for am I correct in that so that's a delete that bullet point completely and we're back to just the one um whether we want the upon referral by town council in or out do people feel they need to discuss that item more or should we just in essence vote up or down on that phrase I'm not here in discussion so um you're hearing the sound of thinking yes um do we need more thinking before we take a vote on that decision or reach a decision I think you're thinking I can tell I felt it was it was I felt that this was driven in part by desire for something by some of us to look at the committee structure and to see what how things are going but I was very forcefully told that that's not what we do um or we were overstepping or but I still don't actually agree with that completely but um I was more thinking of the many many committees the town has and um sort of our oversight could be um as was suggested occasionally asking them to review their their their charges and to also consider maybe whether some should be uh eliminated or some should be combined or and and if we don't do that who does um it's just sort of a hodge podge system that you know and I see this is a new form of government and we're perfectly free to decide to do things in a new way if we think it's a good idea so I thought this was driven by that sense of you know there's so many committees they do a lot of good work um we're trying to get things somewhat you know organized and and so forth charges are particularly what we're looking at but it also could be extended to you know how many of these bodies are really needed can we consider or make recommendations of the council that some might be you know combined or some could be eliminated or is and obviously they've been established by very different authorities at different times and places um but now we are as I understand it um the authority or at least right so don't we have a role in this or do we buy the argument that we just kind of let it be because it's been created by you know it's created by town meeting created by whatever and so we should have to respect that and we should never touch it or question it or examine it or think about it just let it go on and on forever I guess don't we have a role to think about it did you have something vaguely I don't think that we need upon referral I don't think we need the upon referral by the town council our job is to advise the town council on matters um and we bring our ideas to the council and at that point they say no yes um so I feel like we have to have some independence and and the council has the final decision on anything that we do yeah I agree I don't George I'm a little confused by your question because it's that it well I agree with everything you just said but I'm not sure I guess my disagreement is I agree with everything you just said I just think that we should be able to proactively do that without needing a referral from the council no I'm hearing that too actually I'm I'm willing to accept that I hear Pat's point that you've also made I think very clearly that this we see I think the issue is for the council is going to be look we created you as to oversee town this is you're supposed to deal with town council matters now in this bullet point you're also talking about town governance and organization and so there's going to be pushback and right and so we need to be able to articulate clearly why we think that this charge includes not just town council rules and governance and organization but also town governance organization and so if people could just articulate that a bit I know we talked about this maybe it's time to stop but there's going to be pushback I assume from some counselors saying you know this is just this is completely outside what we asked you your charge so what do we say oh yes Mandy Joe I I would think you might want to refer back to the charter I don't think it would be in this committee's purview to just say we think town government should be organized however the charter does allow the town manager to come forward with reorganization and this would be the committee I assumed we would refer that to that does that help clarify yes it does I think that's a point we made last week as this helps with that um I think I'm hearing that all five of us are okay deleting upon referral from the town council now and it's just now a matter of figuring out in the report how to defend that as not really an expansion of our charges originally given more of a just clarification did I just summarize that somewhat accurately George well if it Lynn makes very good point that if this is just a matter of if at some point the town manager comes to us and wants to do some kind of reorganization then this would this bullet point would make it clear that it should come to us and that's it and so and that's all that we really are having this bullet point too is that what people or now I'm hearing you're not hearing I'm seeing shaking of the head so what else do we imagine this bullet point is doing if it isn't just creating that space for when the town manager or if ever decides to do some kind of reorganization of town government I would say it's creating the space for what we already voted we were going to do in looking at committee structures and duplication of committees so it creates the space for that I think personally I think it clarifies the original wording that was GOL shall advise the town council on matters of internal rules governance and organization with did internal fall flow through to everything or just to rules and so this would clarify and say no this committee believes internal only flowed through to rules not the rest of them and that's why we're splitting it out into two bullet points and we have the the committee structure the managers reorganization plan if it out if he ever does one under the charter has to come to the council for approval that would get referred to us for any advice and recommendation and all I see Evan nodding and Pat nodding we ready to move on by deleting that George or do you need more time no problem with deleting upon referral by the town council and maybe we'll just have to have this discussion with the full council to get greater clarity for me personally and that's just the way perhaps I've deleted as to what matters of town governance and organization me because that's obviously open to interpretation and you have given two examples where it would be applicable and maybe that's the discussion we just have to have with the council we can't put it into this bullet point we'll just leave it the way it is and see if it flies no I think Evan so I agree with everything George said and I think that preparing the report on this will be very we have to be very good about explaining what we interpret this bullet point to mean because that'll frame the discussion I want to bring up something that was brought up at our last meeting which is then of course if we say our role is to advise the town council on matters of town governance does that then imply that the evaluate coordinating the evaluation of the town manager appropriately sits with this committee instead of OCA we discussed it last time I don't really I think we all were sort of like I don't know and I think that the train has probably left the station for this year but assuming this charge is meant to be revised so that it could be sustained for multiple years I think that's a question that we might logically get asked in the future if this is it it's currently in the OCA charge but would it create a conflict if OCA charge explicitly says evaluate town manager and then our charge has advised the town councils on matters of town governance so my initial response would be the specific of always over rules the more general so that it would remain sitting in OCA until and unless the OCA charge is revised but that if the OCA charge is revised this could this sentence imply that it would then come to GOL sit properly with GOL based on that sentence but that would be my individual position thoughts shall we move on to the other two highlighted bullet points which are essentially two rewordings of the same idea that we brought to the council for discussion on Monday night everyone heard that discussion anyone care to indicate their thoughts based on that discussion of what we should do with these bullet points church is laughing Evan so last meeting I said it would be useful to get to bring this question to the town council and get their opinion on that and I know that this was done after a very lengthy and somewhat contentious and emotionally draining debate but I still do not feel as though I got a sense from the council about which they would prefer we presented this to the council I got a sense from Alyssa that she was supportive I got a sense from Darcy that she prefer we retain the current charge or not at least not insert this Dorothy I am not sure where she fell she gave several statements that didn't necessarily give a clear picture of which of the three options we she we presented she preferred and then as for the other five members of the council I don't believe there was any any comment whatsoever and so this committee has struggled for months with this and we finally decided let's bring it to the council to get their feedback that we could use to make a decision and I actually after that discussion do not feel like we're in any better place because a majority of the non-gol members of the council did not provide us any feedback may I just add I have notes that Kathy said she potentially liked adding it to this charge but she had some cave caveats to that those are that that was the only person you didn't mention what I have noted is that she find if we she said that maybe with a slight modification or a weight that if there's a cluster of issues that seem to be missing from another committee but maybe this is something that should be in our charge but that it might be early on to do that because we just don't know yet and then she also mentioned instead of just council committee in these this language that appears to imply standing only that council or ad hoc committee so that it could go to an ad hoc committee um I personally wasn't sure I understood that because the purpose of this was to not create ad so many ad hoc committees but maybe if there's an already standing already created ad hoc committee that it could go to that one um but that was what I have written for her comments George I thought I very eloquently summarize this problem at the council meeting but apparently it's already been forgotten that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem I didn't get a sense that there was a strong crisis amongst the council members that we've got to solve this problem it's really a headache we don't know what to do da da da da so my suggestion humble as it was was do nothing um let's let it sit delete these two and if the problem does arise and it becomes a problem the council really starts to to to fret about um then we have a possible solution in our back pocket but I may be misreading the council I certainly misread it last night in other regard but I didn't get a sense that um there was a strong feeling that we really need to do something about this big problem we have it we got a kinds of different answers we got you know um and so given it was all over the map my suggestion is for the moment let it sit and uh let's come back to it in six months when we do our annual review of how we're doing and um I may join the chorus and say yes we definitely we need this now but I don't see it as a problem at the moment and I don't see that we need to spend any more time tearing our hair out about it Steve yeah I like the second from the bottom so this is the same thing as to me in my opinion putting at the end of a job description other duties as assigned and so the idea is that other duties as as assigned are consistent with the duties listed above but these are the ones that we've forgotten about um I dread the possibility of there being a matter that comes before the council for which we have no appropriate committee and the agonizing discussion there on the floor whether or not we should now um change the charge of the gol and or the nightmare solution another ad hoc committee so I'm this I see this as the no ad hoc committee bill so I have a higher fear threshold Steve so there's a principle in zoning it all comes back to zoning but there's a principle in zoning that every anticipated use should be in the zoning bylaw otherwise you get in trouble so so the planning board actually tries to get ahead of like medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are two examples of possible new uses this is a long answer so that there is a landing spot otherwise it goes into a bouncing ball that can you don't know what the where it's going to come out I see this as a similar goal um the problem with ad hoc committees is that we're all totally fully booked you know with council stuff already and ad hoc committee throws that off balance but more importantly it throws the public off balance so the public who's trying to if we had an ad hoc committee on a controversial issue they would have no clue how to follow that controversial issue you know through the process so they're having a harder time enough time already with our standing committees as named so that's where I stand because of our help so I was just going to summarize and say so I've heard a request or preference to delete both and a preference for the top of the two options um I haven't really heard a preference for the bottom of the two options so I think we can probably that was my rewording and what I actually presented to the council on Monday night um I am willing to not fight for it so if there's no preference on this committee for that one we can just delete that one and then discuss whether to put in or take out the top bullet point Evan um so first of all I think Steve just very nicely articulated my three reasons against ad hoc committees and I hope that if this comes up to the council again you'll do the same to the council because um I I thought I explained why and then we heard lots of ad hoc committees are fine um so what I will say is sorry Mandy Joe if we have to choose between these two bullets I actually prefer the second one and um I think it's the phrasing and I recognize I wrote this recommend policy it could be interpreted review or recommend policy proposed for action I feel like I like make recommendations on matters referred to then or recommend policy the two things say almost the exact same thing but there's something about recommend policy that even though I wrote it makes me uncomfortable um however that said you all know I struggled with this um but I I was really hoping to bring this to the council and have a clear much like we did with rules have a clear sense of where they wanted us to go on this and we did not get that in any direction right I mean there was no I think to some of us we're probably bracing for an outcry of like absolutely not you are a technical review we didn't get that we also didn't get out like yes please and so I guess my thought is given any given a lack of any real sense of the council I would probably lean on taking no action and so I might actually agree with George on this that if the council the council did not give us a strong opinion either way which is sort of frustrating but that absent a directive I tried like tallying tallying and I have option one Darcy option two no one option three Alyssa Kathy with a question mark and then I have outside of all three of those Dorothy question mark so I don't have a sense of where the council wants us to go and given that I I would probably lean on not doing anything for the time being then on this so I think that's two votes for nothing so essentially delete delete the two there it's after the council meeting where I was leaning I will say without any clear guidance so Pat and Steve thoughts on leaving it as is essentially not putting either of those bullet points in and seeing if in the next six months we get clearer guidance from either the council or just for what comes forward how about if I just make a motion sure make a motion I'll make a motion to I'll make a motion to approve the second from the bottom yeah read that one review or recommend policy proposed for action by the town council at the request of the town council for which no appropriate council committee exists to perform such action do I hear a second as chair I will second it just so we can have a vote is there any discussion seeing none all those in favor all those against Steve that fails fails forward one to four was the vote for the minutes and you've got that right um any other emotions that people might want to make Evan's thinking about it I can tell you know I actually don't want to make a move I'm just I'm just thinking I do hope that we come back to this question I do hope that we do come back to this question there is a part of me that wants to see a number of issues come up to the council and have us so campaign finance right it sounds like the decision was go well it's going to review it for clarity consistency and actionability and then it's going to go back to the council for a full debate on content and that's going to occur on the same night that we start considering the budget and I part of me feels as though we are going to very quickly realize that that is uh inefficient use of council time and there's a part of me that would almost like to see a few issues come up where we either create an ad hoc committee and everyone goes or the council has to do that but I think I agree with George that I'd like then for the council to give us a clear directive that they would like this bullet to be created I'm I've been keeping track of edits I'm going to delete those two bullets at this point I think with Steve's failed motion that might be where we are consensus wise so yeah and that brings us to the end of the modifications of the charge do does the committee want to see it on you know sort of in its you know sort of modified form prior to voting on whether to bring this as a recommendation to the council or shall we vote now on whether to bring this as a recommendation for a modified charge of GOL to the council so do I hear a motion to recommend the revisions as discussed over the last number of meetings to the governance organization legislation committee charge to the council that's essentially what I said it was just the revisions were not just today so the the the whole the entirety of the revisions yeah any discussion on that all those in favor that's unanimous that brings us to oh yep Evan I was keeping question so I've been keeping track do you want me to email this to you do want me to just put it on SharePoint somewhere so email it to me so I can I'm not sure where on SharePoint I'll put it so email it to me email it to me with track changes and then I can set up both a tracked version and a clean version for the council so that they can see both yeah and so that brings us to the added agenda item which is discussion of the limitations on campaign contributions proposed bylaw proposed you know per the May 20th town council referral so this was referred to us for a clarity consistency and action ability we have I posted on to SharePoint the the bylaw itself but also our town attorneys opinion email of that bylaw that was sent to her so that is in the pdf on the that so we can see what she believed needed changed and our review is strictly for clarity consistency and action ability so are there any thoughts to section a in terms of clarity consistency and action ability and before I actually before I start recognizing people for people that might be watching since there's no audience today and two of the five members of this committee are the actual sponsors of this measure so that is myself and councillor Ross so we will at least I'm going to attempt to not talk much about it since we proposed it but try to let the discussion to the other three members but that's for full disclosure I am not seeing any oh George my understanding from what you said the other night uh was that this is pretty much taken from or modeled upon fairly closely the North Hampton um document so I'm assuming that maybe you could highlight places where you made changes or would change it simply to amounts or percentages but otherwise the language is pretty much the language that North Hampton is using and we can assume that it's uh has gone through fairly rigorous legal review I mean ours will I assume we'll go through it as well but we're looking at something that is been um carefully reviewed elsewhere and you are using the language pretty much of that Evan do you want to speak to that sure uh so a one is uh a word for word copy of North Hampton's right with the exception of the number so we have 0.25 which is uh different they have uh one half so so they used a fraction and the numbers a bit different otherwise it's the exact same uh two is that exact same language copied the only different a two is that exact same language copied the only differences uh North Hampton only limits contributions from individuals we're also limiting them from uh from packs and so a two is the language from a one except subbing out contributions from individuals with contributions from municipal political action committees um and then the reference to mgl is different because mgl regulates political action committees in a different uh same chapters different section and so I guess a two doesn't exist in North Hampton b does not exist in North Hampton and c is a copy of North Hampton's I believe with appropriate modifications because of differences North Hampton has a separate limit for mayoral races that has been obviously deleted from this one so any thoughts on clarity consistency action ability of section a one or a two I'm not seeing any we'll move on to section b municipal political action committees I see some shaking heads of no so we'll move on to section c examination of reports excess contributions and this is the section that the town attorney so she had written that um further that to enforce the bylaw using non-criminal disposition the dollar amount of the fine cannot be characterized as quote up to an amount instead it must be a particular dollar amount no greater than 300 dollars um and then she said moreover the bylaw should be revised to include an amendment to article six section one b which includes reference to the particular bylaw to be enforced through non-criminal disposition the fine per violation and the enforcing person or persons is that a reference to our current bylaws article six the very first paragraph is where I just found it so up at the top and then I have a question for pat has her representative of the bylaw review committee no my question is is there a recommendation or a thought on what number we should attach to this bylaw title you know I think you guys are renumbering the bylaws like sections one point whatever two point whatever is there a convention and should we just add the number to the very end that that's the only other question I have and I should have I'm sorry I should have given that you a heads up of that six section one b so section one b is non-criminal is so this is so section six one b is the part that has non-criminal disposition so what I'm sorry what is she saying needs to she said the bylaw should be revised to include an amendment to article six section one b which includes references to the particular bylaw to be enforced through non-criminal disposition so does article six section one be list specific bylaw numbers is that what it is section six one b reads whoever violates any provisions of the articles two through four of the bylaws of the town of Amherst listed below the violation of which subject to a specific penalty may be penalized by a non-criminal disposition as provided in the general laws chapter 40 section 21 d so it references a whole host so as long as we add this to article two of the bylaws we wouldn't have to amend article six section one b with regard to your previous question and I'm going to ask pat to stop me if I'm saying something that is incorrect so I I did this is maybe going to create a little bit of headache for pat and myself on bylaw review if this passes this will pass it while we're doing our review I formatted the bylaw to the conventions that the bylaw review committee is using so if you take our current bylaw as written and stick it in our current bylaw the formatting will not match it will match what bylaw review is presenting as revised I did that intentionally it could create a little bit of headache ahead of time bylaw review currently has organized our bylaws into three section into three articles and article three is pretty much everything that's not administrative and so my assumption is this will be plugged into a part of article three and so this non-criminal disposition thing will likely read provisions of article three so it will be all encompassing a brief discussion we had a long time ago and please correct me if I'm misremembering was essentially that bylaw review would hope that when people propose bylaws they would not number them and leave it to the town clerk to assign a number to the bylaw okay okay so that answers my question of should we be proposing a number to the bylaw on clarity consistency and actionability so I think given what Evan read on article six section one b as long as in the interim it is plugged into article two or article four whatever those two article six referred to it article six doesn't need amended as long as we plug this into the correct article in the bylaws and that would be for the clerk to do in this interim period but that Evan I'm looking at our most recent draft of bylaw review and so we've moved what was article six into article one administrative provisions article one point two is violations criminal complaint non-criminal disposition one point two b is whoever violates any provisions of article three of the bylaws and so this would be put into article three so this would not need amended okay um I think the only thing then we have to deal with is the um the up to issue for actionability in section C which right now says any it's the last sentence any person or committee failing to purge excess contributions within such time shall be subject to a fine not exceeding 250 and the town attorney's opinion said that we had to have a particular dollar amount so Steve I just have a really dumb question who collects who how where how does this money get collected it's not the police is it it would it would be the town so it would be non-criminal disposition enforced by the town clerk and so should the rewarding be any person or committee failing to purge excess contributions within such time shall be subject to a fine of 250 instead of not exceeding does that sound like a logical rewarding in terms of to make it consistent with the legal opinion of it needs to be an actual number not an up to number which is separate from whether 250 is wise uh Steve so the goal of this bylaw is to encourage other people other than the usual suspects to run for office so I guess I get worried about someone who is basically not politically savvy um making a mistake you know in other words going all in maybe they're go they set up a go fund me account or whatever so somehow they accidentally trigger this the idea that we would then penalize that person 250 dollars and have to we have to penalize them to me that's why I like the up to or at least a waiver provision the inclusion because this is a must statement right yes yeah so either you know I don't have any idea if we can do a waiver on this or but I don't want to disenfranchise the already disenfranchised who or is exactly the group we're trying to encourage to participate so we've got a weird situation where the sponsors are here but we're not supposed to be dealing with content um which I think normally it sent it back to the sponsors but since the sponsors are here yes I think that seems somewhat silly so I think the sponsors if they want could recommend or offer a number or they could say they want to go back and think about it more but it's not our job to provide the number do you have a thought Evan I know I have a thought but I'm gonna defer to you first okay so my thought is potentially um I don't I liked the up to but we obviously can't do that um we could either change the number lower or that could be a second fine a second violation we could probably add language in that says any person or or committee failing to projects has contributions within such time shall be subject to a fine upon second violation I'd have to come up with some wording but something that's like after the first violation shall be subject to the fine so that that might um alleviate the mistakes the first time but I'm not sure in my head what that wording would exactly look like now I'm sure we could find some other um things in other bylaws that that have a first time violation a second time violation if we wanted to step that up Evan so the text is that upon discovering such a violation the town clerk shall in writing notify that candidate candidates committee chair or political action committee chair candidates candidate committees or political action shall have 15 days to purge all excess contributions and if they fail to do so they're subject to a fine so it's not if you violate this you're automatically fined $250 if you violate this the town clerk says you have to return any contributions in excess of the limit and then if they fail to do so so that to me many do that sort of is what you're talking about right yeah you get it it's not that you get a warning but you get to keep the money it's you get notified hey just to let you know you violated this law and so you have to purge the excess and then if they refuse then they're subject to a fine but to me that first step sort of is a warning right yeah that it's like you know what I mean yeah no I get it I get it Pat bouncing off Steve a little bit during the camp our campaigns I got a contribution of $300 which would be over this limit from a friend of mine who was in my dance company who lives in Hoboken New Jersey and so I was running for office and it feels really odd that I would have to return that money to someone who generously offered it and doesn't live in Massachusetts or Amherst and doesn't know what the rules are and that sort of feels like the go fund me page so I don't know I haven't been I mean the other side of that is if your friend was super generous and wrote you a check for $1,100 you would have had they would be because they don't know Massachusetts state law you would have still had to return that extra 100 right because the the state limits a thousand right and so this doesn't change the dynamic you described it just lowers the amount right and so you would have had to do that anyway if it was above $1,000 so we're discussing policy yes which is it is partly the dynamic because the two sponsors are sitting on this committee and I'm not trying to pull up we have to stop this conversation because we're discussing policy but it is interesting that we just finished having the conversation and now we're doing it which sort of points to a discussion we had earlier which is sometimes it almost feels inevitable that we will discuss policy so I don't know what to do with this conversation right now Steve it's always better to have the conversation here with five of us than out in front of 13 because I mean I think that these are useful so then this is why I felt strongly that we should be talking about no policy but if if we imagine someone coming forward to us with a ball up presentation and this issue arises do we imagine that we would then engage in a back and forth with them about the amount of the fine or da da da da wouldn't we say okay this is clearly something you need to go back and think through we're not going to sit here while you think out loud with us it's not our job to help you figure out what you buy laws about and we're just hearing to get it clear consistent and actionable and there's clearly an actionability problem because our lawyer tells us that you can't have this phrase so you need to go back and fix it I guess they could just right there and then say okay we're going to make it X and I guess we could say fine but normally I think we'd say you need to go home or come back to us when you figured it out and probably in many cases they would do that because they have as you've seen there's some other considerations maybe you want a first time maybe you want a second time maybe you want a waiver so how do the two presenters feel do they want to and if they do solve this they should solve it themselves so I just we shouldn't be engaged in a discussion about the number or the waivers or anything else right um I'm I'm going to summarize a GOFAC document that we adopted on how we would do these reviews which is we would work with the sponsors when we come up with an actionability to see what they want to do that is right now that is change the wording of you know and because that the up to doesn't work so the question is it needs changed or else this committee cannot declare it actionable we could have a recommendation as to what to change it to the most basic is I think what I recommended which is delete not exceeding and put of in there that's the most basic and so I think under our FAQ that would go to the sponsors and say do you agree or do you want to rewording without any discussion in this committee of whether that's a wise rewording of the change we're recommending in terms of policymaking I think that's where our GOFACQ is is here's a rewording that doesn't change in some sense a rewording that we think makes it actionable do you guys agree or do you want to suggest another wording that we can look at to determine actionability George this is actually probably worth our time because it's a good example of what may someday come to us with people who might be less friendly or less uh and I would say your suggestion already exceeds what we should be doing we just point out that this is it can't have this phrase and you have to figure out how to make it right and we shouldn't be suggesting any alteration in this case because what you're really doing is suggesting a number and that's not our business we're just pointing out that this is not actionable and this is why and you need to fix it and if they ask us well how can we fix it what do you rest of you say I would think we'd say I mean right this is content now it's not you know it you're you've got to decide what you want the fine to be and you say a fine not exceeding $250 that's that's zero to a 250 and I think we should simply say come back to us when you figure out what you want the fine to be one of the things that we did with ecac was work on I believe this kind of issue where there were disagreements in our meeting with both Evan and Darcy so I don't see why we can't do it here particularly when I think both people agree on who are sponsoring it agree to the fix I think um since you're not predictable I'm having a hard time knowing but I hear you there but you see what I mean it just seems totally inefficient to make them go away and come back next meeting now I was thinking of Mandy's hypothetical saying well we could suggest to them X and what I'm saying is no we won't suggest anything but if Mandy and or whoever that you know she says to Evan or they say we want to make it X then we can respond to that but we shouldn't be offering suggestions to them about how to change their content I think that we did offer suggestions really and most of the time the sponsors for ecac did not want to work on them there which was perfectly fine and I think there were a few that made it through during our meeting but I might be imagining that or miss remembering it I think it's totally inefficient well what I'm afraid it's gonna happen is I could say well how about fifty dollars and Evan could say how about a hundred and Steve could say why not there be a waiver and pretty soon we're having a discussion about their bylaw and that's just not appropriate I don't I think that discussion could be stopped by the chair yes or the vice chair except they're both involved in the thing but um I think that could be stopped and I agree but they can decide right now or they can decide to wait but I think it's their decision and it can happen here one way or the other I agree a hundred percent I just don't think we should be as a committee um involved in the nitty gritty of of specifics like this as a just in general and but yes we may disagree on that but yes so Evan I'm sorry Evan so I'm trying to take obviously myself out of the equation here and think if this was a sponsor who was sitting there and what our process has been and it seems to me from our discussion that in our review of clarity consistency and actionability the only point of debate tends to be this fine not exceeding 250 which we determine is not actionable based on town attorney if a sponsor was here what I would probably recommend that the committee do to them do to them uh recommend that we do is I would probably say this this piece is not actionable you cannot do not exceeding it needs to be a number and we will declare this bylaw clear consistent and actionable contingent on you putting a firm number on there and then it is up to them to decide what that number is going to be but as long as they do that our declaration carries if they come to the council if they then start to bring this to the council and it still says not exceeding we would say okay you didn't do that we're going to withdraw our declaration and this is all spelled out in the process we adopted in the in the fact if they came back and it was something very different we the town clerk would offer a waiver to some people then we might say you exceeded what we said we're going to withdraw that declaration and we think you have to come back right but that's probably what I would do I I would not get into such a detailed debate given our current charge or even our newly recommended revised charge it seems like that debate is outside the purview it seems like we're just here to say this one piece is not actionable we will declare this actionable contingent on you changing that wording I'm going to recognize Lynn and then you George Lynn I I think Evan's given you a good unfortunately but it's for another meeting related to town um I I do want to say that there is some concern about the time that this issue is going to take up at our June 3rd meeting so even though I'm not really speaking to GL per se if you will but in many ways to the sponsors as you bring it forward I do think um I'm going to have to put a time limit on the amount of time we spend on this on June 3rd and also depending on where we are on other things on June 17th to the extent therefore that the various people who have provided observations about candidates in Amherst who have accepted more than the 250 dollars in their campaigns whether they were successful or not um because I got the distinct impression that I think it was Steve and unfortunately he's left the room that there may actually be some candidates who would have had a tough time entering a campaign um who maybe did get a boost of a serious amount and that this was almost counterintuitive to that issue it always concerns me when people get big donations okay I personally limited my donations to a hundred dollars um it didn't make it easy to raise money but I felt like that's where I wanted to be so I'm personally have no problem with with limits but I do find that other issue one that I think the sponsors at least should bring in George no I'm gonna have to limit the debate that hour that time in the meeting because of the the budget yep understood George again picking up on pants point um and with Evan's point that if the sponsor wants to make the change right then and there I don't think we would have any problem with that and then we could just declare actionable without any contingencies whatsoever is that your thought or do you feel I mean again the hypothetical we're dealing with is actually close to a real one imagine the sponsor sitting there says okay we'll make it 200 I mean we want to work with them we don't want to make this a cumbersome process so at that point it's now actionable and end the story I just don't want us to be engaged in a back and forth they say well what do you think about 200 and I don't think anything about 200 but so if you two of you today want to say X and we can agree on it good let's do it but if you want more time to think about it that's fine too yes yeah that's part of I'm just don't I'm not gonna offer an opinion on what I think that number should or shouldn't be of any kind so if I was here just as a resident bringing forth policy in GLL said to me you cannot do not exceeding my knee jerk solution would be fine I will change that to of 250 and then GLL would say that makes it actionable and I would say great and then when I bring it to the council counselors can say what about this what about this we don't like this we don't like the number but yeah I agree and there's two sponsors here I am fine just saying of and if the council feels like that's a problem then I'm happy to have that debate with counselors I that's my also knee jerk reaction is to just change it to of and then one thing I would ask is say sponsor is you know Evan and I have not the sponsors have not talked about limits that the 0.25 that is in there that would create the other limits in response to anything we heard on Monday night or in emails coming to us at later times we haven't talked about whether say the up to changing it to of is a good one so my question as a sponsor would be if we decide to talk before it comes back on June 3rd to the council and change say the percentage in a one two or b from 0.25 to some other number or change the dollar amount in C is there a way that the vote taken potentially today on clarity consistent in that consistency and action ability can encompass those changes so that it doesn't have to come back here for a revote on something like that if those are the only things that are being changed if we were to go back and talk to each other and say hey you know based on that maybe this number is a better number to have as a sponsor wanting it in front of the council for the first read on June 3rd and knowing this is the only go meeting before then I want I would kind of like some sort of vote that encompasses those potential changes but does not change the GOL's declaration if those are the only changes changing say 0.25 to a different number that is lower than one based on the attorney's ruling and changing 250 to a different number that is lower than 300 George we send to the council a report which includes in this case I assume it would be the bylaw right and with our recommendation how can it get changed at that point I mean let's say that I mean people hear us and they say no I want to keep it just this way which in other words is not actionable but that's what they want to do so we would forward it as is with the statement we can't recommend this because it's not actionable but let's say they do change it and then what 48 hours before the council meets they meet again and they decide to to jigger it some more how can they a how can they do that and b wouldn't we want to have some say in that I mean we'd have to say look we haven't seen this and you know well that's why I'm asking as a sponsor if it's those numbers because the prior discussion was well if we say you can come back with a hard number then we can vote a contingent as long as there's a hard number in there it's fine so my question is if after this vote can we somehow make that vote that if that number changes it's the vote stills good you know that that's what I'm asking that specific number maybe yes but if you start talking about and then they decide to add a waiver and then they decide to make an oven and and at that point I go wait a minute that's that's you know this is not what we agreed on hence my question Evan so the fact that the FAQ that we adopted which is in some extent it's to some extent we adopted our process via that FAQ even though it wasn't technically a process document but it does say GLL is the last step in the process before a measure reaches the full town council sponsors should finalize all content of our proposed measures before sending it to GLL my my read of that would be once GLL has looked at it it cannot be changed between GLL and the full town council and so if the sponsors of this decided that they wanted to change a number to some extent I feel like it would have to be done as an amendment to in council debate because I I don't I would even feel uncomfortable saying we're going to take a vote but this vote has this tiny carve out because that opened like where does that end and if we say we're the last stop and it's the content must be final by the time this sort of uh trying to not to say this sucks because we're on camera but I just did so because we have a time constraint yeah right because in order to get this in place in time it needs to be read for the first time on June 3rd and GLL doesn't meet again rationally the sponsors would have had time to take the comments we got on council and revise and then send to GLL we didn't because we only had 48 hours yeah um and so the time constraint made this sort of a flawed process but even speaking as the sponsor I would feel uncomfortable with having like a weird carve out that says these are the things you're allowed to change between council I think that if we decide we want to change something we have to do it in council debate I'm okay with that I was just asking the question because there's there's that was the potential of a contingent vote so I was just asking the question as a sponsor um so I think we have heard from both sponsors that changing the words not exceeding to of is approved by both sponsors and I believe as a committee are those the only changes the non-sponsor members of this committee are suggesting for clarity consistency and action ability so then I am looking for a motion to declare the limit I'm looking for the title of this limitations on campaign contributions proposed bylaw clear consistent and actionable as amended yeah the bylaw as amended I'm writing down the motion so I have the wording is there any discussion is there any discussion seeing none all those in favor all those against all those abstaining that is a 302 vote which means it passes so that has been declared that that brings us to our next agenda item which is I'm gonna actually ask the committee of the next three which they would prefer to discuss we have discussion of revisions to the BCG charge for template conformity we have discussions of revisions to the JCPC charge for template conformity both of those are holdovers from last meeting and begin follow-up on town committee charge update request we have approximately a half an hour so shall we just go in order at this point so that means we are up to the BCG charge for template conformity Evan brought forth a proposed revision so thank you Evan for doing that and this is still one that's just weird in my mind you did not track changes of this one right you just put it into the template because I'm not seeing track changes yeah I'm not seeing track changes yeah so I think in fact this was done like a month ago now so if I'm remembering correctly I essentially had the prior charge open on my screen and also our template and I copy and pasted into the template and so there was no document to edit because I just copy pasted in I'm recognizing now that creates some confusion as to what was added by me and what is part of the original charge without comparing the two documents so I apologize to the committee for that because that does make this a little bit more difficult to review um what I will say is that the composition charge and reports I believe are from the original charge although I'd have to bring it up the purpose was written by me okay that's helpful thank you Evan it is very difficult to write a purpose because it literally says the budget coordinating group coordinates budgeting so you know any thoughts on this charge did I hear you say you have some uh did I miss here or do you felt you had some concerns about this so I my it's not really a concern it's just this is a weird one because the composition doesn't have any specific numbers there's really it's just it was the discussion we had when we created it to begin with and I'm just not sure how to put that into our template that's all um it it's just it's a weird committee on how we created it and I'm not sure we're tap we shouldn't be tasked with fixing that so the composition just still looks weird to me but we're not here to figure out a fix to that so so I'm not sure what the motion here I guess since there were additions it would be a motion to recommend to to recommend the council accept the charge as amended approve the charge as amended Evan let me so I have the original charge up so do people given the lack of track changes do people want me to walk them through what I did or do you feel I'm happy to do that if you feel like that is that that's information you need now that I see the second that the original charge I can do that but if you feel like this looks good I'm also happy to uh save us time does anyone want walked through what I did so what is our motion again is it to recommend the council approve revisions to the BCG charge as presented does that sound like a logical motion revised BCG charge do I hear a motion oh yeah well I guess with revised we didn't do anything to it today so do I hear a motion Evan moves do I hear a second any discussion all those in favor that's unanimous which brings us to the JCPC charge give us all a second to get that one open and this is the one I did so I you will see lots of stuff because I did I took the JCPC one and then tracked all the changes into the template so what I sort of took the different tact than Evan did and so there are a ton of changes simply because we're changing titles so you'll see you have to download it to see the track changes yeah so that's why there looks like there's a ton of changes but it's because I took the original charge and then started changing headings and moving stuff around because of the order the original charge and all was on but I'll go through what essentially changed added the abbreviation the type I declared charter wasn't sure what else to do the big changes were in number of voting members I got rid of the description up in the header and put that down in the composition and then reformatted it I added a purpose since none of these charges had purposes I was faced with the same thing Evan was faced with and then the charge the formatting is weird but I essentially attempted to format that as we have been formatting with bullets I have a to should other duties be added with a question mark which is more for JCPC has been discussing that so that's something that I just threw in there as a sort of placeholder in my mind membership essentially got moved up and and reformatted into composition that's why it's deleted down there deleted staff support because we decided not to put that in this description and then reports added to the town council as necessary since that was something we wanted to be adding to every charge and then whatever was there I just reworded it and I just noticed I didn't add a D on the end of revised under charge amended when I got rid of amended it says charge revised so I'm gonna right now add that D as a Scrivener thing so thoughts I know Evan's got his hand up so Evan so type charter which was not one of our original categories it makes sense because it's one that's mandated by the Charter that doesn't necessarily belong to the town or the council yeah so I guess I'd be curious to hear how people feel about that if we decide that JCPC is a charter committee then I question whether we have to go back to BCG that we just approved which I had written as a council committee that was something I wasn't sure what to put there and the reason I did it was when I went looking for the original charge this is literally my only rationale and you can tell me that was a stupid rationale was I looked in the SharePoint for the charge and it's under it's in the folder labeled town council committees so the SharePoint has committee charges listed between ad hoc committees committees of the town and council committees and beat the original BCG charge was in the council committees folder and so I said okay I guess it's a council committee I don't know that that's a great rationale but I would say we have to decide if we want to count JCPC as charter then we should actually go back to BCG and amend that there's actually a good point that I didn't catch on BCG so the reason I change this from standing to not council or not town is because it doesn't really fit either in terms of who the appointing authorities are and so I felt if we just put charter it is less confusing for the appointing authorities the other thing I forgot to mention is I actually deleted president under town council president for appointing authority we had actually passed it with the president being the appointing authority no the JCPC look I'm just looking at the JCPC charge so to make that consistent now with our rules and with the town attorney opinion as to who appoints JCPC I didn't know what to do with the type so that's why I created a new type because it was kind of mentioned in the charter I'm happy with whatever people think not hearing anything I'm gonna George I was gonna say I'm gonna just assume we are okay with charter as the type this is really weird right because then my knee-jerk reaction is would that mean that any committee that is specifically called for by the charter is a de facto charter committee so when we revised participatory budgeting commission and ranked choice voting are those now ad hoc charter committees because they also have yeah right I I'm not I'm okay with that but I just want to make if we're making a decision on here it should apply to any committee called out with the charter with the exception I assume of finance which is a council committee but is also called for in the charter is it a charter council yeah I I guess I did it based on the reason I did it as I said was more of who the appointing authorities were and so I felt like if we keep it council like what do I do it's not really council because the council is not the sole appointing authority and town makes the town manager I guess maybe it could be a town committee because the town manager is the appointing authority if not otherwise defined in the charter so maybe town is the better one than charter because the charter specifically states who the appointing authorities are so that would exempt the other charter one from the town manager even if we call it a town committee so maybe town is better when we use the word council for a type what do we mean we mean a body that is exclusively is it the composition of the body is it the appointing authority of the body what do we mean I think our thoughts were council meant it's a subcommittee of the council essentially and town meant not subcommittee of the council to me council is a committee created by the council for the purpose of serving the council which this is not it's not you're right and town is everything else right yeah so I guess town could work and then appointing authorities we could just reference charter section 5.7 b charter just creates this question and everyone's mind what what is this charter committee what is a charter committee the charter is what empowers the creation of various bodies but it's not right so maybe the answer is town town the other options we have town we have council and we have ad hoc correct ad hoc town at right I'm sorry thank you right so town and council are the only two we came up with and there may be a few bodies that are what are what are the terms we've seen anyway we'll deal with them when they come along I guess at the moment that so I think town is probably the solution here so it sounds like consensus is go to town from charter legal reference does reference the charter section so the appointing authorities because of that charter section don't have to be the manager does that mean we also have to go back now and change the type for BCG yeah we will look at that once we finish with this no thank we're gonna do this and then we will definitely go back to that before the end of today's meeting so are we okay with all the rest of the changes in the heading so that then brings us to composition which I pretty much just bulleted out what we had written what was already there purpose that's the one we should look at I did my best with should probably be where sorry where the three major bodies and then the charge as I said just lists lists right now advise the town manager on the creation of the capital improvement program and then I indented what the capital improvement in improvement program includes but based on the purpose I guess all of that's in the capital improvement program in a sense so I think we would be deleting number two at this point as I said it was more of my reference yeah any other thoughts on this one see none oh Evan I don't know if we talked about this where did we land on to delete it delete it yes so that means I will take a motion to recommend the council approve the revised jcpc charge as amended do I hear a motion Steve do I hear a second and that's George any discussion all those in favor that is unanimous so now we are going to move back to and I am going to make a motion to reconsider our motion to recommend the council approve revised bcg charge as the formal way of us reopening that discussion so we can go and revise it so that's my motion do I hear a second to the motion to reconsider that all those in favor of that motion that's unanimous we are now reconsidering the bcg charge we will open it up again so it sounds like we're going to change type to town and then since we're here one literally couldn't be more minor uh Mandy Joe put a backslash between the n and the a and na I did not it was presented two different ways I think in our template and so I just picked one for consistency shall we add that backslash to my na to all the na's to all na sure I think there's three of them four I see four okay so that brings us to a new motion to recommend the council approve the revised bcg charge as amended well yeah so we were reconsidering this motion to recommend the council approve the revised charge so now we have amended that revised charge so we need a friendly amendment to the motion that is just adding the words as amended to that motion that is friendly haven't you moved it originally it's good that not is the approval to add the words as amended to the end of the motion are we ready to revote the motion all those in favor it's again unanimous which now brings us to the begin follow-up on town committee charge update request we have we started approximately 10 minutes late but I think we can end early it we can end on time at 12 30 so we've got about 10 minutes with since there are no public here to do public up no so we also have to adopt minutes so shall we begin our discussion on follow-up or push that off to the next meeting so that we can have a robust discussion in two weeks thoughts we in theory have 20 minutes left of our two-hour meeting if we take the whole two hours so it sounds like there is a let's push that agenda item off it's it's I know it's bigger than 10 minutes so we will postpone that item to next meeting and I will put it first on the agenda at the next meeting what's today's day June June 5th meeting I will put it first on the list so that means we are up to public comment there is no public here so no public comment adoption of April 24th and May 6th 2019 minutes do I hear a motion for that second is what April 24th and May 6th April 24th and May 8th any discussion Evan's the seconded you're welcome any discussion sure Evan so one April 24th says items referenced in meeting colon and then there's nothing so I don't know if we would either delete that or if we should have a habit of always having that but right none if there isn't one which one was it items it said the very last thing on April 24th is items referenced in meeting and it says and there's just nothing after it so if if there's no word no either I would say we delete that or we should write none so people aren't like oh they forgot to add something this is the April 24th meeting yeah so we had things referenced so we need to add that we referenced the FAQ the GL FAQ doc TMAC proposal I had postponed is what I had oh oh yeah yeah but the GL doc we referenced the GL fact doc GL committee no we didn't we referenced our original committee charge yeah and the adoption of March 27th and April 10th minutes so those three things George should be added to the doc we can add them now if you have it open could you just do that so the GL FAQ document the original GL committee charge the draft March 27th 2019 minutes draft March 27 2019 minutes and the draft April 10 2019 minutes Evan and then so just going forward with regard to minutes these are all housekeeping things but so I listed names is first initial last name this one listed names is first name last initial then used first names throughout I looked at previous minutes to try and figure out what some it's been all over the place some people use just last names and so we might we don't have to add a discussion now but we might want to think about sort of standardizing even little things like that because it you know I think the goal is that you can never tell who took minutes by looking at the minutes they should all look the same but right now it clearly people are doing it different ways and so at some point maybe just figure out okay this is how we present names this is you know that kind of stuff no that's a good suggestion look at the two sets of minutes for today they're actually formatted very different ways I think that's yeah no for that one I think that's good so we've amended the April 24th revised them today or amended them today to add the list of documents is there any recommendations on the May 8th our motion includes both that's why I'm asking so the motion will need to be adopted the April 24th minutes as amended on the May 8th or as revised what's our convention as amended as amended and the May 8th minutes any other discussion on those all those in favor that is unanimous and since we have a whopping five minutes left can we do a brief discussion on conventions for minutes for names at least going forward what do we prefer for our minutes should we just agree to last name I think that's how it's done in is that how it's done in the council minutes I think it says counselor something counselor something shall we just adopt that convention counselor last name to keep it consistent with the council minutes that our clerk takes sound good that means we are up to a motion to adjourn Evan moves do I hear second second all those in favor that is unanimous we are adjourned as of 1226 p.m