 Let's see we are agenda for today is we're going to be electing a chair. We have a public comment period. We are going to review the open meeting law complaint, which is before us for today. And any other topics that may come before the board. Which, which we shouldn't really discuss today should be just the open meeting law complaint. I'd like to just point out that Amber Martin is in here as one of the clerk's office staff, and she's going to be taking minutes. Also, we will be recording this meeting. We can start now that I've mentioned that we are recording this meeting. Under open meeting law, we're holding this remotely consistent with Governor Baker's orders as of March 12 2020 members of the public are welcome to listen. And again, this meeting is being recorded. So Sean, can you go ahead and start the recording? Oh, it's all set. It's already gone. Yeah. Okay, all right. So for the also in, in the room is Greg Corbo with KP law. Attorney Goldberg couldn't be here today. So he is going to be in the back for us in her stead. Okay, we have, I'm sorry, Sue, do we have an independent council for the board of registrars also present. There is no independent council for the board of registrars. It is since the board of registrars is a town committee. We use town council. Okay. Okay. No, well, you, you had said last meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, no. No, there is no independent council for the board of registrars as it is a town committee. Okay, so that was the answer from the town manager or about the inquiry or. No, actually, I didn't have a chance to check, but I, I'm basing it on what was said at the last meeting from Lauren Goldberg. Okay, so again, you can, you can check into if you have. Sure, because we're supposed to be an independent body and this is someone with KP law working on behalf of the town. And the town manager, so we should be independent. Okay, I just wanted to get that answer. I appreciate it. Yep. Yep. So, so let's move on. We are going to elect the chair. Are there any nominations? Yes. I nominate myself. Okay. Jacqueline, do you have any nominations? Well, I just like to, if it's just again for one meeting, Well, I'd just like to, if it's just again for one meeting to make it still again. Okay. Thank you. And D, sorry, sorry, D. Jamie, where'd you go Jamie? I'm here. So hi there. Hi. Hi, I would nominate to all that. Okay. All right. I'm going to with I'm going to abstain from the nomination process, but in light of two people nominating me for chair and one for D, then I make a motion that we accept my name as nominee for chair for just this meeting. Okay. I object because you are the town clerk and we should have our own independent chair as the board of registrars. I am also a board of registrars member. Do you have a voting capacity? I do have voting capacity. That was confirmed at the last meeting. Again, but you're the town clerk. And so we are, that's a conflict of interest, but I just want to state my objection. Okay. Objection stated for the record. Madam clerk, if I could. Yes. Yes, Mr. Attorney Corbel. Thank you through you. I'm just to clarify for purposes of the record. I am counsel for the town of Amherst in which I represent all boards, officers and committees equally. The board of registrars is not a separate and independent body from the town of Amherst. It is simply a board of the town. And in that capacity, I do represent the board of registrars to the same extent that I would represent any other office of the town of Amherst. So I'm not going to say that. I just want to emphasize you as town clerk are a full voting member of the board of registrars. And it is not in my opinion, a conflict of interest for you to participate in this matter. You have taken no actions in this matter other than in your official capacity as town clerk. to say somebody who has signed to the petition on behalf of the petitioners who is now participating with respect to issues certifying those petitions, that would be an entirely different matter. But because you have acted only in your official capacity is my opinion that you have no conflict of interest in this matter. I appreciate that attorney Corbo, but attorney Corbo that would be like saying that I could not vote on the state level national level or local level as a board of registrar, which we obviously know that's not true. In respect to this complaint, an open meeting law complaint, there is a conflict and the complaint involves the town clerk. The complaint is against the entire board. I respectfully disagree that there is any conflict here. All right, well, we'll put all that on record. Okay, well, let's continue. Next on our agenda, let's see. Madam clerk, I think you have to take a vote. Sorry, yeah, that's right, we were doing that. I got way late. All right, we had an objection from D on that. So let's vote now to vote at Susan Audet as clerk for this meeting only, or clerk as chair for this meeting only. So let's start the voting with D. Vote nay. Okay, Jackie. I'm in favor of Sue being the chair for the meeting. One meeting, oops, it's one meeting. Okay, Jamie. I vote in favor of Sue being chair of this meeting. Okay, and again, I had abstained, but just for this vote, however, that's two to one in favor of Susan Audet. I thought we had done this, but that's okay. So hereby, do we have a second? Do we need a second? Oh, I'll second. Okay, just in case, covering all bases here. All right, so I will chair this meeting today and move on. The next thing on our agenda is, let's buy notes, give me a second here. I got too many pieces. Oh, Sue, I'd like to make a comment. Public comment is next. Right, I'd like to make a motion because we are hearing the open meeting law complaint as filed by Carol Gray that we should hear Carol Gray first, but also John Boniface had sent a letter on last week directly speaking to the open meeting law complaint. I have been informed that he will be, he has a conflict to go to another meeting. So if it's possible, I think he could just have maybe three minutes or less to discuss his letter and then Carol Gray in terms of process and then public comment. Okay. Also as indicated in the last meeting, I would like to respond to some of the comments on Mr. Boniface's letter. Okay. So before we get to the public comment, do we need to vote on this, whether we allow John Boniface and Carol Gray to speak before we get to the public comment? And include Jackie Gardner. Jackie, do you want to be included in this section or do you want to be included in the discussion part of the open meeting law complaint itself? Ashley, I think I'd rather go with the discussion whereas, because I really want this to be officially in the record. Okay. Okay. All right. So do you just hate her motion again? Most certainly. So I move that attorney John Boniface discuss his letter that he submitted on last week pertaining to the open meeting law complaint in addition to Carol Gray who filed the open meeting law complaint to speak before public comment. Okay. And we're going to put it in. And we're going to put it in the discussion part. Okay. So let's, okay. So the motion is out there. It's been seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. The chair declares that Mr. Boniface and Ms. Gray shall have three minutes each to speak. Okay. Mr. Boniface can go first. And Sean, if you can find him. Thank you. This is John Boniface. I'm a longtime Amherst resident and a constitutional and voting rights attorney. I want to just address a few points to the board of registrars with respect to this matter. First, last Friday, the town attorney Lauren Goldberg representing herself as advising this board of registrars and from KP law, stated that the board of registrars, if it found that these open meeting law violations occurred as have been alleged, would not have the power to declare its actions on April 21st as null and void. She stated that only the attorney general's office or a court of law would have that power. That statement is false. There is nothing in section 23 of the open meeting law that supports that statement. There's no basis in the law to support that statement. And in fact, in a conversation I had today with the division of open government of the attorney general's office, the staff are confirmed that that is not accurate. Section 23B states very clearly that at least 30 days prior to the filing of a complaint with the attorney general, the complainant shall file a written complaint with the public body, in this case the board of registrars, setting forth the circumstances which constitute the alleged violation and giving the body an opportunity to remedy the alleged violation. It would make no sense to have this process which this board is engaging in today to discuss whether or not there were violations. And if so to remedy those violations, to remove from the table the opportunity to remedy it by declaring those actions no and void. I think this kind of false advice is critical because it highlights the second point I wanna make here which I made again on Friday. There is a direct conflict of interest in having Ms. Goldberg or any other attorney from KP law advising the board of registrars on this matter. It is one thing for the attorney here representing KP law to state that it represents all boards, all committees, the town of Amherst. But on this particular matter, the interests of the town clerk, of the town council, of the town manager are adverse to the interests of the petitioners who have submitted a petition to use the voter veto power under the town charter. And this board must look independent and must be independent in deciding whether or not this open meeting law complaint is valid because the underlying issue is that if the open meeting law complaint is valid and the actions are to be cleared no and void from April 21st, then this board can go back and do what was not done in the first instance to conduct a thorough review of the signatures on the petition and determine whether or not the requisite number of signatures have been received. And the town clerk is being represented in court of law already on the issue of the pandemic and its impact on the gathering of petition signatures. It very well may be represented by KP law with respect to these petition signatures if this is not remedied before then. So it is really incredible, I have to say that KP law comes before this board of registrars today and says that it can represent with no conflict of interest this board of registrars when in fact it is representing the town clerk on this very matter, which of course is opposed to, again, the interests of the petitioners. The board of registrars must be independent in determining whether or not there's a fair process here for reviewing these petition signatures and whether it conducted itself according with open meeting law on April 21st. Added to this point that I made on Friday is the revelation enormously damning to KP law that prior to the meeting beginning on Friday there was a pre-meeting that was on Zoom recorded available to all who showed up early in which Ms. Goldberg coached the town clerk on how to handle the meeting, how to deal with one board of registrars member D. Shabazz, how to deal with the complainant in this matter, Carol Gray, laughter on the video that you can see if you go to Amherst, Indy. It's all there for the public to see that there's a direct conflict here that the attorney representing KP law which by definition implicates everyone at KP law is engaged in coaching the town clerk on how to handle another board member and how to handle the very complainant who's brought this open meeting law complaint. This board of registrars must have independent counsel and it is not adequate with all due respect to the town clerk to report back to the board member D. Shabazz that you simply decided outside of the meeting that there was no opportunity for independent counsel and you didn't even consult with the town manager on this serious matter. It needs to have independent counsel and if you do not accept that there was any direct conflict of interest which I cannot imagine how you could after this revelation from this video that's now online. If you do not accept that, at least accept that there must be with a public government body such as the board of registrars and appearance of no conflict of interest and that appearance does not exist today. This is a direct appearance of conflict of interest that must be handled by an independent counsel and the town of Amherst must assign resources to the board of registrars to enlist an independent counsel to advise it on this serious open meeting law complaint. The last point I'll make is the matter of the quorum. I thought it was very interesting the town clerk started this meeting as she should identifying that there's a quorum for this meeting. On April 21st, there was not a quorum. The town clerk was on vacation. She had the right to be on vacation. She was not there. Ms. Shabazz had a medical appointment. She has the right to have a medical appointment. She was not there. There were only two of the four board members at the meeting. Amber Martin was not assigned to be interim town clerk that day. She did not have the power to sit in the town clerk's shoes. She may be an employee in the town clerk's office but she is not a voting member on the board of registrars and had no ability to establish a quorum without having been appointed to be town clerk for that day or that week by the town manager. There was no quorum on April 21st with only two of the four members there. A quorum is a simple majority under Massachusetts law and therefore there was not really a meeting of the board of registrars on April 21st. This is a serious matter that also needs to be addressed. Due process requires that this board look carefully at this open meeting law complaint. These violations are serious and that they have independent counsel to establish whether or not there were violations. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boniface. All right. Madam clerk, may I respond? Yes, you may. Thank you, Madam clerk. I take great umbrage at the overt attempts to impugn the integrity of KP law attorney Goldberg and myself. We have been town attorneys in the town of Amherst for many years and have provided nothing but excellent and top-notch service to all boards, committees and officials of the town. Contrary to Mr. Boniface's assertion, we are not required to represent the interests of the petitioners here. As he indicated, the petitioners are adverse to the interests of the town and we are entitled to provide advice to the town as to how to respond to that adversity. We have provided that advice in a neutral and good faith manner to the best of our skill and ability as town attorney. It is not only our right, but our obligation to provide advice as to how town officials can conduct public meetings. That was all attorney Goldberg did during the pre-meeting on Friday and there is absolutely nothing wrong with her doing that. In fact, that is the very reason why she is hired to perform this function. With regard to our impartiality, it is our job to help you enforce the law and we do that in a way that is completely impartial without any predisposition or judgment and without any interest in the outcome of the matter. Rather, we provide you with our advice based on our experience and our knowledge of the law which is vast. If there is anyone here who has, is infected by conflict of interest, it is those who are speaking against us who have a demonstrated and outspoken opposition to the library project. As to the merits of some of the things that have been said, there absolutely is no authority on the part of this board at this time to undo the certification that has already been made. The Secretary of State's elections division has made that clear. The court has made that clear in refusing the relief that was requested in a court hearing and the general laws provide no avenue for the board to reverse a decision once it has been made. I would further point out that what the law does do is very clearly give the board the authority to delegate the responsibility for certification of signatures to staff. And it need not do that through a formal vote. And in fact, prior to September, the 21st, this board had never taken a vote to delegate that responsibility to staff. And in fact, the law does not require that. Instead, the regulations of the Secretary of State make it clear that the members of the board of registrars can provide their facsimile signature to the office of the clerk and that that is sufficient to use in certifying signatures. And that is exactly what had been done for many years before this particular incident. And it is what likely will continue to occur in the future. There is no obligation for the board to have taken that vote and therefore no authority for the board to undo the certification that had previously been made. And finally, with respect to Ms. Martin's authority, she is an assistant town clerk. And as a matter of law, she stands in the shoes of the town clerk when the town clerk is absent for all legal purposes, including sitting as a member of this board and voting and being here for purposes of establishing a quorum. Therefore, for more detailed reasons that I will get into when we discuss the complaint, it is my opinion that there have been no violations of the open meaning law, that there was nothing improper done with respect to the certification of signatures and no authority of this board to undo that decision that had been previously made. Thank you, Attorney Corpo. All right, so I guess up next to speak is Ms. Gray. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I would first say that a couple in a page is very careful with their words. They say the general laws don't allow a re-hearing, but they're not referencing the fact that there are laws in other places as well. For example, 940 Massachusetts regulation 29.07 specifically says pertaining to the open meeting law that the attorney general may resolve the investigation of a formal order and it lists this as one of the remedies, nullification of any action taken at the relevant meeting in whole or in part. I don't think couple men in page would deny that this regulation exists. It's not part of the general laws but it's still legally binding and it's just a false statement and really a disservice to our citizen boards to misguide them and pretend that there's no law on point when there absolutely is. I would also, I just wanna outline what the open meeting law complaint consists of because again, Town Council is telling you that there is no violation. Well, that's advocacy but it's not the truth. So here's what the violations were and I'm also going to provide you with the language from the division of open government about why the conduct that I've put in the open meeting law violation complaint is actually a violation. So one of the issues is was there adequate notice based on the agenda that was posted for the April 21st meeting? That agenda included and I'm quoting, delegation of authority and duties listed under charter sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 to Town Council office staff. Okay, so I think that anyone on this call who's not a lawyer would have no idea what that's talking about. Even one of the board members said in a letter, Mr. Baz's letter to the Town Council said she wasn't aware of what was on the agenda. Even at the meeting last Friday, another board member expressed, asked a question about what really was the point and what happened with that motion. So here's what the law is about what equals notice. And this, I'm quoting from an email from Ms. Warren of the division of open government. She says, the law defines, I'm sorry, in terms of sufficiency of a public body's meeting notice a notice must always describe each anticipated topic with sufficient specificity. We generally consider a topic to be sufficiently specific when a reasonable member of the public could read the topic and understand the anticipated nature of the public body's discussion. This allows members of the public to decide if they are interested in attending a particular meeting. Well, again, this is what the topic said on the agenda that was posted delegation of authority and duties listed under charter section 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 to the town clerk office staff. So no member of the public would know what that's talking about. It should have said delegation regarding the certification of signatures under the voter veto petition that the public would have understood that every board member would have understood that. It was purposely, I think, or at least inadvertently obscured with legal ease that did not comply with the requirements of the open meeting law. That was not adequate notice. So that's one violation. A second clear violation is that you're not allowed to send out emails all about the topic to be discussed in advance. That violates the deliberation component of the open meeting law. And we learned, so the open meet, the meeting that actually happened was three minutes long. I've watched the tape and in it, Ms. Martin said, we're here for a motion to delegate authority and duties listed under charter sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 to the town clerk's office and asked people if they agree. And the two board members present said, I agree, I agree. And then they asked for public comment, there was no public. So three minutes and that was the end of the hearing. So all the deliberation happened in the email that was sent out beforehand. And that is completely violating the open meeting law. The division of open government said in their email, the law defines deliberation as an oral, and I'm quoting here, an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction. Any communication among a quorum, and a quorum means the email was sent by the clerk's office to all board members. So that's everybody. Any communication among a quorum of a public body on matters that are pending or will come before it or within the public body's jurisdiction is considered deliberation. There's no question that that email that explained everything in advance of the April 21 meeting was deliberation. It violated the open meeting law. Either one of those violations would require a remedy and both of them together make it very clear there are violations here. I found it very offensive that attorney Goldberg last meeting said, well, the open meeting law is just a red herring. No, this is a law that municipalities and boards must comply with. And the town clerk's office knows the open meeting law very well and they're the ones that sent the email and they're the ones that posted that the citizens on the board would not have known these things but the clerk's office absolutely knew this. And yet, so what do you do? So within 14 days, the open meeting law complaint process allows this board to correct the error and correcting means redoing the prior meeting. You can do exactly what the attorney general's office is allowed to do and in that regulation which I'll put the link in when I'm done speaking 94 mass reg 29.07, I quote, that the remedy may include quoting nullification of any action taken at the relevant meeting in whole or in part. So you have a meeting scheduled for Thursday. You can vote today to remedy the open meeting violation by putting on the agenda for Thursday's meeting certification of the voter veto petition signatures. And then at Thursday's meeting, you can decide whether or not you want to delegate authority to the town clerk's office. I understand that that happens in many cases and probably the group of you have never actually looked at signatures and certified yourself but it is not a skill that you need training for. There's a law that's right on point that says what signatures count, for example, first initials and last name. And you can just read these guidelines or a page and you can physically look at these signatures yourself. If you delegate authority to the town clerk's we know what will happen. A travesty of justice is what happened. 92 sworn affidavits have been submitted so far from our town residents who are appalled that their votes were not counted. You have a chance to be courageous and to correct this voter suppression that has happened in our town. And we really urge you, we plead with you to do this. This is also the fastest way to let this town move forward from this issue. If the board does nothing, then okay, this can go to the courts and get tied up for months. We learned from the board of library commissioners by November, the town has to notify if they want the grant. If this petition can just be allowed to do what it's legally meant to do, what the certification was legally required to have happened which is hold a referendum. That can happen well before November and the town if the referendum succeeds, the town can accept that grant. And our town can move forward knowing that we are not Georgia. We do not allow voter suppression ever. And I know this is very hard. I know this is gonna take a huge amount of courage on your part, but we're counting on you. You're independent, you're an independent board. You are not an arm of the town and our citizens are really counting on you to stand up for what's right here and do what it's gonna take a lot of courage to do. And I would ask that I be allowed to speak in the public comment. This is my legal perspective, but I also have a citizen perspective. And I'd also request that I be given equal time to town council to reply because this is a complaint by me as council for the petitioners. And if you only allow town council to reply it shows total lack of objectivity. You have to allow both legal perspectives to be in the room. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Gray. Okay. We have a lot of 20 minutes for public comment. If people wish to make a comment, they please raise their hands. I do see some raised hands in the room. If you're using a phone. So are you with Jackie first? Excuse me. With Jackie. Did Jackie say she wanted to speak during the discussion period though? Oh, Jackie, you're muted. Okay. Sorry. Either now is good because like, Okay. Well, I wanted to respond to Mr. Boniface's May letter. And I participated in that particular meeting. And in my opinion, the sole purpose of that meeting was the delegation of authority and duties listed under the Amherst rule, charter sections eight to eight three and eight four to the clown clerk. When I understand the regulatory 950 CMR subsection allows this action by stating that the registers may authorize the office employees of the city or town clerk's office, including the city or town clerk to perform all actions required by CM 55.02 and by mass general law chapter 53 section seven. And the authorization may be accomplished by among other things of vote of the board of registry. Now that meeting we did have a vote but the way I see it in some respects this stuff has been done for years anyway. So, but anyway, the meeting and the agenda as far as I'm concerned, were properly advertised on April 15th as a Zoom meeting on the town website. The public was invited to come and have the right to opportunity to call in and participate in the meeting, but no one did. And then regulatory section 950 CMR 5502 States section subsection four that the register shall keep the following records and enter such records into the central voter registry. Now, if we follow that guidance in some respects I interpret that also that the board of review registrars would be the town record keepers. The current town record keeper is the town clerk's office and you're part of the board of registries anyway. And it also should be noted mention that I didn't discuss anything with anyone in regards to the agenda either before, after or during the meeting. I didn't discuss the voter petitions and I did not conduct any deliberations. And since no one called in to make comments on anything and no discussions took place therefore the meeting was short. I made an independent decision when I took my vote that I was in favor of having the town clerk maintain the records and do the record keeping task. And also the regulatory section 950 CMR 5502 states that the three or more registers have to sign their certification on the page but it also talks about the signature of facsimile stamp can be used. When we signed on to the board of registers we had these stamps done. So I don't really see where there's documented proof where there was anything that was violated because the way I see it I think everyone had an obligation to look up the Amherst 8-2 and 8-3 and 8-4. And if they had questions then they should have participated in the meeting. Thank you, Jackie. Oh, Sue, thank you, Jackie. So, yes, hello, Jackie, I'm just a bit confused because on May 7th you said that you weren't sure of what you were being asked to do. Can you explain that comment? Okay, as far as like which meeting are we gonna discuss? I mean, as far as like for the open meeting law or whether or not we were gonna be discussing like this is the second meeting because, yes, I am confused because this is what happened at the official meeting but it seems like that people were alluding to a second meeting and that was what was confusing for me. Okay, so it wasn't how I thought you had mentioned. I mean, we can go back and look at the video but it seemed to be that you were alluding to how it was posted. So I just would like some clarity. No, the way I see it, it was properly posted and there was like a little link to it and it had an agenda on it and the agenda wasn't much but it was an agenda that pretty much like I said it says about the delegation of the authority and duties under the Amherst Rule Charter Sections 8283 and 84. It was on the agenda. And that's what I'm saying that the way I see it, the agenda was posted and as a citizen and a board member you have an obligation to look and see what's gonna happen with that meeting. So you feel it was weird. I just wanna inform you that we have 10 members of the public with their hands up. So if we can just keep moving along with public comment to get everybody a chance to speak. I think that's- Yeah, I think it was important. Thank you so much, Amber. I think it was important to get that clarification while Jackie was offering her experience. Thank you so much, Amber. Yep. Okay, so if there's 10 people, we've allotted 30 minutes we're gonna hold you to three minutes to speak. Okay, I will interject when your three minutes is up. So I see the first hand, Sarah McKee, we will let you in the room and then you can speak. So the only other thing I would just add is if anybody dialed in from the telephone it's star nine if they're going to raise their hand. Perfect, thank you, Sean. Thank you very much, Sue. My name is Sarah McKee. I live at nine Chadwick Court in Amherst. I have been an act member in good standing of the DC bar for more than 40 years. And I am frankly appalled. I would like to bring to your attention the a case that came before the AG open meeting long case about the Dudley Planning Board. The AG's case number is OML 2015-39 and there the Dudley Planning Board deliberated outside a meeting. In addition to imposing a $1,000 civil penalty for this open meeting law violation the AG's office recommended imposing an order for and I quote nullification of the vote taken immediately following the improper deliberation unquote. I'm sorry, that's OML 2015-129 and it's on page four. So I would strongly encourage the board of registrars to confer with the attorney general's office get very clear on what you can do in order to rectify what is clearly a gross violation of voter's rights in this matter and then do it. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Okay, the next hand I see up is Adrienne Turizzi. Adrienne, you have to unmute yourself. I think we're having problems with Adrienne. I'm asking to unmute, I don't know if that'll help. I hit that button already. Oh, did you? Yeah. I think she's probably having some technical difficulties. Her hand's back up again. Let me see if there's anything in the Q and A. Yeah, Adrienne, we're not able to hear you. Wanna try one more time, Sean, do what you need to do? Try it now. No, I'm sorry. Adrienne, can you type your question in the Q and A and we'll get to that. In the meantime, we'll go on to the next person. Somebody has asked on Nancy Sarterson, how do we unmute? She's next on. I got it now. Oh, you got it. Yeah. My name is Nancy Sarterson. I live at 15 State Street, Precinct One. I'm addressing my comments to the board of registrars. And let me just begin by saying that had I had noticed as a citizen of Amherst, I would have been at the April 21st meeting. But let me begin by saying that I have spent half of my life as a voting right lawyer for the Department of Justice. I defended disenfranchised the black voters in the South numerous times in situations just like this, where those in power at the local level abused the sacred trust of their community by using that power to disenfranchise its citizens. Jim Crow was rarely codified. It was the interpretation and application of the law by local officials that allowed the travesty to happen. And this is why we're here today. This isn't about the library vote. That's a political issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is about the abusive discussion by the clerk's office that led to the disenfranchisement of, at the very least, the voters whose affidavits you have before you. Plain and simple. I've carefully read through the memo from attorney Gray and others dated May 9th, 2021 to this body. I've also examined the affidavits attached to which I understand is grown to 92. 92, roughly one in five, and this is where I need to breathe. Disqualifying Barbara Elkins, who used the abbreviation LN rather than writing out Lane. Han Lim, who wrote 49 jinks instead of 49 jink street as listed on the voter registration rolls. People who didn't use their apartment number to identify their address when the signature and the rest of the address is correct. And this one, the board Lucas put a zip code in the address. The CFRs for the certification of nomination papers and petitions clearly gives the town clerk discretion using the words signed substantially as registered. It is about the ability of the individual discerning if the signature is legitimate. It hates the will of the voter. And it is clear that the discretion was abused in at least the cases of the 92 affidavits presented to you. Heck, you can stay with the 35 presented specifically in the memo. I wanna take this opportunity to thank attorney Gray and all who compiled all this information that's been provided to you. I have done that work many times and it is tedious and very time consuming. You know, blacks in the South rarely had the resources available to fight disenfranchisement. So thank you to all who have made this hearing possible. Let's take a step back and just breathe. The library like the school has the potential to tear us apart. Let's not do this. As a town as a community, we have coveted to each other to respect the will of the voters. Mass law clearly allows this petition for the process to take place and to the board of registrars have the courage as attorney Gray has asked you to make this right. Faced with a clear violation of open meeting law, goodness, you have an email. You can revisit the certification process. Indeed, you must. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Nancy. Let us try Adrienne one more time. Oops, she's got something in the comments section. We'll post via the Q and A later. Okay, we're gonna move on from Adrienne. The next name I see is Jasna. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Jasna Regge. I currently live on 96 Farview Way and I've lived in Amherst for 31 years. I'm thankful to have the opportunity to comment at this board of registrars meeting today. I want to express my concern that the vote of veto petition drive that was conducted so painstakingly during a pandemic was certified and thrown out in such haste with so many valid signatures registered Amherst voters rejected. If the board of registrars meeting had been posted adequately with an agenda that gave the townspeople the information they needed to know about what was going to actually be discussed and voted on there would have been a larger large voter turnout at that meeting and the outcome might well have been a different one. I collected a few signatures for this petition and my house was a collection point for petitions. Several of the town residents in my area who signed had their signatures rejected. They were shocked because they were all long-term residents and registered voters in town. In all nearly, what is it? 92 of the voters who had their names rejected have since gone to the considerable additional trouble to fill out affidavits confirming that they are who they are and then to get them notarized. It really disturbs me that more than 200 of the nearly 1100 Amherst voters, one in five who signed this petition had their names thrown out. It is not only they who are disenfranchised but because of this problematic process all Amherst voters were denied the opportunity to vote in a town referendum. And this at a time when the issue of voter suppression as other speakers have said is front and center of national attention. I urge the members of the board to remedy the violations of the open meeting law by voiding your April 21st meeting and holding another one in which you can properly post the agenda and take the time to look at the signatures of the townspeople yourselves on this important test of the integrity of the vote of veto petitioning process. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Josna. We're going to skip by Adrienne again because she asked to be put on there later and go to Michael Sirduck. Michael Sirduck, can everybody hear me? Yes. Yes, Michael Sirduck. I reside in 8 Amnesty Place, Amherst, Massachusetts. Come next month I've been living in town 49 years and I am an attorney. I almost have 40 years under my belt practicing in Massachusetts. And one thing I find is a little bit off the wall and I'm not trying to be personal attorney Corbin is the statement that the board does not have the authority to reconsider its decision. Today, the Massachusetts appeals court in a case called Doe versus Sex Offender Registry Board, the docket number being 19P1063 held and I quote, it has long been established that an administrative agency has the authority to reopen in adjudicatory proceedings. In the absence of an expressed or perceived statutory limitations, administrative agencies possess an inherent power to reconsider their decisions. Close quote, among the cases cited or as a court, as we say, was Aronson versus the Brookline Rank Control Board, 19 mass appeals court, 770 and 703 to 706, 1985. I glanced at that case, the board there reconsidered a decision. So unless Mr. Corbin or the compliment page people have a specific case, a specific case that says the board can't reopen, I think you do. And I know he said you can't reopen, but when you go to court, you need a case not what somebody says. There's a rule 60 of the master's rules of appellate procedure and I've done over 50 appeals. You can't just say a statement of law, you have to have some case law statute, regulation law review article. So I would submit this argument that the board cannot reopen has no sense. I would also add my signature was one of the signatures that was thrown out. I do have a bad signature, but I did file an affidavit. I've been registered to vote in Amherst since I was 18. This is the only place I've been registered. I filed an affidavit and it really is strange that my signature gets thrown out and stays thrown out. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right, let me just check to see where Adrienne is at. Nope, okay, next on the list is Maria Kopicki. Thank you, my name is Maria Kopicki and I live in South Amherst and perhaps you will be relieved to know that I am not a lawyer. Thank you to the board of registrars for convening this meeting. At last Friday's meeting, a gentleman who supports the library proposal spoke at public comment and indicated that after hearing his fellow residents describe the rejection of so many signatures, he expressed that while he still supported the project, he urged the board to right this wrong and to conduct a review of the rejected signatures. I hope that this sort of civil open-mindedness is able to take root in Amherst and that we can learn to disagree respectfully with each other. When members of this body met on April 21st, they very well may have assumed that town employees understood and would properly apply the law and calling and conducting that meeting. They may also have assumed that the task of certifying the petition would be performed accurately. Why else would they have consented to delegating their responsibility and granting permission for their own signatures to be used by the assistant town clerk? We know now, however, that the meeting of April 21st was not conducted in accordance with Massachusetts Open Meeting Law and that nearly 150 Amherst voters had their signatures erroneously rejected, resulting in an inaccurate certification. Mistakes happen. How we respond to those errors is what matters. In this case, the board of registrars can correct them and remedy the harm that resulted. Please reverse the effect of the improperly conducted April 21st meeting and then correct the improper rejections of signatures yourselves. You have the power to restore the integrity of our system in the most expeditious way possible. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Next on the list, I see Terry Johnson. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Terry S. Johnson and I live in District 5. I thank you, the registrars, for serving in this most important and critical board, the board that ensures that voting is sacred. I've lived in Amherst for 40 years and I too, with many others, am dismayed and alarmed that so many signatures, 20% were rejected on the petition in question. I'm also concerned with many others that over 90 voters have subsequently signed at the day that's declaring their signatures were rejected in error and this may not be corrected. This is an opportunity for you, the board of registrars, to reassure and at this point it is to reassure that every Amherst voter is respected and that their signatures are carefully, thoroughly and correctly verified. So please, please consider any avenue open to you, including stating that the April 21st meeting is null and void so that you can reconsider these contested signatures. Amherst voters need to know that our town and our democracy are transparent, alive and thriving. Thank you. Thank you, Terri. Next Peggy Matthews-Nielson. Hi, everyone. I'm Peggy Matthews-Nielson and I reside in South Amherst and have been a resident of Amherst from work in the decade. From a voting rights perspective, the handling of the voter veto petition has been debacle. While the state process may not allow review of voter signatures that were mistakenly disqualified on this petition, surely the new town government in Amherst that promised us all more democracy can do better. It's clear that leaving things as they stand is tantamount to voter suppression. It is also unreasonable to require that residents go to court to correct the assistant town clerk's mistakes. I trust the board of registrars understand the seriousness of disqualifying the signatures of legally registered voters that they will wish to correct the violation of the open meeting law at their April meeting and will take this opportunity to review each petition signature themselves to ensure the democratic process is available to all Amherst voters. There's no shame in making a mistake. It's only when we know that a mistake was made and we fail to correct it that there's a problem. I hope this board will have the courage to right this wrong. Thank you. Thank you, Peggy. Let me just check to see where Adrian Terizzi is at, nope. Okay, the next person I see is caller 1213. And Shawnee hit star nine, is that correct? Or is that to raise the hand? This star nine to raise the hand, star six should allow the person to unmute. I'm the person on 1213. Hi, everyone, my name's Elizabeth Gilbert. I actually want to start by saying that when I went on to this meeting this afternoon, the host removed me from the meeting and I've not been able to get on since. I'm not sure why that happened. Could I, yeah, I was trying to bring somebody into the room, one of the panelists and I hit your name by mistake and then I put you back as an attendee. You're supposed to be in, you're in the attendees list. Well, I have not been able to, the host removed you from the meeting and I've not been able to get on since the meeting started. Just wanted to let you know that. And I am one of 92 voters whose signature was disallowed. I've lived in Amherst. I live in North Amherst now for 18 years. I've lived in Amherst for over 30 years and I voted in every single town election since 1991. I still have no idea what grounds the town used to determine that my signature for this petition was rejected. I've never been informed in the past of my signature was insufficient. And out of curiosity, I went to the town of Amherst voter information website and it directed me to the state elections and voting webpage where as of this moment, there's no mistake about my voting status, my name, my age, my address or my voting precinct. With this information clearly available at the click of a button, why was this not done for every person of the 92 so far people that have been rejected? I do see this as long-term residents. I'm very concerned about long-term residents not being counted. We really have to see more integrity of this process. And I'm really, along with others, not sure why one out of every five signatures in town was considered not legitimate, especially because the law in the United States says signatures encompass marks and actions of all sorts that are indicative of identity and intent. The legal rule is that unless a statute specifically prescribes a particular method of making a signature, it is legal. And all signatures are expected to do is signal that you intend to adopt an agreement. And we even do not need to be consistent with your signature over time. So I'm really interested in knowing, in writing preferably, all of those that were rejected, why we were specifically rejected. Thank you. Thank you. Next is caller 7796. Hello, this is Molly Turner. I'm calling from 19 Old Town Road. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, good. I've lived in Amherst over 30 years. And I, like many people at this meeting, I'm really appalled at the voter suppression that has been happening with the rejection of these signatures. I am also concerned about what John Boniface has brought up, and that is the role of KP law. And I lived here over 30 years, and I remember a time when the town council, the town's attorney, would be a member of the community, a member of Amherst who would represent Amherst, who would understand a lot about the culture of Amherst and would have the town's interest in mind. Since several, two or three managers ago, we've hired an outside firm, KP law. And what I hear, what KP law is saying now, I don't think they're representing us. I don't think they're representing the town of Amherst. They're certainly not representing me. KP law has represents over a third of the Massachusetts municipalities. They have no sense, I can't believe that any lawyer on that board has any sense of Amherst as a community. And I feel very much disenfranchised by being represented by them. Thank you. Thank you, Molly. Yep. And next I see Anita Sorrow. Thank you, yes, you can hear me. My name is Anita Sorrow, I live in South Amherst and another long time resident of Amherst. And over the years, I've had varying degrees of interest in town government and community engagement. After much consideration, I voted for the charter in what I now realize was the naive belief that the charter was fairly written, that its terms and legal requirements would be interpreted fairly, and that people of integrity and goodwill would be elected, appointed and hired who would exercise their power fairly. It appears that I was wrong on all counts and the discussion thus far this afternoon has done nothing to change my opinion. The handling of the petition so far suggests that the charter was designed to exclude rather than include, and that where there is opportunity for input, it will be thwarted. It is becoming clear to me that the desire for stated desire for community engagement are mere words belied by the actions that have followed. No desire to give serious consideration to the petition and no desire to adhere to legal processes unless they serve the desired goals of those in power. If the charter is not itself a document that was deliberately miscommunicated to the voting public, then those charged with the responsibility for its implementation are using it to serve their own purposes and not honoring its intentions. We seem to have an overabundance of us older lawyers in town and I'm one of them. I practiced law for a number of years representing large and influential nonprofit corporations. The role of a corporate attorney is similar to that of municipal counsel. I learned how to be an effective advocate for my client to understand where the power lay and to get them where they wanted to go, whether it was in consideration of conflicts of interest or interpretation of law regulation. I know that words on a page are subject to a interpretation and let's be clear. There could be other possible interpretations that are more consistent with the intended spirit of a charter that is supposed to allow community engagement. Regardless of how you may feel about the possible outcome, it is your obligation to adhere to the process. I urge the board of registrars to be faithful to the oaths that you took and fulfill the duties as required by Massachusetts law. Examine the charter, examine the law and regulation, consider the obligations it imposes on you to serve, not the town manager or the town council but the people of this town. Take full ownership of the process instead of delegating responsibility. Live up to the goal of not just permitting community engagement but encouraging it. If the board of registrars will not honor the sanctity of the right to vote, who will? Otherwise you're sending a message to the people of this town that their opinions and desires and their very right to vote are of absolutely no consequence. Thank you. Thank you, Anita. And two other people. So Krista Osterling-Rising. So it looks like Krista's... Oh, she's gone. Where'd she go? She's gone. It was also an old version of Zoom, so it was not allowed me to allow her to talk. Oh, okay. Oh, she tried again. She tried. Yeah, so it appears that Krista is running a older version of Zoom that does not allow me to turn Krista's microphone on. Krista, you could put your question in the Q&A down at the bottom of your window. If you can find that. I don't know what your version looks like. In the meantime, I know Adrienne's gonna post later, so that will leave Carol Gray. Thank you. I would say that the people who are having trouble with Zoom should be encouraged to phone in because they're not giving questions and it loses the importance of their voices if they're just posting in company. So they could be encouraged to call in. So thank you for recognizing me. I'm speaking this time as a citizen who is gravely concerned about the details of these signatures that were discarded. So I'm looking now at the signature of one of my neighbors, an elderly gentleman, Barry Brooks. His signature is completely legible and it was disqualified because of an S, which is signature. And now I'm looking at a couple of people who are disqualified who live on Crossbrook Avenue. Their addresses are completely legible. 88 Crossbrook, 88 Crossbrook. The only difference between how they wrote the address and what's listed in the voter rolls is Mr. Denton Thompson wrote 88 Crossbrook Ave. The registration says 88 Crossbrook with Brooke written BRK. There is no difference other than that. So this person absolutely was clearly writing the correct address. And because it said BRK presumably on the registration form and he wrote out Crossbrook, he was disqualified and he wasn't the only one. Janet Isabel Murphy at 81 Crossbrook. It's absolutely clear. Her writing says 81 Crossbrook and it matches identically the town registration except the town says Brooke BRK. This is ridiculous. And this person also disqualified for signature. Ms. Maude Beeching Lowe wrote Clarice Day, her address, 29 Summer Street Amherst. She wrote in the word Amherst. What does the registration roll say? 29 Summer Street. So presumably she was disqualified because she not only said 29 Summer Street but she wrote the word Amherst as well. Here's one disqualified for signature. Mr. Gruff Owen Davies at 41 Blue Hills Road. So the address crystal clear, you can just look at the address and the signature a little harder to read, but guess what? He printed right next to the signature Clarice Day Gruff Davies. He was disqualified for signature. These are egregious and it's so disturbing that I can't help but think that this was deliberate. How could you disqualify people who wrote exactly their street address but wrote Brooke out instead of putting BRK? How could you disqualify someone because they included Amherst as well as the street? What are we teaching our children? I was having to talk with my son about how we were 22 signatures short and perhaps we could have done X or Y to try to get more. And he said, you know, mom, it doesn't make any difference because no matter what number you had submitted, they would have found you short. What are we teaching our children? What are we doing as a town? This is, I mean, that this is occurring and Amherst is absolutely shocking. Those people that I just read, this is an absolute no brainer. Anyone who looks at those signatures that I just read would say this person absolutely should have their signature counted. What is going on in our town that there seems to be an agenda at play where perfectly reasonable signatures that absolutely have a legal right to express their vote through their petition signature are disqualified. It's egregious. This is going to be a court battle that could be months or years or we could resolve it here and just do the right thing. The Board of Registers has 35 examples of signatures including the ones I just showed and more that are absolutely clearly should be counted. Look at those 35, we only need 22 and there's 92 with sworn affidavits and you know what, there will be more. 92 are the people that we actually reached and there's more that we can reach every single day. This is a crisis. It's a voting rights crisis. Please Board of Registers, this is not about who you support and who you're friends with. It's not about who gave you a particular thing to read to defend the statutes. This is about look at these particular voters who were disqualified and can you in good conscience say that you think your signature should be underneath that disqualification? We really have to look at this as an issue of conscience. Please forget about who you're close friends with. Forget about who appointed you to this position. You have to do what your conscience dictates. Look at those for 35 signatures and please someone should make a motion to void the April 21st meeting because of the open meeting law violations which will go straight to the Attorney General within 30 days and then we'll wait months for them to do an investigation or we can resolve it here and now. That town council just wants to deny every single thing as if no one in the town ever makes an error is really offensive. Town council should be telling it like it is. They should be saying, okay, those things could qualify as an open meeting law violation and here are your options. They're not doing that. They're taking the, we never admit to anything route and that is so not in the interest of our community. Thank you for listening to me. Okay, thank you, Carol. Krista rising has raised her hand one more time. Sean, do we want to try it one more time? Yes, we'll try one more time. And I'm still getting an error. The version of Zoom that Krista appears to be using is old. Okay, Sue, she did put a comment. So Anne, if you would like to read that. Oh, she did. Okay, let's see. Ultimately, the decision about the library is far less important than the ability of Amherst residents to have a voice. During the run up to the charter vote, I thought we are losing democracy in the nation. Now we are losing it in Amherst. Those who voted for the charter were told that the voter petition was proof that they had a vote. And this shows that the voters in Amherst truly do not have a voice that we are in fact, have lost our democracy in Amherst. I urge the board of registrars to redo the meeting and show that we in fact do still have a democracy in Amherst. Okay. All right. I don't see any other raised hands. And I don't see any other things in the Q&A. So I think our public comment period is done. So are we going to, Sue, are we going to discuss the comments? We're going to, yes. Now we get into the discussion period of the violations. And we can discuss the violations in addition to the comments of the violations. This is for us now to decide on, was there a violation of the open meeting law complaint? Okay. If I could, if I may. Go ahead, Dee. So first off, I believe the public, for the most part, they were extremely kind to us as a board because they assumed an error. And for the most part, they assumed that this was not something afoot, you know, that this was simply a mistake, perhaps of an inexperienced assistant clerk. And the remedy would be to, you know, null and void April 21st and redo perhaps for Thursday. And, you know, I approached this position when I was appointed in a very humble way. And I say that because I don't need something else to do in town. I got lots to do, just like I'm sure Jackie and Jamie, we have multiple fronts in which we are active. But I joined this body to represent the voters in an impartial manner and to assure transparency for the process. So I find, you know, that the clerk's office for whatever reason and the board that was present on April 21st, I find it strange for you all to be unwilling to simply void this April 21st vote and to redo it in light of so much evidence, particularly these 92 affidavits. And I say this because I'm, I really have worked with you all and I'm assuming goodwill. And I know you're just as dedicated to democracy as I am. And when I inquired about looking at signatures to town clerk Audet, after the April 21st event and after she was back in office, she said that, well, no, Board of Registers has never looked at the signatures and we'd need hours of training in which to become proficient. Now that was a phone conversation. And I only bring this up because probably that may have been what was happening in the past, but what I see as the real era here is that I questioned was Assistant Town Clerk trained appropriately in order to look at these signatures because it seems that there might have been some missteps. And so finally, I would like to make a motion that April 21st meeting be declared null and void and that we move for Thursday's agenda to include a recertification of signatures where we would look at these 92 affidavits and compare them to the voter rolls. I also submit that when I was emailed about the April 21st meeting, it was confusing. And I will read Amber Martin's email, April 15th, 2021 at 532, she writes, to clarify the agenda. And this is her second email that day. It's intended to formally provide the delegation of authority for the town clerk's office to act on behalf of the Board of Registers regarding the charter sections outlined in the agenda, not in capital, in OT, review any petitions as I previously stated. Sorry for the confusion. Well, I am truly confused and I am truly confused also about what is our purpose as a Board of Registrar, if not to assure that the votes are looked at and reviewed, right? Whether we have to get trained to look at signatures, that is our job. And to make sure that voting is transparent in this town. Thank you. Can I ask a quick question also? I know D made a motion, but I'm not sure that I'm ready for that. I had a couple of questions first D, but then if you could make the motion again after. I know that there is mention on the Friday's meeting that there were also affidavits received in town hall for people are saying that their names were on the petition that did not actually sign the petition. Is there how many of those affidavits? I feel like that's kind of something that was said, but I haven't heard more of it. It seems as though that's kind of an issue that I would like to hear about also. Jamie, are you asking if there are people who have said that they signed, but they did not want to sign? They want their names withdrawn? Well, I'm not sure if that's how I understood it or if I misunderstood it, but what I had heard was that there were affidavits in town hall for people whose names were on the petition and did not want them. So whether that meant that somebody else signed their name for them or that they've decided they didn't want to be on the petition any longer, I'm kind of curious what that number is and what that means. Yep. Where are we at, Amber? 25? Let Amber check into that somewhere around 20. Yes, I'll check into it. Yep. Somewhere around 25 people asked to be withdrawn. Some are withdrawn from the petition, so they signed themselves. It's not a matter of if, you know. No, no, somebody didn't forge their name. Yeah, so they just want to be withdrawn. They don't give reason for that. It's just a change of heart or that just doesn't relate. I think there are different kinds of reasons. OK. Yeah, yeah. There's nothing we can do with that. And that's fine. I just didn't know how that changes the numbers also. I mean, obviously looking at signatures, again, to recertify is a different thing. And I don't know where that puts the numbers if that was taken to account when the tallies were taken. No, the tallies don't include those that wanted to come off. They are on. Yeah. Yep. I'd like to point out again that the reason for the meeting on April 21st was to bring another layer of transparency to the process. We already had permission to use your signature stamps as stated, as Jackie stated earlier, when you were all signed on and appointed, started your position as a board of registrars. We asked you to sign a piece of paper to get your facsimile stamp signature, which allowed the town clerk's office to utilize it in all certification of signatures. Having this meeting was really redundant because we already had your permission to use your signature stamps. So whether we decide that maybe there's some aspect here in the violations that have validity, and we do determine that this April 21st meeting was posted incorrectly for whatever reason we decide on, it doesn't change the outcome of us having permission to use your signature stamps. I agree. I think we need to have a meeting of the board and come up with a set of rules of procedure. Yeah, Jackie's shaking her head, yes. So that we're clear going forward what rights and responsibilities and duties that the board of registrars has. But looking at the boards of registrars, again, printout from Galvin's office, what the board is, what they do, what's typically done in town clerk's offices across the state, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think we need to have a go through of this so that we are all on the same page as to who does what and why. And again, in this printout from the Secretary of State's office under the certification of names, and there is a big long list, we do not willy-nilly certify. We go through this list. Amber has been trained. She's been here two years. She's done multiple. She's done thousands of petitions and nomination papers. We have to follow the protocol. If something is not right, if something is not exactly as that person signed according to how the voter list shows them, we can't give it to them for all of these reasons. So again, today we're discussing is there a violation of the open meeting law for the April 21st meeting? That's the first thing. But the second thing I would say to you is that even if there was, it doesn't matter. We move forward with authority for the authorization to use your stamps. Those petitions have been certified. Yes, I will allow that. Yeah, mistakes get made. Something that Amber looked at, I could look at and see differently because we're all human. We see things differently. We'll determine that as we get to the next meeting about the signatures. But for today's meeting, we are only discussing violations. So inadequate notice of items. It was short and sweet and to the point, but it did say everything that I need to say in my opinion, again, delegation of authority and duties listed under those charter sections. Anybody could look up the charter online and see what those sections were. And they would know it pertains to the certification of signatures by the board of registrars for the voter veto petition. But I do have to argue, Sue, and as someone who's an educator and tries to make things very clear and concise, yes, they could have looked that up. Assuming that they had access online, so we're assuming a lot, that they had access online to do a Google search, to locate this online to find out what it meant. So that's a big assumption, all right? And it's also assuming that they would, of course. Instead of being clear and concise what the meeting was for, instead of quoting, you could have just quoted the charter with the words, instead of the numbers in the sections, et cetera, OK? In addition to how it was sent to us as the board of registrars, it seemed very contradictory. And yes, I had an important appointment, because I said, on last week, I have a medical condition and I try not to miss any of my doctor's appointments, but particularly a physical, which takes a year to schedule. And when I saw that, I'm like, OK, indeed, we've already delegated this authority, which I'm very aware of. And thank you for restating it. So I thought, well, I don't have to cancel my physical and reschedule it, because indeed, we're not going to talk about the petitions. So that was unclear and I remain confused. OK. Well, you know, anything can be improved on. I will agree to that. Well, then it means it's an open meeting law violation because it was not even communicated to the board of registrars that, indeed, that's what that meeting was about. Well, again, in the email, you just read it. You know, maybe it's open to interpretation. It's not. Jackie and Jamie. Did Jackie and Jamie have any question as to what the agenda item meant? Personally, what I did was, again, when I saw that the agenda was on the website, and I did look at what the charter's sections were. And that's how I found out what to do or what it was about. Because I wasn't really clear either. I'll be honest with you as far as what it was. But after I read it, and there's a lot of things that it does cover, but on the flip side, people have been doing this stuff for years in the clerks office. So it was almost, you know, I don't know. Yeah. All right. Jamie, when you read the agenda item, were you confused as to what was supposed to happen? I had no confusion. I definitely went on to this. I had to go on to the charter and look up what the sections were to check what they were on. And I feel that it was not complicated. I understand that people would not access to that. But once you read through it, it made perfect sense. So I was under no, I had no confusion about it. OK. The other thing that I was confused about is like previously they had talked about like petitions. And then that in those sections of the charter encompass a lot, a lot of things. And it would have been almost impossible to sit down and flesh out each of those things and have them in one meeting. You could take years to go through all that stuff. OK. Well, you know, when you look at anything in life, you could always improve on things, you know? Always, there's always room for improvement. OK. So the second section of violation that was mentioned is impermissible deliberation slash communication among the Board of Registrar's members prior to the April 21st meeting. What I have here is just two emails to you. It was stated before, one which had the incorrect information and the second was a clarification email, which was sent an hour and a half later, trying to just, you know, get the times of when you're available, that sort of thing. Now, attorney, where are you here? Are you here? Attorney Corbaugh is still in here in the room. I'm looking at a frequently asked questions about the open meeting law for public bodies, specifically about quorums and deliberations. And there is something in here about sharing the agenda through an email. Basically says, may a public body member communicate with other public body members over email? It says yes, but only in limited circumstances. A member of a public body may email other public body members on matters within jurisdiction of a public body so long as the email does not reach a, let's say, quorum of the public body. But communications between and among a quorum of a public body on matters within the jurisdiction of a public body must occur during the public. OK, a public body member may lawfully email a quorum of the public body only to discuss scheduling a meeting, distribute a meeting agenda, or to distribute reports or documents to be discussed at a meeting provided that no opinion of a member of the public body is expressed. So in my mind, sending an email to find out what's a good time and date and saying that this is what we're going to be talking about is not a violation of open meeting law. No, because that was what I was confused too, because I know I hadn't talked to anybody either before, after, or during to deliberate or discuss anything that needed to, for example, like the petitions. Were they going to be there? And what kinds of questions people haven't got to it? And that's what I considered more as deliberations is how we were going to handle that. Exactly. So can I ask this, Jamie and Jackie, what were you? What was your understanding of what you were voting on on the 21st? Speaking for myself, as far as like whether or not, as far as like the procedures that are already in place that are covered under those provisions of the law. And yes, as far as like, and I did see the stuff about the signatures, but again, as far as those things have been done for years, and nobody brought up any questions as far as like, for example, like when you get the petitions maybe sent out, I don't know who sends out the petitions, but whether or not there's like a packet of information in regards to how the signatures should be on the positions and when people are gathering the petition information, at least they'll know they'll be on the lookout when people are signing it or what to tell them how to do it properly. Because in my opinion, that was like the mistakes as far as like the people not knowing how to get the information on the phone. To me, that was the biggest, if you want to call it, mistake. And to me, the way to clarify that would be to give some sort of training or a packet of information with the copy of the signature and maybe have like some do's and don'ts on how to do it. That would be my suggestion on that. We did, in fact, Vince O'Connor was the first person to take out petition forms, blank petition forms. I gave them to him and I specifically told him people have a right to, people are able to sign their name or print it after they've signed it for clarification. And I told them copies that are made to be distributed for people to canvas to collect signatures have to be exact. In fact, we got a couple back that only the front was copied, not the back, where the Board of Registrar certifies. So we had to disqualify those two. They were perfectly good signatures. But because they didn't make an exact copy for us to put our Board of Registrar stamp on the back, they're no good. There were things like this. And to me, that's the, and that was like the downfall as far as I was concerned. I have not seen any of these and I haven't again talked to anybody about it. But I figured that that was, I've been around a long enough to know, as far as like when people fill out forms, they just don't do them properly. But you didn't see the signature, but you didn't see the signatures, Jackie. But again, that's, I just said it, I didn't see it in the completed form. So I don't know, but I know that past experiences as far as when you, when sometimes things seem like that they're so easy, you can't mess it up and they mess it up. So Jamie, if I could ask, what did you understand that you were voting on on the 21st? I understood it as basically turning the clerical duties over of my microphone of the Board of Registrars over to the town clerk's office because they were better suited to handle it than we would be with no experience. Did anybody wonder why you've never been asked to do that before in the past ever? I had not wondered back now. No? No, I never really wondered because my thing too was like since the transitioning from into, you know, the new system, they may have been some changes. Oh, okay. That's interesting. No, Sue, I wondered, and that's why I asked you, are we going to see the signatures? And again, I had read the, you know, what it takes to certify the signatures, what to look for and preparation for that as a Board of Registrar. And I think this is something we definitely need to consider because it sounds like there needs to be some type of failsafe on some level where there's someone other than the assistant town clerk looking at these signatures and certifying them. Yeah. You know, maybe there could be like some spot checking quality control. So that was number two, are we going to look at number three, is that what failure to conduct require deliberations in public or is that what we were touching upon? No, that was the next one. So, under town charter section 8.4 within 10 days following the filing of the voter veto petition, the Board of Registrar shall ascertain the number of voters that signed the petition. Nothing in the charter says the Board of Registrars can delegate that due to the town clerk. So we've already determined that yes, there is not in the charter, but in state law. The deliberation in the certification process should have happened in the public meeting as the open meeting law requires the deliberation. Yes, I didn't see on the recording any deliberation having to do with that. And of course I wasn't there, but was there any deliberation and it just wasn't recorded because it was not on the two minute video? So I'm just continuing to read here. So basically that that's going back up to the second question. It's kind of loving them together. It's talking about how a decision was made and the fact that there wasn't any talk about it. Is that what we're talking about? Deliberation, yes. So I think it was one question that was being asked of the Board of Registrars and do you get permission for the town clerk's office to certify signatures? I don't think there was, three minutes is plenty of time to answer one question when it's pretty much a no-brainer because the sound clerk already had permission to certify signatures. That's my impression, but I'd love to hear from the other ladies. Why did it only take three? I wasn't there. So why did it only take three minutes? Well, to me, this question was straightforward. And I, like I said, I already looked at the stuff and no one called in and asked asking any questions. So it really wasn't anything to say. Because no one had really any issues. Did Amherst explain to you what it meant to delegate authority to Horace, the assistant town clerk? Well, just being around from the government, I kind of understood what it was. I've worked for the government over 30 years. Jamie, what's that you're saying? It was clear to me it's delegating authority to them. It was kind of just clear as to what it meant at that time based on what the charter 8.2, 8.381 Horace stated. So it's pretty clear. And as far as the length of the call, I mean, I called in a couple of minutes late. It was asked the question that was voted on and that was that there was no other discussion. It was just a very brief cut and dry situation. So, you know, I'm really, number one, we come back to it, the inadequate notice to a fellow board of registrar, but also to the public. And as you said, Sue, mistakes have been made. There are ways in which to do things better. I feel very strongly as a board of registrar to assure not only the validity of this process, but to create public trust. That it's imperative that we declare April 21st meeting. A null and void, and we redo this on Thursday with the 92 affidavits and simply compare the signatures. Because if we're talking about what's best for the public and the public trust in Amherst and they have trust in us as a board of registrar, we simply need to redo it. And if that turns out to be the same, if we follow the same letter of the law that the town clerk's office had, and it turns out to be the same because this end, or will there be something else? I mean, I kind of keep getting the sense that this is gonna keep getting caught regardless. And that's all for the transparency. And I'm all for making sure that people get heard and if something was a mistake or we need to fix it. But at the same time, will the group of people presenting all this stuff be happy if it's still the same outcome and then stop? I think the public will have trust that we did our due diligence, Jamie. That's how I feel. You know, you have 92 affidavits of folks, you know, saying that it indeed is their signature. So I feel that there is public will for us to revisit this issue in a fair and transparent manner. Even though we're not trained to like the town officials are to perform that. I mean, I could look at a signature that was qualified and say, well, that looks awesome. Will that be accepted or will I be personally attacked? Because I all of a sudden took another name off of the petition that was there originally. I just, I worry that it opens us up personally to having issues because we don't have the training. And I don't know that in the timeframe that this needs to be addressed that we could get adequate training. That's the only thing I worry about the town officials that we passed that duty over through. We trusted that they had the ability to do that because they had the proper training and we did not. And that's why I felt very comfortable turning over my responsibility as a board of directors to the town officials because they were better suited to handle it. And I just worry that with is hot of a topic that this is that there, you know, we could come back to say, you know, well, they shouldn't have, they didn't know what they were doing. They didn't know what they were talking about. And then again, I'm all for the, it's gotta be right. Like I want it to be right. And I'm just so on the fence about, you know, how do you handle that right? Like I don't feel that there was an open meeting law violation, but I do want to hear and see, you know, and make sure things are taken seriously and dealt with properly. I just worry that with as many chapters and sections and are being thrown out all over the place that it'll end there. Sorry, the dog said it'll end and that there won't just be something else that comes next and maybe that's just part of how it needs to be handled, but it's a concern of mine at that point. Yeah, I appreciate that, Jamie, because, you know, this isn't personal. This is what we've taken on as a board of registrar. So it's not personal to me. I too, like you want to see it made right, you know, as best as we can make this right for the voters, whether it's the petitioners or folks in the community who again have their trust in us, you know, doing review and being transparent about the voting process. That is extremely important when we talk about democracy in this town, right? So I'd rather err on the side of being vilified in Amherst, you know, for whatever reason. I think it will be the opposite. I really do have faith in folks, no matter where it lands, that if we're transparent, we're doing our due diligence that ultimately folks will have their faith restored in the board of registrars in the town clerk's office. Plus, we have Sue, who is a veteran at this. I'm sure who will be in the house at that point, you know, probably literally looking over our shoulders. And if we have any questions, Sue maybe could speak to the process if we would participate in this because it is ultimately up to us. If we are putting the power into the town clerk's, hands, it's ultimately up to us whether we want to participate in this review process. Section 23 enforcement of open meeting law complaints hearings and civil actions. When you talk about how long this will take be, it says at least 30 days prior to the filing of a complaint with the attorney general, the complainant, shell file a written complaint with the public body. So that has occurred. And all we need to do in order to rectify and resolve this is simply say April 21st, null and void, let's redo this and we could take it up, even put it on the agenda for Thursday. And we don't have to go through one moment. We don't have to go through over 1,000 signatures. It's just the ones that have gone through this affidavit process. So how do you account for the fact that the secretary of state's office says in the law, there is no review process for non certified signatures on municipal nomination papers or ballot question petitions. We don't have the right under law to do this. No, it's up to us. They're waiting for us to resolve this. We have the power to simply say, no, we have the power as the board of registrars to decide to say April 21st deserves a relook, a redo. Let's have that happen for the sake of the voters and the public in Amherst. Again, April 21st was redundant. It didn't need to happen. If you're backing up, backing up, backing up, that meeting was only done for an extra layer of transparency, but it wasn't mandatory to give permission. No, but it had to be posted correctly. And we as the board of registrars had to be informed correctly. I do not feel that the town clerk's office under Amber Martin, the assistant town clerk did that properly. So yes, we can vote today that there was a violation. However, it doesn't automatically preclude that now we can take a review of non certified signatures because there is no review process. This is what I'm trying to say. If we could ask Attorney Corbeau to speak on that, are you still here, Attorney Corbeau? Yes, thank you. Hold up. Thank you, Attorney Corbeau. After you speak, then I would like one of the attorneys that are still present on this line to also offer some advice, not with you, Attorney Corbeau, but all due respect. Yes, thank you through you, Madam Chair. I will defer to your judgment as to whether you wish to recognize anyone else now that public comment has been completed. However, it is in your discretion to allow any of these other interested parties to speak again, although they've very clearly made their position known. And what is apparent to me at this point is that there are two issues being conflated into one. One is whether or not there was a violation of the open meeting law with respect to the April 21st meeting. And if so, what is the remedy for that? And in my opinion, the remedy for that is not authorizing the registrars to de facto extend the deadline for certification of signatures and rewrite the charter to allow that to happen. Rather, if you decide to nullify your April 21st vote, that means that it never happened and you go back to the status quo that was in existence prior to the date of that vote, which as you've pointed out several times was that the town clerk's office is unequivocally authorized to certify signatures on behalf of the board. So if you were to vote to nullify your April 21st decision, the certification decision stands and there is no authorization at this point for this body to rewrite the charter and extend the time for certification of signatures. The charter is very clear. There was 10 days for the certification to occur and that time has passed. The law is equally clear, as are the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, that there is no authority in this board to certify signatures that were not certified in the first instance. Therefore, it is my opinion that if you were to decide to nullify your prior vote, that vote would not result in the signatures coming back before you for recertification. That vote would simply restore the status quo and the original decision would stand. Furthermore, even if the signatures were to come in front of you for certification, there would be absolutely no authority for you to decide we are only going to look at 92 signatures. There is simply no authorization in the law for you to pick and choose which signatures you want to certify and which ones you don't. If you were to do this, then the entire process would be opened again. However, only a court can do that. There is no authority in this body to rewrite the charter and to make your own rules and to decide that you want to follow a different process than the one that has been followed for many years. If going forward in the future, you want to convene a meeting and reconsider how your procedures are run in advance of whenever the next question comes up and that's certainly something that you can do. But once the time has expired, there is simply no authority for you to go back in time and redo that decision. Only a court can do that at this point. And while that may not be the most prudent course, that's the course that the law has given us. And that is the only option that is available to you as you sit here today. I'll do respect, Attorney Corbeau. I do not believe that. We are able as the board of registrar, when no one is trying to rewrite the charter, this body, Jamie, Jackie and myself can vote and say that April 21st deserves for the sake of transparency, a redo. And we can go back into it and recertify. No one's rewriting the charter. What we're saying is that the open meeting law complaint has merit. That is what we're saying. And that is what we have been arguing, okay? And Amber Martin is very new two years had Sue Audette. I would have trusted, and again, it's not personal against Amber. This has to do with experience. If, as Sue Audette said to me, it takes years and years in order to understand how to look at these signatures. Well, I submit to you that Amber Martin has not had those years and years of training to review those signatures. And that's why we as the board also need to participate in reviewing them and get trained. Because it sounds like there is a problem, not only what happened April 21st, but the whole process in general. So if John Boniface is back, can we have him respond to you, Attorney Corbeau? Is that okay, Sue? Madam Chair, I'd like to finish my statement before you open this up to anyone else, because I strongly disagree with what's being said here. First of all, Ms. Shabazz, you're using the term we, but when in fact you were the only member here that is advocating for reopening this process. I'm sorry, you don't know, we haven't voted yet. We haven't voted yet. You were speaking for the board of registrars. You don't know what's in their mind, and I don't know what's in their mind. So it's a we body. It's we, it's the board of registrars, not Attorney Corbeau. Unless again, you have a conflict of interest as the attorney here. Well, again, I have no conflict of interest and I resent you saying so, particularly as you are a person who signed the petition and clearly has a position in this matter. However, I have not heard any of the other members state that they are in favor of reopening this process. And as I have said before, I will say again, there is simply no authorization in the law for you to rewrite the charter after the fact. The charter is very clear that you have 10 days to certify the signatures. And prior to April 21st, your procedures, which you yourself signed an authorization to use that procedure has been that the town clerk's office signs the certifies the signatures. And if- So state law, section 23. If Madam Chair, may I finish please without being interrupted? May, please, D, let him finish. If the April 21st vote is undone, all that does is restore the status quo to a point where that vote never occurred. And if that vote never occurred, your prior position stands, which is that the town clerk's office is authorized to certify the signatures. Again, there is no authority in this board to go back in time and rewrite the rules. And there is no authority in this board to extend the time given under the charter. If you wish to have that extension of time, the remedy is to go to court. It is not for this board to unilaterally decide what the rules are going to be and what the charter should have said. The voters of the town have decided what the charter should say. They have imposed time constraints and those constraints must be honored by this board. And it is my opinion that any vote at this point to order a recertification of those signatures or the counting of only some signatures that favor a particular position would be completely beyond the authority of this board and would be no in void from the moment that it is taken. And I would advise the town that the certification remains the certification of the town clerk's office and of this board. So thank you for your advice, attorney Carbo. Are we able to have John Boniface provide another point of view? I would say no, we've already heard from him and we've heard from Ms. Gray. Not in relation to what attorney Carbo is saying about my insistence on rewriting the charter and that's the issue. That is not the issue. And John Boniface I think would have a different legal counsel, again, more independent to offer. Weird about transparency. Let's make this a motion because I'm saying, well, it's up to me, I'm the chair. I really don't feel any more input at this point is warranted. The law is the law. We're reading the law. We have to be working within the confines of the law. And again, I'd like to make a motion to have attorney John Boniface offer a different point of view in terms of counsel, legal counsel. Is there a second? I don't hear a second. I'm going to second it only because I'm sorry. I just want to hear, I guess I want to hear another perspective also just, I would second it. Okay, then attorney Boniface, you will have five minutes to speak. It's 430 and 435, we will wrap it up. Madam chair, through you, since it has been represented that attorney Boniface has no interest in this matter, I would ask that he state whether or not he has signed the petition before he begins his speech. Thank you. Attorney Boniface. Thank you. Have you signed this petition? I did not sign the petition. Okay, thank you. Not only did I not sign the petition, I was not engaged in any way whatsoever in this debate on the library. I only learned about this debate after learning about the massive disenfranchisement of the petitioner's rights. My role as an attorney in this field is as a voting rights expert. I've been involved for more than 25 years in voting rights law. When I hear about a voting rights violation, I get involved and that's why I'm involved. I'm not involved with the petitioners in their petition effort. That's not what this is about. This is about basic democracy, basic fairness and basic voting rights. Now, attorney Corbeau wants to talk about rewriting certain laws. If anyone is advocating rewriting laws here, it's attorney Corbeau. He wants to rewrite the open meeting law because the open meeting law makes very clear in section 23 that the board of registrars has the power to remedy the alleged violation. And specifically when it comes to the discussion of what the attorney general can do, which clearly is also what the board of registrars can do, that includes declaring the actions null and void. So it would make no sense to have this language in the open meeting law available to the board and its power to remedy this violation and then to say, well, that's gonna be rewriting laws. No, it's about using the power of the open meeting law to actually engage in revening the violation. That is one of the remedies. Now, to the second point, well, this meeting didn't really need to happen. The authority was already there. Look, the board does not engage in symbolic meetings and it doesn't engage in symbolic votes. What happened on April 21st was a reported, although I still believe there was a quorum problem, it was a reported meeting of the board of registrars. There would be no reason to call that meeting unless there was a need to conduct official business. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say everything that happened at that meeting was above board and comply with the open meeting law and then say, but we really didn't need to have the meeting and the meeting was useless and the authority was already there. It doesn't work that way. Any reasonable person looking at this would understand that the meeting was an official business meeting assuming there was a quorum, but it was not properly noticed. It violated open meeting law. And as a result, a violation, serious violations have occurred and the matter needs to be remedied. In a conversation I had with the open government division, division of open government and attorney general's office today, I learned that they can take up to 90 days to review a complaint if the board, in this case, the public by the board does not remedy the violation. The complainant has the ability to then forward it on to the attorney general's office. I hear a lot in this town about people saying we need to get to the bottom of understanding this quickly because we need to move on with a library project and I understand board members Wagner's position that is this gonna be the end of it. I can tell you from my perspective, as a voting rights attorney, it will be the end of it when the board conducts a transparent process here, when it declares it null and void and then does what should have happened in the first place, a review of the signatures. And this is not about, I mean, look, attorney Corbett wants to say you can't look at 92, fine. Look at all 1088, do the job that you're required to do but do not claim, please do not claim that there is not the power in this body to declare what happened on April 21st is null and void and do not further claim that after declaring it null and void, that somehow you're back to not being able to look at the signatures. You would look at it as if the signatures had not yet been reviewed because what happened on April 21st was null and void. Thank you. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion, Sue. Okay, are you sure? So my, hello? Yep, here you are. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to declare the April 21st meeting null and void and for us to put on the agenda for Thursday's meeting, the certification of the signatures. Do we have a second? I'm not hearing a second. Hold on, Sue. Sue, are you there? There we go. Sorry, there we go. I need my help. I don't know what procedure is for Wendy makes the motion but with your motion for the meeting on Thursday and the certification of the signatures, are you saying that we should sit down and look at all the signatures at that meeting or is it gonna be another discussion as to whether or not we should? No, I think we should look at the 92 signatures that have an affidavit certifying that these signatures are actually their signatures matched to the voter role. So we would compare it to the voter roles. I'd like to point out that you have to come into the office to do that. And I believe we could do that with mask and we could be now that Town Hall is pretty much shut down. If necessary, we could be six feet apart. I think there are ways in which we could manage that. Okay, I just wanted to point out it's a secure two-part process login to people who have credentials and that's where the information is stored. So you have to have your eyes on that screen. I've been vaccinated. So. Okay. Well, again, just look at my schedule. I think personally, I would like to read section 23 of the open meeting law before I make a determination of anything. We haven't had a chance to look at that. Everybody has their open meeting. I have. I have. Okay, you're all set then. Jackie and Jamie, would you like a few minutes to go through it? Do you have your open meeting law guide that I sent you? It's on page 32. You want to put it on the screen? I've got a hard copy in my hand right now. Let me see. Yeah, because I interrupted D before when she had made her motion, does she need to, while we do this, can we like table the motion or does she need to withdraw and then read? I can read it. I think we could, if there's discussion, I can always restate it. Appreciate that. It is now 4.38, just so you know, just time wise. Does anyone need for me to put that up on the screen? I think if there's public, I mean, I don't know, maybe it's just better to have it up on the screen if there's other people that might not have access to it. Okay. I'm going to attempt. Sean, is it under the view? No. Right down the bottom middle, you should say share screen, it looks. Yes. It's either yellow or green. Green. Who can share me? Here we go. It's on my desktop. If it's easier to email it to me, it'll take me a minute, but I can get it up there as well. Okay. Actually, I think I found it. So what page are we looking for? Oh, page 32. 32. If you haven't found it, I've just found it and I'm sending it to you. Got it right here. Well, it's section 23. Section 23. And specifically we're looking at part B at least 30 days prior. Zoom in to something reasonable. Does that look? We're not seeing anything. I'll now. That's fair. Yep, that's good. Is everybody finished reading? Let me know when everybody's all set. I'm all set. Okay. So, I'd like to restate my motion. Are you, have you finished reading it, Jackie? I don't want to. Yes, I'm done. Should we have some discussion on this too? I think we should before you. I was just going to say, we should talk about it before you restate emotion so that we can all be in consensus as to what this is saying. So any remedial action taken by the public body in response to a complaint under this subsection shall not be admissible as evidence against the public body that a violation occurred. Yada, yada, yada. But okay. So giving the body an opportunity to remedy the alleged violation, okay? So this whole thing speaks to the fact that a complaint's been made. We as a body have a right to remedy the violation. If we say that the April 21st meeting was incorrectly posted for whatever part of this violation that's been specified. Again, I still, I'm afraid I'm still on the same page as Attorney Corbeau that all it does is make the April 21st meeting null and void. But again, it reverts back to the fact that we still have permission to certify signatures. So I don't see how even under the open meeting law taken in conjunction with, I don't know, do you ladies see where I'm going with this? I mean, do you understand what I'm trying to say? Yeah, but we can vote to not have you as the only person certifying the signatures. We can vote differently for Thursday. I mean, why are we holding, you know, it just means why even hold a meeting? All it is is that if we follow your logic Sue each and every time, we're basically a literal, as you said, a rubber stamp. There's no need for the three of us to even have our names attached to the Board of Registrar. So each time we have to empower you with this. I, you know, I just, you keep going back to that logic, but in this case, we should be transparent and open for the public. And so again, I'd like to make a motion about April 21st, even if it means we have to review the signatures. See, I don't follow from negating the April 21st meeting how that automatically assumes that we can review signatures. That's where I'm not following you because we have permission to certify already. We've certified. We had your permission to certify already. And I believe, I think we've already mentioned this meeting was this April 21st meeting was set up because I was out of the office and it was an extra layer of transparency in light of the fact that Amber was not aware of the authorization that had already been given. So in order to be transparent that we did have extra permission, the meeting was set up. I know I heard this here, when we Boniface saying the meeting wasn't set up for nothing, it was. It was set up because Assistant Town Clerk Amber Martin wasn't actually even working in the office when the authority was granted to begin with. Yeah, so then I think that's part of the problem though, there Sue, it's the meeting was held to delegate authority. And if it's an official meeting to delegate authority, right, then there was a problem in how it was posted and how the language was unclear and then how it was even unclear when it was sent to me in terms of what was going to be discussed at that meeting. So we go back to the open meeting law complaint that it has validity. That's what we need to vote on, does it have validity? Which means that April 21st is null and void. Correct, and again, if that was null and void, it doesn't mean we didn't have authority though, it just means that that extra layer of authority never happened. And I think we can get through that, but we need to first get through saying, taking a vote on April 21st being null and void and that we have to revisit the signatures. Yeah, and I don't think we should call it null and void. I should say if the vote should be a motion on whether there were alleged violations as specified in Ms. Gray's complaint, because those are the violations that we're voting on. So again, then it has merit, the open meeting law complaint has merit. I'm not saying it has merit. I'm saying we're voting on whether we agree with the violations. Madam chair, tonight. That's not, but that's not my motion. And so I'm gonna restate my motion. Thank you, because I forgot. That's not my motion. That's not my motion too. Let me allow attorney Corvall to speak for a second. Yes, thank you. So the issue before you is, you have an open meeting law complaint. Your responsibility at this point is to acknowledge receipt of that complaint and decide whether you are going to take remedial action or whether you wish to make a formal response in opposition to the complaint. In this matter, it is my opinion that there is no violation of the open meeting law here. And I suggest that you do not acknowledge any violation of the open meeting law. However, if you find that remedial action is appropriate, you can do that. And as the law says, the fact that you take remedial action is not an admission of a violation of the law. So I suggest that you do not make any such admissions. However, I continue to go back to the fact that although you have the authority to take remedial action with respect to that meeting, the scope of your authority is still limited to what is set forth in the statute. And in this case, the charter. And I would point out one of the speakers earlier referenced the decision of the appeals court from earlier today, John Doe versus sex offender registry where the court stated that it has long been established that an administrative agency has the authority to reopen an adjudicative proceeding in the absence of an expressed or perceived statutory limitations. Here, there is an express statutory limitation that prevents you from certifying signatures more than 10 days after the deadline for submission. That is a deadline that cannot under any circumstance be extended by this board, whether it is in response to an open meeting law complaint or for any other reason. It is only a court or the voters of the town through a charter amendment that that deadline can be extended. And so I agree with the clerk that a decision to declare the April 21st vote no and void results in nothing but a return to the status quo which was the authority of the town clerk's office to certify the signatures. If there is an issue with that, if you believe that that procedure no longer furthers the best interests of the voters of the town, then your remedy for that is to vote a different procedure going forward but there is simply no authorization to go back and undo something after the time has passed. Had this been brought to light during your 10 day certification process, then perhaps a different result could have been reached but once the 10 day process expires, there is just simply no authority for this board to go back in time. Thank you. So my understanding, Terny Carbo, is that the deadline is extended by under the open meeting law to declare the actions no and void anyway. So I'm gonna go with Sue about, we don't have to admit that there was a violation but within the motion that I'm still trying to make, I move that the board declare its actions on April 21st no and void and that it convene its meeting on May 13th, I guess it's the Thursday to review the signatures. Otherwise there's no point in us having any power as the board of registrars. Is that your motion? Do you wanna make that your official motion at this point? Sure. So do I need to restate it? Yes, state it because you go ahead. So I move that the board declare its actions on April 21st no and void and that it convene its meeting on May 13th to review the signatures. Okay, motion has been made. Do I hear a second? I'll second the motion. Okay, we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? No discussion. Do we wanna come to an immediate vote? Well, actually let me ask this though. If the meeting is voted, like it was okay, can we still have like a review process? What do you mean by review of what? The review of the signatures. That's the same kind of question that I had too. I think what Jackie is kind of saying is not saying, there's no violations from the open media laws or another way to be able to go back and review the signatures without saying that there was anything. And to what purpose though to put to reinstate to say, okay, that one should have gotten certified. That was a mistake. So we wanna put that on. Oh, I see, yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm kind of confused. Yeah, and again, it comes back to state law saying that there's no review process for non-certified signatures. Okay. So, this is why I have the town attorney here because it comes down to law. Because see that was, I couldn't find anything in regards to the review process. Seems like once it was certified, with my interpretation, once it was certified, that was it. And if it needed remediation on it, then it has to go through the court system. That's my interpretation as well. Okay, okay, okay, okay. Yes, but with that, that's only a part of it. That's one aspect of it. And if we did that as the board of registrars, that could be three months further down the line, money to KP law, because they would defend the town. And this, we can resolve it right here. We can resolve it today and simply go with the motion and review on May 13th. Again, review to what degree? Review for what end? So, we're reviewing the signatures because we're declaring the April 21st certification, null and void. And you're reviewing the signatures, you're outside of the 10 days of the charter, we're outside of the process. No, there's an extension of the process if we declare this null and void. It doesn't say that. How Mr. Corbaugh is interpreting that. It's section 23, enforcement of the open meeting law. Right, I'm talking about the town charter. That, so it's Trump's state law? Madam chair, through you. Yes, the town charter stands on equal footing as of state law. And there is simply nothing in the open meeting law that says that either this board or the attorney general can override the time standards of the town charter. Only a court or the legislative body of the town can do that. And although the, again, the statute says that the decision can be nullified, that is a very different statement than saying that the decision can be nullified and statutory deadlines can be extended. There is simply no authority to do that. And so again, the powers of this board are limited. They were limited then. There was no authority of the board then to extend the deadline. There is no authority of the board now to extend the deadline. So then what's the use of having the power as the board of registrars to nullify if you're saying that we're caught in this loop and we aren't able to nullify? We're granted powers to nullify. Madam chair, through you. The power to nullify applies in circumstances in which there is still authority to take action. Once rights vest, there is no authority to undo those rights. And this action is just simply untimely. If this action had been brought on April 22nd, then on April 22nd, you would have had the authority to nullify that vote and order a different procedure. But because the 10 days has passed, that opportunity is no longer on the table. And the only option here is to nullify that vote and restore the status quo, which is to allow the town clerk's office to do the certification. And if you are not happy with that procedure, then going forward, in advance of having something in front of you, you can establish a new procedure that will apply in future elections. Well, you just said it, attorney Carball, to our choices to nullify the vote. And that is indeed what my motion states, to nullify the April 21st vote and to review the signatures for May 13th. So that is indeed what we have the power to do. And this is a serious issue, the public trust and open meeting law violation. This is not something that should be looked upon as some little technical mistake that, well, you signed your rights away as the board of registrars, even in terms of an open meeting law violation. That is not what we did. And I don't think my peers here feel that they've signed away all of their rights to object and not have an open and transparent review. Well, through you, Madam Chair, the deadlines in the charter were deliberately established and voted by the voters of the town. You cannot at will simply decide that you are not going to follow those procedures. And I do not agree with you that it is within the jurisdiction of this body to re-certify the signatures. That's not what I said. What I said was that you can nullify the vote if that's what you wanna do, but that does not result in jurisdiction to re-certify the signatures. Your motion has two parts. Part one is to declare the April 21st vote null and void and a separate second part and convene a meeting on May 13th to review the signatures. And in my opinion, that second part is beyond the authority of this board. And what you have to realize is that while you may have a vocal minority on this call, if you take an action that is contrary to law, while it may satisfy the people who are here today, there are people in town who are in favor of the library project and they will exercise their rights to initiate litigation as well. And so, if you think that you're taking an action to that is conclusively going to avoid litigation, that is not likely the case. And so my recommendation is that you take the only action that is authorized by law and an action that results in any re-certification of those signatures is simply outside your authority. So Attorney Carbaugh, I don't appreciate your scare tactics but the charter does not allow the town to violate the open meeting law. I mean, that's not my understanding of the charter. And this is not a re-certification. This is an actual certification, a redo in the first instance. If we declare this null and void, this is then on May 13th an actual certification. So to understand what's really going on here. And again, I'd rather err on the side of public trust and restoring that public trust on all sides, whether you're for the Jones library building or not. And it's not even an issue as you characterize it as folks being for it or against it. People, I believe, signed it. I for one signed it to have it go to a vote. You know, I'm an educator. I'm for libraries. I'm for the public having access to technology and education. But I'm also for the democratic process. And that is what I feel has failed here. So do I need to rephrase? I'm sorry. So my concern is sitting here. I mean, there's just a lot that's thrown at us. And I feel like I keep getting things from both. And I guess that's where the neutral party with advice comes in. But I'm like, how do I, I hear two very different situations as far as what we can do. I don't want to nullify one meeting and then say for what? Because we don't have the ability to recertify the signatures. How do I, how do we know what we are allowed to do by law? Like, I just feel like I keep getting stuff thrown from one very, you know, one side this way, one side this way. I just need to understand how I can figure out myself with an unbiased kind of neutral party. What is actually? Again, constitutional lawyer who has not signed the petition, John Boniface, he can maybe answer your question, Jay. I can as well. The Board of Registrar's tasks is defined in mass general law. Okay. Chapter 51. You can go to amass.gov or you can actually go to the, you'll find it go under state law. Chapter 51, sections 15, 16A and 17 defines who the Board of Registrar's are and what their tasks and responsibilities and rights are under law. That's what defines the Board. Okay. And also too, we have a booklet and if you sit tight for one second, that was the town of Amherst. The town of Amherst gave us a bulletin is for the committees of... Oh, the appointed handbook, appointed committee handbook. Yeah, that's part of it. That's why you're looking for that, Jackie. I'd like to make a motion for John Boniface to answer Jamie's questions. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. I'll second it because I'm serious. Okay. Okay. She wants to go for it out. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Boniface. Is there any Boniface? Oh, I think Sean needs to let him in, but let me see. I love that. Yep. Yep. Okay. There I am. Okay. Hi everyone. So to Board Member Wagner's question, I think that the issue here really is that there would be no purpose in the open meeting law, establishing that the Board has the power to nullify its actions on April 21st. If somehow the town charter prevented that, the town charter does not override open meeting law, the town charter does not contemplate that town committees have the ability to violate open meeting law. And so in this particular instance where open meeting law has been seriously violated, the power to remedy that is in the Board's hands in the first instance. Rather than waiting 90 days for the Attorney General's office to take that action, the Board can take that action today. If it declares the actions null and void, by definition that means that there was no delegation of authority on April 21st. And the very fact that the town clerk's office sought that delegation would mean that in the first instance, there was no certification that took place. This is not, as Board Member Shabazz has said, a recertification. It is a certification in the first instance as if that delegation authority had not occurred because those actions were null and void because the notice was not properly given to the Board and to the public and it was a violation of open meeting law to Attorney Corbeau's claim that there's no basis to extend the deadline that effectively means that open meeting law in this particular matter has no relevance, has no application, that it's fine for a town committee to violate open meeting law. There's no remedy available. That cannot be the case. Attorney Corbeau wants to say that some in the town will take the town to court on this matter. Let them argue. Let them argue before a court of law that it's okay for the town, for the Board of Registars to violate open meeting law. Let them argue in court that it's okay to disenfranchise many voters in the town. Let them argue that. That's a far better position for the town to be in than to have to be in a situation where you have this massive public mistrust. Anyone listening to this hearing or listening to the recording of it will hear the testimony of people in the open comment, public comment section about what happened to their signatures. Everyone reading about this will hear about that. And there'll be a massive public distrust of the process and the effort to just sweep it all under the rug and claim we're not even gonna deal with a serious violation of open meeting law. We're not gonna deal with reviewing the signatures in the first instance that the Board itself never reviewed will be viewed in the public as a serious violation of basic democratic principles and basic due process. So I think we ought to be on the side and the Board ought to be on the side of protecting the right to vote, protecting the integrity of our elections and protecting the voter veto petition process built in to the town charter. Okay. Did that help Jamie? Yes, thank you. I still feel we need to decide where we, if we think there is a violation, which one do we think was violated? We talked about all three, but I haven't heard Jackie youth. You don't see there's a violation. I do not. And oh, just by the way, this is, I don't know if y'all can see this, but this is the book that I was talking about. The appointed committee handbook in the town of Amherst. Yeah, that's what I'm given by the town manager's office. Yeah, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the Board of Registrar's, how it comes to be through state statute, state. And then also, like you were saying, the chapter 51, 15, 16, and so on. Oh, you've got it. That's exactly what I'm referring to. Okay. That Jackie, Jamie, that's what defines the Board of Registrar's. Yeah, I don't, Sue, I don't see where we have to admit there's been a violation. I mean, the first part of the complaint, I think is the actual, if we're going to go there, is the violation in terms of it was not properly noticed. It, the language that was used did not make it clear that this is what was going to be on the agenda. I certainly didn't get a clear message through my email about what was going to be discussed. So I think the first part is the violation, but it doesn't have to be a violation for us to have power in order to resolve this and seek a remedy by, again, agreeing and voting on the motion, which is saying April 21st is null and void and May 13th, we would certify the signatures. Madam Chair, if I could just to make a suggestion that might try to bring this to a conclusion, I suggest that you divide this question and vote on the first part first, whether the April 21st meeting should be declared null and void, then if there is a positive vote on that question, we can go on and talk about the second motion, but we are, I think, going around in circles a bit here, and it might be beneficial to just bring this to a vote. Yeah, that's not my motion though, Attorney Carball. I actually thought that was a great idea because we are well past our time. I think we should try to come to a conclusion. We are here today to determine whether we had a violation of the open meeting law, that is it, that is it. Was there a violation of the open meeting law in the posting that was put up for the three reasons that were declared in the alleged violation description? So, are we gonna vote on my motion though? So yes, I mean, back to that. So if you wanna make your motion as you'd like to make it go ahead, let's do that. Okay, because it was seconded by Jamie, so I'd like for us to actually vote on it. So I need to restake the motion. Please, one more time. Okay, so my motion is to declare April 21st meeting of the Board of Registrar's null and void and that it convene its meeting on May 13th to review the signatures. Okay, do I hear a second? No, second that. Okay, all right. Can we put it to an immediate vote? Yes. Yes. Okay, all right, then D, how do you vote? In favor. Mm-hmm, okay. Jackie? I vote that the meeting was a valid meeting. So against? Yeah. Yay and a nay, okay, no. Okay, Jamie? I vote yes. Okay. And myself, I vote no. So we have a standoff. So Madam Chair, that is then a no vote on the motion. So I thought that the chair as a position with the town clerk does not have a vote in the capacity of the Board of Registrar's. That is untrue. So, Charlie Goldberg stated that on Friday the town clerk is a full member with full voting. Okay, I thought ex officios, they would have to abstain. No, ex officio means I am a member of the Board of Registrar's by virtue of my office. That's all the ex officio stands for. But I am a full member. So we have a no vote. So that motion did not pass. We can vote to, we can put a motion on the table to see if we find there any violation in the open meeting law. Yeah, I just, I'm sorry. In the meeting posting. Yeah, I just have to, again, when we're talking about the public trust, you having a vote as the ex officio member, which is not normal in terms of process, you should abstain. So I just find, I guess I don't know what I object to you having the power to vote as the ex officio member. You know, me over everybody, I'm the one who posts meetings, our office posts meetings. And when I look at something, of course, I know what is within the guidelines and what is not. And I have to agree with Attorney Corbeau. While the, you know, like we said earlier, the description could be more flowery, more descriptive. It was succinct. It was unclear, but you were on vacation, Sue. You were on vacation. It was Amber Martin that posted the meeting. I understand. I have all the information in front of me. She posted it in a timely manner. It was well outside of the 48 hours. There was no deliberation ahead of time because it was one thing you were voting on. And it was in the public view. So the three points that are brought up here as to violations, I don't see any of them. Is a real violation. Yeah, I agree that yeah, maybe the description of what you were talking about could have been a little bit more expounded on, but delegation of authority and duties listed under the charter to the town clerk office staff is pretty clear in my mind. And Amber's email to me that said she was confused. I've got that in front of me. It said, it said clarification. To clarify because the first email was not clear and she realized that. So the second email was to clarify. And you did not get back to her right away saying I don't understand. You didn't get back until. No, I called your office. I called your office because I did not recognize Amber Martin as the assistant town clerk. So if it didn't come from you, you know, I didn't know what she was talking about. It was very confusing. But I had my doctor's appointment. So I called you because you're the town clerk. That is who I called and I was unaware that you were on vacation. I had my out of office on my email. That I didn't get that. But also it does say, and the knot is in large letters and it says not review any petitions as previously stated. And that same email. Which was really confusing. So again, I had assumed we had already passed our authority to you, Sue. You were right. So why were we having a meeting to once again pass authority? So because as I step in here, Sue, if you don't mind. Oh, I think just so everybody can hear from me, I think it needs to be clear that I wasn't clear on the scope of the authority that this office already had in place. So this meeting was in a, I did this meeting in an effort to bring transparency to the process, but I wasn't necessarily aware of the fact that we already had this authority to act on the board of registrar's behalf. And so I think that's just my piece in all of this that I would like you all to know. Yeah, you sent an email about meeting for the petition. So, you know, I thank you, Amber, but it still doesn't clear up, you know, the posting issue and that it was a violation of the open meeting law due to error. Is there like, oh, go ahead, I'm sorry. I was gonna say, what posting issue are you referring to, D? To me, let me know that this is what was happening. I was not aware of that. But you had an email. It was unclear. Okay. Either way, I mean, that's unfortunate. There was a quorum though. And it had to happen quickly because we had a timeframe in which to certify. Anyway, go ahead, Jamie. So, I mean, I definitely keep going back to like, how can this be rectified? Obviously, we're kind of, it's torn between, you know, the vote, you know, it's a no vote. But I really feel like if we revisited the signatures, so how do we make, how does that happen? Like, I know it's for work, you know, for the town, can we do that? Like, is there a way to make that happen? We keep again, going around and around and around about how, you know, I don't feel like there was a violation of open meeting law, but I also feel like I would like to revisit those signatures and just see for myself. So once again, I, yep, I looked at that one on, you know, Northeast street and said, yeah, that doesn't, doesn't mean the laws was required of them. It goes back out. And if it's that back out, it's back out. But I just, I'm kind of like, again, we keep going around around, how does that happen? How does that happen? Yes, to member Wagner. You know, I know it's not the result that anyone wants to hear or the ideal result. But unfortunately, you know, the legislature has not given the board any authority to reopen a signature process. Once the decision has been made that there were not enough signatures. And the, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed this issue and specifically held that the board of registrars does not have the authority to certify signatures that were not certified in the first instance within the time set forth in the statute or charter. And so, you know, I know it's not the result that that may make sense, but the legislature simply hasn't given you the authority to do that, to go back. And so unfortunately, the only way to affect that result is to either have some act of the legislature to give you that authority or to have a court make a declaration providing you with that authority. Unfortunately, you just don't have it yourself at this point. Thank you, attorney Carville. I'd like to make a motion and fairness for attorney Boniface to give another point of view. Are we okay with that, ladies? I know it's up to me. Yeah. All right. Go ahead, attorney Boniface. Yes, thank you. To answer board member Wagner's question, really the focus here is that you don't need to find there's a violation. In fact, there's nothing in section 23B that requires the public body to admit to any violation. There's even language that makes clear that such remedial action is not an admission to the violation. So you don't need to think there's a violation and you need to find there's a violation in order to use your power to remedy the matter. But it is also the case that you need to declare the actions null and void on April 21st if you want to certify the signatures in the first instance. Attorney Corbeau tries to frame this as a recertification. It is not a recertification. If the actions on April 21st were null and void, then the delegation to Amber Martin was invalid, did not occur, and the certification that Amber Martin proceeded to conduct does not have any adherence whatsoever to the process. And therefore the board would be certifying in the first instance. Attorney Corbeau wants to say, well, it's outside the deadline. There'd be no purpose in having the power to nullify actions that a public body has taken when they have violated open meeting law if they could not go outside a particular deadline. Otherwise open meeting law would be completely worthless. There'd be no ability to take those kinds of remedial actions. So that is how you get to the process, to board member Wagner's question of revisiting these signatures. It's not a revisit. It's a review in the first instance. Now, as far as the vote, I would urge board member Shabazz to remake the motion and I would urge the town clerk to abstain. As an ex-officio member, she knows that ex-officio members frequently abstain when it comes to voting on matters. This is a matter of public trust for the public, for the citizens of Amherst, either those who have signed the petition and those like myself who have not. And I think in the interest of the public trust that the vote should proceed solely with the duly appointed members of this board and not have the ex-officio member participate. This happens many times with ex-officio members abstaining from voting and that should happen here. And that's how this gets resolved. Okay, thank you. Attorney Corpo, I'd like to ask your opinion. Is that a valid point that he's making about ex-officio abstaining? No, that is not a valid point. The only reason why you are called ex-officio is because you individually hold the office as a result of your capacity as town clerk. And as soon as you cease being town clerk, you cease to be a member of the board of registrars and whoever is the next town clerk becomes a member of the board. Otherwise you have full power and authority and there's simply no basis in law to suggest that a person who holds ex-officio status somehow has a conflict of interest because then there would be no purpose in having them on the board. And as I've said several times during this, there is a member of this board who voted and who signed the petition. And so to suggest that an ex-officio member has a conflict of interest, but that person doesn't simply makes no sense. And so it's my opinion that you have every authority to vote on this and that you did so properly. Thank you. So again, if I'm voting for the national election and the state election and a local election as a board of registrar, that would mean with your logic that I could not vote. This is not a state or federal election. This is a very specific topic dealing with certifications of a narrow question that is clearly very much in dispute. And... Likewise, attorney Carbo with Suadette as the town clerk and Amber Martin as the assistant town clerk. This is a very specific instance where perhaps, whether it's her choice or not, that she should choose to abstain in this specific instance to again, keep things transparent, open and fair. There is a conflict of interest here. I disagree with that, Madam clerk. Yeah. Dee, oh, I'm sorry. Say that again, attorney Carbo. I disagree with that position. There is no conflict of interest. Can you... Okay, thank you. Yeah, I feel the same way, Dee. I feel we have done our job in this office. I feel that we have certified signatures to the requirements that we always certify signatures. There are multiple reasons why signatures don't certify and I do have empathy for people that know they've lived here for a long time. They signed in their name, but for whatever reason, it didn't certify. And I've given a couple of examples already. We take it seriously. We don't willy-nilly just say, oh, I don't like the look of that name or that's too light. I can't read it. We do our darned best to try to make a signature certify. So I know we've held that process. I know we've posted a meeting conformity with open meeting law. So I will not abstain. I'm going to be voting. Yeah, I think you've just kind of highlighted the conflict there, Sue, with all due respect. And I'm sorry that there, obviously this was an error within your office, but you weren't there to certify it. And again, I'd make my motion, but I'd like for you to abstain from voting. I will not. And I still don't see what your conflict reference is. What error in our office? The signature certification, you know. Which was done in conformity with law. Took place in your office. Right, in conformity with law. Well, you weren't there, Sue. So you're taking, you're saying that what Amber did, and there were 92 affidavits to say that this was indeed their signature, is not necessarily an error. But D, what I'm saying is that people may say I signed and they probably did. I'm sure they signed. That doesn't mean we could certify the name against the voter list. It comes down to certifying the name against the person's voter registration. And you know what? I really don't believe these are long time residents as public comment has demonstrated who have been here for over some 50 years have been voting in every election and their names were not certified looking at the voter rolls. I just find that, you know, and I think the public, the public, they're going to find this really problematic in terms of their democracy and how we as the board of registrars and the clerk's office are responsible for making sure things are fair and transparent. We can take, this can go to court, either side, but I think it's going to really show some troubling gaps, troubling gaps within our town government. And we as the board of registrar have an opportunity to simply humble ourselves and say, hey, there were mistakes that occurred, April 21st. Let's redo this on May 13th and make things right and make it open and transparent to the public. Either way it goes. I appreciate all of that. I do appreciate all of that, but I feel, again, we don't have the authority as a board of registrars based on law. No, I think John Boniface has given us an explanation of how the law would support what we're doing. Yeah, it wasn't taking into account the wording of the town charter. It wasn't taking into account the creation, the state creation of the board of registrars and its duties. It wasn't looking at the whole picture. It was only looking at open meeting law. Yeah, I think we just need to look at this instance on April 21st and then proceed. So, you know, we have to follow all the laws, not just the town charter. And I agree with that. So let's bring this to a motion, please. It's 533. We've been on this for three hours. Okay. Did you wanna make your motion again, Dee? Well, you've already made your motion. Well, we can, I can restate my motion. I like, well, I would like to vote. I would like to make a motion that, let me think for a second. Tell you what, I'm not gonna make the motion. I would like one of the other ladies to make a motion. I don't wanna to be looked at as I'm leading. Are we ready to try to take a vote, Jackie and Jamie? Or is there more to be discussed? The way I see it, I haven't changed my vote from the first time around. So I don't see the need to vote on it again. Well, we're here today just to decide whether there was an open meeting law violation. Well, no, there was not a vote. No. No, it was a valid meeting, the way I see it. Jamie, do you have anything to add? I keep going over, trying in my head to think about how I could, there's just no, it seems like it's kind of gonna contradict itself, trying to make a motion to say that there was no violation in the open meeting law and to revisit other than the nullification of the prior meeting. I feel like there was no violation of the open meeting law is what we're here, this meeting was for today. But I just don't know how to go both, like sitting firmly, like right on the middle of the fence on how, I just, I want to know more, but I don't know how to get there. Obviously, I heard what attorney Boniface said, I know how to get there. I just don't know that we're gonna be able to do that with a vote. It seems like it's gonna kind of be split down the middle. Okay. I just wanna say, I understand what you're talking about, but the law is the law, as opposed to how we feel about certain things and to me, the meeting did not violate a law. And then like from what I've seen, again, after you've had it certified or whatever it is, you can't go back and change it and the only way is to go the court round. Yeah, but Jackie, yeah, you admit it, you didn't fully understand even when it was posted. So the law- I understand that I didn't understand what it was posted. I said quite clearly as far as, yes, but when it came down to the vote and I had looked up all of that stuff, so yeah, it said eight, two, three and four. No, it didn't spell it out, but it said overpowers. If you went through each of them paragraphs, you could have found something as far as like, are you voting on this or are you voting on that? It was a package deal. Yeah, so again, posting something within charter section language where folks would have to look it up to understand what that posting was about does not make it clear to the public and does not make it accessible. But it also said delegations of duties too to the town clerk. And again, I think that people had the opportunity because it was sent out on, I think it was April 15th and people had six or seven days to ask questions or what are they doing by this meeting? It seems like that they have like a lot of activists groups and they weren't out sharing that information and nobody showed up. Yeah, Jackie, I hear you and I just, again, humbly, I come from folks who are, I'm first generation and I'm not saying my people have no intelligence, but in terms of, no, no, one moment, but in terms of education to post a meeting where one folks might not have the computer capability to do a Google search, to find out what that charter, that requirement, section, number, et cetera, means to me really undermines trust and democracy. And if that's what we want to stand for as a board of registrar, I am going to have to say after this, I'm gonna have to leave this board because my integrity as someone who was first generation and family could not vote and were disenfranchised as African-Americans paying taxes daily. Hey, I know you get it. This is a disenfranchisement and we are continuing to perpetrate that by co-signing and endorsing this foolishness. Well, that's your opinion, but like I said to me- That is what we're doing. That is what we're doing. The law is in law. Dee, I have a question. Dee, we post to the town website. So when somebody go to see this meeting posting, it's through the website. If they have capability to see the meeting posting, then they have the capability of looking up the charter. Oh, Sue Adette, you are assuming this. You are assuming this. I'm asking. There is a gap. There is a gap in terms of people's knowledge and use of technology. My mother, who is a very intelligent person, she was a researcher in marine biology, but she only had a high school education. On a daily basis, I am consulted in how to get her through her email, how to search something up through the computer. My senior mother. So you are making a large leap here that just because something is posted in charter language, therefore it is clear. The public should not have to look up and research any type of charter language and numbering in order to know what is on the agenda and the calendar for my government that I pay taxes to. They shouldn't have to do that. I think it is really beyond for you all to make such pronouncements and generalizations. It even goes beyond what's out there in terms of research. I have studied mass communication. No, it does not make me a total authority, but I do know the technology gaps and you all are assuming that it was so easy and made very evident and it was not. Okay, Chair. At this point, it's readily apparent that no one is going to change their vote. We're going round and round in circles. We don't know that. We don't know that. Ed knows, my suggestion is that you take a motion to adjourn this meeting at this point. Thank you, Attorney Corporal. We don't know that. I'd like to read three states out. We have, it's 20 of six. We have, we end our workday here at 4.30. I've already gone an hour and 10 minutes past our workday. We have obligations. So I would like to make a motion that we adjourn this meeting to, we'll have to specify when we will take it up again. This topic. No, you can just adjourn the meeting at this point. Can I? Yes. But without posting for the next meeting. Well, we have 14 days. So we have actually until May 24th to take this up again. Correct. So I would suggest that you adjourn the meeting at this point. Okay. We will repost. Once we figure out what another date and time would be good for all of us. All right. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. I hereby adjourn this meeting. Of me. Madam Chair, I'll take a roll call vote. I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm tired. All right. Roll call vote to adjourn the meeting. Dishabaz. Nay. Nay. Jackie. Gardner. To adjourn it. Yes. Please. Yes. Jamie Wagner. I vote to adjourn today. Turn. Susan Audet, I vote to adjourn. Three to one to adjourn. Meeting or motion has hereby passed to adjourn. And meeting is adjourned. 5.43 p.m. on May 10th. Okay. Let's stop the recording.