 We're recording. So Pat you can convene the meetings. Good morning and welcome to the governance organization and legislative committee of the town council. This is a virtual meeting and pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately assess the proceedings in real time by technological means. So I'm going to call the meeting to order at 9.33 a.m. Michelle Miller who is a member of the committee will be late. I'm also I checked participants in terms of public. I was hoping that Handoop Searing would be here at 9.30. He is here in the attention. All good. All right when I checked him and that's wonderful. So I'd like to start with the you need to start by asking if we can hear you and you. Thanks. I hate routines. I know. And to do my job. Well I'm going to call on Councillor Hannake. Can you hear? I'm present. And Councillor Griezmer. I think Griezmer is present. And so seeing a quorum let's get started. I would like to first welcome Thandoop Searing. He is proposing some amendments to the proclamation. The uprising proclamation. And if you could bring him into the room. That will be our first agenda item. Could I get the spelling of this person's name please? Yes. Once he's in the room you'll be able to see it. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. And what would be helpful Athena is if we could have the amendments, the replacement amendments. Good morning, Thandoop. Good morning. It's very nice to see you. And we made some changes to the proclamation as it was presented to us. Oh good. Yeah. And if you could make it somehow or other larger. Which one? The amendments with the green. Yeah. And we were concerned as a committee that they were, some elements were missing that had previously been in the proclamation. And so we re-added those and I can go over those in a minute. But the important issue was the committee's discomfort with the whereas talking about thermo-fisher scientific. And so we requested the possibility of replacing that whereas with two others. And you have also suggested a final be it further resolved so that we can have copies of the resolution sent to the president and to governor and the United Nations. So if you would like to speak to this, we cannot make these changes without, we can't make these additions without your permission because you are the sponsor and we don't make substantive changes without sponsor approval. So first let me thank you for giving me this opportunity. I know when we received the first copy of the proclamation, the section on thermo-fisher was removed and subsequently I submitted another email with additional information about the thermo-fisher's involvement with the rampant DNA collection from Tibetans as young as, you know, six, seven years old, two months adults without their permission. And in support of this argument I've submitted a copy of the letter that the Executive Commission on China of the United States who had sent a letter in December to the president and CEO of thermo-fisher attached the link of that letter. And even though the letter was sent in December, my understanding is we still haven't received any responses from them. And I know since then there have been articles in the New York Times as well as the Human Rights Watch had also presented a report, an extensive report on the DNA collection in Tibet. And this is something that has happened before, I believe in 2019, thermo-fisher was held accountable for supplying these tools to the Chinese police in the Xinjiang region and thermo-fisher acknowledged and they said they would withdraw or supplying these to the Xinjiang army. And yet by 2021 it has still not been done. So I think this is not something that is that doesn't have a history. I think our effort is to sort of really make awareness to the public about thermo-fisher's involvement and its role in terms of betting and supporting human rights violations in Xinjiang and in Tibet. With that said, I think the amendment that has been proposed, I think we are comfortable with it. And if we can get that in the final proclamation, that would be much, much appreciated. And if there are any specific questions, I would be happy to address that. And secondly, with regard to the submission or copy of this proclamation to the president and the United States representatives, governor of Massachusetts and the UN and human rights, I think we have done this in the past. And so I think this is something that we will really appreciate again to be included in the proclamation. Thank you very much. Are there questions from members of the committee? Mandy and then Lynn? Lynn Hunter, hand up first. Okay, Lynn. First of all, it's lovely to see you and we look forward to seeing you on March 10th. As I have in the past, I will be there again with many counselors. So second of all, I have no problem with the replacements. However, I'd like to just do a few grammatical changes. So whereas recent reports by the Human Rights Watch and a Toronto based, or is it? Citizen Lab, I think it's the name. Yes. Citizen Lab is the name. Oh, and the Toronto based citizen lab have identified DNA collection drives by the People's Republic of China. Yeah, let's spell that out. Okay. In the Tibetan Autonomous Region where blood samples were systematically collected from 900,000 to 1.2. Insert the word million. Oh, yes. Okay. I'm so sorry. That's fine. Residents from children? From children? Including kindergarten? Kindergarten. Yeah, including kindergarten. Including kindergarteners. Yeah. From, well, then say. No, including from kindergarten. I don't think we need the second including that you just typed. Yeah. No, we need that one. That one. Right. Showing that the collection was showing that the collection was involuntary and a continuation of the successive and brutal campaigns of repression and social control. Those are my suggested changes. Do you have problems with any of those? No. Okay. Okay. Where would you like to put this section? I think it should go farther down from what we can see, I think. Yeah. I think that it should go in the third from the. I was going to say the one right after strip them of their Tibetan identity. That one maybe. I think that's good. Wait, wait. Is that where you'd want it? Um, so starting from the first whereas one, two, three, which one, which number one, two, three, four. Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing where you're saying Mandy. Right where Athena's added it. The cursor is in the right. Gotcha. Whereas. Okay. Okay. Right here. Say whereas. Yeah. Thank you. And be bolded. I feel like I feel like I'm taking over Mandy Jo's job. It's good. She needs to rest. And yeah, I think. Yeah, I think that's that's that's fine. Yeah, because this is the first I think portion talks about inside Tibet. So I have one small thing. So I'm bumping the line a little bit in the passage that we just looked at. Instead of the word from Kenner showing that we I really feel like that should be revealing. But that's pretty minor. I think yeah. It's a good, it's a good addition, but I want to make sure that. Yes. Yeah, I think, you know, something that I haven't spoken to is they really, what we fear is, in future, if there's any peaceful protest by Tibetans, and if they find a blood splatter, they're going to use that to identify and arrest the individual. And I think that's really the sinister ploy behind all of this. Absolutely. So I think the revealing works. I'm also wondering if that can come down after where is the Chinese invasion? So one to below, if you take it down two more down below where is this Chinese invasion? Yep, if it comes there. Oh, that's good. Yes, that's excellent. Yeah. Okay. And then can we could you scroll down on the second green one with regard to the Congressional Executive Commission in Qin? I think that's in the other document that you're showing. Yeah. Yeah. It feels like it should come right after because it directly addresses what we've just talked about. Does anyone have an issue with that? I'm fine with that, but then go above to the where as we just did. And after Public People's Republic of China put in parentheses PCR. Oh, right then. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So with that one, we need to put on China, the Congressional Executive Commission is just missing the A at the end. Oh, thank you. I wondered about that. And I just added between here because I could not work with my saying. And I think that in the R in the second, whereas the after Uighurs and Tibetans and R concerned, I think that's supposed to be is concerned because I think it's reflecting back to the Congressional Executive Commission. Yes, it is. Yes. No, the and was correct. I think it's and is concerned that U.S. companies. And then I need you to go back above again, because when you inserted from between, I think it's you can just say collected between 9000. So take the word from out. Yeah. And then there's one other. I'm going to pause for a moment to recognize Councillor Miller, who's arrived and to ask her if she can be, can, can hear us and can be heard as a yes. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. And then there was a request to add a bit further. Yeah. So I just have a couple of requested changes to that one. It's not a resolution. So it shouldn't actually say, oh, the property. So I think we just, we went down to the, the current one and just said and further. So just mirror that. And normally we actually name the people. And so we would normally say President Biden of the United States or something, the elected federal representatives we'd name Senator, you know, Massachusetts Senator, Markey, Massachusetts Senator Warren. And we just say Massachusetts Senators Markey and Warren. Representative Massachusetts Representative McGovern. So I think we could get rid of the words elective federal representatives by naming them Governor Massachusetts Healy. And Governor Healy of Massachusetts. And I do know the that's just that's a come. Oh, you're seeking the commissioner's name, we can probably look that up. I thought it was going to the whole commission. I thought you want it to the whole commission or the specific. Yeah, I think to the whole commission. Okay, so yeah. Yeah. And so then that would be the third. Well, it would go right before the voted this day then. Yes. And the second insertion may make a correction. In a by the way, Healy has an L. E. Y. Governor Healy H. E. L. E. Y. Thank you. And I found up you were. Yes. I think the with regard to the congressional commission on China, it should be coached by McGovern. Oh, yes, you're right. Yes. For Athena, that's the second whereas we added. Yeah, this is coaching coaching. Yep. I can take my hand down it. I'm perfectly. I'm fine with this as long as you are fine with it. Yes, I think. Sorry, one more thing. It's not a resolution copies of this proclamation be sent to. Yes, yes. That's my fault. Good reminder for you send out an email. May I make a small suggestion? Yes, sir. The very important where we sit and for the copies of this, would it be possible to include also the the president of the Central Tibetan Administration? Sure. Absolutely. Do you know their name? Yes. Mr. Pemper Searing. Central Tibetan Administration. I'll ask you to spell that name. Thank you. P P E N P A and last let me seem as mine. T S E R I N G. Yeah. Let me just check that. And I think then we get rid of the and before the UN High Commission. Thank you. Yep. And do we really say copies of this proclamation or do we just say and further this proclamation be sent to? Oh, sometimes you say that and that the clerk of the time council shall cause copies. So that so then we yeah. So whatever we normally say there. Thank you, Athena. And can I just check on the time of the reading of the resolution? I think it's 930. But I have to look at my clock and see what I mean my calendar. I think we scheduled it for nine. Is that correct? The reading of the proclamation. Yes. On spend. Yeah. Okay. Is there anything else? No. I think I was just double checking to make sure that I've got the spelling correct. It looks like it is the right spelling. Take your time, sir. Yeah. No. So I think I just want to if I leave want to thank you all for your support. I mean, this this means a lot to not only the local Tibetan community here, but folks inside occupied Tibet as well as in exile and I look forward to meeting many of you on March 10th when we have the 64th anniversary of the Tibetan national uprising day. And then on March 6th, what time do we have to attend the town hall meeting? Is that going to be still at 630 on March 6th? It's, you know, it on March 6, it will be at 630. And we don't read the full proclamation at that time. Okay, it will be on the consent agenda. But then one of the sponsors will be asked to read the final various paragraphs, which I think will be quite meaningful. And we'd love to be able to recognize you at that time because we will be doing that very early in the meeting because we have Senator Comerford and Senator Green and Representative Dom joining us at about 650 that night. Okay. All right. I will make sure we are there. I want to really thank you. This proclamation has meant a lot to me since the very first council four years ago. So I'm very grateful that you're here. I think of it as one of our first big proclamation readings. I remember receiving your beautiful white scarf and I still have it. Can I ask a quick question? What does the white scarf represent? White scarf in Tibetan is called Kathak. And the whiteness symbolizes the purity and sincerity of the motivation. And we offer this scarf as a celebration of good luck, happiness and health. And so whenever we meet someone for the first time or we greet someone, we don't simply say greetings, but we also typically offer a Kathak or the white scarf. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Thank you very much. Am I correct that you will then march to North Hampton? Yes. And most people are welcome to join in that march. Yes, absolutely. Great. Absolutely. Just a practical matter. Do we have to re-vote the clarity of this? Yes, we do. Do you want to make a motion? Sure. I moved to declare the amended 2023 Tibetan national day uprising proclamation clear, consistent and actionable. As amended. I named it. Well, I said amended at the beginning. That's right. I'm sorry. Fix the title if I didn't have it in front of me. So we'll start with Lynn Griezmer for the vote. I. Mandy Jo. I. Michelle. I. And I am an I. Thank you very, very much and see you on Monday. Thank you so much. Yep. Thank you. It really does mean an incredible amount to me. I'm okay. Are there any other, is there any other public right now? No. No. Okay. Our usual audience. I want to go over because Michelle, you were, you weren't able to be here right at 930 and we are not going to be looking at the Arbor month, the Jewish American heritage, women's history, or the structural racism resolution on because we haven't got that material. Now, on the structural racism resolution, I thought you were going to be talking about adding sponsors, not and not changing the resolution. So I think we could have that conversation unless there's some written thing that you wanted us to see. So we will, that will happen. And so we have two sponsors from the child abuse awareness and prevention month proclamation here. So shall we get to that? I'm just going to. Yeah, that's in the packet. I think recent copy fixing the resolve to a proclamation, basically. I thought I had printed, but okay. Thank you. Okay. And Marlene Muzanti here, but she has, you know, looked at this and also approved it from what I understand. So unless there are any other changes, let's scroll through all the way to the bottom. Okay. Yes. Okay. The dates got changed. That was the main thing. Yeah. Yeah. And I believe the third's the first Monday of the month. So that's probably when we're doing it. Marlene's pretty good about checking the dates. Right. And making sure the right people are available for that one. So. Okay. Then I move that we. Before you do that, Lynn and I got a request to make an amendment. I just want to say we got that request. I haven't had a chance to talk. Oh, I forgot that. That normally get a request. I haven't had a chance to talk to Lynn. I'm hesitant to do it because it kind of is outside the intention of this proclamation, but I don't know what Lynn's thoughts were on that. I actually, I did read it. It refers to child labor. And well, I, I think that's an incredibly important thing. I think it deserves its own proclamation and should not be brought into this one. So Lynn and I are in agreement then. Okay. So we can move forward with recommending this to the town council. So I move that we recommend the, I can't see the title. The, I, that we do it, Mandy. To declare the 2023 child abuse awareness and prevention month proclamation clear, consistent and actionable. You'd think after four years, Pat, you'd have it memorized. Well, I don't because I don't like being chair. Let me just mention the third April, third is, oh, you need a second for the motion. I'm sorry. Second. Is there a second? Second. Did we get a second on the other motion? We did. Yes. Okay. So I'm going to call the vote. We start with Mandy. Oh, Lynn wanted to say something I thought. Oh, all I wanted to say is, in fact, the third of April is the first Monday and that they have already identified the time of 230. Usually Jim McGovern accompanies the head of the group in Northampton and Maureen to this as well. Great. Okay. Then I'm going to go for the vote. Mandy. Hi, Michelle. Hi, Lynn. Hi. And I'm an eye. It's a unit that passes unanimously. Right. Let's see. Where are we? Good. Michelle, did you want to speak? Before we do that, Michelle, because I will forget. I wonder if I can call you later. It won't be today. Today is insane. But I just want to go over some of the things that I'm freaky on and not doing quite as well, just since you were the recent chair. It might be helpful. Sure. Absolutely. All right. Michelle, do you want to address the structural racism resolution and adding sponsors? Sure. So I sent a request over to Athena several months ago now, but more recently, another request to have reparations for Amherst added to the resolution that we passed in 2020. And Athena explained to me that at the time that the resolution was adopted, it wasn't the practice of the council. And Athena, let me know if I get this wrong. It wasn't the practice of the council to have community sponsors listed on the resolution. And that it was, I think, the first resolution that said something to the effect of at the request of or at the recommendation of, and then it listed Elizabeth or Pat D'Angelis and Charlene Balmille as the counselors who worked with reparations for Amherst. And the reason that I'm requesting that reparations for Amherst be added onto the resolution is because we worked very hard on that resolution. We drafted the resolution. We worked with the counselor sponsors. We did the research that was presented in the resolution and then also attended the GOL meetings in which the resolution was reviewed. And I think it's a part of our history that reparations for Amherst, in the town that reparations for Amherst was the grassroots organization that brought the resolution forward to the council. And I feel like that needs to be acknowledged in the resolution. More recently, Congressman McGovern is actually today, I believe, has sent a letter to President Biden requesting that he create a reparations commission federally by executive order. And the focus of his letter, which he worked with AHRA, you know, he consulted with AHRA on is the town of Amherst's initiative. And so this resolution is referenced in his letter, which then also really made me feel that it's important in terms of the history of this process for reparations for Amherst to be acknowledged. That's me. Thank you, Michelle. So there's a motion you can make at the council that could do this. So I'm just going to tell you what that is. It's a motion to amend something previously adopted. So you would move to amend the resolution affirming the, you know, the title that was previously adopted on this by striking upon the recommendation of counselors, blah, blah, blah, and adding below the title, council sponsors, those three councils, community sponsor, reparation for Amherst. Awesome. Okay. Sorry, Lynn. Go ahead. No, that's very helpful, Mandy, Joe. Let me ask, Michelle, if we show the corrections here and then on the consent agenda, I'm asking if it's okay to be on the consent agenda, it just say as amended. I have no problem with that if that's not a problem for you all. Yeah, that's great. Make it easy. I think the motion would still be what Mandy read to amend something previously adopted, but we could put that on the consent agenda. That's what I was asking. Okay. Thank you, Athena. Wonderful. Thank you very much. I just want to add that, you know, I think these amendments are perfectly reasonable given that, yeah, Michelle, you were sitting in those meetings. We were working with you as GOL for that. So it's I would say the legislative history is clear that there was a community sponsor. And so for that, you know, so I could support this type of amendment, it would be odder if it was we're amending to add counselor sponsors two years later. But I'll see if they weren't elected yet. Yeah, like I said, but something like this where the legislative history is absolutely clear that we had that there was a community sponsor. That's who it was. So yeah. Yeah. And as an aside, I think it's critical that we list community sponsors even more than counselors. You know, it is important that the counselors are there. But it's more important that community sponsors and particularly in this instance are there. So so do we have to vote on this as amended? No. No. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Good resolution. All right, they're what I'm going to move. I'd like to start looking at the rules of procedure. But before we do that, in the packet, there's a letter about the plantings blocking line of sight from Guilford that came in very late. And so we're going to take that snow and ice up at our next meeting. And I'm going to be contacting the actual tree warden to make sure, you know, to see because Guilford did not do that. He just assumed it would be a problem, which it is. So I will contact him and ask him to for his input as well. So we're not doing snow and ice today then? No, we're not. Because I, you know, I I just was clarifying. Yeah. Yeah. And I really want to get strict. If we don't get material in times, then we're not going to take it up on unless there's an emergency, which is always possible, something that happens that we have to deal with. Lynn? Yeah, I just want to mention that there were several other things discussed when this came up at the council. And so we should look at those with regard to the minutes and consider those when it comes back up. Okay. Also, we received very last minute, but I don't see it quite in the same kind of problem input on looking at rules and procedures, which is what we're going to go into right now. And I think the way that we were working on it, which was going sort of line by line, can we can keep doing that if that's comfortable with people here. And so I was going to suggest that we start on page seven with 3.2 D. I believe that's where we would be next on page seven of the and rule three council meetings. And then. Okay, okay. I'm just going to say something else. I wasn't. I'm just kidding. Okay. Pat, I also want to note that we do now have an attendee. Oh, more keen. Oh, good. Good. So when we get to public comment, but I think, yeah, before the end of the meeting, so if she would like to make public comment, that will be possible. Do we have the latest rules in the pack in the SharePoint pack? I'm looking at the SharePoint packet, but I it's titled other rule change other rule changes comments and discussion by GOL revised. Yeah. Okay. And it's a PDF document. Okay. Yeah. Good. Good. Good. Now, are we back? Yeah, we should we be at election of officers? We talked about that one last time, but never came to any conclusion. I don't know whether we want to go back or just continue on and see if there's anything we can get to conclusions for. Why don't we leave that one to come back to? You want to start on page seven, you said? It was your thought. Yeah, that one. Yes, page seven, three points regular council meetings. And the change would be instead of meetings aimed to end by 10 p.m. unless the council otherwise determines meetings end by 10 p.m. unless council otherwise determines. I think I actually proposed just deleting D myself. So I think there were two proposals there. Yes. And one to revise. Yeah. Yeah. I haven't been sharing the names of people who sent in things. And I think that's appropriate. We're just looking at them. So I'm happy to indicate which ones are mine. So. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. So are there is there any response to? I'll just talk about mine if I could. Yeah. So I proposed deletion. I think the alternative is recognizing the same thing, but they're just two different they would have two different effects, but we don't end by 10. We don't vote if we're going past 10. And so it's a rule that's regularly sort of not followed. Part of it I think is because we don't as currently written, it's not clear how to follow it. Do you have to vote to continue after 10, right? Aim to end by 10. What does that mean? So my solution was delete it. I have thoughts about the alternative suggestion, but I'll just stick to why I proposed mine, which was we're not following it. We generally have business to conclude continuing after 10 p.m. And so we should, if we're not following a rule, we should just delete it or find a way to follow it. Well, I'm just going to say that I don't think that's necessarily true because we're not following liaison rules. And I don't want that to lead it. We've got to be careful. But we need to talk about it if we're not following it, right? So I recognize we weren't following it. And so my solution was to delete it. Clearly, someone else's was to change the language. And Michelle, if you're comfortable, if that's yours, and I don't know, you're welcome to speak just like Mandy did, but speak anyway just for opinion. Yeah, I have an opinion, but it wasn't mine actually. But I think that if we were to go this, so I agree that deleting it since we're not following it, but if we're going to go this route, I think that what does that mean? Does that mean that the chair at 10 p.m. takes a roll call vote and asks if we're continuing on beyond that? And I think we just want to be clear in our language if that's the way that we're going to head what the president would be required to do at that time. Yeah, the second alternate suggestion would require a vote. That's how I would read it. Yeah, and go ahead, Mandy. Yeah, I was going to say what Athena does. The alternate suggestion would say once 10 o'clock hits, the meeting ends unless there's a motion to continue the hearing motion to continue the meeting. Right now, we sort of operate on, you know, I guess the current wording of D would basically say before 10 p.m. a motion to adjourn unless we're done our meeting and all the business on it is probably not in order, but a motion to adjourn after 10 p.m. would be in order at any time, I guess is how you could sort of read the current wording of D, whereas the proposed wording of D would be, you know, so the motion to adjourn would, if the motion to adjourn fails, then you continue your meeting. But on the proposed new wording, if the motion to continue fails, then you adjourn. So it's a difference of which way you're going almost. I would say I have concerns with the end by 10, a couple of reasons. We are not in control of how long our public comment goes until we maybe discuss some of the proposed revisions to public comment timings. So we have seen public comment start at 6.45 or so and go till 8.30 or 9. And then we haven't even started our business till 9 p.m. So a hard deadline that requires a affirmative vote to continue at a certain time that is sort of disconnected from how long we've actually spent on business portion of the meeting. The action items portion seems a bit weird to me. You know, there's a lot of stuff where you could say could continue on to a next meeting, but are we going to add meetings if we keep continuing stuff on and not getting to them? Or are we just going to, you know, it's if we don't get to stuff and don't add meetings, the meetings just get longer and longer if we continue to talk. And so I'm concerned with in some sense either one being in the rules instead of just relying on councillors to make a motion to adjourn when they feel it's either too late or we've done everything we need to and it's too late or we're not accomplishing stuff and then seeing if a majority of the council agrees with that motion to adjourn. So I think I'd still support getting rid of it completely, but I'm open to hearing what others think. Yeah, I'm going to step in and say that I agree with Mandy. I feel it should be deleted. I'm sorry. I'm not going to answer that. But you muted. Yeah. Basically, I agree with Mandy. I also feel like it seems like a simple thing. We'll just take a vote. But things are never simple on our council. So I would like to delete it and use the judgment of councillors about where we're working. Is there any other comments? I guess I'm just maybe feeling a little bit for the chair in terms of like, well, if any councillor at any time decides that, you know, well, I've had enough or I'm tired, you know, I guess it means I guess that councillor could leave if they needed to leave. And it doesn't mean that the whole meeting would have to adjourn. So it would really have to be like, are we looking to get everybody adjourned? Or is there one councillor that feels like they've hit a wall or something like that? You know, so I'm fine with deleting it. But I just you know. Yeah, no, I think that's an important point. A councillor can leave, as you say, or also say, I think we should be adjourning. And then we would take a vote in a regular process. So I can't. Lynn, go ahead. Let me just say we don't take votes to adjourn. But unless somebody makes a motion, normally I just adjourn the meeting. But personally, I'm fine with whichever way anybody wants to go on this. So. Go ahead. In favor of so obviously I propose deletion. But as we talk through these, I know Michelle, you've proposed like people don't necessarily understand what's allowed where maybe Michelle, you can sort of keep a cheat sheet here of, oh, you know, you could any councillor can make a motion to adjourn at any time if it gets seven votes were adjourned. We don't have to wait till the end of like like those sort of cheat sheets of what, when is a motion to adjourn? It's acceptable at any time per our rules even. And if made in the middle of a debate, it takes precedent. So maybe keeping track of if councillors don't know they can make that motion at any time, that sort of one pager cheat sheet of explanation of motions that could be handed out to councillors when they become councillors, this could be on it. Maybe a great idea. We've eliminated a rule because we don't necessarily need to hear, they just need to know you can make that motion. It's good suggestion because Michelle and I have been working on the plan for the retreat. Oh, good. All right, good. And I think the other thing that we would say in that is or an individual councillor can choose to leave the meeting if they're just tired. Right. Yeah, and I have done that for whatever reason. Yeah. And I can't remember whether we have to vote now on this or whether or we can just go by consensus on deletion or is there last time we did consensus on this. That's okay. But I'm keeping track. So thank you, Athena. Can I see a thumbs up if everybody agrees with deleting it? Or is it at least comfortable? Okay, great. Let's move on then. The next, what I have is 4.3 on page nine, additional public comments. So we're going to be looking at meeting issues for a bit now. I'm sorry, Pat, what page? It's on page nine. Thank you. And there were agendas. There was a comment on work sessions on page eight. It wasn't a proposal. It wasn't a proposal. Oh, I missed that. I'm sorry. If I could just say the next, the 3.9 and then the next one under that were my comments. And they, I think they, Athena sent out a revised copy, which included those. So it might have just been, yeah, we missed it. So I could, if you want to take it in order. Yes, let's go there. I'm sorry. So I think my question here was why did, if a special meeting can be called for any reason, why is there a separate work session here? And there's probably some history that I'm not aware of that. But I, it seems like I don't, I guess I don't understand the purpose of 3.9. If anyone has any clue, it looks like Mandy might. I do. I was on the, I was on the original rules committee that drafted the original set of rules, which have obviously been amended many times, but this was in the original set. It was, it's not, in some sense, it's not different than just calling a special meeting. It's a, it's a form of a special meeting, right? And, and there was a counselor. I think this was mostly brought by Pathy, but there might have been one or two others that, that found this in some other council's rules and really liked the idea of a work session. And so liking that idea, they didn't want to lose the idea by not putting it in the rules because of what they, you know, if you read the whole description, right? It's, it's, it's a, it's a special meeting. It's an interesting meeting, but it's got a lot of different parts to it or different things you do in the meeting than a typical meeting. So that's why I would say it's in there. I'm not sure we've truly used it. I think we might have technically used it for rental registration about a year ago, maybe. But yeah, I, you make a good point, Michelle. Do we need it in there as a specific thing or is it just, especially since it's different than a public dialogue, this is more of council work. So yeah. And it also made me think about like, there are different types of special meetings and like planning the HRA retreat, for example, is a special meeting and it doesn't include public comment. That's a differentiating factor, you know. So are there other types of special meetings outside of, so we have work sessions, we have retreats, you know, are there other types of special meetings? And would it make sense or be more clear to sort of have bullets under the special meeting wherever that is that indicate the types of special meetings that can be called and do they all qualify under having like no public comment, for example. So it's just more about like being more clear because this kind of seems like it's its own thing, but it really just falls under the category of a special meeting, it seems. Special meetings, I'm sorry for interrupting, special meetings. You may or may not have public comment, this requires public comment. There's a difference in that in that one way. That's a big difference then. Yeah, that's okay. So maybe that's a reason to keep it on its own and if itself. So I don't feel strongly, I just was just was questioning it. And Lynn, I can totally see why we're questioning it. Rather than lose the concept though, can we hold this and see as we go through whether we want to create something about options for special meetings or something like that and not lose this concept because we have used it, I think twice. But I'd have to go back and look at notes. We've got 3.6 which details special meetings, maybe as Michelle said, we could think about more descriptions under special meetings. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm referring to. Right, this one requires a majority, this one is 3. Well, but 3 can call any special meeting and that could be essentially the form of a work session. I think that was kind of conflict in how many are required. And one other thing is the work session, it's exclusively for that purpose. So a different special meeting, the president could decide to put other agenda items. So there are little differences like that, but I agree you could kind of format it differently in terms of bullets or something. Yeah, and I like the idea of combining it on listing what the special meetings or potentials are and including it in that and getting rid of 3.9. I mean by moving it, but not getting rid of it. So I have down, so this would be GOL, we would work on options for this, yes, at another meeting. Yeah, I'd make a note up under 3.6 that we're going to do an expansion. Thank you. All right, and is there consensus on this? But we're not bringing this one as a change for the next round of changes. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah, because we don't have language yet. But we like the idea, which is, I frankly wish we'd do more of them. Okay. Thank you, Michelle. I'm sorry I missed that. So I guess now we could move to page 9, 4.3. There was one other under agendas. Yep, 4.1 is also mine. Well, I don't have that one either. I'm so sorry. There's a revised version that I sent out. I'm sorry. No, I'm not looking. I have that. I printed it, but I'm looking. Okay. Sorry. I'm looking at what I was working with because I'm old and I don't change uses. So is this right out of the charter? I didn't. Okay. So yeah, I thought I think I clicked on it and saw that. So I really just wanted to clarify what it means for us. I mean, this is up for interpretation, I think, with advice from counselors. And the process right now, I think has been that counselors are invited to agenda setting meetings. I don't know if that's a separate, you know, from this, but what other ways, what does it mean really with advice from counselors? Like, you know, I feel like expanding on this would be helpful for counselors to understand how an agenda item can be brought forward, you know, to the president effectively. And so that's the conversation that I wanted to have. I think it's a good conversation to have. I'm not going to be perfect in my response, because I frankly hadn't thought about this. But, you know, counselors can request an agenda item. Often that happens when we talk about future agendas at the end of the meeting. That also is a period when I often then check in with people like I did on Monday night with Mandy Joe regarding CRC's rental registration. And, you know, she said, oh, you won't see it till April. So that's an example. We do, we did send out a thing asking people if they wanted to join in agenda review and agenda setting meetings. I think only one person has taken us up on that offer this time. But it's an offer that's out there anytime. That people want. In fact, there are specific times, this doesn't happen that often, that there might be an agenda item that is so based around one or two counselors work that will set up a separate meeting just to talk about how that agenda item might flow. There are times when people ask to put something on the agenda, but I have to have a further conversation to really understand what they're trying to do and what they're trying to accomplish. And, you know, on one or two occasions, I've probably said, you know, we need to talk a little further or that needs to be further developed before we're ready to put it on agenda. Or I may have had to say, you know, that's really not the purview of the council. But, you know, I can certainly be challenged on any of that, as we set up above. Anytime three counselors want to do something, they can do it. I'm open to any other options for how this be looked at, but it is a charter rule. Michelle? Yeah, and just kind of thinking about this, like not with the person who is the president as the president right now, right? Like just thinking about a future council or because I do think that in my experience, if there's an agenda item that I'd like to bring, I think a good example is with the retreat, we found a way it didn't have like an agenda item, but it went under council or comments and then it was an ability to be able to discuss and get feedback from the council. But I guess I'm just like I have at least in other settings or even maybe here in Amherst, like it seems sometimes there's a counselor may say to the president, please add this to the agenda. And like it's really at the discretion, I think in Amherst, at least, of the president, but I'm not sure that this necessarily clarifies that, that there's a discretion upon the president to decide whether, like you said, Lynn, is it in the purview? Does it fit at this meeting? Is it fully baked yet? You know what I mean? Because I could see a scenario where as a counselor, I want to bring forward an agenda item. And if I just say, please add this to the agenda, as if that's a assumption that should happen without any discretion, I could feel, I could see where that could bring up some tension between that counselor and the president. So it was more just to try to kind of understand that. Like what is it? You know, and I certainly, I totally hear what you're saying. I mean, for instance, you and Alicia just brought forward the proposal about council salaries, family care and health benefits. The three of us not breaking any open meeting law because the three of us are not on any one committee did have a really, I thought, helpful discussion. And that's the way I like to do it so that we can come up with, you know, how to do it. But another president could interpret it differently. And I try, regardless of whether or not I personally as a counselor agree with an issue to bring it forward regardless. I mean, I think that is the responsibility of the president is to hear all counselors. So if there's any other way you feel we can clarify this, please suggest that. This might be more of like the cheat sheet idea that Mandy had just to sort of flesh out a little bit, I could work on some language potentially that just to flesh out a little bit. So that counselors have a better sense of how they might bring something forward and the interaction with, you know, like you talked about with, I think you said to me with something I brought forward like, let the council decide or something will let the council decide, you know, and that is a really good attitude in my mind. But I don't know that every president would necessarily have that. And so I think that's where so I can think more about it. Nothing would be great, Michelle. Yeah, I think that I think the item on the cheat sheet is a good idea too. So do we want to leave this to be discussed further? Or yeah, yeah. Michelle, we're getting a lot of suggestions for this retreat. And we're only on rule four. Okay, are we set on that? So, yes, thank you, Athena, bringing up additional public comments. So we're looking at the call of any three or more counselors and additional public comment period may be included. Also mine. And I know that it was. I know maybe I'm going to put that out there. And let me just say that the the impetus for this is really about if there's a specific matter that we're discussing that counselors would like a specific public comment to occur for. What is how does how do those counselors get the to ask the president or ask that that occurs within reason. So any other comments right now? Answer Mandy and Lynn. I'm sorry, what? Hands up. Mandy and Lynn. I stopped looking. Mandy and then Lynn. I think Lynn wants to respond to that. So I'll let her respond to that question before I make my comment. No, I was actually very interested in what you were going to say. You want me to go first again? No, it's Lenny now. In practice, we have identified special items on the agenda for which we have specific public comment. And then other times, you know, we just stick to general public comment. I think our record might have been three public comment periods during one meeting. So one way to do this would be as we put the agenda together. Once counselors see it, Athena, I'm going to ask you, could the agenda, even after Thursday at, you know, 6 30 be amended add an additional public comment period if, you know, a counselor calls up the president and says, you know, that item, I think deserves its own public comment. And I look at I go, Hey, you know, I agree with you. And we just schedule it to actually schedule or have a vote during a meeting to add public comment isn't fair to the public. That's the problem that I see with this, because they don't know that we're going to do it that way. And therefore, they may have not have arranged their evening that way or whatever. So I'm trying to come up with, let's identify those air those times when we think an additional public comment specific to an issue would be critical and important. But we need to do it is in advance of the meeting, if at all possible, so we can publish it. So the public has a way of knowing that. That's my comment. Mandy. So I was going to say something similar to Lynn, but I've got real concerns about this. As you'll see when you get to some of my public proposals later on in this role section, or in the rules, our meetings are mostly there to conduct business. That's not to say public comment isn't important. But if we're going to are if we're expected to vote on something that night, the best time to receive public comment is not that night. The best time to receive public comment is the weekend or the week before or sometime when we are as counselors, thinking about how we're going to vote and thinking about the issues and trying to gather the information, not three minutes before we're expected to vote or 10 minutes before we're expected to vote. I worry that three is too little. And I understand, Michelle, where the number three came for for counselors, because that's what we wrote in the charter for a special meeting, right? So I get where you pick that number. But I worry that something like this could bog down our meetings so that we can't actually get our business done. And that it then privileges those who are already at the meeting instead of those who looked at the agenda or made up, you know, if they say if you do it during a meeting, public comments already done, do the same people get to speak if we've added a special public comment on that same issue, right? I think there's problems with this that could create longer meetings that aren't necessarily helpful to the council or to the public. So I don't really support this proposal, this proposed change. Michelle? Yeah, no, I hear you. From my perspective, I think so I understand that for us to make decisions in terms of which way we have to vote, it is important to have that public comment and be able to take that in and digest it and then make a decision. I do think that public comment serves a greater purpose than just that, though. And so, you know, I still think that there's something about the day of a vote having people be able to rally around and come and speak to a particular issue. But I wonder if, just like with the agenda setting, maybe just adding something about with the advice of or something like that that just indicates that beyond just the president, a counselor could ask the president to consider including a special public comment period for a particular item. And you can see that I think my changes just like philosophically are meant to share more of the power like and so the the charter calls for particular things that the president has power over, of course. And what I'm trying to do is spread the power a little bit more. And so even just adding would, I wonder if folks would feel like they could support adding like and or from the advice of a counselor or something like that, which is probably already happening. But just to sort of clarify it, you know, I'm going to take a turn. Are you thinking, you know, I thought you're finished Michelle. I'm public comment is a critical issue. And you said that it was, it serves a greater purpose. And on the day of the vote, people rally and speak to it need to be able to rally and speak to the issue. That's what happens now. So it doesn't seem like we need to add impromptu another public comment period, because if there are three people speaking rallying and speaking, or there are 75 people rallying and speaking, they get turns now the way it's constructed. I also feel like Mandy that this is going to create longer meetings, and it's can be abused, not necessarily even intentionally. And three counselors is very low bar for adding public spontaneously adding public comment. I, and when Lynn spoke, she said the agenda, when we all know when she's putting agendas together. And she is basically saying if a counselor feels like there is a need for additional public comment or specific, still the general public comment always, but a very specific public comment, then that counselor can get in touch with the president, whoever that is. And that can be decided between them. So I'm uncomfortable changing this, adding this change. Yeah, I respect that. Thank you for sharing the feedback counselors on this on this one. And I'm fine with not including it. It's more again, like I just explaining my philosophy on it is was helpful for me. And also just to note that this particular rule is about it's not this is about adding additional public comments, right. So in some ways, like, and maybe Mandy, you remember, like, why do we even have this rule? Like, we can have as many public comments as we want. So what's the what was the real purpose and intention of it? In some sense, what you described, Michelle, but it was more of a, I think one of the thoughts was sometimes we get these issues that we know a lot of people are going to speak on. And instead of interspersing, and during the general public comment period, having one person speaking on, you know, something that's not even on our agenda, because you can speak on anything that could be on our agenda at any one point, and then another and then five people on this and then someone else coming for something else when you when recognizing that, you know, hey, this one issue, what are regulations is going to cause like 20 different people to come up and speak, but let's gather them together and have them speak at once, instead of other things coming in between them. So I think it was more of recognizing that when there is that expectation of a lot, put it at the time, even before maybe we discuss it instead of those people that are here to maybe just make a general public comment about something not even on our agenda feeling like that's suddenly general public comment isn't the right time for them when it actually is the right time for them. Lynn. Yeah, I tried to think about Michelle's adding in, you know, and advice from counselors or whatever. I can go either way, but it did raise an interesting question for me. We do have water and sewer regulations coming up, and I for one have been very strongly feeling that we have not had as much public discussion of them as we might. And so I almost wondered whether we should have a special session or do we just make sure that the night they appear on the agenda, we have a separate public comment. And maybe that's the way to deal with it. Because it's a big deal to, it's it's a huge piece of work is what it is. And we're not making any significant big changes yet, but some people would like us to make those changes. So it just, there's an example of something coming up that I think deserves its own public comment period identified probably just during a regular council meeting. Just an example. Any other comments or concerns? And Michelle, do you feel like we've addressed this in a sufficient way? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And so is this one, we're, we're not going to be adding it. Do we need to vote by consensus on that? I think we have it. Is there agreement that we're not including us? I believe it is. Okay. And now we move to rule five public participation, a continuation of this journey. And I have, so the first change that's being suggested here is to section C, adding the length of public comment period. And Mandy, I believe some of, most of these are yours. Yeah. If I may, there's a whole bunch of them that are mine. I think the only one in section 5.1 that is not from me is number H. Oh no, NG, G and H. But everything up to G is, and I just want to talk about this and, and my thinking, I'm not wedded to this, but I was thinking, you know, going back to what I think are one of the big purposes of our meetings is to conduct business. And as I said earlier, we have faced some public comment periods where they've gone on for two hours. And that's not necessarily a problem. But then we start our business late in a meeting when we're almost already all tired. And one of the things that struck me when I attended an MMA webinar on public participation and managing public participation and, and stuff in meetings was, there are a lot of councils that actually limit the length of time for public comment to like 15 minutes or 10 minutes. And when you hit that 15 minutes, you're done, whether or not everyone has spoken or not. And I, I'm not always comfortable with that. But at the same time, it, it sort of says, we're here to do business, we need to get our business done and we need to be awake to do our business. There's a lot of councils that put public comment at the end. And so I was trying to think of a couple of things in adding a public comment period length, like could we do this in a way that tries to respect everyone who's come to make public comment, but also gets us to doing our business when we're not exhausted. So that's where C came in. And then when C came in, that sort of indicated I needed to add the word individual into B, you know, in terms of different types of public comments. I did not request the change from one to two minutes. I will say that now that I see that one, I left it at one. You know, and then one of the other things I actually noticed in, in zoom, you get to see Lynn's been doing, trying to do a good job of in zoom, hey, raise your hand if you want to make public comment, we've got six people ready to make public comment. And then comment number five, another 12 people raise their hand. And that creates a problem for a couple of reasons, Lynn set the three minutes based on six. And then it's hard to change when you've got another 12 people that add themselves on at the end. And if you're there to make public comment, I feel like you should already know you want to make public comment. And, and so, you know, if you haven't raised your hand before public comment starts if you Athena with the in person has been good about sign up for it. You know, in some sense, our public comment period is not necessarily intended for the public to have a conversation amongst themselves and respond amongst themselves yet I've seen it happen over the course of four years where someone says something in public comment and then three other people from public want to respond and suddenly our public comment gets extended longer and longer is almost the public starts having their own conversation within public comment and so so that's where those changes to the recognition section sort of came in. And then in F, the deletion of the clarifying questions was more of a similar to if public comment really is not meant to begin a conversation with the public, then clarifying questions aren't necessarily appropriate because that almost invites that beginning a conversation with the public. So in looking at that again, I thought maybe that's sort of outside the thinking of what public comment is meant for. So I'm not wedded to any particular, say, numbers in here. I kind of just wanted to put out there. Oh, and I was not numb. The per subject was not mine either. Sorry, there's there's so C. I was mine. Yeah, I figure it's like a combination of yours and mine, Michelle. C was mine. The D3 was mine. The individual in B was mine and E2 deletion was mine. So yeah, those are sort of my summaries of what I was thinking was let's say after a certain time we move on to business, we're not cutting off public comment. Unfortunately, if you're not in that first whatever, you got to wait till the end then, which is not ideal, but let's get our business done when we're awake. It's sort of and when people aren't tired. And I don't know whether this is the best option. There could be other options, but it's an idea. Okay, I'm going to enter. I'm just looking at B and there is a change to no less than one minute, increasing that to two minutes. That one was not mine. So that we need to look at that as well. Yeah, but it was not that's not that's fine. That's fine. Michelle, do you want to move forward or no Athena? I just wanted to make a quick comment about something Lynn brought up in the earlier discussion about the special comment period. I believe it's been the practice of various committees and the council to take up public comment again later in the meeting and we don't always necessarily include that on the agenda. So I think there have been times that, you know, Lynn maybe you've realized that a lot of people are going to come and speak on a certain topic and you've indicated at the beginning of the meeting that we're going to take a public comment later. And I know that's happened at committees that the chair has just decided to take a public comment and another period in the meeting. So I don't think that we need to always specify on the agenda that there will be an additional period of public comment, but I think that should be included at the beginning of the meeting. You know, we're going to have general public comment now. And then if you decide, we're going to have another public comment period about water and sewer regulations later in the meeting or something like that. So I don't think we necessarily have to make that change part of our agenda setting process. Thank you, Athena. Although I think it's wise to do it so the public knows as far in advance as possible. I think it's difficult because we don't know what time things are going to happen. And so saying on the agenda that there will be another public comment later in the meeting, it's not giving a lot of information in terms of when people should come back if they don't want to listen to the beginning of the meeting. I mean, what I try to do is say we're going to have general public comment first. And then when we get to item 8C, we're going to have specific public comment to that item. I do try to say that early in the meeting. So, okay, I don't think we're differing on that. Michelle, you were the one that did the two minutes versus one and you just want to make sure we don't cut people shorter than. Again, yeah, just thinking about future councils. I don't think we've ever done, we've ever limited somebody to one, but I think that one minute is really, I mean, it's tough to get anything out in one minute. And I would prefer to have two in there as a buffer to give people a little more time. I feel comfortable with that decision. Yeah, I do too. Mandy? I'm not going to oppose it. I worry if you've got 60 people there. You know, two minutes is two hours of public comment. And we've had upwards of 30 plus people registered to speak at some time, but I'm not sure I would oppose it. I'm curious, Michelle, were you the change to request the adding of per subject? I was, yes. Could you speak about that one? Yeah, absolutely. So that just basically gives a person who's coming on two matters or three matters or however many matters more time to speak, as opposed to crunching in two minutes the three matters that they want to talk about. However, you just reminded me, Mandy, that people can speak on public comment on anything. It doesn't have to be, it doesn't have to be like a subject or an agenda item necessarily that's there that night. So I'm not sure that it makes as much sense in that context, because it's not like then somebody could essentially come and have 10 subjects that aren't on the agenda. And so we can, we can scratch that. It was more just to, we have had scenarios where somebody has wanted to speak on two items, you know, and it can be challenging to get it all in in the two or three minutes. So. You know, one of the things I want to remind us is oftentimes public comment speakers have already sent us sent the entire council their public comments. And so it's often seems to me like I somehow rather I if I see Joe Smith has written us all and he, you know, he wants to speak, but there's somebody that whose name I've never seen, or I know, you know, I somehow rather needs to be some kind of prioritizing and I don't think that you can really do that. But it is, it's a responsibility of individual counselors to read our mail and to really pay attention to what residents are saying. Not that doesn't mean you agree or disagree, but that you pay attention. And I, I just sometimes I just feel like public comment is it's so much longer than it ever needs to be. I don't know. I'm going to let Michelle speak and then Mandy. I was just going to respond to say that, you know, I think that part of the public discourse and dialogue is that people that that in a public setting someone's comment would be heard. Even if you know we have seen something as a council, it doesn't mean that folks in the public will have heard. And that's that's true. That's true. Mandy. I was actually going to bring up something similar but from from the other point of view, you know, I will say sometimes it frustrates me when we get an email that and it comes through an email and not even just the town council at email. It comes through in the quote public comment email that does get published. Right. Now that we're doing that. And then that same person reads their comment at the meeting because I sit there and I go, but I already read it. And that's three more minutes or if it's one person, it's three minutes doesn't sound a lot. But when you've got five, six or seven of them reading what they already sent us at the meeting, suddenly that's a half an hour of our meeting or 20 minutes of our meeting of information that was not new to us because literally they read the same thing they wrote to us. Is there do we want to do we want to do something or talk about that as part of public participation and public comments of as Pat said, privileging or those that haven't written us, giving them the first opportunity to speak during public comment and those that have not, you know, saying, well, please don't reread your email. But from Michelle's point of view, it sounds like that they might have a different purpose than getting to us. And I think that's that might be some of the struggle with public comment in general is how how different people view what the purpose of public comment is. But do we want to talk about those issues too? Okay, I'm going to go to Athena. I have this is more of a an opinion than advice. But I, there was a counselor on the on the previous council that that had commented at one point that the purpose of public comment isn't to, you know, count people in support of or opposition to a particular matter. And, and the council's role isn't to just count up how many of their constituents support or oppose a specific thing, but to determine what the best course of action is for the town. And I'm, and so my comment is just that I think I, I want to draw attention to counselors responsibility to hear from their constituents outside meetings and perhaps outside written public comments. And that that is equally that input is equally valid to folks writing in and speaking during public comment and that I think we sort of, you know, elevate written comments and spoken comments above counselors. Just speaking with their constituents and hearing with from constituents. So I think, you know, I'm not saying that we need to change this section or, you know, that I that I think that we necessarily need to make any changes in terms of that comment, but I just I think the specificity of these sorts of things sort of elevates this kind of input. And if, if I were in a position where I wanted to speak with my city counselors about something, I certainly wouldn't have time to write a well crafted letter and I certainly wouldn't have time to show up at a council meeting, but I would hope that my input would be considered by counselors at a meeting before they voted on something. So that's it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I want to say how much I appreciate your stepping out and acting as a member of this committee. Oh, please tell me to shut up when it's not no, no, no. I'm your liaison. I'm not a member. Well, you're yeah, but we're people seem to like to break the liaison rules. No, your input is really important and your opinions are important on to the work of this, particularly on rules of procedure. But so I'm grateful and you need to hear that. Thanks. And let me see. We're looking now, I think at at the call of any three or more counselors. We've got we've dealt with that. I believe that we haven't dealt with C. Was there consensus on these changes to be? Oh, yes. Yes. Thank you. So and we have dealt with C. Thank you. I'd like to look at C and E three together. So could you just lead? Move things up. Okay. The reason I want to look at these together is someone earlier described the situation where, you know, we're in public comment period, six people have raised their hand. I've said, okay, everybody gets three minutes. And then 12 more people raise their hand. Um, so C basically says we we would continue with the three minutes and we would take as many of those going up to 30 minutes. And at that point, we would end public comment. I want to make sure I'm reading that correctly. And we would come back to public comment at the end of items eight, whatever through. Okay. Although I do want to point out that appointments are in fact action items. And sometimes are critical to get them done. Um, usually after that, there's no more action items, unless we have exactly session, but then votes on the agenda. Yeah. And so then we have three E three. And so I'm just trying to understand any person not on the registrar. I think that needs to say not on the registrar or having raised their hand. I guess I was taking the raising hand and zoom as being on the register. That I would say including raise raising hand in zoom, because I have a feeling we're going to be continuing the zoom for a while. Okay, Lynn, would you like me to explain what the intention of three is? Yes. So three is you have to state your intention ahead of time before we start public comment that you want to make a public comment. If you don't, or if you're not a resident of our town, you go to the end of the line. And if a certain amount of time has passed, before, you know, if, if a certain amount of time has passed by those who were on the register and were were residents of our town after that time has passed, no, the non-register people and the non-residents don't speak. If that time hasn't passed, we'll go on to the non-register people or the non-residents. So in an attempt, it's essentially trying to privilege those who came to the meeting intending to speak instead of those who hear something and then want to respond. And it privileges our residents over people who live in other towns or other states, as we've sometimes gotten. Which, which in, in fact, in town meeting, if you were not a resident, you, they had to vote to let you speak, which I always found interesting. I don't know how I felt about it. When we were dealing with national issues at some kind of times got a little dicey. Non-residents in any person, not on the register or having their hand raised in a virtual meeting, prior to the, I think it needs to say at the start of, because they don't do it prior to the start-up. It's at the start. I was going to, I was going to make a comment about that. So that would, this, this part would have to, I think you would want to say public comment is going to begin in, in a couple minutes, please sign in or raise your hand before I open public comment or something like that. Okay. We'll be recognized to speak at the discretion of the presiding officer and only if public comment has not already, only if public comment. So if, if we've gone more than pick a number, I picked 15 for this one, 30 minutes, then they don't get recognized if they weren't on the register or if they're not residents. And the prior to the start, I actually meant prior to the first public comment. So as you're explaining, people can raise their hand. But once the first public commenter starts speaking, that's sort of the close of the register. Okay. I'm going to move to Michelle. Yeah, please do. I have a few comments on this. In terms of the register, I, I think one thing that we should really consider is that for some people making public comment is really scary and, and, and, difficult. And it may be that they need to hear some other public comment before they would feel comfortable, maybe some support for what they're going to speak about or something that sort of warms them up too. I think it's a little bit hard and fast to like say, like, to expect that a member of the public is coming to the meeting, you know, with such mental preparation, like they've made it there in the right time, they've got their comments organized, all of those things, and that if they don't immediately put their hand up, you know, at the call that they wouldn't be considered or they'd somehow be prioritized. Because I do think, and I remember the first ever public comment that I made way back before being a counselor, I was really nervous and it was intimidating for me. So just to consider that. And then in terms of the length of public comment, I think I would be, that's basically 15 people at two minutes. And I think if I was number 16, and I had just stopped through the 30 minutes, and then I was told that I had to come back at some other period potentially to be able to make my comment. That does not feel like the kind of open government that I think we're really striving for. And it concerns me to include that timeline, while I understand the purpose of it. So I'm wondering if there's a more creative way that we can go about that to get what we're trying to get at, but also to deal with that and that challenge on the side of the public speaker. And then the final comment, I just wanted to say that in AHRA, we have been receiving, we have been getting people from all over the state coming to our meetings and taking a lot of public comment time. And so I do feel strongly that while it's good to hear from people from outside of the community sometimes for certain issues, it is important that our residents are the main focus and central to our public comment. So, and Michelle, I'm sorry, I'm just kind of continuing to ruminate on all of this. No, this is good. And so I hear Michelle and I, we've had people come right out and say, I'm really nervous. I've never spoken in public before. Go back to C. Could it say the council may pause public comment? Because again, if I'm looking there and I have one more person left, I really don't want to put it at the end of the agenda. Because frankly, 25 gazillion people could then get on text and say, hey, they're going to do another public comment at 10 o'clock tonight and jam. Okay. So no. So I like the option. Okay. Then I'm going to go down to the bottom one. And I'm just, I would say only if public comment has not already exceeded 30 minutes. So it's consistent. Again, I do want to be sensitive. I think of the various people we've had. And maybe I'm just a sucker for kids that want to get up and speak. And, you know, they don't have all the fully formed things they want to say and so forth. And I just, I don't want to, to me, that's their experience with democracy. And so I want to be, I want to be respectful of the council's time, but I want to be respectful of people's experiencing getting up before a public body. So those are my suggestions. Mandy, they all make perfect sense. Like I said, this was more a way to create some discussion around public comment. I, you know, if we're changing the one to may may pause public comment, the next sentence is the council shall return. Maybe we want to say may return to I get Lynn's concern of, oh, we announce it. And then, you know, and so if we pause it, the vote to pause would also be a vote to whether to essentially end or, or pause and continue at a certain time, certain type thing. Yeah, I think that's true. And then down below the 30 minutes, I don't know why I did two different ones, right? But you're a meanie. She wants to get to the business of the council. Well, that's not a bad idea. And I will say that I, I really wish I had paid more attention to Alyssa Brewer's comments about public comment when I was a young counselor or an old young counselor, because there is a way in which the public can abuse it. And I'm not saying that we should truncate it because I, I also value it. So it's a tricky problem. And I really think I guess I'll say Lynn, since you're the president, whoever is president, you put the clock up, but then you don't use it. I'm not running the clock. That's the issue. And I will tell you something interesting. Before we ever went to virtual, Andy used to sit next to me and he would run his his iPhone and maybe it seems to me it's a critical, if you're going to say you have two minutes or three minutes or whatever, and you buy the clock, then that has to happen. And I know it's hard. And Athena runs the clock and the problem that we consistently have had is we occasionally have been able to recruit somebody to be a minute taker for council meetings, and then they don't stay. So it's trying to get Athena to be able to do another. I mean, maybe somebody else could run the clock would be an option. But I also, I do want to point in E3, we said has not already exceeded 30 minutes. Yeah, I can, I will definitely try harder to use the clock consistently. Sometimes when during the council discussion, it's unclear whether or not we're trying to keep our comments to three minutes or not. So I would ask if Lynn, you'd like me to use the clock to say so out loud so that it's so that it's not so it doesn't seem like I'm picking and choosing who gets because if there's a counselor speaking to their motion or whatever, we don't usually time that. I think everything, but I don't know whether it should all be, I think counselors speaking maybe should be your responsibility. But, you know, there could be a counselor designated, you know, Andy did that regularly, and he's attending. It's just a little complicated that I use the special software to run the clock on Zoom. But I'm wondering if this is necessary. I think it is. But where are you? I'm sorry. Michelle might have comments on that. She had talked about the non resident versus the resident. So maybe for, but Michelle's got her hand up. Yeah, Michelle. And that's interesting. Yeah, go ahead. So my first comment is about the clock. And just in Northampton, Athena, you may have seen this. They have a clock that actually is visual and it warns the speaker when they're down to a certain amount of time. And it also has a bell. And what that did for the chair was really make it not personal, you know what I mean? Like the chair could just simply say like the bell has rung, you know what I mean? And it also gives that person a warning. It goes into I think a different color. So they know that they need to wrap up their comments. So I can look in, I can look into that or Athena, if you know that might be a cool way to deal with that problem. There is a there is a sound with the one that I use. And I usually just turn it off because it seems like obstruction, but I'm happy to just turn it on and I can look and see if there's a one that gives a warning. I want to just thank you, Michelle, for recognizing I feel like I'm being very personal when I call somebody to stop. It just feels so. I have no problem with E3, but I want again, I want to change 30 minutes to 30 minutes. Yeah. And I would say just to the non resident matter. I mean, I think that what we're working with in the HRA is really unique. And so we are getting a lot of in the sense that non residents would be giving input. I don't know how many matters we would have. But like solar, for example, seem to bring out folks that were outside of our community. And while those experiences I think are really important to hear, I think if we're not centering our own residents views and prioritizing that, I don't know. I don't think it's been a problem necessarily, but just now, but for example, I'm going to ask us it's 1121. And unless there's something I'm going to be presidential. If you're going to repeat yourself right now, Lynn, don't. No, I was going to say, let's look at the bottom ones here and see if we can get this section done. Well, the micons. Okay. The next one on the agenda would be E1. The new counselors may be recognized to ask clarifying questions and we talked about removing that. And I think that that should be removed because the whole premise of public comment is that we do not engage with the public. But after, so I would like us to stop there. Are we in agreement about removing that or if we can get through? We might be able to get through G and H because G we kind of already talked about. Yeah. So we're going to return to these. I don't think we're returning. Okay, so that's been this. I think we're done with. We're done with C and sorry. All right. So then let's look at G and H as quickly as possible. So I'm sorry. These are all the changes that everyone's good with. Okay. Yeah. So we're not adding at the call of any three or more counselors. And so we're you're the question right now is I guess it's F1 eliminating that. Yes. Eliminating this too. Right. Yes. Number two, we could get rid of number one because then it there wouldn't be a number two and it would just be part of the F sentence. Right. Right. The number one's referring to for questions of fact, but it would just become part of it would just be another sentence in F instead of a separate sort of book. Yeah. Okay. And so if we're looking at G, we've already where we have eliminated at the call of any three counselors. And so we're at H written public comments. That one was mine. I've had folks and and I haven't actually looked at the timing on this, but I've had several folks say to me that they are not seeing written public comment for a matter that's on the agenda until after the meeting has already occurred. And that it's important to them to have read the public comment prior to the meeting occurring. So I don't know where we are with that right now in terms of what the timing is on that, but I personally think that at least having that 24 hour, even if there has to be a cutoff, like if something comes in after that or something, I don't know how that's dealt with, but Athena, when do you release them? I usually publish them. I try to publish them the morning of the council meeting that doesn't doesn't always happen. I'd like to make this eight hours or something because I I'm just going to tell you the flow of public comment on the last 24 hours before a meeting, starting on Sundays and going into Monday is sometimes heavier than any other time. The point, yeah. And so I'm trying to I love this feature that we have. I try to encourage people and I've been just recently asked other counselors try to encourage people to use the general public comment feature. But I think cutting off at 24 hours is a little it means there's going to be a lot missed. That's what I'm comfortable. That's a really great point. Yeah, absolutely. Just my point was more that it gets done before the meeting happens. That's all. Well, it sounds like mostly it does. I'm going to go to Mandy and then I'd love to hear from Athena again. Two things. The 24, I agree we need Monday. I would put it at noon on Monday. I don't know that's normally like six hours or five hours. It just gives Athena the whole morning. The 24 means Athena has to work on the weekend and I just don't feel comfortable mandating that. So the noon and then my question is on what does on a specific topic mean? Because right now we have that general public comment form and that's what gets published. So Michelle, I'm curious what you were meaning when you when you were received by the council on a specific topic shall be are you talking about the form that we that people can do or are you talking about just email sent to town council act? So I just want some clarification on what you were referencing there. I think what I was referencing is if actually a topic that's on the agenda. So if public comments come in and then we are dealing with the subject that you know Monday and the comments aren't viewable by the public until after that meeting that that item was taken up it's not helpful. So but again I forgot about the fact that any public comment can be made on any issue and so it's not necessarily that it's only on a specific agenda related item. So the intention is just that if we're discussing sewer regulations on March 6 that any comments that would have come in come in before March 6 not after. For example Lynn I would like this to say written and then in capitals general public comment because that is the software name if you will or how we refer to it because I don't want people to interpret this as any email sent to a counselor. So written general public comment received. I'd like to make a different suggestion I'd like to put via the online public comment form. That's fine. I think we're taking this out on a specific topic. Yeah. Correct. Yes. Because there's no way for me to sort that without going through them one by one or or searching for key words and and I just can't do that the morning of council meeting. That wasn't the intention I'm sorry if it came came across that way. We delete everything after then council meeting too. Right. On the new and then I on the date of coming and I would also like to add on the date of each regular. Yes. Because I don't typically do that for special council meetings. Although I just want to point out that occasionally a special council meeting is one where we will be in fact generating a lot of public comment. If we decide to you know I we called some special council meetings this past fall that in fact we even took public comment at but we called them a special because they hadn't been on the schedule and we were focusing on one topic. Right. So we could potentially add into the language at you know it says at each of each regular council meeting and any special council meeting at the discretion of the president or something so that it's not required. We have so many special council meetings because they're concurrent with a finance meeting or a CRC meeting we don't want to do it that but you know so maybe add in Lynn when it's like it's going to be on the schools let's we'll publish for that one or something so sort of sort of the Monday night special meetings maybe but not the random Thursday. Yeah. I'm not comfortable. Okay. So you'd like to leave it. I'm sorry. I'm not comfortable at this time agreeing to and the committee can decide whatever it wants to recommend but I'm not comfortable agreeing to additional workload on special meeting dates. I think the council's current meeting schedule and the commitment to do the public comments on those dates. I'm trying to find a nice way of saying my workload is heavy and adding other you know time limited requirements to what I already do is challenging so I would just ask that that be taken into consideration. I think we should not add it Lynn. I'm fine. Okay. So we agree to not add it for the special. Yep. Okay I think we're done with this section is there and what I'd like to do it's 1131 but before I adjourn I'd like to move that we adopt the February 15th 2023 meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second Mandy? I was just noticing that there's only one other change in all of rule five that I think might go quick. All right what is it I'm sorry I missed it. It's in 5.2 adding the words by majority vote. Can you put this back up? Thank you. Oh yes. Looks like that's the only other request for rule five. Yep. I think I added that just because to me for consistency. And if that's the case I want to see whether we want to vote and then put this on the consent agenda for Monday. On the changes that we did. The change that we did this time. So I have the list if someone wants to make a motion it's move to recommend to the town council the following amendments to the town council rules of procedure to delete rule 3.2 D and these are the specific changes and to amend rules 5.1 B C E3 F H and 5.2. So moved. Second. Just one clarifying C was in addition so those letters are sort of slightly there there were only E edition because section C of 5.2 was an added section. So okay so add a section C renumber and then yes so we just have to fix the the wording of that. So it's 5.1 C so Erica it's to delete section 3.2 D and amendments to 5.1 B E3 F H it's actually D3 E and add a new C and H I would just say amendments to rule 5.1 it makes it easier. Okay thank you. Additions and changes to and so I I move that and then rule 5.2. 5.1 and 5.2 okay. And Athena when you get a chance it doesn't have to be immediate send can you send the individual list to me I've been taking notes I just want to compare to see if I missed anything about it doesn't have to be right away is there a second for Lynn's you were the second okay Michelle how do you vote I Mandy I Lynn I and I'm an I so now I have a hard stop but I would like to get the minutes of February 15th that's what I was going to get back to a second. I move that we adopt the February 15th 2023 meeting minutes as presented Lynn seconded I think yeah we already motioned we're voting but you we're up to a vote Pat okay Mandy I Lynn I Michelle I and I'm an I the one thing we haven't had a chance to do to leave if you yeah yeah I'm fine you could just sign someone but Mara Keene has raised her hand oh public comment Mara I'm sorry I will not leave during that time Mara can you bring Mara into the room I think I think you Lynn I just wanted to know what from the last council meeting there was a lot of concern raised about the liaison rules and they're on page 28 so at the rate you're going it's probably going to be a while till you actually get to those I was wondering if you would prioritize them and straighten them out or at least have a discussion at the council meeting about them we can certainly prioritize them on the next agenda we could move to that and I believe that's March 15th then I and any counselor can bring it up to speak about in the council meeting on the March 6th is that correct Lynn yes so that could be the first item on our next at our next meeting irrespective of what happens at the council so let me just clarify we're going to discuss it at the March 15th meeting yeah we were gonna yeah we've been working straight through but I can understand why there's some concern about that I really feel that it would be terrific if gl had an opportunity to discuss it before we bring it back to the council and as Michelle and I have been talking about the retreat that may be one of those that we have a little debate about in the retreat that makes sense so so are people all comfortable with it happening at the council meeting after we have our discussion on the 15th are people comfortable with that or was it going to wait until the retreat I think we should discuss it and then Lynn and I'll configure out where it's appropriate to put after a GLL discussion what do you think Michelle I mean I see this was sort of my concern that I shared with you yesterday Lynn is that it was sort of taken out of the rules review for the various reasons and it's part of the rules review so I think in my my feeling without hearing more from Mara I didn't get a sense of what more why it why Mara would like it to be prioritized I think that if we let it set in with our rules review and maybe also have it included in the retreat which is all coming within the next three weeks I think that makes the most sense Mara do you want to add anything oh I just thought that there was seemed to be a lot of disagreement about whether liaison should be allowed to make public comments or not at meetings and that that ought to be clarified not just waiting until June or whenever you finish the review but I guess if you're going to do it by the end of March that makes sense great thank you for bringing that up Mandy I just wanted to note that when the request went out to all the counselors to propose rule changes for GLL to review there were no proposed rule changes to that rule so we would be operating blind at this point because there are no proposed changes I think Lynn requested that if people did want to propose changes to send them to you Pat so yeah I have not received anything yet no okay I think it's time to adjourn this meeting at 11.39 thank you thank you everyone thanks