 No, we, we will, but as long as GOL doesn't debate while those counselors are there, if we just. Traders sponsor and celebrate. We've done that in TSO as long as we're just asking questions. All right. So seeing the presence of a quorum. I'm going to call this meeting of governance organization legislation to order on November 18 according to my watch. It's 1033. And pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of open meeting law. This meeting of GOL is being conducted by remote participation. And we are being recorded. I'm going to check to make sure everybody can hear and be heard. Starting with the committee members and start with Lynn this morning, Lynn. Yes. Okay, Andy. Yes. Thank you, Pat. Yes. Mandy. Yes. Very good. Okay. I see also two sponsors. I'm just going to check and make sure they can be heard. So, Matthew. If you could unmute. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew and Michelle. Yes. I see also two counselors present. They are co-sponsors of a resolution will be taking up in just a moment. And so Shawnee. Yes. Thank you and Alyssa. Yes. All right. Very good. And of course, Emily is here taking notes taking the minutes. Thank you, Emily. Before we launch into our meeting, I want to just go over the agenda briefly with my colleagues. I think my understanding, Lynn, is that you do have a version of the timeline or no? Is that. I do. That's all right. And is it something you'd like us because we're perfectly read on the agenda is item number two. We're going to move it anyway, but we are, we will take it up at some point this morning is my plan. If that's okay with you. Okay. So you don't need to put. Yeah. Okay. So here's the agenda. And so, because we do have a resolution that was sent to us by the president of the council. And then referred to us automatically through the council. I have invited the sponsors to be present this morning. And as is our custom, we tend to do this at the start of the meeting. So they don't have to sit through all the very exciting stuff we do normally. So I was going to make that our first agenda item. And then I would go back to the order of the agenda item two would be a continued discussion of the town manager evaluation process. And then we have a third item that I would like to take up next has to do with the recent development with the thin calm. And then we would go back to the agenda as it's ordered here. So unless there's a concern about that. And I don't see anyone raising their hand or looking upset. So if that's okay with you all. That's what I'd like to do. I'd like to begin with the resolution that's been referred to us. And so if we could get that up on the screen. We can get that up in our review of that resolution. So this resolution is titled at the moment a resolution affirming the town of Amherst commitment to structural racism and achieve racial equity for black residents. And as you can see it's sponsored by counselors fall men. I'm Ellen Brewer and the enchilis all three who are present this morning, and also to residents sponsors, who are also present. And in the process of this review, we invite everyone to participate. So the idea is that where we have concerns questions suggest to changes. And we look to the sponsors to see what their thoughts are. And the goal is to achieve some kind of unanimity, so that we can then proceed to vote on it as a committee. So that's the process we tend to go through it. Basically section by section. And each member then is invited to raise any questions or concerns, and the sponsors should feel free to, to weigh in. If there are questions concerns or if they wish to make any changes themselves. So those are kind of the basic ground rules this committee does not discuss the merits of a resolution this is not a place for us to say whether we agree or disagree or how we might vote or not vote. So the focus this committee looks clearly focuses on the idea of clarity. In terms of just the language consistency within the document and action ability and so far as it requires or asked that the council do something. We also look to see that that's something that that actually could be done. So clarity consistency and action ability are the three criteria that we apply. I pretty successfully to steer away from the merits, what we personally think about the resolution. So is that that's kind of the basic procedure that we follow in the rules that govern what we do. Okay. I have a hand up is that right. Yeah, the reason I raise my hand. And this is nothing to do with merits because I absolutely agree with the thrust of the resolution. It seems awfully long. And I was wondering what this intended purpose of the resolution is. Because it's length in and of itself may confuse a lot of readers or lose a lot of readers. And if it's, you know, so the educational is it a statement of intended policy. It may be trying to do too much and it's just a little bit concerned when you give them the clarity that it doesn't have clarity because because of its length you kind of get lost in it. Now it's my reaction when I first read it the very first time, which is what most you're going to what the purpose is somebody picks up a resolution reads it that they, they get it. Okay. All right, I'm going to ask people to use the raise hand function as much as possible I do have my screen open so I can see that, which is good, and Andy did that which is very good if if I'm ignoring you can also just wave your hand. And I guess the first question that might begin our discussion is for the sponsors if anyone wants to take it up, which if they could address the issue of the length and also of the intent of this resolution. I was wondering if Matthew or Michelle might start off by answering this. Okay, fair enough. Matthew please go ahead. Well, so there's two questions right one is the length and the others the purpose. And the purpose is just one thing but education is definitely a big part of it. And the reason for the length has to do with that educational purpose. As you can see there's a number of very specific historical facts included in the resolution. And there was, you know, in order to convey the depth of the actual reality of the town. I don't know if this is well yeah, in order to convey the depth of it I mean it's actually fairly concise, given what's behind it given all the facts that aren't listed here. We really tried to pick and choose things that were the most impactful, and that could really convey. We wanted to lay out, you know what is the actual past historical reality of this town's involvement with structural racism. So I would say as far as the length that educational purpose is the thing that contributes the most to its length. Michelle I'm not sure if there's anything you want to add to that. Yeah I would agree with that I think we had a hunch that we were going to uncover quite a bit of historical data. I don't think our hunch even came close really to what we did uncover which is actually very fascinating. I'll add that we have close to a 10 page document actually that goes with this that includes, you know, a lot more depth. And Matthew said we tried to parse out what was what we thought was important and include a timeline. But it does I agree it does make it a lengthy document and I can see how reading it from, you know, we were sort of in it but if you're just coming into it and reading it I can see where it might be. I think that's where you could get a little lost especially on that first read it's a lot it's also a lot to take in. So, I think we have to be sensitive to that that it's a very it's it's it's sensitive information and it's a lot to take in so. I think that's all that I have to add but the educational component is definitely sort of what we were trying to, you know, accomplish in that first in the whereas portion. Speaking to the purpose I would add to the education piece, which is definitely an important piece and I think many people that have spoken to you are ambiguous about, well, did that really happen in Amherst does it really exist right now and so part of it is like historically this is how it's been and also currently this is where the gaps, some of the gaps and because of lack of data which is another whole story but at least based on what we know this is where it is. The second purpose I think is also speaking to the national level and the fact that racism does exist and I think it's important locally for towns, all towns to make that statement collective in individually collectively for the rhetoric to change nationally as well, so I think it goes and speaks to that aspect as well. Sorry. I want to add the length is this educational piece. But the purpose of the bylaw to me is Amherst looking at itself reflecting on its history of its political history its policies and apologizing for those things, and then committing to doing work to become anti racist. So part of the intention of this is to commit the council to participate in anti racism trainings. It is to look at what kind of remedy might we want to have for the actions are historical actions and our current actions. And it really, yeah, so those I want to add those so it isn't just that well this is educational because we could have left it a proclamation. And so I think it's very important that we look on at the action steps that we're asking the council to take and the community to take. I think that helps me get a clear sense of the purpose. It sounds like there's an educational component of kind of factual record being presented. So there is the goal of connecting this to the larger national conversation the national events that have been taking place, starting, well, that have been occurring. And then it seems there's also the purpose is to commit the council to certain action steps. And that's what the sponsors would say is the purpose of this resolution. And that also then is part of the response to Andy's question about its link. Johnny. Yeah, I just want to add to what pad it said about acknowledging and apologizing in addition to I think that's an important first step to acknowledge that's happened and we apologize and then actions we can take. All right, so apology. So kind of formal console apology on behalf of the town. And then a commitment to action steps. Alyssa. I'm going to take a step back here a little bit and not tell you why the resolution itself is a good idea which I think we've already straight into which has been really difficult for us to parse that out to as we as we follow this process is it's, you gave a great summary of this George but that also included reasons to vote for this or not at the town council level which I know we're not actually doing now. So, in terms of us trying to meet GLL standards, we looked over all of GLL's guidance documents which were incredibly helpful and helped us figure out where we were on the continuum from proclamation and resolution back again and then back again, in terms of where we're at. And I think that the length of this, which was one of the original questions here is to not why this is a good idea to do this or not but whether or not it meets GLL's criteria is that I understand completely that it feels uncomfortable to have GLL to have it be so long in terms of the other kinds of things that we've tried to do that you know that GLL has has reviewed on behalf of the town council. So, I think the rationale that people have just provided is excellent not only for why we're doing this in general but also for why it is that supports this structure. So that's what I'm trying to get at the end of the day. I think that the reasons actually support this structure as opposed to a shorter document. And as you heard there is going to be an accompanying document, but rather than making this even shorter and saying okay well can you keep it to a page and then put all the rest in the accompanying information. It just felt like it took too much out in terms of getting people to the thought process that will then get them to the additional information. So I'm trying to be generic to try and keep it short and put everything in a separate document. And so I ask of GLL which you know has been doing this for a couple of years now and has developed some some really helpful guidelines to consider that we are having to do things differently in some areas we did things differently associated with the community safety working group. We're doing things differently associated with this and so I appreciate that you don't have like an 800 character limit or something that says that's where you have to end up. And we worked really hard to keep it within your within the GLL criteria because we thought the GLL criteria made sense, but still felt compelled to give this many examples and this much education to get to the point of not just having this be a generic feel good sort of proclamation. Okay. Speaking for myself I think we're still well within GLL parameters here. So the length we don't have a as you mentioned Alyssa we don't have a character limit or anything like that. I think generally speaking as Andy suggested, when we look at a resolution. We do get concerned about length from the point of view making sure that it's easily graspable by the public, as well as by the Council, but there's no set length. There's a spirit in which he was raising the question. And then that also leads us to what the sponsors you all have done which is help us understand the intended purpose of this document, because that then addresses the question of clarity and consistency. So, I don't know about the others but speaking for myself. I feel comfortable right now with where we're at in terms of, you know, the way we work. And that leads us to get clear with any resolution that I was being presented what the intent or purposes, so we can then make some kind of informed judgment about its clarity and about its consistency. So if the intent is X, Y and Z, and there's a passage in there that seems to either say something else or muddy that or whatever, then we might raise a question, not from the point of view of the deliberation. The point of view is, is this consistent or is this clear, given the stated purpose that your purposes that you are trying to accomplish. And I think at the end of that discussion. It's perfectly possible that someone might still disagree with this document and vote against it, but certainly approve it in terms of being clear consistent and actionable. So that's my sense of the moment my colleagues are welcome to weigh in. But I think we are well within the parameters of what we do. The question of length and he's raised. I'm sorry. I, anyone's got their hand up. Yeah, I can't raise my hand because I'm co hosting. Sorry, go ahead. On the second page in the second whereas there is a mistake. And I'm, I don't have the data to correct it but it says, or about 0.001% of the student body. I realize that at that time, you mass had 50,000 students. And I, it didn't have that and the other thing is this is not stated as a percent, stated as the decimal for multiplying with a percent so we just need to rapidly find out how many students were at UMass in 1966, and then figure out how many were centered. Good, I think, um, Lynn, what I'd like to do with permission of my colleagues is what we normally do which is go whereas by whereas a section by section and make sure that people are satisfied or if they have any questions and concerns, but that one is noted and when we get to it will note it again. So I guess right now I'm just wondering anyone have any further comments about the larger issue of length is just something that the others feel this is, I think it's been answered and responded to. So, unless there's further concern about that. We've also had it clearly stated now, the basic overall purpose and intent of it of the resolution. Again, if there are any questions about that. So I see Andy's hand up Andy. Quick because I think you're right, we should just go on and work through the sections as we normally do. And at the conclusion of it. It might be something that I would suggest to the sponsors is that they then try it out on a couple of people who have never seen it before. And it's just not with the I just sort of what did you get out of it and what do you think of it and see if their reaction is, you know what the reaction is. So, I'd say let's go on. I suggest Andy will see what the sponsors make of it at the end, but so I'm going to then suggest we proceed section by section on my usual customers to read each section out loud. As we go through it, and then see if there are any comments questions or concerns I see Pat's hand up. I just wanted to briefly say that one of the first resolutions that GL worked on was about supporting abortion rights the right to choose the row act, and that was rather lengthy. And I think longer than this, but again, everything contributed to the final resolution or, or intention so we will look at that. Thank you. Okay. So, first of all the title resolution affirming the time of Amherst commitment and structural racism and achieve racial equity for black residents. Any questions or concerns about the title. Any questions. Okay, I would just note that it would seem that I'm in the office. I'm sorry. Sorry, I put my hand up. Thank you, Mandy. And, and I don't know. I'm trying not to stray into. I know that but achieve racial equity for black residents and I, I have a concern about the title I understand the purpose of it. But from a prior actions of the council. Does it, you know, and this is why I'm trying not to stray does it get too specific, you know, is this something that are other BIPOC residents of the town would read and get concerned about that we're not seeking to achieve racial equity for them to. And I don't know whether that's more of a substantive matter or a consistency given prior actions of town council in terms of resolutions or not, but, but it is something that I wanted to bring up. And it might not be for GOL to discuss. Well, I think it does bring us to back to the question of the purpose of this resolution and the title would seem to suggest at least to me, the purpose is specifically addressed of this resolution to our black residents. The issue of racial equity as it concerns the black residents of Amherst. So, I guess for the sponsors the question is just again a question of purpose. And I think the answer is clear but I need to, I guess hear it because I think it may be raising it is the purposes resolution solely focused on the issue of structural racism as it relates to our black residents. The simple answer is yes, we intentionally focused very specifically on one thing, just to keep focus to keep, you know, there's there's a lot of, once, once you kind of open to the possibility of racial equity for everyone. You think it's long now, who would have been a lot longer. So we really were just trying to, we're not in any way saying that this is the only thing that town council should ever do with regard to racial equity. But we're saying this is what we are supporting and bringing forward at this moment in a focused way. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other comments concerns about the title. Okay. I'm going to read this out loud and some point I may have others do the reading but my voice is still intact. Whereas the city known as the town of Amherst embraces its racial diversity and seeks to continue to implement policies and procedures that address racial equity and social justice issues I take it that's right and social justice issues consistent with the town council resolution in the aftermath of the murder of Mr George Floyd adopted on June 1 2020 that one ensure all community members feel and our part of Amherst and feel they are protected listen to and served by the public servants, comma to foster a community for your fear intimidation violence, comma and three incorporates significant involvement of BIPOC residents in shaping these policies and procedures. That is the first whereas. I see two hands Mandy will start with you. I apologize for how much I'm going to be talking. All right, that's what we do title the resolution title I think that a in aftermath and the M and murder should be capitalized because the title was resolution in the aftermath of the murder of Mr George Floyd. Yeah. So, Mandy, are you forgot to ask this at the top of the. Are you doing thank you. Yep. She has been very helpful. After math of the murder of Mr George Floyd. Okay. Any other comments Mandy before I go to not not from me on that paragraph. Okay, Andy. I guess I have three things one is that for the sake of brevity. I would knock out the city known as just go started whereas the time of Amherst. Second is that I looked for the resolution on June 1 2020 in the council packet for that date and I did not find. This resolution I know we passed a resolution but I didn't find it in the June one 2020 packet. So it was a little bit. I just wanted to make sure that somebody's double checking the date on that. And a third thing actually four things a third thing I have about it is that I find that first sentence to be really long and would suggest that you would approve. If you had a period after June one 2020 and then the second sentence that says that resolution. That goes on with grammatically correct language ensures all community residents if you can do that way. Do what I suggest. But help the readers. And then the last thing that are going to stop or go to the last thing. I feel like someone was you're under attack there for a moment, but no, why don't we, why don't you finish your thought I'm sorry. And the last thing that I spotted in this one is that I guess that I need to have. I will admit to my own ignorance of what is included by using the term BIPOC and any of my colleagues who want to error any participants want to help out. But I had assumed that BIPOC was to be more inclusive than just black. And of course it came up quite a bit in the policing discussion. And so in the very last sentence and actually throughout. If it's about black residents. I would be saying black residents or should or is BIPOC really an appropriate. Does it does it solely I didn't does it. Just a minute or a second. People may need to mute themselves until and that includes me. So we've got some noise in the background that is at least for me is coming through very loud and clear and makes it hard to hear Andy so if you would kindly meet yourselves. And then when you recognize you, you can unmute. I'm sorry about that but this is, this is going to be a difficult, it's going to be a complicated slug, and we need to be able to hear everybody clearly so. You've raised a couple of issues here Andy. The first let me start with the first one in terms of normally my understanding is we like to keep each whereas to a single sentence. So when I see two sentences, I really want to do something to either create two separate whereas is or somehow find a way to clearly connect the first and second sentence. One thought in other words, each whereas should be ideally in my understanding, a single clear it may be long and maybe, you know, multiple lines. And here I think there is one thought, which is that the town of Amherst commitment to implement policies and procedures that address the racial equity and social justice, I'd like to strike the word issues. And just say racial equity and social justice consistent with the resolution. So, we're embracing and seeking to implement policies procedures that address this issue consistent with a town policy town council resolution, and then that the remainder of it simply articulates that resolution. So I would resist, at least at the moment it is a long sentence and there is a clarity question, but I would try to resist creating two sentences here but let it go as one long sentence. I would strike the word issues however if that makes it a little bit clear. And then Andy raised the question of whether this in fact was. We just need to check. And one, I'm sorry. It was. Okay, so that is there. And the language here items one, two and three are either a direct or very clear paraphrase of that resolution. Is that correct. So ensure all community members feel a part of Amherst and feel that I take it that's language taken from or very closely based on the resolution. I'm checking the resolution right now. I think that would be important that this is not new language it's essentially language that either directly taken from it or very closely paraphrases what the council resolution was on June 1 2020. And if that's the case then this is one single thought. It's a little long, but I think I would keep it as one single break it into two. It's anyway, other colleagues here and you still have your hand up. You can respond. That's a residual hand. Go ahead. And you need to unmute. You still need to unmute Andy. I don't think I have the power to unmute him. Can the host unmute him. I can do that. Hold on. Thank you. No, I can't. You want to let you do it. Yeah, hold on. That's all right. So, it is one of the advantages of not having to mute and unmute. Okay. Okay. I think I may have not gotten across what I was just saying. I just, as far as there are other whereas clauses that are in this document that's been presented to us that have multiple sentences. It's hard to know this unless we're consistent throughout. I went for consistency based on the fact that there were other sentences or other whereas clauses with multiple sentences. And I find that if our purpose is to just get this into so that it's clear that if it may be that multiple sentences within a single whereas clause is more clear than trying to break it into multiple even more whereas clause is where they tie together in this one. It's all about our prior resolution and so that's why I would consider doing it as two sentences just to make it readable. I would say in looking at the actual resolution. Pat you wrote the resolution and I'm looking at it right now. I can't find the words that you've used here. I took those from the letter that went out I would I will check that I have to. Okay, so in other words it was not part of the actual resolution. That's what I have to check I apologize. I thought taking it from the letter would would be enough and I was wrong. So that has to be checked. I also want to if I may George. I will go back with the other sponsors to look at racial equity for black residents because there are and we, this is a discussion that we had and we, we decided to go here but we do reference by talk community elsewhere. I think that if we had a sentence that clarified why we're using this particular history, knowing that the similar actions and policies and impacts have happened to other people in the BIPOC community. I would be more comfortable but that's a discussion. Yeah, I mean I would I would agree the point of view of consistency that that's something that you need to think about when you have in the title black residents, and then you make reference to BIPOC residents in the document. And so I think there's a consistency and clarity issue there just in terms of consistency and also clarity for people reading this from my will raise the very understandable question well, is this about our African American residents or black residents or this about the BIPOC community as a whole. And so I think there's a consistency and clarity issue that Andy raised with that in item number three. Again, this is a sponsors are free to disagree or free to say no no no we want to keep it this way. And then, you know, because this is a joint enterprise, but there is the issue that's raised that feeling I think of the committee is that at least members of express so far that items one sub items one two and three here should closely track the language of the cited resolution on June 1, 2021. So, those are two suggestions I'm still going to defend and this is a legacy insider baseball. I'm still going to send my idea that each whereas should be a single thought. One larger thought that holds it together. And if you have multiple thoughts, multiple claims, you should, you should separate it out. And here I think there is one thought is my sense of reading this. I have Alyssa and then I have Matthew so Alyssa please. Also Michelle had her hand up. Okay, well I, but not on the screen. I don't have a way to do that on my end I don't see a hand I normally do but for some reason today I don't. So, okay, I see you have to open the participant window to show the participants and then you should get the button. You have to scroll down. Oh raise hand I do see it now thank you. Thank you so I'm going to start with Alyssa and then Matthew and then Michelle. Alyssa please. So, the way we fix the error in the. The section that Mandy Joe highlighted is we just remove it. It didn't belong there in the first place it should not have been taken from the letter it should only have been taken from the resolution and that was my mistake for not catching that sooner. That was, that was wrong. And so it should just end at adopted on June one 2020 and and in terms of that concern about BIPOC and anti black and black and we have struggled with this a lot through the resolution of this and it's really good to hear that that's still not obvious to people who haven't been in it like we have been and Andy suggestion is well taken about even more people than we've already run it by should should look at it. In terms of a statement that says why we're talking, we say very clearly to two where as is from now. This resolution addresses anti black racism, in particular, and it is noted that much more work is needed to address the impact of racism on other groups. That's where we're at. So, if, as we go through this somebody says hey you know this would make so much more sense if you put that in, you know paragraph one, that's cool. That's where we ended up putting it but we did put it in here because we knew that concern was there and trying to walk that line, as Matthew described is very difficult. I also see this as, you know, the sponsors brought this forward. And then the town council can act on this and then town council could very reasonably say at town council's discussion. Hey, that's cool that the sponsors brought us this, and that's one step, and now as a town council. We're going to ask one of our town council committees to work on some more stuff because this just shows us that this is just one particular aspect. Alyssa, you might again for the sponsors to consider you might consider moving that paragraph you just alluded to up to right after the make it the second whereas. So it addresses that issue right at the top. At the moment it comes sort of not quite in the middle but comes after a number of other items. So you may decide you want to keep it where it is but I would suggest if that you consider moving it and putting it in position number two. If that makes sense and then you go into the series of a whereas is that start with a general acknowledgement and then there's a general historical right there's a logic to it, I think from then on. You might consider moving it up in position number two. I see Alyssa your hands still up with that baby residual. I just wanted to say that yeah it isn't the George Floyd thing is on page three of our packet from June 1. So we're still working with and this is how it goes by the way for those of you in the audience or those of you who are doing this for the first time. It can it goes sometimes slowly but I hope, ultimately very valuable for everyone. Oh we're still on the first whereas, and we've made a number of changes that you see on the screen. And I see Alyssa's hand still up. Let's see if you okay that's all right then. Any other comments at the moment. This could be we could move on from this unless there's further thoughts and concerns and also important that the sponsors are comfortable with it. Okay, George, could I make a suggestion. Given that we're on the first whereas and there may end up being a lot of suggested changes that we as a GL are likely not to vote on this today that we can make our suggestions we can leave them here and then the sponsors can bring this back to the December one GL meeting. After they can discuss it. And then maybe that would still be in enough time to meet the December seven our next council meeting. We can even delay it to a different council meeting. And we just then be looking at a cleaner one. I have no issue with that. But we'll see how many changes are take place, but yes, I think that would not be unreasonable request by GOL. If we feel that we need to have a second go at this, and hopefully the sponsors will agree but we'll see where we're at at the end of this. Second whereas one of Amherst recognizes that there is an escalation of hatred, bigotry and overt racism in our country. Any comments and I see Andy, go ahead please. Yeah, I mean this is a question for the sponsors I have no objection to it staying there. We have quite a history in this country of racism and George and I are both reading the same book that is not related but it talks about you can trace racism well back before the country was a country and so escalation becomes a interesting word because when you think about lynching and everything else as you go through what that history has been. It's quite a historian's point of view. An interesting choice of word and so I would encourage the sponsors to think about whether that's the word that they really want but I don't think it's a clarity question. So I don't you know I'm not going to object to it being there but that was my reaction. So a question about the word escalation. Pat, I said well your pat your hand just went down pat your hand went back up that went down again. I've been calling you just in case. I'm unsure about why I'm not understanding Andy's concern with the word escalation because right now we're not lynching the way we were before. But we're dragging black folks behind trucks. We're shooting them for carrying Skittles where and so that or maybe it is a continuation of the hatred bigger tree and overt racism in our country but it seems to me we are escalating particularly right now given the president that we've had and the resurgence of active blatant white racism and white supremacy in the country so I'm just unclear what I don't know I'm not sure what why escalation bothers you but I don't know what I think Andy when it's just he's just asking the plan to consider these to the term and that's what you're doing right now, and you may want to and your response the moment is you have no problem with it it seems. It's not an issue that of that's not asking for a change it's just suggesting that you consider whether this is the word you want and the answer seems to be at the moment Michelle why don't you speak to this but it seems to be yes this is the word you want Michelle. Yeah, actually while Andy was speaking, it did resonate for me what he was saying. And the word that comes to mind for me and I know that this isn't necessarily the place to discuss but I just want to say that it's more to me and awakening. There certainly is an escalation but when you look along history and the lynching and all of the atrocities. I think what's happening is that we're awakening to this racism that has once been, you know, hidden for many people, at least that's my experience so I appreciate you making note of that. And, and I think that is something worth the sponsors discussing so thank you. I think what again just for the point of view of clarity and what you're saying these are two very different thoughts and I guess that will require the sponsors to consider it. One is acknowledging what I think many would certainly agree has been renewed incidents of racism, hatred and bigotry. And then the other is making some a different point in the language is important so I wouldn't necessarily give up on the first thought. Nor would I say the second thought is to be rejected either, but this is your call. It's about what you're trying to say. And so you might want to consider it. Mandy suggested is put an awakening to hatred bigotry and over racism in our country. And that is maybe the thought that you want. That's not the thought that was in this whereas initially. I think there are a few different thoughts. I guess our suggestion at the moment is you want to think about it, and then come back to us with which you prefer. That's that's what I have Shalini. Yeah, I actually want to acknowledge Andy's question I think that was a really good one made me think about it but I do want to clarify. I read a historian's perspective on this and he looked after slavery though, and all the different presidents if there has the if Trump is indeed the most racist and the fact is that he had the conclusion of that article was that he has been more racist and has amped up the rhetoric around racism and so it has escalated I think escalated is indeed the right word for that but like you suggested we can talk about it separately and I appreciate Michelle's point about awakening which I think is a separate point. I think it's important that we either. We keep the note absolutely that Mandy Joe wrote but we take out the word awakening unless we say white, because it's not like black people haven't recognized this. It's not like brown people haven't recognized this. Yes white people are finally paying attention in a different way than they have been before. Throw. Thanks ready to throw the word right in there and we'll keep percolating it, but just want to be clear. Thanks so much for the being able to edit this on it on the move to help us look at this more carefully is really great so thank you. Hello. Okay, I see two hands still up but I think the residual so unless that's not the case, you should speak up I'm going to move on to the next whereas. Whereas for the time of Amherst to fully embrace the change is necessary to move our community forward is necessary to acknowledge and apologize for its own history of discrimination and racial injustice. Mandy. Yeah, so this was originally two sentences so that's why I raised my hand because I've split it up because of the previous discussion about potentially moving the second sentence up I went through and split all the single sentences but so I guess this one. I would add the semicolon and my comment more goes to the second half of this that is now a new whereas. I would reward it. To. I'll just read my rewording while this resolution addresses anti black racism in particular the town of Amherst acknowledges that much more work is needed to address the impact of racism on other groups. You know, it's more of a active than passive and it's, it's us noting not a passive someone noting. I can type that language into the draft here if, if people are like it. I think you could certainly type in your suggestion, and then they group the sponsors can, as they did with the previous item can ponder it, they may have some comments now, but they may also want to think about and discuss it. My goal here in part is to help the sponsors articulate clearly and consistently the message they are trying to communicate so that's that's the spirit in which we do this. It's not criticism. It's not hopefully it's not deliberation or commentary I don't think we strayed into that area at all, but in sense of getting clear on exactly what the sponsors are trying to say. As we just did here with Mandy suggestions, and these can be rejected ignored or incorporated or whatever else by the sponsors and you don't need to do this right at this moment, but you're welcome to do that. And you're certainly welcome to say we don't want any changes made. But I'm suggesting that Mandy suggestion be put into the document for further consideration either now or at a later date. Pat, and Pat you need to unmute yourself. I'm sorry. I, what I saw was all the sponsors had their thumbs up so I think that we are accepting and and are grateful for Mandy's change. Good. Have it there. Good. I just want to be clear to the sponsors that that when you get this back, it looks like given the number changes that are probably going to be made you're going to want to sit down with this and go through it. You're perfectly free to do whatever you want with it. These are just suggestions. And I just want to say a little bit, I really hear that and I know that from working on this committee that this is not about whether you agree or disagree. This is about what's making it clearer what's making it better writing what's making it more impactful. And so I don't think you need to keep stressing that I think that we know that from you and the committee. Thank you. Further concerns comments about this whereas. Do we want to discuss or do you want to leave this for later the movement of any of these maybe that's something you want to take up on the sponsors want to take up later. But do you have any thoughts about moving some of this. Or maybe you're happy with the way it is at the moment in other words in terms of the flow in terms of how it reads so far. I see Michelle's hand Michelle please. I liked the suggestion of moving the wall this resolution addresses anti black racism up quite like to the top, essentially. So I just want to put that on record that I appreciate that suggestion I think for me it does help clarify things in where we can start in that place and then move from there. Yeah. Okay. I would just say for the purposes of just doing the GOL sort of thing. It's always nice to begin with a reference to a specific town council action. Before you get into that's my personal preference for these sorts of things connecting it directly to something the council has done or said, it's very valuable. Putting it up at the very top, I think it's very valuable. So, but again that's something just keep in mind. But I also agree that this could be moved perhaps into the second position. But if you want you could also put it at the very top. Any other thoughts. I see no hands I see no hands waving. Whereas, since it's inception, the town of Amherst has enacted supportive permitted official unofficial policies and practices that have perpetuated the fallacy of white supremacy. Now we have another sentence such practices have caused serious harm to black indigenous and people of color, and have fostered a persistent racial equity gap in the town. I have my hand up. Go ahead, Lynn. I'm just getting rid of the phrase to black indigenous and people of color BIPOC because it just confuses the audience again. And I also feel that you can therefore mesh the second sentence into the first. Well, you know what I'm going to say about that, but Mandy, why don't you say something different. I was going to mesh by doing just what I just showed practices that have perpetuated of fallacy of white supremacy that have caused serious harm I think that's a way to mesh I'm, I'm I'm confused I'm confused by what Lynn just said, in terms of my editing, would she get rid of everything that's highlighted now and go from harm to and. My only other comment on this one was I would capitalize the tea in town. I would get rid of that only because again it just confuses the audience. So what exactly are you eliminating sorry. So you would eliminate the phrase to black indigenous and people of color in parentheses BIPOC. So my only concern with that is that it actually un clarifies unofficial policies and practices. In some sense, I guess maybe not because it's got the perpetrated by the fallacy of white supremacy, but I'm concerned about clarity by eliminated. I think yeah the point is that it has caused harm I think that seems like a central point of this whereas that it's not only permitted policies but those policies and practices have caused actual harm to people. And it fostered so I think that's a crucial part of it. So I'm going to take up the harm and not change the part of the central meaning of this section. The question is whether you again is the issue of black versus the larger minority population. So, what do you think anybody I see and his hand up Andy. Andy, did you have a response. I was going to say you could maybe eliminate what Lynn wants to eliminate and just say to non white residents. I'm not sure it gets the same meaning across though. Andy. Two things and I'll be really quick one is that I think I really need to entrust the sponsors to decide once and for all, whether they want to just have it be about just say black residents. But there's, if you're going to say harm. It was harm to people. And so people who are black. Certainly there has been harm and so I don't I would not. I would call it out is whether you want to use BIPOC. Again, is a policy question that I really do leave to the sponsors. In the first time BIPOC is used I would put in the entire definition as it is written now, because there are many people who have not experienced the term it's a relatively new term and use. It's worth defining it the first time used if we're going to if you're going to use it. I would echo what I think I hear Andy saying in terms of just the language here I first of all yes the term when it's used the first time should be spelled out the way this year. And if this is the first time and that would be fun. It should be used. But secondly, I would say given the general thrust of this resolution and what I've been hearing so far that it should say has supremacy have caused serious harm to black residents. My suggestion. It's a suggestion. I think that it should be explicit and and foster the persistent racial equity gap in the town would be my suggestion. Any thoughts here BIPOC should be spelled out when it's used the first time and secondly, I would suggest, I think along with what Andy just suggested that it should be explicit fallacy white supremacy that have is correct isn't it I've lost the sentence now we have or has have caused serious harm to black residents. I think you had your hand up or you had something to say. No, I agree with that I am just, I, if we're not going to make the resolution about BIPOC I would not bring the word BIPOC and that's my bottom line about blacks it's about blacks. I think the sponsors are going to continue to think and deliberate about. And from the point of view of the committee it's simply a question of consistency and clarity, and we have a question about it but I see Michelle's hand up Michelle please. Yeah, I would just say that, you know I think the one of the only places, or maybe the only place where it really makes sense is attached somehow to this resolution addresses anti black racism so to sort of qualify it in that in that somehow might make sense to me now that this is so helpful by the way thank you so much. But now that we're really getting into this it does seem like it will be much more clear if we just say black in this particular paragraph, but I am absolutely sensitive to the fact that all, you know that as Mandy said, non white people have been harmed. And so, I think as a group, maybe we can figure out a way to address both. Thank you. Yeah, I was just going to say that I think that point has been noted and it's a very valid point. And I think as a group we can separately figure out how we're going to deal with it I don't think we need to discuss it right now I think we're very clear what the issue is and, and one by ranging sentences getting rid of some of it but we'll figure and we don't need to spend any more time on that over here points in noted. Good point though. Alyssa. And I think partly it's a development over time issue right and so when we went over and over and over as we continue to refine so it's so great to have all of your eyes on this as well and the fact that you were able to read it before the completely process boring thing. Thank goodness you guys have the ability to do this on screen with us, because the version that's in your packet isn't a real PDF. It's, it's like a scanned image or something it's not the thing Pat sent the one Pat sent I can, I pulled it up out of her email and I can copy and paste, but I was trying to copy and paste something earlier to reflect what Mandy Joe said and I'm like, I'm just going to go with what Mandy Joe said because you can't do anything with that document that's in your packet. So if you want to check with whoever uploads the stuff to your packets. It's not a searchable PDF it's just some picture. So, this is incredibly helpful. Thank you. And you're talking about the obviously the public, right, I'm not sure point you're talking about the public pack the public document. Exactly. It is a PDF but it's not one you know you can highlight or search or anything like that it's like a picture. Okay, okay, I will get on that. Thanks. Okay. All right, good. So the hands that are still up if you take them down because I assume the residual. I just make a note to the chair at the style of the staff get on that. Whereas Massachusetts was the first county legalized slavery in 1641 Shawnee your hand is still up. Oh, it's down. Okay, any thoughts about this. Okay, I see none. I see no way. Okay. Whereas there's clear evidence that several prominent Amherst families and churches and their ministers some of whom are memorialized in the names of streets and buildings owned African slaves and or supported and benefit from the slave trade period in contrast there are no Amherst streets parks or buildings named after black residents. George. Lynn. How do you want to accommodate for the WEDWB Du Bois library on the US Amherst campus. I'm not going to accommodate it that's something for the sponsors to ponder. My first concern is it's two sentences. So I want to get rid of that. And I also wonder the connection between slave ownership. Historically, and the fact that names are on streets parks or buildings, it seems like two very, very different things so I think acknowledging what I seem to be a clear indisputable historical fact that several prominent Amherst families and ministers, some of them are memorialized in names of streets and buildings owned African slaves and or supported that by itself is an important statement. And I assume in the accompanying document. That will be fleshed out. But that I think is an important acknowledgement and important statement by itself. So the next half of it or the next bit of it seems in contrast somewhat, not really all that grabbing. So maybe at some point, it could become part of some thought about actions or so forth. So I guess my first observation is break it up. Second observation is, I really don't see the connection between the names of streets. I think it's mentioned in the first part of the whereas, but so those are two thoughts. Let me go to my colleagues, Andrew. Yeah, the only thing I was going to point out as well it's a part of a park with the Julius Lester trail I know. And there may be others. Just as a factual. This needs to be. Not question the trail system. Part of the managers. Yeah, so there's a there's a factual question with the statement about streets parks and buildings. I see a list is hand up and Mandy's hand up but Alyssa I think you were first Alyssa please. I appreciate these comments and the Julius Lester trail is not a park. And so the easiest thing in a contrast like that is to just throw it out, but then, you know, we have the point is, everybody knows there's Kendrick Park their parks are parked their Stanley Park. Those are parks. Having one, or maybe even more than one recreation trail, which only the people who use know the names of is very different than driving by parks that have names on them. I appreciate that but it is still factually correct Julius Lester trail is not a park, and the WB Du Bois library is not an Amherst thing that had nothing to do with the town of Amherst in terms of naming that. So I appreciate that Mandy Joe inserted town of Amherst. Yeah, so once, once these are split, I have a rewording. So I would get rid of the words in contrast. And I would actually add, despite the long history of civic cultural and economic engagement and participation of black residents in the town of Amherst, comma, there are no town of Amherst streets parks or buildings named after black residents, just to a little give a better description of what the issue is. So that's the wording I just read. Okay, so I, the wording there is a suggestion, and I, right. Yes. And that helps a little bit I think with my concern that what's striking historically I think and well worth acknowledging and confronting is the fact that there were slave owners amongst several prominent Amherst families who have been memorialized. Take it in the town. That fact it seems is really important. That follows. I mean, Mandy suggested he was very good because it gives a little bit more meat and a little bit more impact and maybe that's enough. But I felt just by itself was kind of like, you know, from just the perspective of our, you know, our black residents. Right. Yeah, so what are thoughts here. Michelle your hand is up please. Yeah, I really like the rewording, but it also now feels like it sort of begs to be resolved or to be acted upon in a way and so it's possible with a more proactive way to include this that also doesn't water down the very strong statement that we're making is to include it as some sort of resolution that, you know, in terms of, because I think actually I'm not sure who would have received Charlene's message but there are some people working on this very very thing to read, to name certain areas in town. So, it could be something that we resolve to do or to the town results to take action to do to look at, and I know there are folks working on, you know, ideas about museums and other things like that so. And then Michelle shall he has brought that up, and it's on a list of future issues for the Council. Excellent. So why not acknowledging it here though why is that not worth doing. It's, and later you do have a section which deals with proposed actions by the Council. Yeah, absolutely. I might want to think about whether I'm not saying you should take it out. I'm not sure Mandy saying you should take it out. In fact she's offered a way to reword it that I think we supported staying in. And but it could also be incorporated into a later part of the document, or referenced, or at least this provides support for some of the suggested actions that might come later so. Any other thoughts about this whereas we're about an hour and 15 minutes in. We have a number of other things that we should do this morning. I'm not suggesting we stop I think we should, but just want to alert you to that fact. I get to everything that we hope to today. So I guess my colleagues need to weigh in for a moment if that concerns them if there's something that they absolutely. And we do have an issue with Fincom I would like to raise before we're done today. But other than that I think everything we have quickly put off. Okay. Yeah, I'm just, you can raise this later as we move on but we have about, we try to end on time to respect everybody's lives. So that gives us about 45 minutes. Pat, you have your hand up. Pat, you need to unmute. I like the bell. Pat, I don't hear your voice. Dan, I'm sorry. I apologize. Go for it, kid. Go for it. I would like us as sponsors to stop commenting on whether we like or don't like. Because that's what we can do ourselves. And because I want to get through this document if possible so that we can have it ready. So that we can bring it back and have it ready for the seventh. Thank you, Pat. And I think the sponsors hear you as well. There may have or be specific questions we will need answered as we go along but we'll try to encourage people to keep it to that. And we'll try to keep our comments as brief as possible, because I agree we would like to get through this so that you can then go back and rework it. Next, whereas on New Year's Day of 1762, the town selectmen ordered the first free blacks of record to leave town. Quote, considering them likely poppers if they were allowed to stay in Amherst as residents of quote, and a statewide law passed in 1788 required all non resident blacks and Indians to leave the state of Massachusetts and for bad non resident free blacks entering the state. That's what I'm going to call it. And thoughts on this, Mandy. In my edits, I split this into two, I don't know whether it needs to be I put the statewide law passed in 1788 as a separate whereas I'll make a note in the comments about that to consider splitting it into it doesn't need to be split into, but I don't know enough difference one is town one is state that they might deserve different whereas is, and I, I don't know my own nomenclature completely, but there are two references to blacks in this paragraph that are not capitalized and I don't know whether there is a point in time where, prior to which you do don't capitalize and after which you do. So I'm going to in this draft capitalize them and feel free to ignore that if that nomenclature and usage is inappropriate. Alright. So many is going to capitalize I would actually agree with that. We would follow present custom. Not pass custom unless we're actually doing historical document and this is simply referencing historical events. So today we would capitalize it so I guess right. I would say you could leave them together, but that's up to the sponsors. They are different but I don't see any hands I was going to so whereas as late as 1948 first African American factly member hired a mass was unable to find housing for himself and his wife in the town because of their race and Just a point of accuracy instead of saying you mess you should say the University of Massachusetts Amherst to distinguish it from the rest of the system and the other four campuses. Any other thoughts about that. Okay. As late as 1950 racial covenants existed Amherst that prohibited property. Dash for example land on Blue Hills Road dash from the quote sold or added to any personal persons of color. Lots concerns about that. In 1964 you mass freshman class and nearly 2000, 2500 only 12 students were of color, comma, and of those 12, eight would go on to graduate. And two years later the entire blood stream populist masses around 50 people, or about, again, I would prefer to make this all one sentence as awkward as it may seem. That's what I like. So, first of all, it should say again, universe. Okay. In 1964, you University Massachusetts Amherst freshman class of nearly 2000. And then I do have an updated percentage for you. Based on the facts and figures of 1967 you mess Amherst in 1966 the class was 13,679 not the class, the total student population. So your percentage is somewhere around 3.66 or 3.7. I'm not saying it's a wonderful percentage. It's just accurate right now we want again we're concerned about accuracy. You can round it to say 3.7. So wait you said 12,000 population and 50 total. That's not 3%. 1% 1226. That's like 0.3%. Okay, 0.3% right. I calculated that me wrong sorry. Actually, so if you're going to do it that way it should be 0.37%. So I, for the UMass thing I just put UMass in parentheses up at the first one so we don't have to keep putting it out. Great. Okay, so we'll keep UMass then in this like in this whereas fine. Lynn, could you just give us the number and could we just make a note of the actual numbers we don't have to go and look it up again in 66 you said the population was the total student population including graduate and undergraduate was 13,679. Thank you. Okay. I can't find that. I mean that's not. It's not 0.37 then because 0.33 would be you'd need at least well actually maybe it is never mind. I'm trying to do the math in my head. We can check that figure ourselves. And you want to look at this sentence and feel if you're happy with it being turned into one single thought I prefer that personally, but we, I'm not only one of five here. But I prefer to be a single thought. I had split it into two whereas is to get it into single sentences. George I'm with you somehow one sentence per whereas. That's another option. Question. Please go ahead. Do we need to put citation somewhere to show where we got these facts from. I think not in the resolution itself, we don't really like footnotes and so on in the resolution. But it sounds like you're going to provide an accompanying document. And that would be I certainly would appreciate that person. But I don't think it's something that I mean, this is an open question really for the committee. One could put footnotes and have that decided or whatever. That's not something we've done in the past. I'm not sure I'm too keen on it. But some kind of a cupping document would be valuable. Any thoughts from my colleagues. Do they want citations to their one footnotes. In any case, would it be appropriate, even though we don't want to do it. It's true we don't, but this isn't a rather unusual. It's not usual resolution, I think, in some ways, it making it a number of historical claims. For instance, and factual plans. I see Andy, please. Oh, the accompanying document idea because I think that you want the resolution to be as clean as possible. We already sort of acknowledged its length. That's correct. But the company document would be helpful there. I really appreciate the amount of research that went into creating this. Back to my background as a history major. I don't know from knowing what the history, how you came about all of this historical facts, but not in the resolution. Okay. I'm going to move ahead. Whereas in a 1994 public meeting held in Amherst, the NAACP decried Amherst schools as quote lacking in teachers who reflect the students racial and ethnic makeup and insensitivity to the students concerns and quote. Decried. This is just language now. Everybody's a problem with that. It strikes me as a bit archaic. Nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly, you know, but she would say we criticize the Amherst schools as well found fault with or I'm just a suggestion, and maybe the sponsors or can think about it. Decride is fine, but that's my only thought. Okay, any other thoughts. No, I don't see any hands. Okay. Whereas in 2001, whereas in 2001, a diverse crowd of over 250 people including town officials, the chief of police, local businesses. The Amherst school and religious communities showed up on the Amherst town common for a quote rally for unity, unquote, following the vandalization of a black owned store, only five years after similarly egregious event occurred at the same store. Comments here. Mandy. Yeah, just, just a picky town in this one and the next whereas just needs capitalized so I'll fix that. Thank you. Instead of local businesses you want local business owners or local business people because a local business doesn't show up, but town officials show up to police shows up members of the school and religious communities show up local business owners I think that's what I would suggest. It makes me wonder whether chief of police needs capitalized because it's referring to a specific individual. I would capitalize on this. This black owned need a hyphenation. I'm just that I mean this is my, you know, my limited knowledge of the language. Okay, I see him Johnny. I apologize I need to leave I had an appointment at noon. Okay, well thank you for being present. Thank you so much for this is so helpful everyone of you thank you. Thank you for the bill in the mail. And just also want to thank Matthew and Michelle also for the history and all that good stuff. Thank you. Okay, and Pat, your hand is up. Yeah. Go ahead. I did it this time. I'm unmuted. I'd like to say local business owners, comma members of the school community or the school comma and or and religious communities. I'd like to take out the end between business owners and members of the school. I don't know. Okay. Community. Community and religious communities of the school. I don't want to repeat. Business owners, comma members of the school community, comma, and religious communities members of. So, so if you take out the and before members of school, then you need to have separate phrases because the third phrase after business owners is members of the school and religious communities. We're splitting them up. We need to create two distinct phrases, which I do. Yeah, no, I ignore my change. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts I've seen no hands up. I see no one waving so I'm going to go to the next whereas in 2015 more than 100 people gathered on the town common in support of a black Amherst regional high school teacher dash recognized by the district as a quote dedicated to the teacher of mathematics who provided exemplary instruction to our students quotes quotes dash after comma according to the district she was quote subjected to harassing her for events and notes. And quote during the course of her employment. All right. I don't like dashes. But I don't know. I don't know who had been recognized by as and who provided or recognized as a blah, blah, blah, blah. And who have who, according to the district had been quote subjected to. I don't know that maybe you want to play with the wording here. I don't know. I don't like dashes. We have them elsewhere. So, so much for that. The point that idea of the blue hills run. Yes, yes, which I also don't like their either but that's just me. I like pronouns and comments. Just for clarity sake. So, if you read this one last time. I just find it awkward dash statement dash after comma. Anyone else have a problem with that just as English just in clarity sake where we may not want to do it now but I find it awkward. It could be written a little bit more clearly. And we can look at that. I would suggest using pronoun and get ready to dashes. And we're good. Okay. Whereas in 2018 University of Massachusetts denounced quote acts of hate intimidation and quote and launched the investigation after flyers and stickers from a white national state group were found posted on campus the same day. And that author and historian e-brown ex-kendi a meeting is called racism comma visitor campus delivered a lecture at the Mass Fine Arts Center on how to be an anti racist. Okay. Whereas in 2019 at Amherst, the median income family income for white families is 2.4 times greater than the median family income for black families, comma 51% of black population Amherst was reported as being below the poverty line comma, compared with 30% for the white population white folks in Amherst were four times more likely to own a home than black folks comma, but the percentage of black seniors that dropped out of school was nearly three times that of white seniors comma. And while 40% of seniors went on to attend a private for your college university comma, none of them were black semicolon. All right, there's a lot there. That's the phrase white folks black folks. That's new here. I'm not sure that it's really it's, you know, perfectly natural phrase but given the way this has been worded, I'm not sure it's appropriate. Or at least, I think it would be better if it said whites or something like that, rather than black folks or white folks. Or people. Yeah, something like that. And yeah, I think that should be looked at. I don't know if it's worth breaking up. It covers a lot of different ground. There's meeting income poverty line. Home ownership and then school education. So it's kind of a mixed bag of indicators, all of which are deplorable. And maybe you just leave it as it is. But it's kind of mixed. Mandy. The only thing in re I agree with the mixed I think it's fine the use of commas works, you know, instead of trying to split it up I understand what the sponsors were trying to do to shorten things get it on one whereas. So one thing that I had to do a double take on when I read this was when we got down to the percentage of black seniors. And then 40% of seniors went on, because I initially started reading that is like elderly seniors, not high school seniors so I'll type it in here but I would recommend adding high school seniors. And clarify that we're not talking about those over 65, you know, it gets clear later on but my first thought was black seniors that dropped out, huh. Yeah, I wonder if it isn't worth splitting into two. I appreciate the desire to try and but this is a very different point. One is economic, the second is educational. And it's something that the sponsors to consider, I would never problem splitting it into two whereas this, but Andy. Yeah, I'm sorry. I also chose not to include those that went on to community colleges, and that might have been done to make a point. But my question that there would be no black students that went on to two year schools and then maybe transferred with a four year. I don't know for sure. Matthew has his hand up, Matthew please. Yeah, I mean I just, I was the one who did that research and yes there were black students that went to two year colleges there's no way for us to know whether any of them transferred and the fact is that right out of school 40% of seniors went to four year schools and none of them are black. And I think that fact stands. So, say private private and public for your colleges. No, just private. Okay, then there's a common there. Well, this is a hard thing to say. I understand what you're saying is they went to private, but some of them went on to public. Yes, this is only about private. The relevance. Sorry. It's highly relevant. I just want to make sure it's stated so that it's understood. Yeah, that's all. All right. I see no Matthews hands we've spoken so. That's right. Again, just suggest thinking of splitting it. Whereas in 2025 in the murder of George Floyd dozens of Amherst residents called into a town council meeting and shared deeply painful personal stories about racial discrimination comments from your. Now to hear their concerns and bring about change. Excuse me. That's about this section. Can we verify that it was in fact dozens or do we just want to say many. My memory is that we had many, we had more than 24 residents calling in many of those meetings. So that would be multiple dozens. Okay. Each one or most of them sharing deeply personal stories about racial discrimination is the recollection. Okay. My hand up because I, I, we're all recalling the same meeting. It was about. At least because it was really in light of. You know, the whole that whole incidents and Minneapolis and many other places and questions about policing and. This is just something again for the sponsors as to whether to get into the specificity that it was. People were talking in terms of policing. All right. So it could, instead of called into a town council meeting, it could, you know, just other options spoke at town council meetings. It might actually be stronger than called into and shared spoke at and shared. I'll just note it here. I see many of your hands up, but I think that's you just done that so good. I'm sorry, you can't type and do only have two hands. It seems like you have more than two hands to me, but yes. All right. Next whereas whereas the Amherstown Council acknowledges the trauma inflicted on BIPOC by system. So I guess that needs anyway on BIPOC by persistent white supremacist ideology results in psychological harm, affecting social economic health and social outcomes and conjures painful memories for towns past knowledge for those who live through them, but also the generations that have followed. So that needs to be clarified one way or the other knowledge is the trauma inflicted on our black residents on Amherst black residents on black residents or on BIPOC residents by persistent white supremacist ideology resulting in the trauma resulting. The trauma results in. So Amherst acknowledges the trauma inflicted results in results in okay. The wording could be okay. But I think other than that, any other concerns. For black. In terms of that's an issue for them but I think we've made the point many times now that that's something they need to think about. Because I think quite frankly this would come up in council discussion. Part of the point here is just to alert sponsors of things that might be issues for the councils. So, that's part of what we try to do. Not terms of content but just in terms of people raising questions of clarity. Okay. I'm going to go on and listen here otherwise whereas the town of Amherst acknowledges. This is a partial list which represents only a small sampling of Amherst history and ethnic black racism. semi colon. That's it. That is period actually. I just changed it to period from comma, because it's the last whereas that's correct. Now we have a series of resolves and that will bring us and we are still. I mean here for time, but now therefore be it resolved that in accordance with the fundamental principle set forth the Declaration of Independence which asserts that all people are created equal and are endowed. The uneditable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the Amherst town council acknowledges town's history of racially motivated policies and practices and apologizes for the damage this history has caused the town, particularly it's BIPOC residents. Again, we've made that point so I'll just highlight that. Any comments on the language or anything I see. Lynn, go ahead. I'd like to see quotes for the phrase that comes out of the declaration of independence. And Andy. Yeah, I mean I just, I always said, in using the term motivation, because you can't really know what somebody's motivation was and we continually get into problems there. Clearly they were policies that had racial effect. But whether the intent of the people who passed the policy was a motivation is, is it awkward to make and I just want to point that out. Yes. Pat. I would just say that I think that it, we have to keep motivated there, because if we look at what happened where black residents were asked to leave because they were black, you know, to not have that there that it's racially motivated. I think weakens the statement. I think it's pretty clear in many of these instances it's because the people were black that these things have been happening. Yeah, I think it's fair to say the sponsors certainly would say that these were racially motivated. So we may question that language but that I think would be more matter for council discussion and you know, larger debate. I think the language of the sponsors, I think the sponsors would say clearly these are racially motivated. Mandy. I was going to echo what Pat said when you read the even just the few examples the sponsors put in it's clear that when the town select man order, the first free blacks of record to leave town. And then when you know when you look at the deed restrictions the deed restrictions are I'm trying to find a language here. It's either rented to any person or person of color that that to me is clearly racially motivated. You know we're not taking a leap here with the language so I don't on a clear matter and a consistency matter I don't have a problem with that wording. I guess the reason that I raised it is because there are also policies and practices that have had a negative effect on our black people and by other BIPOC residents that are not so clear and we're not Nate and we're not called out in the whereas clauses. You can look at it both ways. But I do think that there are other policies. One of the things we want to do is examine all policies and make sure that all of our policies do not have a adverse effect on people of color. But we don't know that every one of those that might have an effect on people of color were in fact, racially motivated when they were passed. One question by the word history. At the end, just from the point of view of what this is trying to say acknowledges our ideal and then acknowledge it. It references the ideal and then says the Amherstown conflict knowledge is town's history. That's correct. No, it's alright town's history racially motivated policies and practices. It's my fault. It's fine. It's fine. It picks up history from that. That's fine. Sorry. Any other thoughts, comments on this section. Okay, again, other than BIPOC, which I'd highlight just for the, be it further resolved that the Amherstown Council hereby rejects prejudice and bigotry based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin, including the idea that white people are inherently better or more worthy than any other group of people and declares that it stands against white supremacy. So I'm always afraid of lists, because it's so hard to be comprehensive on a list. So I guess my question for the sponsors is, is it is it the comprehensive list we want. Is it the list we want. I'm not missing anything. The one I came up with was ethnicity, especially if we're talking about black and BIPOC and ethnicity comes into this play, you know, into these conversations a lot. So I would just ask that they look at the list further and make sure it's the list they want. I think it is similar, but also that maybe you should simply focus on the single most important point that the council rejects the idea that rejects the white supremacist idea. Isn't that the point, isn't that the most important point. I mean the other stuff is just, you know, people read that and go home. Not that it isn't important, but it's like, okay, but this is very explicit in identifying a particular idea that we the council resolved publicly that we reject it. So again, just a suggestion, would it make sense to drop the list and focus simply on the point of this belief in white supremacy. Mandy. Um, Andy. I just get want to get us back to the very beginning when we were talking about the title of the whole thing. And what the title was and the title was about called out black people. And now we're getting into the actual what we're resolving to do. And all of a sudden we're expanding beyond what we said in the discussion of the title. And that's why I brought up the whole question of consistency. And I think that's where we're losing consistency. So a question about consistency and a suggestion that you do reconsider the list and make sure it's the list you want or a suggestion that you focus specifically on the issue of white supremacy, which would seem to fit with the larger point that Andy's making. Be it for the result of the Amherstown Council if I condemns the action speech and attitudes of those who promote hate against any race ethnicity or their base against any race ethnicity, or other basis in an effort to interfere with the unalienable rights of any human being and hereby declares that it reaffirms his commitment and collaboration with all residents to pursue policies and take action to ensure civil and human rights to all individuals. Well, this certainly picks up on the list above so that's something I guess for the sponsors to consider they may want to keep it because this again is expansive. I have a problem with other promote hate against any race ethnicity or other basis I have a problem with or other basis. I'm quite sure how that works. Maybe or on any other basis but I just seem somewhat. So, feature attitudes of those who promote hate against any race or ethnicity. But, again, it's attention between the sort of general and specific. It just in terms of English, I don't have just or other basis, maybe or on other bases. I don't know. I'm not. I don't get it. Pat, you need to unmute by self. I hate being old. What I'm agreeing with the removal. I think that it should simply say, condense the action speech and attitudes of those who promote hate in an effort to interfere with the unalienable rights of any human being. So, I would like to see that change. Okay, we'll make that change and the sponsors can review it. Okay. Any other thoughts I see Alyssa please. I was just going to say before I heard Pat's phrasing hate or any effort or attitudes of those who promote hate comma or any effort to interfere. I don't know, but we'll keep working on it so thank you. And I know we said we weren't going to comment on content but I think that helps address your consistency issue. Okay. Thank you Alyssa. I'm going to go on to the next result be further resolved. I think that affirms his commitment to eradicating the effects of systematically racist practices of government and town affiliate organizations will review and revise his policies procedures ordinances values goals and missions through an anti-racism lens to foster an unbiased and inclusive environment that is free of discrimination, harassment and negative stereotyping toward any person or group. We don't have ordinances we have bylaws. Right. My comments also. I had another comment. The commitment, you know, and this will come up a couple times in the next few be it further resolves. And it was discussed earlier. What is GOL's policy in terms of resolutions as it commits or creates sort of a policy that must be followed where it creates sort of a mandatory action. I know we dealt with this with the pollinator resolution. I did not look up what are our fixing of that or where we came in in the end of that because, you know, affirms a commitment to is fine but then the and will review and revise its policies procedures bylaws values goals is sort of a little bit further than just commitment to eradicating it's it's binding us to an action. And it's not just binding us, frankly. Well actually this one refers to the town council. So, so this one would be only binding the town council but but I don't know where GOL fell finally on that question. We would not allow them to bind the council using. So binding binding language is problematic seems to be the thought Alyssa. I think the thought is absolutely appropriate. And I will say that we've had we have been challenged by at least one resident on this very issue. But the reality is in the past at least we have not allowed a resolution to bind the council. Let's see your hand is down so maybe that. Go ahead. So obviously GOL understands your guidelines better than I understand your guidelines but part of the difference between a proclamation and a resolution right as a resolution says you're going to do something. So if you're saying we can't bind anybody to do anything then what's a resolution. I mean I understand the concept of binding in other contexts, but I don't understand what the problem is with it. I think it's a resolution because otherwise it would just be a proclamation that these things are true. What's what's resolved if are we saying that resolutions are only resolving that we say a thing in which case then they're just a proclamation so I'm lost. Resolutions are attached to things that you say you're going to do. We resolved to do some and so we were going to review. We're going to review policies, maybe the revised part comes out. Because maybe we review them and we we were making a commitment to review them that's what our resolution is, and the revised part is to binding. I mean, I just don't see that we can't say anything because then the whole thing just turns into a proclamation of what we believe that we're actually going to do anything about it. Pat, the build on what Alyssa says it seems to me that this is an action we want the council take to take to review, and I would say and revise but I can understand why that might come out. But the council can vote not to. The resolution the council decides I do want to be bound by this or I don't. So, I don't see a problem and I don't, I don't see a problem. Yeah, I frankly don't see one either in terms of clarity consistent the actual ability. The council clearly can resolve to do something and it can also decide it doesn't want to do it and take it out. But there's no reason why we can't allow it to be in here. And then I can analyze what's the point. Exactly. Further thoughts on that Alyssa, your hand is up and manage your own, go to manager first then Alyssa. Yeah, I'm trying to think back because the biggest one we had this conversation with was that pollinator resolution which somewhere in the be it resolved, required the town to stop using specific types of treatment and also then required do stuff on its town commons and greens and everything in support of pollinators, you know, not Moe as frequently and all of that. And I know the language was changed because we were concerned about essentially creating policy through a resolution instead of a clear policy document. And so I guess the question is maybe this one's okay because it doesn't really create a policy it just binds us to reviewing stuff. And maybe that's to Alyssa's point maybe that's the difference is that it's not resolutions can't bind us to do something it's resolutions aren't a substitute for a policy statement or a true policy statement, you know, when we look at what the council does with policies, you know, our public ways policy or something. And so maybe this one is okay. I'm still thinking it through but that might be the difference. My memory at the time was that this involved other departments, DPW, etc. And we have we're concerned that you know, we need an input from them or some kind of buy in from them. I mean, it's one thing to say the council is going to do something, because the council gets to directly vote on it. But here was a resolution that was committing a town department to action. And we had no input from the town department, we had no sense of whether this was even another is action ability. Is this can this even be done? Yeah, that that could have been it. Yeah, and I'm not sure what actually I know we never thought. Yeah, I know we got rid of the binding language. I could look it up now, but it could be that we as a town council can't, we can create policy, but we can't tell a department what to do. We can. And so this further resolve that only refers to the town council to review the town council's policies may be actionable, but a resolve that says departments and other places on the executive side would not be appropriate. I mean, we certainly could, bodies we control, definitely policies, we control, definitely. But for other things, then while the town manager and town departments under his control, I think all we can do is what, exhort, request, but we can't we can't command. We can do all kinds of things. Lead. No, but I think so. Just again, do we interpret the language here? What's that? What are we, where we decided? And we're going to keep and we'll review and revise his policies. I think we're going to keep that language is that the sense of the committee on the grounds that otherwise what's the point? I mean, as Melissa pointed out, it's supposed to resolve us to do certain things. And this refers specifically to things that the town council has control of its policies, its procedures. Now, the rest of this values goals and missions. But I mean, I can live with that, but it's again, I prefer something very concrete policies and procedures. George, I hate to say this, but I have a hard stop at quarter of quarter of. Okay. Let's keep going. That was the vice chair speaking. We only have three more go three more. We will finish this document. Absolutely. We have time. We have one other item I'd like to attend to, but we'll do what we have to do. So I will shut up and let's move on to the next one. Be further resolved that the Amherstown council and staff will engage in individual and collective work to understand bias and historical role racism is played in Amherst and the community at large in order to better lead a town which is safe, welcoming and equitable, a safe, welcoming and equitable place for all people. So again, this is binding language in the sense that we will engage in individual and collective work to understand bias and historical role and the historical role racism is played. Questions about this mandate. So yeah, just one Scrivener one is this word town whose staff. Is it the town council staff, which maybe then we can bind, but if it's department staff and Paul's staff, we, we can't do that. So I think to be safe, I would just get rid of the words and staff. Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. Be it further resolved that the Amherstown council is committed to engaging in a path of remedy for black Amherst residents who have been injured or harmed by discrimination and racial injustice. Maybe. Yep. So I guess this is this is the heart, I think of what the sponsors are going for. And it goes back to the binding, but what is the quote path of remedy? I guess would be the question on clarity. And and all, you know, whether the council's ready to commit, I guess is not something GOL is, is something to discuss, but, but the question I would have is what does quote path of remedy mean. Matthew has his hand raised. So intentionally, this says that a path of the town is committed to engaging in a path of remedy, but we're not going to define yet what that remedy is. So it's just the commitment that a path, some path is, it's time for it. It's necessary. It's possible. We're, you know, the town is, is going to do that. And then what that path looks like needs to be worked out later on. But as soon as we get specific into the details of the path, then it becomes a little more complicated as far as making, you know, getting buy in and, and all that. You know, this is, as we said, like an educational document that brings this issue to the fore and invites a path forward, that path will be determined in the future. But it's just a commitment to a path that we're asking for. I think in terms, I'm sorry, Andy. How about we'll seek to remedy. How does that help? I kind of like a path of remedy. So I'm not, Andy, explain how you think this helps. How it makes it clearer or more consistent? Yes. Because there are many, many ways to go. The only thing is I, I, I'm not strongly. No, it's okay. No. So you were suggesting being further resolved that the Amherstown council is committed to again, finding remedies or mitigating. Okay. I don't know. Any other thoughts here? It doesn't change it much. So I kind of like the language as it stands. It does commit us to finding a way to address those who have been clearly injured or harmed. And that's left open, obviously, for reasons that Matthew has stated. And I think it should be left open. But I think I like the idea of us acknowledging that we are committed to engaging the path of finding a path of remedy. Andy, your hand is still up. That may be residual. If not, I'll take it down. Okay. All right. Any other suggestions for that next to last whereas? Final whereas, be it further resolved that the Amherstown council acknowledges resolution as a first step in the reparative process and understands there's substantial work to be done which will take considerable time and commitment to meet its goal of being an anti-racist town. Thoughts on that final whereas? I actually like that whereas it gets back to the question of after our confusion about the one prior. Is the one prior really adding anything to what's included, what's stated in the final one? Right. What is the difference? And this is a question for the sponsors either now or for later, but it could be now. What is there in their view, the difference between the next to last and last resolution? I want to just deal. Matthew, go ahead. What just the semantic difference is the first one commits to engaging in a path. And the second one acknowledges that the path, but this is a first step to a longer situation. So there's an articulate semantic difference between the two. Good. So we're committing to a path and the final statement says it's going to be a long and substantial journey. Okay. I think it's a fair response. Mandy? Yeah. I don't have anything on that. Just a few more things. Page numbers would be very helpful. I'll throw it in this before I send it down. And if we really are only at one be it resolved, I would urge the sponsors to figure out a way to get this onto three somehow instead of four to add just one less page, even in numbering, even if it's only one resolution, not by deleting, but by playing with margins. It's just, I think, font sizing, something to see if it can go onto three instead of four, since we're barely on four, but adding page numbers would be helpful too. I agree with page numbers and I want to go back to supporting the right to choose resolution, which was, I think, four pages long, but I'll check that. It's just a suggestion. And as you've been made to make clear repeatedly now, you are perfectly free to ignore our suggestions. And what I take, what we have accomplished here hopefully has been useful and the thought is that this would be, Mandy will send a copy of this to the sponsors and that sponsors will then meet and discuss and then they will return to us on the, what is the next meeting date, December 2nd? Is that right? I think it is. It's on here somewhere. I got papers everywhere. Yes, we meet December 2nd. And again, it would be in the first position, ideally, so that you would deal with it first. Is that acceptable to the sponsors? We're not going to vote on it today, I guess, is the bottom line, as Mandy had suggested. And I think you can see why, and I think it makes sense. So that's where we stand, Pat. I want to thank the members of GLL. I feel like we've clarified a lot of issues and made sections stronger. And that's work that I've seen us do for the past two years, and I'm very appreciative of it. Often sponsors in the past have taken us out to breakfast, which is always a nice thought. As soon as COVID's over, honey. You know, or you could just send us a, you know, like a gift certificate from our favorite. I really like Jake's. Just a thought. I just mentioned it. All right, thank you all very much. We have one brief thing I want to mention. Lynn must go in about four or five minutes. So our guests are welcome to leave. They're also welcome to stay if they want to see how sausage is made, but it's not a preside. Thanks so much, you all. It's really a great process. And as they say, a camel is a horse made by a committee, but we're making a pretty nice, nice-looking camel here. Further we go along. See y'all. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you, Alyssa. We're going to put everything else off in the interest of time. We can wait on the minutes. The Lynn has worked, I think, on a revised timeline draft, and we can look at that and talk about it the next meeting, hopefully. But we do have the issue of same time and what we want to do. And maybe we don't have time to deal with that today, either. So maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing. But as you know, we've had a resignation, and the question before us is whether we want to institute the process we normally would institute in this case and begin looking for replacement or whether we want to wait until the term expires. And so, insofar as we have time to discuss this, and maybe we don't. Lynn has four minutes. So perhaps we should hold this off until the next meeting. And people can just... Go ahead. Annie, the floor is open. Yeah, so I would say since we're at the very beginning of a budget process, if we can get this done quick, it is definitely worthwhile trying to do it now. And to that end, I would support George getting a notice on the town bulletin board out ASAP. I think we've got a procedure that he could draft it and just put it out so that we can start collecting anyone new interested. But it'll be right then only until the end of June. Right. And they're going to have to be brought up to speed. And that is something that I think has been expressed as a concern by FINCOM that given what the learning curve is very steep, we're not going to be able to act that quickly. It's going to take us probably a month, no matter how quickly we act. It's also the holidays. So we're dealing with the holidays, the new year, all the rest of it. So, yes, Pat. I know I'm interrupting. I apologize. That's quite all right. We did have Mary Lou Thalman as a resident member of the committee. I don't know whether it would be possible in terms of process to ask her to return, to fill out the term, to fill out Sharon Povanelli's term. I don't know that you would want to, but that seems like a fairly precise and quick way to possibly fill that spot with someone who is knowledgeable, who is up to speed. I agree with you, but in the world we live in, often the most reasonable and best is not necessarily the friend of process and the rules and regulations. And so we start arbitrarily appointing people to counsel bodies. I think people will legitimately raise a question of process. So it's open for the others you to weigh in, but I guess I share with you the thought ideally Mary Lou would be someone we, now I'm not saying she would say yes, she might very well say no, but just the process, fact that the appearance of it would seem troubling to some and I can't say how I could defend it. Either we do the process or we don't, we could delay it or we need to just, as Mandy said, we need to just act. Lynn. We also had a pool of other candidates that, and you know, if we're going to go back out, we should at least invite them. Yeah, I think it would be, it would not look good. Even though right, it just wouldn't look good. I have no problem with starting the process, but I do think it's going to take some time. And we have to also question whether we're going to interview everybody again. We've already interviewed a whole lot. We're going to get statements of interest from everybody again. I think new candidates, yes, but the old candidates certainly they wouldn't need to. And we, I think we were relying on statements of interest alone last time, so we didn't, and we did do interviews, didn't we? Yes, we did. So these are all take time. And so we're talking at least, I think, literally it's January sometime, I think, is my thought off the top of my head. And now we turn to, we have to have the chair finance present. Any thoughts from him as finance, as opposed to GOL? I think actually in the conversation you have now hit upon all of the alternatives and issues that I identified as I talked through it. I am concerned as to how long it will take to do the process and what kind of effect somebody coming totally cold under the committee who has no background and has no knowledge of the budget process in trying to bring them aboard when we're trying to do everything else that the committee will have to be dealing with at the point when we are getting close to the budget being delivered. But it's sort of hard to know without knowing the candidates whether that's going to. Well, we certainly can make it part of our selection criteria given the situation. It's a one year, this is only for one year. And then whoever it is would need to be up, would have to go up for renewal for a two year term. So this would be a one year just filling out the existing term. Well, that's another question. So that's a question actually. Would this be just filling out the term that is vacant, which would be end in 2021? Wouldn't that be the case? We wouldn't be appointing somebody for a two year point. We're filling a vacancy. So that's just a question. I could use an answer. Does it have to be two years? Wouldn't it be just to fill out the term that suddenly become vacant? Just to be clear, my point is there's six months or seven months left on this term. Any other new appointments as a two year term? So that's not actually true. I think that. Can you clarify, Alyssa? So there are assumptions that people are making that I can assume just as easily as someone else can assume about the other thing. There is no written policy that says when there's a vacancy, occasionally an MGL. Okay, occasionally there is a policy about this. Usually an MGL, occasionally in our bylaw. There is not a town council policy that I am aware of, nor was there a select board policy that said when someone left before the end of their term, that the only thing you could do was fill out the space that was in their term. As the appointing authority, you have the ability to do whatever term length within the limits of what term lengths are based on your charge to do that you want to do. So you can tell yourselves it's only for six months because you want to do that for a reason. Because just like part of this criteria, or because you want to plan to make the terms add up so that you have the overlap that we always used to talk about all the time at OCA, as well as in other spaces. But there is literally no thing associated with this appointment or any town council appointment that says we can only fill the space that's left. That would have to be a policy that was decided. It's not a factual practice in the town of Amherst, that we can only fill what was left of Sharon's term. You could arguably fill the seat with any length of term that's within the charge that you have for finance committee. So could I put another option out there? Well, it's actually a couple of options. To piggyback on what Alyssa said, we could advertise for the filling of the remaining portion of this term and also the next two-year term, so that it becomes a two-and-a-half-year term. There's nothing to say we can't appoint someone to that two-year term six months in advance to do it. But I want to also comment that if we're looking, I am disturbed by some of these comments of we need someone with experience, we need someone with experience. Every time we use words like that, we limit our pool to those that we know of. It takes too much time to bring people up. That means we're effectively saying, well, if you haven't served before, you can't serve now because we don't have enough time to bring you up to speed. And I take issue with that. I take issue with that because if you remember last June when we were discussing this, we had two very good candidates that we came down to, and this committee was split on those two candidates. And one of them did not have a lot of experience and a lot of experience in municipal finance, but a number of us wanted to forward that name as the appointee. And one of the things that others on this committee stated was that, well, we can look at them next year when we already have people on here that have experience. Well, now we're looking to replace one that has experience and yet we're saying, nope, we can't have someone without experience. And so I take issue with that. And so that brings me to my another point, which is we had a second choice in July, just three and a half months ago. And there are many appointment and search committees that when a first choice either doesn't take it or a second opening comes up shortly after those interviews were done and shortly obviously has very different meanings and you can take that anyway, go to that second choice. And so if we wanted to shorten the process, we could maybe discuss whether we wanted to just appoint that second choice or recommend appointment of that second option that at least two of us in committee voted or expressed a preference for over the one that was ultimately appointed. Right. I want to build on what Mandy Jo is saying. If you were only looking for experience, then I shouldn't be on the finance committee. I went on last year because I lacked experience in financing and I have still, it is a steep learning curve. But the other piece is why are we not looking at people who've already applied? And in that instance, I would want to limit it to the six months or whatever it is that would get us to June because I'd be interested in seeing who else would apply for a full term. But whether that part is met or not, I do see how we can shorten the process by using people we've already interviewed. I need clarity here. Can I go ahead? Can we go ahead and simply take the existing pool which we have and notify them and then simply go ahead and choose from that pool that we've already vetted and make a recommendation to the council and not advertise for a a feeling of a position and make it just a six month temporary appointment? Is that what I'm hearing? I think we would have to look at the requirements of the charter and our rules regarding this appointment, the finance committee appointment on whether we actually have to advertise on the bulletin board for new ones or not. I know the charter requires advertising for multiple member bodies. This is a separate issue in the charter. And so because it's listed specifically in a different section of the charter and says the council deems how those get appointed, so we may not have to follow that typical advertise on the bulletin board for 10 days type thing. But I think that's something we might not be able to resolve right now in terms of could we do it? We'd have to spend some time with the relevant governing documents. So Mandy I would turn to you for help with that if you don't mind, but assuming that between Mandy and myself we could get some clarity on that and it turns out that we are not prohibited from, you know, we can go ahead and not advertise. Are people comfortable with that? And secondly, are they comfortable with a six month another just filling that the existing term or should we go ahead and simply use the existing pool and fill it as we normally would with it with the, well Mandy was suggesting a two and a half year term essentially which so I need some help on that Mandy. If we're only filling a six month pool I am comfortable with a six month if we're only going to go for six months I'm comfortable with using the existing pool if we were going to go any longer a typical two year term or whatever I would want to open it up again. I'm just thinking in terms of reaching out to someone who might be willing to do this it's really not offering I mean you're getting only six months and if you do not I mean here's where the experience argument does play a role I think if you really do not have a real municipal budgeting experience this is really kind of just almost pointless I think but if you were pointing them for for two year term and then I think your argument Mandy is very very strong that we shouldn't be simply saying well you can't because you don't have experience we're going to put you on here because you have a lot you know you have a promise and we like what we see the clearly you've got a steep learning curve but two years hopefully you'll manage but here we're talking six months the process has already started it's it's going to be extremely challenging and difficult so what sensor would there be in putting someone on for six months um who has absolutely a very little municipal budgeting experience it seemed to be almost pointless so that's my concern there I agree with you Mandy that we need to stop focusing on experience experience experience but in this case if we're doing it just for six months it seems it would be crazy to put someone on there who's not already not not done this before by the time they find where the bathrooms are the budget will already be you know out the door so that's my concern with that and it may be which is my concern but I can't see putting somebody in there for six months unless they really know what the heck they're talking about so he sees total silence but two hands up Alyssa and mine so I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm looking at faces now instead of looking at the screen um Andy please go ahead okay I had enough for you to call it first the experience thing I mean I I appreciate the point that's being made here and I think that the way that I'm looking at the experience question is that it is a learning curve and if we're going to go to the existing pool it would really not make a whole lot of sense to fill a position for an unvoting position from the existing pool unless you recognize also that the person you're going to appoint if they apply again for the full two-year term is likely going to leapfrog above everybody else in then you get to the question of what are you then doing with the next round of appointments and we do have to go back to what GLL did and I think it was you know well thought out and that was that they said the three people so we'll have two of them be appointed for two years and one be appointed for one year and then you create a staggering process and the staggering process worked until now so we're if we're gonna and I think that the other thing that that's on my mind is that if we do if we do a full process now we're committing ourselves to full processes this year because Hagnar's term expires at the end of June right right what about the argument of simply leaving it vacant this is a not a vote these are non-voting members you have two people with experience and who I assume are working just fine maybe we just let just leave it vacant until we come to the end of the budget process and then we fill two positions we fill Hagnar assume if he reapplies if he doesn't we'd be filling two positions at that point why why do we need to feel the need to fill this position why can't we all this is suggested we pretty much can do whatever we want as long as it doesn't violate the the charter or the provisions of the of the committee on the committee's charter charge so why don't we just leave it vacant just leave it as it is she stepped down it's unfortunate but they have two resident members who would complain and why would they complain what would be the objection so I I guess I go back to the purpose of the resident members and there's as I've said from my experience on the charter commission there was a dual purpose one of which was getting people involved in council work in sort of a low commitment new manner so that they who may be thinking about running for council later on can get an idea what we do and now's the perfect time to bring people in that might be doing that for six months on a finance committee because next summer we're running for office and so if you've got someone you know from that from that point of view I wouldn't want to leave this vacant because you might actually be able to bring someone in that might be thinking about more involvement in town in other ways not just council but school committee library trustees were all up for election in a year and and the six months of experience for someone who's like well what would it be like what what's this what's that could be enough to encourage someone to get more involved in an elected position next summer and so why would we lose that opportunity by leaving something like this vacant for at this point seven months you know we're not even in December yet so I don't support leaving at vacant okay other thoughts on that because at the moment that's what I would suggest leave it vacant so no reason to fill it the two resident members are fine the third one is not going to add much and given that we're going to have to fill the position at the end of in summer we'll just do two so I need to hear from my other committee members and and I'll do whatever you say I mean it sounds like the other option is we advertise or not and we or we just use the existing pool and don't advertise and is it a six month or is it a two year or two and a half year these are all things I need clarification from from you so I know what to do maybe we need to think about and come back to it next meeting I'm sorry to be pointing it out but I would actually agree that we should fill the position okay if the best way to fill the position is six months with an option for renewal that's fine so that's two that we'd like to fill the position right now the chair is currently feeling that he just assumed because he's lazy no he's just assumed leave it unfilled I need to hear from either two members would they like to have it filled now and or not excuse me right now it's two to one and I just need to know what to do you're muted pat that's intentional I see was it directed at me personally or is that just general assumptions no assumptions what you thought yeah I guess I will go I will say that we should fill it because there was something we don't know what that person will bring and whether they're experienced or not experienced they may bring something extremely beneficial because they're thinking out of the box or they could bring something detrimental and that's true for anybody who comes on any committee so I would say that we need to fill the position but I would bow to what Andy sees as a need so it's already that seems to be a majority and I'm not going to slight you here but it seems that the majority would like to fill it now next question is do we advertise or do we just take the existing pool from the previous iteration and contact them and arrange or just see who's interested see if anyone's willing to reapply and under the terms of only six months I don't know what a prospect of renewal means Melissa's hand up there because it was up from before no I think it's because you'd like to speak and I just have been watching you guys instead of the screen so please Alyssa go ahead speak no I 100% wanted to make sure you got through that conversation this is your meeting absolutely I just wanted to offer the perspective of having been filling vacancies for over a decade and also having been through the process right George that we worked on so hard I want to just remind you that while you have some options you tread carefully when you make decisions on things like one whether or not to fill the vacancy I would think that would be something you would need to justify to town council well we've resolved that problem today so yeah you also need to talk with town council about a decision to just go back to your previous pool or to just offer it to your second person these are not decisions that have previously been town council practice just because we split up the appointment ability does not mean every committee can just do whatever it wants unless of course what you'd prefer is to bring the appointment to town council and have it get voted down because they didn't like your process right so we had that conversation how many times if you want people to do what you want them to do in terms of your appointments then you need to bring them along in the process so if you're making a decision as a committee that you're going to use the existing pool and you're not going to advertise because legally you're able to do that you're still going to have to justify that to the town council and I'm going to argue that you're not bringing in people into town government the way the charter intended that we bring people into town government and that we continually talk about in other areas I do think that you have the ability without having to like feel like you got permission to go ahead and say I'm going to be we're going to be filling positions for this the other position that expires in June which of course that person can reapply but that way you only have the one process right but you just go ahead and post the process and get moving with it because if you do any variation of handing it to the second person deciding not to fill it deciding to do a different process than you've used before you're not going to be likely to not have a problem when you get to town council even if you still get a majority vote just process. So I was going to say something similar I think we should advertise if we're going to fill it I think we should advertise and I think we should couch that advertisement in as broad a sense as we can to give us as much leeway so don't couch it as for a term to expire just in June 30 2021 you know maybe we don't even have to say a term you know and that would give us the option of a six-month term depending on who applies you know you could go start with the ones we already have but we advertise we might get new but you start with the ones that have whatever our process is I think it's a three-year look back see if they're still interested and say we're looking at potentially just six months but maybe we're going to look at two years maybe we're going to look at six months plus the upcoming term of two years maybe we're going to look at a year and a half instead of two you know all sorts of you know instead of I know CRC has run into the problem where it says we're going to appoint for this amount of time and then we get pushed back if we don't so I would that term length I would keep as broad and unclear as possible as we talk about clarity keep it unclear and and say we've got a vacancy we're getting out that advertisement so we can move as quick as possible but we don't know what the and how long this is going to be at this point and I would have you as chair start contacting the ones that are in that pool all ready to see if they're still interested so what I'm hearing here is if I may summarize is that we're going to follow our usual policy really usual procedure and I'll put out the advertisement I'll contact those who are have are still in the pool and see if they're interested and we'll go we'll do the usual process and report back to you at the next meeting as to what I've what I've done and what I've learned and we will fill this position we will not determine the length until we actually have the pool of candidates in front of us and we look at them and we we have some options there if we do whatever decision we finally make the council will have the final say if they don't like what we've done they can certainly vote against but at least as Alyssa points out we will follow their usual process and done things the way we normally do them and won't be second guessing or taking any shortcuts or blah blah blah and that's where I'm hearing we're at so that's what I'm going to do I'm going to as soon as possible get the advertisement out and I will assemble the existing pool and contact those in it and let them know that we have a vacancy that we are planning to fill I assume that we do not have to have them write a new statement of interest but they're certainly free to do so but we're comfortable with using their old statement of interest I'm assuming obviously new candidates we would require a statement of interest I'm also assuming that we would again do interviews which means we would interview anyone who was a viable candidate we would arrange for an interview we would not say well we just interviewed you six months ago so we don't need to have a face-to-face interview now we could change that that's perhaps minutiae but that's I'm assuming we're going to follow the usual process okay this is very helpful I appreciate it I appreciate it let's say you're willing to stick around and give us the benefit of yours no seriously you know really because as you know some of us good okay so we have many other things well not many but a few other things we're going to do but we're way over time I'm grateful for all of you for sticking in there before you adjourn I just want you for the minutes to acknowledge that there's no one in the audience for public comment thank you I did neglect to do that but yes I noticed there had been no one in the audience throughout the entire meeting but thank you very much Mandy and we'll leave the minutes the minutes are in your packet when you get a chance someday in the future you can look at them but we'll deal with those next time and all right see you later yeah thank you all thank you George thank you Emily for sticking around