 Um, I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. And. Would act 535 PM and would take a motion on the agenda. Just a motion to approve. Mm hmm. Yeah, I moved to approve. I second that. Uh, any discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed. That passes unanimously. First item on our agenda is the minutes. Any. Welcome a motion on the minutes. So moved. Uh, seconded. By Karen. Sorry, I'm not doing the names as usual. I hope. Okay. I'll do better. Um, any discussion. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed. I shouldn't vote since I was there. Great. So we've got one up staying. Otherwise unanimous. And then we'll move straight into the public forum. Did anybody. Sign up for public forum. Okay, nevermind. Sorry. Great. Sorry. Did I hear you say no Shannon? Sorry. Sorry. Yes. No, I did not. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't receive any requests for public comment tonight. Great. Awesome. And it doesn't look like anybody's got their hand raised or even like we have many attendees other than. Um, Chief mirad and a director green. And town meeting TV, but if somebody pops in, we can always let them speak, but we'll move on to. Item number four, which is committee. Actions. We have three proposals for review. And I guess my first question is just. If folks had a chance to review this beforehand. And if everybody feels ready to vote or to. Not vote on it, but I guess to go through their scoring sheets or folks still need a bit of time. So I didn't see a scoring sheet is available anywhere. Yeah. So if you refresh, um, Shannon did post it now. Okay. It will now. Okay. But, um, Yeah. So the scholar is up now. Okay. And how are people feeling on the. Proposals themselves. I've had time. To review them and I feel okay with discussing them. And Stephanie, I'm sorry for not sending you the, um, The, the score document on that, my bad. No worries. Can I ask a question? I feel I'm just going to ask it rather than being in the dark. Um, Professor Saguino, are you on the committee now? I, uh, I'm going to defer to, um, Chair Gabbash about that. As far as I'm concerned. Uh, yes. I believe, um, yeah, after I did not watch this, the other city council meeting on Monday, but I was. Informed. That's that she was in. And, uh, yeah. Are you a police commissioner? I'm sorry. Is that what I missed? And I'm. Yeah. Lunch. I'm so sorry. Welcome. Thanks. I missed that fundamental piece of information. Sorry. Sorry, I did not clarify. I just assumed everybody watches all of our city council. Yeah, forgive me. I actually do. Okay. Sorry. So I don't want to, I don't want to brush folks. So I'm wondering how people feel about taking a recess to review the proposals. Where was the scoring she posted on board docs? I don't see it. Yeah. You'd have to refresh it because Shannon just posted it. So if you open the page before she posted it, then it wouldn't be, it wouldn't necessarily show up. Right. I had refreshed it after you said that, but I'll refresh it again. Randall. I also, um, emailed it out like, I don't know, an hour ago, it's attached to an email to the whole group. And I'm sorry. Professor Seguino, were you on that email? Just so I know if you've been, oh, you haven't been added yet. Okay. I got the scoring sheet today in an email. So that must have come from, from you, Shirin. Yeah. Okay. So that's, I have not used that document yet. I've reviewed all the, um, RFPs, but I didn't use the scoring sheet. So you're asking the Roya. Um, Chair, chairperson, counselor. Hi. Um, no, I get it right. Um, if we want to recess and do the score sheet and process through it and then come back. Yes. I need to do that to do this. If you want us all to use the score sheet, I would need to do that. I don't know. Okay. So are folks okay if we recess for a bit and people take time to fill out the scoring sheet and then we can maybe, um, Kind of tally up the results basically and get a ranking of the, the, on the technical component, get a ranking of the organizations. Sure. Yeah. The question I have not, having done that, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's, it's, I don't know if it's appropriate for the organizations. Sure. Yeah. The question I have not having done this process before. Do we not talk about them by name and do we assign them numbers? Um, how, how does that discussion take place when, when we do? Should we be all of us assigning them the same number for purposes of our review and reference to them? What do you recommend? Right. Also, I've never done this as part of a public meeting. I think this is kind of a new new event. I think I like the idea of assigning numbers. If you want to do that do it that way. I think that will be fine. Generally responses to request for proposals once there's a decision made do become public documents. So I think it, it would be better to assign numbers, but if you prefer not to do that freeze, I don't think there's a big issue around that. I mean, I think it's okay to and let me know if you think this isn't true, but I think it's okay to like to name to at least name who submitted a proposal that is public can be public knowledge rate. Yes. Okay. And so when you're talking about covering them is that because we don't necessarily want to know want to know who got first, second and third in terms of the technical proposal, but I mean that would be even as someone who writes our piece that could even be something that we share with folks is where they landed in the lineup. So I think probably for that purpose it would be good to assign numbers just to for the ultimate scoring I think score score sheets have been something that generally have been not as public as the responses so. Okay, okay. Oh that makes sense to me. I see. Um, so I would say for so it sounds like for discussion we can have it but I would just in terms of them coming in and they're not being confusion on who it is. I think the sheets won't be made public so if we can have either Shannon I could tally those and I will also say I won't be submitting any scores because I've worked with one of the consultants and I think I could easily be biased towards them so I won't be submitting a score and then in the end discussion I won't be participating so. I could tally the scores when they come in and then assign them numbers and email that out I guess is that okay so that folks can't see it. Okay. Okay, so in your score sheets you can name them by name, but then when we put it out. I think that makes sense, because we won't share the score sheets. So, do people want a 30 minute recess to review the proposals and score them. I'd be happy to do so in less than 30 but I'm happy to do 30 also according to 30. Yeah, I'm trying to give a buffer for anyone who doesn't want to admit that they maybe haven't. Does everybody have sorry. Does everybody have the scoring sheet now. Everybody does. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and admit that I do not see it. I'm going to come from usuring. Yeah, but I'll just resend it to you. Okay. So, at least with me all the emails that goes through the mailing list end up in my in my junk box so it might be there. It's same here. It is easier for me when I go to the one organization that you're part of for that. Well, right. I mean so once which are sent individually to individually email addresses go through fine but one of the center that distribution list end up in the junk mailbox. Okay, so hopefully folks and I mean we can stay on and people can pipe up if they just have a point of order but other than that, we will recess until 615. Someone make a motion to. Sorry, yeah, my bad. Oh, just go ahead. Sorry, I motion that we recess till 615. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Motion made by. Counselor Gamash. Ask every time. It's seconded by commissioner Durfee. All any discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. And as you finish, feel free to send them to Shannon and I in us now at 630 and I'm sorry that took an extra 15 minutes. What I will quickly do is I'll email with Audrey and Shannon, or to make sure that we got the right thing. And then we'll send you all the scores with the name of the company. The technical score. And a reminder of the cost. And if y'all can just not refer to the cost. By number. So don't actually say the number of the, what the end result was of the proposal. And who. Yeah, then I will let you all discuss because they do think it's discussion worthy. So Audrey, how are you coming with. I have a few more here to do. I think they rolled in a little bit later and having trouble opening one of the documents, but I was just curious actually how you're proceeding with a couple of commissioners. Did not to rate the references in terms of. And I was. Yeah. Yeah, I just skipped that because I figured and Stephanie can tell me if this is completely crazy, but it'll end up even it because if they didn't score, they didn't score it across all three. So in terms of the, I summed up the scores that people got. That's true. Just not mattering. Makes sense to me. Okay. Then I will send what the scoring is that I got for everyone so you can start discussing. If you want, but also know that people are double checking in the back. So is there seven seven commissioners and counselors is that I just want to make sure I have every, I have everybody is that how many you have to okay. So I'm sending everyone the summary of the results now. So make sure you check in your junk box and it has what you should refer to the firm as. As well as the totaled up score and the cost. That should get you all started on discussion and then we will confirm. Those numbers are right. So right. Did you say you emailed that to us. Yes, but I just present so. Okay, good. Wow, that just went right in my junk box. That's where all your emails have been going. Yay, we found them. My apologies, but I didn't get it and it's not in my junk box. All right, I didn't send it to you directly. Okay. Which I think I have to do because you're not on the list yet. So, I will forward that. I'm also not seeing it, but maybe I just didn't. I didn't come into my inbox yet. I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing it. If you go to, is that you Stephanie was talking. No, it's Perry. Perry. Perry's not on the email. Correct. I just said it's the police. That was my bed. So afford it to Stephanie and Perry. Or. If somebody else can forward it to Stephanie and Perry. I can do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You know what? Want to make it even worse. Perry, I just sent that to you, Stephanie. I don't have your email. It's just my name. Stephanie. At UVM. Oh, you're not using a city email. Yeah, I haven't got one yet. Right. Well, we're waiting. Can I ask a question about this process? Since it's not something. I. I don't know. I typically get involved in. Is there a fault? Is the. The reference. Portion. In RFPs, is there ever. A checking with references. Portion. Or is that really just part of the proposal itself? But there isn't like a before we, you know, we might select our favorite. Or is that just part of the written document? So at this point, one, I would say that it's up to you and I'll let joy answer as well. But, um, Given that two of the scores were pretty close. The cost is a little different, but their scores are pretty close. If the committee wanted to, and after I say this, I'll pass the gavel to assuring. If the committee wanted to pause to make the final decision to contact those references, that's definitely. Um, A direction that they could go or is my understanding joy. What do you. I think that that would be fine. One thing that I would just like to keep on everyone's radar as timing. Um, because this is ultimately going to need city council approval. Um, if it ends up stretching out over a long amount of time that the timing of meetings might become. How many should you want to get it done, but. Right. Thank you. One good thing is we are meeting on. Monday. Yeah. So that's good, but that wouldn't, that would give a short amount of time. Right. I still haven't got it. I know. And it's because I, for some reason, it. To me this, the grant. I asked Randall Randall might have your email address. I texted them and asked them to forward it. Yeah. I will forward on that email. Thank you. There it is. Thank you. I know where you both were. So. So Stephanie, you did get it. Yep, I did. Thank you. So. Um, I just have questions, but I can wait. I'm going to pass the gavel to you. Okay. So the reason for that is because. As Zariah said, she is, or the chair said, she's recusing herself from this discussion. So did one of the things I wanted to ask as we get started is, is there a category. That was similar to distinguish proposals. A and B. Where were the ratings all over the map in terms of. I just wasn't sure if there was something obvious that bumped B over A. Like, what is the breakdown? I can answer that. If you're okay with not waiting for Audrey to confirm that she got the same scores. And then. Um, P. A. Had. Total scores. Of. Got a quick, some column. Okay. So we're just comparing A and B right now. So, um, B scored. Yeah, they're kind of all over the place. Okay. Um, Oh, I guess not. So B scored significantly better in the first part. It was, I can just send, I maybe I shouldn't. I guess I should keep this open. So. And then it was three point zero five. A, if you want to write it down had the first score was three point eight. Then it was three point zero five. And it was three point two. Then four. Then four. And then, and this isn't actually representative of what we think the score is because two commissioners didn't score it, which it doesn't mean anything. And then for the, for B, for RFPB, it was 4.43, 2.85, 4.3, 3.7, and 1.4. Okay. Thank you. Did any commissioners want that same breakdown for the third, for C? It doesn't look like it was necessary. Right. Okay. So I'm just going to open the floor to any discussion on. On this, if anyone wants to, has any questions or wants to. Discuss. Or if they have proposal for how we go about discussing this. I don't. Commissioner Durfee. Okay. So I just wanted to know that we're leaving some information out. I guess. First of all, here comes my dog, right? My, my question is, should we confine the discussion to the two? Do we need to bring in three? Or we're just going to. Talk about the two. You raise a good question. So I was going to ask our folks. I was going to say that this is a discussion only about AMB. I'm so sorry, my cat turned on my music. This is a great meeting tonight. I love it. So our, um, how do folks feel about removing proposal C from our discussion? I'm not, I'm not. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that together, but just saying what the, um, gauging. Folks thoughts on that. Um, I think it would be good to just leave it open ended. Just because I don't want someone to feel like they can't. Like say one person really, that was their top choice. That's just my preference. But. If other people feel like we should just limit it to the top two, that's fine too. I don't think we're going to be able to do that. I don't think we're going to be able to do that. I don't think we're going to be able to discuss it at all yet. Commissioner Durfee. Just, I was just looking at the math. Um, you know, it's, it's scored significantly lower, but I would agree that if there's any conversation on it, maybe we should entertain that first and then move on to comparing the AMB. Sure. Yeah. So if anyone has any, um, I think we're just going to have an open discussion at this point. I just asked, uh, to what end are we discussing? So I mean, um, Hey, our is the intention that after the discussion, we take a vote among the three or is intention merely just that we kind of have any, any. Questions that we have answered or sorry, so we have, we have a score right now. I'm not sure what the method was, but we have a score. So it seems like we, it might not be necessary to take a second subsequent vote. Since we essentially kind of already have, have that, but it might be that the results of the discussion, you just waste of those minds and makes them want to vote differently. So I'm just not sure like what the discussion is that we're doing right now. Well, I think what we could decide is at the end of this discussion, do we entertain a motion that this result guides, whether this result should guide how we did, you know, how we make this decision. Um, we could, or we could have a motion to begin with, and then we could have discussion. However it is, you know, I'll confess that this is new to me. So maybe it's not ideal to have me chairing this discussion. If I can. And again, I don't want to give any substance input, but I feel like I can. So the, the, the, I think we'll all one, what we put in the RP and to the general, like accepted way to do this is to go by best value. And so because the highest score had to be, it would be a hard argument for say that the lowest score and the highest cost would be the best value. So you can discuss that, but, um, you'd have to, I think, change some, change some things, but under the, if I, if I did all the math correctly, then, you know, you do have one higher score for a lower. Higher score for a higher price. And so, and then you have a slightly lower score for a slightly lower price. And so talking about which ones we want to go with or how, with the next steps are for deciding which, which, what the committee's pleasure is, I think would be. Right. Would be, you would be your charge for this discussion. And, um, maybe the city counselors can remind us whether there was an assault or anyone is, did we get a budget for this? Um, you did not get a budget for this. Um, or so we should not, did not get a budget for this, but it's coming out of the $250,000 that were set aside for transformation. So I'm not sure how much of that the administration has used. I don't know that anybody on the call does, but I would say either one of the proposals would probably be within budget would be a, I mean, it's hard to say what the council would do, but it seems reasonable given that. Is that out of Taisha green, Taisha's on the, on the column, I pronouncing Taisha's name correctly. One. And two, is that her budget? Because she is listening in or observing. I'm not sure that it is, but if we could promote her, that would be helpful. Um, she might also have more insight into it. But if she wants to, maybe she can raise her hand if she wants. Um, No, I no longer appropriations resolution. It looks like it's a separate fund. A separate fund. Okay. Sorry. What is the question? Sorry to put you on the spot. I was one, I was, I wanted to make sure that we weren't playing with your funds. Right. That we weren't making decisions that were cut, but it doesn't sound like it. Yeah, there's an additional fund of $250,000. That is for police transformation. And I believe you're discussing a facilitator and that will come out of that fund. Not, not the racial equity inclusion and belonging. Budget. Thank you. I'm sorry to put you on the spot, but I just, it's helpful to know where, where the funds are coming from and how we're doing this. So thank you. No problem. Any other questions or discussion at this point? So for example, the fact that we have to. Sorry, just one point of order. We, Audrey just confirmed that she got the same scores that I had. So thank you. So we have two very close scores. Difference in price. That can be anywhere from. Up to. Two to three times as much. It depends on the range. But I don't know if folks want to talk about that at all. Or why they might feel it, whether anyone wants to advocate for one of these A or B or C over the other, but now would be the time. I think it would be helpful to hear from everybody about, you know, their sense of. The proposal that got the highest score and what they think the merits are. And why they didn't choose the other two. You know, my sense is that giving quantitative scores is, is kind of hard. And we would benefit from the discussion and we might then go, go back and revisit whether we want to stick with that. Or do you want to listen at this point? If you want to weigh in, I welcome your input. Yeah. Being the new BN hesitant to go first. But, you know, I'll wait and then I'll add some things after I hear from the others. But anyone like to. You know, you know, you know, you know, I'll wait and then I'll add some things after I hear from the others. But anyone like to. Speak to their choices. Commissioner derpy. So I. Counselor Freeman had said this and it's. The one that was way at the bottom was my first choice. So I think I can. Talk a little bit about why. You know, I just, I just felt. You know, and it could be perception or, you know, experience, but you know, I just felt overall it was, it was more. I mean, I thought the work was professionally done. I liked some of the answers. I'm, you know, I'm conscious of my own bias with my own experience. But I had a very close second. And it was. So that doesn't really help. I mean, I think it's, you know, I think it's, you know, I think it's, you know, I think it's the second. And it was. So that doesn't really help or add to the discussion in terms of why. You know, the, the, the one that is not being discussed. Particularly. I felt like the, the ability to synthesis, synthesize the information. And, you know, those, those specific. You know, I'm looking at the document because I don't have it. You know, just, it just seemed like it would be. The information synthesis was a big one for me. How, how the information is going to be handled. But you know, they did seem just, just from my own bias that, you know, they were a little less, they were a little lofty around community. And so I didn't feel really great about that. You know, we're, we're maybe, you know, at 40,000 feet where we really want people to be on the ground. And then of course, you know, the one ranking number a, or letter a really felt more to me that was the area. I think in all of them where I was really paying attention. And I think that really was my focus was, you know, if this is supposed to be a process where we're not just hiring another consultant or, you know, something that maybe many of us have experienced in our professional careers, that it should be somebody who's really sort of getting at that community piece, which was important to everyone on this call. And then also I felt like the overall approach to the, to the one that rose to the top was, was by far felt and resonated with me, but the overview was, was really where it needs to be. Anyone else want to weigh in? Yeah, I would say for myself, C didn't speak to me at all. I'm actually very surprised that they got rated that high, but I, trying to find the page. So what I was really looking for was, in what I felt A and B did a better job of presenting and seemed to me have far more experience was understanding the need to address the various communities that we want to reach. I don't think C really like they see barely touch that. I thought that A would struck me the most. I might say I favor B a little bit more over A, but I did like one area of A. I just can't find the page where they talk specifically and it's something that we've raised before. You know, we are in this environment where everything is over Zoom or WebEx or whatever people are choosing to use. What do we do about people that don't have that access to the technology or consistent quality of technology and what we would have a need possibly of having meetings in person that are done in a safe manner. And they clearly address that in one section of their proposal. So that really stood out to me. I think for this section, Commissioner Grant was talking about how one of the individuals lived in Boston. Does that ring a bell and could come, you know, that that could, that might make it easier for them to actually come here and do some in person. I did notice that too. Councillor Freenham. Yeah, so I also was really going back and forth between A and B. I think I had an initial like off the cuff interest in B. And that might be, again, just bias around like presentation and sort of format, which is not necessarily the most, but just like the way that the information was presented. And so I think that's just sort of, I was drawn to it. I think that, and I'm trying to figure out, so the team at the, for the consultant for B, I think is quite larger. And I'm just trying to figure out if they were going to make a selection out of that, like a predetermined or that we were, if they were essentially going to have. I'm looking back through the proposal again. Does anyone know. That there were specific folks. So the one thing, and I don't know if this is worth, like exactly how to fit this into everything, but so one of the things they did mention in the consultant B was the fact that I think they're the overall in their entire team, there's like a, they speak over like at least nine languages. And I think just, just something I'm wondering in this process going forward is how, and I feel like commissioner grant, like the aspect about like what consultant, it was mentioning around like virtual meetings versus like other ways of being able to engage with folks in the community. Like that aspect, I think is really important to this. And how do you be as inclusive as possible? And so though I looked through like the backgrounds of at least all the folks that were listed and the languages spoken on their website. And it wasn't exactly a one-to-one, I think, because they're a West Coast based group and we're, and so there was a little bit in terms of like the difference in the communities and the primary languages being spoken, but that's just something that I think about. And I don't know if that's partially why. The B group appealed to me just a little bit more. I feel like. The proposal was just really detailed as well. I felt like, I don't know, I'm curious to hear people who really liked a and what it is about that because I feel like I'm kind of like, I feel like I could be pulled one way or the other based on what other people's perception are and the things that they sort of saw and valued and or like jumped out of them and those proposals. So I'm curious to hear the only, the only other thing I think I'll say is that I think, if I'm correct, the consultant for. The A is the only group that doesn't have any background, anyone in the actual consulting firm who doesn't have a background direct experience in law enforcement. Is that correct? Did I read those proposals correctly? I didn't notice anything with them. And I noticed that C had more background to be honest. I didn't notice it in B, but I didn't. That doesn't mean anything. If you noticed it in B, then, then. Yeah, I think there was some, at least one person in the, in the consulting firm that had NB or at least two that had some, which I think. You know, and see if it seemed like it was sort of like an overwhelming presence. And I think that to me didn't seem like the right fit for the project that we're doing. And I'm just curious if other people flag that at all and what their, what their perspective is on that in terms of A and B, which I think will end up being the ones that we end up deciding between. Does anyone want to speak to that? I personally had put A over B. What I was really impressed with in A. Was the, the commitment and the, I don't want to say detail, but the thought they gave to soliciting. The feedback from. Historically underrepresented groups or I thought that there was the detail that they focused on was there and certainly in our RFP, that was a fair amount of what we were focused on. Was how do we get this feedback? And I liked their recognition that we were focused on the community. And not just the BPD, but what we're looking for in the community as a whole. So that was what drew me to A. And I invite others to speak to what, you know, how did they make their decision? What was. If they liked A or B and what, what was the deciding factor for them? Commissioner Saguino. And then commissioner Gommage. Just to refer to the proposal C. I also felt that they didn't really have a sufficient focus on community. It felt like a much more corporate proposal. They declined the request that the materials generated from this project be owned by the city. And I think it's because they tend to be more academically oriented. So I think they, they weren't convincing in terms of their ability to reach the broad swath of people we want to reach in the city. I write B over A. They're very close for me. I think very, very close. But just a couple of things. I think that B's proposal was more professionally done and written. I think that probably matters, but I'm an academic. So I'll just, you know, that's just what, how I come at these things. I also appreciated the fact that it was a larger team and a, and a very diverse team. And we have to really be, you know, conscious of the ability of any, any firm that's hired to reach the new American community. And so I felt that was important. They did have a lot, they did have criminal justice backgrounds that those in proposal A did not have. So those were the really two primary reasons that I chose B over A. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Commissioner Gommage. And so my score for all three, they were all fairly close. I did have A over B and why I had that, what I appreciated in proposal A, it's pay on page 12 for centering marginalized voices. They had one of the, one of the team members here has a lot of experience work with smaller immigrant communities. I think that speaks well to our community. But with that said though, I did appreciate the size of the team on B in the, in the diversity that was on B. So between those ones I have, I'm slightly leaning towards A, but I honestly be happy with either A or B going through. So. Thank you. Anyone else like to weigh in or share their thoughts. Commissioner harp. I can't help but comment on how quiet you're being. I would love to get. I mean, not intentionally. I just. I like meetings to be as efficient as possible. I don't, I'm not going to try to convince anybody about my relative rankings about the three. I'll just say of the, of the two that were considering A and B, I have a pretty strong preference for B. That's in part because as. As commissioner, I think it was more professionally done. There is some discussions. I mean, I think there's a lot of vagueness and a, about exactly what the methods were, how they're going to be used. There was a kind of proprietary method of listening for participation, which would be difficult to explain exactly how that was going to work. And I, but I just thought that as far as clarity, conceptual clarity, I thought that B was, was significantly stronger than a. So my preference to those two is B. Thank you. So I think we have heard from everyone. Except for commissioner high counselor high tech. Sorry. We're accused herself. Does anyone have a proposal for how we want to move forward? If folks feel like we have enough information. To make a selection tonight. I mean, one of the other options. Is if we felt like we needed to extend the deadline. To get more, that is one option to talk about. But if we're comfortable with what's on the table. Commissioner harp. So thank you. Given that's just based on the numbers, given that there are kind of two relatively close competitors and a third, which is rather far behind. My suggestion would be either that we simply take a vote between the two competitors, or that someone entertain a motion for one of them. And then that gets forward up or down. You have to go either way. Okay. Commissioner derpy. Sorry. I keep getting myself. I agree. And I think it, I just want to mention that it's. You know, why we're here is because this needs to get done. So I would, I would lean towards trying to make a decision since some. You know, I think it's possible. Commissioner. We know where you're going to say something. I mean, formally you might just have a motion to eliminate proposal C. And I think it might be best to simply have a vote between A and B. With the largest number. Getting. Okay. I am happy to entertain a motion at this point. Sorry. I just have one quick question. Does anybody know. I think it's. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. Is there a, or is there a shock or counselor Polino's thoughts on them? Are there three on these two proposals? Seeing some head shakes. No, no, no, no. I can text Franklin. Right. I guess I think that he's looked at the proposals. He would have an opinion. And I have not connected with you. No doubt. We are meeting on Monday, correct? I mean, I'm happy to vote on this now. I wouldn't mind getting their inputs on this as well, but I'm also with that being said, I'm also, I have no problem voting right now. Is the full is our all 10 of us going to be on there on Monday. I will not. Okay. Commissioner. It might be useful, you know, if we do vote. On A and B that it be contingent upon positive references. And I think we need to make a couple of phone calls. To ensure that we're making the right decision. So I think, I don't think it's a big deal, but I think the motion should be contingent upon that. Right. Just some due diligence in other words. It can be even beyond references, but doing our own. Right. Yeah. And counselor Freeman. This is my first time doing the reviewing and an RFP proposal and approving it. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. Is there, so there's, is there any way to have like a back and forth, like to have follow up questions to. The. To folks who made. Like, if you have questions about the proposal, is that. I mean, am I just like a supposed to reach out to them independently and just like call them like what's the, I've never done this before. Like what's the process. Yeah, those are good questions. Yeah. I mean, in the same way, I would have some follow up questions. I mean, I'd be curious as to what the expectation is. For how they would go about. You know, studying Burlington. How often would they come to Burlington? I think that's really important. Because so much of this, I feel. It's a lot of. You know, I'm not sure. I agree with. Mingling with the community mingling with certain businesses too. I mean, when I take a look at where I live in the old North, and there are a number of businesses that could be very, very helpful. Just once again being completely electronic. May not work the best in all areas. But getting surveys and certain businesses. And if we can ask some additional questions and get some answers on, I think that'd be very helpful. I think we could get rid of the third one. I think we, it sounds like we're all agreeing that the third one would not be the best choice for Burlington. So I would just say those things. Thank you. I, sorry to quickly one, I wanted to flag that in your inbox. I sent an email on some updated scores if we used a median score of three instead of the median score of zero just in case. I guess, Audrey had sent me that and I didn't know if that changed things for folks. So I wanted to share it. And then to the question on if you can ask public questions I would not do it as an individual counts as an individual commissioner. I'll let Joy speak more to that but there is. I don't know what the city calls it, but there's a process of basically asking for best and final offers where you can ask people clarifying questions if you're saying you're, you know, in the top two proposals. And we have these specific questions that we'd like you to address in your proposal. Commissioner harp. I'm sorry, sorry. I was just going to add that I think if you do have additional questions be best to decide on what those questions are now and then have them submit them in writing so that everyone can consider them and discuss it that way. Commissioner harp. Can I just get a little more clarification on what the methodology was for calculating the average scores so it sounds as though there were a significant number of of entries that were left blank and those were entered initially as zeros is that correct. So there wasn't a significant amount there were two commissioners, one of them yourself, who left just the reference part blank. And so if we. I originally, and so in the methodology was just that first we had to convert all the scores because some people use the way some people didn't use the way some people use it out of 100. Some people did it out of five. So we just had to convert them all to be the same point system. And then other the so that was a neutral methodology we the number that's just converting the numbers the only one that was dependent was the reference or the sorry yeah the reference scores and change having those be zero or three if they were left blank. And so it doesn't change the order it just changes the spread depending on how you look at it I believe was Audrey's point. It's not a substantive change I think either way you can say that which is what I wrote in my email you can consider proposal a or proposal be best value because the converse ranking of highest technical second highest cost and second lowest cost you know what I mean that way, either one of them can be considered best value. Does that answer your question. You're on mute. Not entirely that the question essentially was right so as you said the so the order rankings of the same the spread grew after you did something where you said you substitute a one through five ranking. After lesson there's a zero in there for a couple scores after they were ranked at a three so I'm not I guess I'm not entirely sure what that means or why it is that the that the numerical score for proposal be increased significantly over a after the recalculation that was done. It could also be what made it you you calculated the median as compared to the average rate. So just the median. And yeah and so we added up all of the scores. So we didn't average them is, I think that different way of saying what Stephanie just said is. So if there aren't any more questions or if Randall Commissioner Harp do you have more questions on that. Otherwise I'll entertain a motion that we to remove proposal see from deliberation. So moved. We have a second. Second it. Okay, so Commissioner Sugui now second by Commissioner Gommosh. Any discussion. All in favor. This is a discussion question. I would prefer to couple that in with a substantive proposal and what it is that we're voting on next. So, you know, it's so if for example we're still waiting on information from proposal and proposal be it might turn out, prior to making a vote tonight it might turn out that there's information that we get from proposal a proposal be that makes this skeptical of either one of them and if we've already voted down see then that's no longer an option anymore. So if we are still waiting for additional information not prefer to not remove see until getting that extra information. So if the idea is that after removing see we then vote on either a or B tonight, then I'm happy to include that in. Okay, thank you. I'll leave that if there are folks who feel like we should put together a list of follow up questions for the group. So are we, is there, is this group going to want to vote on a over B, or is there going to be as Commissioner harp is asking delaying the vote subject to more information, other than the contingency of following up with references. So leaving that aside, but is there a desire to delay the vote until Monday. Yes, I'll just say personally I don't feel a need to follow up with additional questions myself. Okay, is there anyone who is there anyone if Grant or counselor Freeman had raised this. Are you comfortable proceeding or anyone else or because this will determine what we do with the pending motion the motion that's on the table. Commissioner Dimash, I guess ideally I would like to, I guess maybe get the references now since seeing we have two front runners. I don't know I think that probably make most sense before we made a foot on this but I'm happy to hear dissenting thoughts on that. Commissioner harp. I would just propose an amendment to the, to the motion, which would be that we eliminate see and vote to recommend either a, or be subject to reference to references follow up. We have a second to that motion. Any discussion counselor Freeman you had your hand up before. Okay, so any discussion on that. So now we have to take a, we're going to have a vote on the amendment to the motion. So do I have all in favor. I would just say that that's it's a friendly amendment, I would say yes and we don't need to vote on it. Okay, on the motion itself. Thank you. Okay, so we'll entertain any discussion before we have a motion on commissioner harps. Well it would be it would be commissioner segue knows motion now amended motion. Do we have any discussion on that or we ready to vote. Okay, so all in favor. Anyone opposed. Great. So, now the discussion is how we proceed with the references and I don't know if joy if you want to weigh in on that, or if commissioner if counselor high tower wants to speak to that. It might make sense to designate somebody to call the references and then report back on Monday. About that chair high tower. Um, sorry, I missed the question. Is it just in terms of did we have additional questions or is, are we just doing a reference check on the vote that went through was that sees off the table and that a and B are being forwarded for vote on Monday subject to reference checks. So the question on the table is, how do we want to go about getting, you know, following up with references. Commissioner harp. I'm sorry, I did not think that that was the motion that I was making I thought the motion I was making was, we vote tonight, and that the results of that vote be conditional on the follow up with the references. Right. Correct that we vote tonight on either a or B, and then there's, and people check references and assume that nothing there needs people to re vote, then that is, then that holds up. Apparently I'm the only one who did not. So as long as this group. That is the motion so it sounds like now we are having a motion on a versus. We're going to vote on a versus. Yeah, I apologize. I apologize. Do I have a motion. I have to admit that I made a mistake on the scoring. Audrey. Are you on. I am on hi. Did you just check my scores or did you independently get the same scores. I'm sorry. Did you just check my scores or did you independently get my scores and Shannon I don't know if you did. I set up to do it in a totally different way I was like ranking them who like number gut for a second and thirds and then so I used then your system and then I went back and make the changes that I was doing on my own independently. And found similar ranking like overall results of like the same proposals and be still about significantly significantly higher scores than proposal C. And by my count proposal be got a slightly higher score. Okay. Okay, just because enjoy, I'll let you sorry make a columnist but because I realized I accidentally left out and copying it over and doing the weight transfer, doing the weight calculations and a separate graph I'd left out one of the commissioners out of the graph completely. And so the way that I have it now so it's still arbitrary, I realized which I'm sorry I didn't expect to do a lot of math tonight was that a was actually higher than B, but I assume that's okay. I thought that's. That's how it was. Oh, that is how it was. That's what I have written down. No, the first one says B is higher than a by not by much. Yeah, 3100 of a percent. I'm sorry. Then I'm wrong. Okay, so I don't know what the city's policies on best value but I just wanted to flag that. I'm not 100% sure now what the scores are but it's definitely you're I tallied the score converted and tell you the scores I got B higher than a as well by like a little bit not not much at all. Okay, so chair high teller raises a good point which is on the we haven't even talked about the value. I don't know whether joy do you know if that comes into play from a city perspective on proposals. You don't have to choose the lowest cost bid, but if, if you are going to recommend a bid that is not the lowest cost you have to have a detailed reasoning as to why essentially. Last interruption I promise Randall is going to kill me and keep interjecting it is now I do have the same it is a slightly lower score than be, but be slightly higher cost. I will leave the discussion again now. Joy, if we make that decision, if we, for example, selected be over a, would that be as part of the motion or how would that decision be conveyed that that's how that was decided. What I think needs to happen once a decision is made as to which, which you're going to recommend is that this should be formatted into a resolution for the city council so you want to make a motion directing my office to draft that. Asking the city council to authorize the execution of that contract and so in that resolution you want to have that information. And that's one other thing that I do as you want to flag is that you need to have an idea of who you want the council to authorize to tax to get the contract. So there needs to be an actual person doing the signing so my thoughts were either director green if she's okay with that or CAO Shad and or the mayor you can you can discuss that as well. Okay. Thank you. So, we go back to whether there is a motion. Whether it's whether we put both AMB or if someone wants to propose what that we vote on one of the motions but is there a motion at this point. Yes, we could just vote. And then the motion would be that we select a particular proposal. Okay, so vote before a motion just and then we can propose that that's one way to do it. Okay, I mean I can just put it out there and we'll see a show of hands or if we want to. Why don't I call and you can give me a or B. Okay. That fine. Okay. Commissioner Hart. Hart. Oh, yes. B. Commissioner Gommash. Hey. Commissioner segue now. B. Commissioner derpy. Councilor Freeman. B. Commissioner harp. B. Commissioner grant. B. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. So two for a and two, four, five for B. Okay. Thank you. So do we have a motion based on those results? I move that we adopt proposal B contingent on there being no concerns raised and after references are called. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, in favor. I'm sorry, I should have said, is there any discussion? Was there any discussion? Okay. And you are procedurally. Need to have a motion about. Making the resolution to the city council. You want to do that at this time. I'm wondering if, if we do that now, or we do that Monday. Yeah, I think you can, you can wait until Monday. And maybe make a decision tonight about how you want to check the references. Right. Okay. And I just have to say this. Were there any opposed? Okay. Thank you. So I think that chair high tower can join us for a discussion at this point on reference checks. And how we want to do that. Okay. So anyone have it in front of them to see how many references. They included. Four or six. Go back to it. You've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Yeah. And the reality is we've got two. And it isn't going to be that easy with two business days. I don't know if folks feel anyone wants to volunteer if we want to split them up or I'm open to whatever the proposals are for this. Ideally you have the same person doing it, but I just, yes. Yeah. Yeah, I think the same person should do it. So you have some ability to compare. I would say you don't need to check all of the references. I would, I would just suggest you check to. We have. Email all of them and see who you guys. Do we have anyone who. Would enjoy that endeavor. Commissioner Durfee. I would enjoy that endeavor. Enjoy that. I'm going to write that in the minutes. The real one. The one thing I will ask. As you know, this is what I'm doing here. I mean, I'm just going to send that via email to me. I will be happy to cut the reference page. I will do that tomorrow morning. Okay. All right. Great. So I think, um, chair high tower that that does it from my, um, bumbling through this portion of the meeting. And I'll turn it over to you. Thank you so much for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Chairing. During that. And I actually had to refresh board docs, but I believe. The only other item on our agenda is the next meeting. Anybody else on board docs. And so, um, we had already. Had a email discussion about things to put on the agenda. Um, And I think that, um, I think that this point would be a report back from. Um, Commissioner Durfee on references. I think we're hoping to hear a report back from. Chief mirad on. The. Equitable sharing program. We had asked, we had left one of the meetings with a few questions on what data we could and couldn't get long-term. So, um, I think we're hoping to hear a report on that. And then the RFP, which commissioner Hart and I were supposed to make edits to. Um, and I believe we can send that out by. I will be doing that by tomorrow. Okay. We'll send that out tomorrow evening. Yep. Thank you. For discussion on Monday. Does that sound. Good to everyone. And I apologize that this meeting took so long. I definitely thought it was going to be a quick one. Okay. Great. If there's no other. Um, items, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Seconded by commissioner harp. Um, any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And we will see most of you on Monday. Thanks so much for. Have a good night. Good night. Bye. Thank you for the discussion and stuff. Yes. Good to see everybody.