 We're recording to the cloud. Go ahead, George. Thank you very much, Athena. Seeing the presence of a quorum. It is 1030 am I'm going to call this meeting of governance organization and legislation to order is July 28. And we are being recorded pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. First I'm going to check and make sure that everyone can be heard and so starting with Mandy. Present and Pat. Present and Darcy. Here. Present. Of course the chair so we're all here one could be heard so we have all five members present. Let's see if I can still remember how to do this I'm just going to put the agenda up on the screen for a moment. Let's take a quick look at it. It's not that. Okay. So this everyone can see that I hope we have I'm going to start with review the ECAC charge a number of items have been put into your packet some of them unfortunately near the last minute but they should all be accessible to you. And we're going to start with that. We're going to go back to the OCA process and hopefully today get through it and do our final review and talk briefly about the, the one appendix. And then I would hope that we can turn briefly at least to talk about our work plan with the review the bylaws for future consideration there are two minutes in the packet and we should hopefully be able to vote on those as well. So I'm going to start with the ECAC charge. I'm going to stop sharing the agenda. I'm going to put the proposed charge change up on the screen. Let's do that. And so, let's put you. Sorry, close that. So hopefully you are seeing your way. Everyone hopefully is seeing the charge post charge changes that's been in your packet. And, okay. And I was going to suggest we start first with the suggestions made by the town manager, which are specific to the charge itself to the language of the charge. Before we turn to the issue of membership number of members and whether counselors should be on on this body so I had suggested I think three things. The first was a small item but we need to discuss it under staff support his suggestion was to replace town manager does it me and simply put in sustainability coordinator. Any thoughts on that suggestion. Yeah. Go ahead, Darcy. Can we be hearing from Mandy Joe's and she is answering this and. Yeah, if you want to start with Mandy Joe, I thought most of the. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Mandy, do you want to speak to this first. Yeah, I have a statement I want to give to before we get into the details so. Okay, fair enough. So Mandy, I just thought that since Mandy Joe is bringing it she needs she why isn't she just presenting it. I'm presenting it actually but Mandy when she's big to it. Or. This is the only committee of the town in some sense that the council's even created I believe, other than until recently when we created the reparations assembly. But. I have a number of goals for proposing what I've proposed the first one is easing the burden on counselors. And I think we have a number of committees that we ourselves as council committees or subcommittees have to serve on. And we're trying to reduce the burden on counselors and adding counselors or keeping counselors on a committee that is mainly a resident committee that makes recommendations to the council. Whose then recommendations generally get forwarded to a council committee that counselors sit on seems like an added burden. It's a unique thing that we haven't done since we created this and it was created very early in our tenure. And so I thought it was time to revisit whether we even wanted counselors on as a procedure on committees that are not subcommittees of the council or that are meant to be resident standing committees. I had heard from Paul that he potentially wanted or thought the sustainability coordinator could be a non voting member recently did that with the district and advisory board that we had to create a charge for per the charter. And so I thought that was a decent suggestion so that's one of the changes I've suggested, but I suggest getting, you know, removing the two counselors from the voting members to make this solely a resident committee, and that seven members was probably enough and adding in a counselor like we did for the reparations committee that specifically says there will be a counselor liaison. I agree that the liaison role is important. Much of what has been said from and requested by, I believe mothers out front and climate action now. Why they thought a counselor should be on this committee is actually all liaison role, being able to inform the committee what's going on in the council or what the council might want a statement from the council on how to get something through the council all of that is within our liaison description and our rules of procedure, you don't need to be a voting member for it and in fact it falls better under the liaison ship. So that was my reason for moving it to counselor. I am attempting to delete the asterisk under special municipal employee, because if there are no counselors on it we don't need the asterisk so that is similar that is simply a, you know, administrative sort of fix. If, if this goes through with seven members no counselors. I would change how I referred to coordinator I didn't know whether she that whether it had a hyphen or not so I would unhyphen it but but those are basically the reasons that I actually don't think we should have counselors on committees that make recommendations to the council, whose recommendations are likely to be referred to council committees. So I would get two cracks at the vote essentially or three actually in a resident committee in a council committee and then at the council are our time to weigh in is in the council committees and at the council it's not our time to weigh in. I don't believe when it is a resident committee and we're seeking out the residents opinions and stuff because we can have an undue influence in that and I just have come after two and a half years to believe that if we want residents opinions we should leave it to the residents to give us their recommendations and opinions and then we weigh in afterwards not in the middle of that. Yeah, I just have a question for Mandy Joe, whether she could give an example of that last issue that she brought up of how how counselors could have an undue influence. Well, so the ECAC brought forth and recommended climate action goals to the council and two counselors voted on that before it even got to the council to go to committee. And so those counselors got to weigh in extra, and I'm not saying they did it wrongly I'm just saying they got to weigh in in the proposal that came to the council from what was supposed to be a resident committee. Before it even made it to the council. And I don't know how those conversations went in a committee. In the committee, but that was a special privilege given to two counselors instead of 13 counselors and I'm not sure it's something we as a council want to promote. Well, that's, that's another issue that we could talk about. But I, I have a statement if we're ready for it. First, I just like to say that I thought I'm, it's very sad and hurtful to me for this issue to be brought forward for the third time. Yes, we know that Mandy Joe doesn't like hybrid committees, but we established that they don't violate the charter. And we know that the town manager has never wanted a committee with counselors on it he has stated that from the beginning. But the town council put forward and voted for a charge that included a composition that includes both branches of our government represented in order to give the committee a special status. Based on the seriousness of dealing with climate change. So, I guess, I, I am not sure. I don't totally get why we're bringing this up again. And I'm also sad that the council chose as its first act following the presentation of the climate action plan. Moving counselors from the committee. When so much is happening on the climate front. As we're seeing every day in the news, underlining the urgency of acting now and without delay. The mothers out front and climate action now are the two most active resident climate action groups in the area. And they actually have two representatives on the ECAC Andrew Rose, and I am a member of the groups, although I don't represent them on ECAC. They were involved in the inception of the committee by brainstorming the structure purpose and composition of the new committee. Before it was established members from North Hampton recommended their, their energy committee structure which includes two counselors. The thought was that if the two branches of the town government were presented on the committee that gave it more stature. The Hampton committee at the time included bill Dwight and Alyssa Klein, both of whom were at least as activist as the, as the resident members. I remember that when they were first discussing community choice energy bill Dwight traveled to California to research that model for the committee, and both Alyssa and bill put in many, many hours of work for the committee. And I am one of the hardest workers on the ECAC and have been willing from the start to put more time in than others. Laura is probably the only person who has put in more time than I have the committee pushed from the start to have work groups that meet between regular meetings on which I was ready to serve. In other words though we're prevented by the unavailability of staff to attend extra meetings and the appearance of consultants to do our work for us, which is now no longer the case. I was until recently on the steering committee of climate action now and I'm a member of Pioneer Valley mothers up front. I've been working with the staff of the three towns on the community choice energy joint powers agreement for over three years, meeting every two weeks and putting in work between meetings. Stephanie and I work together at those meetings. I'm part of a new group called local energy advocates of Western mass which has as its mission to raise funds for energy projects related to the new joint powers entity. Also I'm a founding member of zero waste Amherst. So needless to say, I and I hope future counselors will be able to contribute not as a liaison, but as a working member of the ECAC, which is much more useful to the committee. As you saw both mothers out front and can recommend strongly that the committee remain as is with counselors. It's not casting aspersions on residents to say that a committee with both residents and counselors is more empowered. It's more that the two branches of the town are represented. So they can both support and check each other. The summit action continues to need heightened heightened profile because it has a lot to compete with in this town. And one way to do this is by including both branches. We have an email from Laura Drucker Drucker and our packet, which represents her opinion, not that of the ECAC committee. I know that the ECAC members don't know that this issue was even referred to GOL or that we're talking about it today. They didn't receive a copy of Laura's email to GOL or her previous letter to Paul about this or her replies to the mothers out front, or to climate action now letters. They are unaware of any content of any of these discussions. The most troubling to me is the issue of the library expansion project vote. It appears that I mean it feels like that. That is what this is about. ECAC had every chance to vote to support the project if it wanted to. All were aware of the timing of the project and council vote. Laura commented at the council council meetings. At the time it came up at an ECAC meeting it appeared that at least three ECAC members oppose the project and a difference and had a difference of opinions on which solution was more sustainable. The committee appeared to ultimately decide not to take a vote if it wasn't going to be unanimous. I think that was a very clear understanding. And Jesse Selman was who was a member was tasked with writing a piece, sort of explaining the virtues of both options, which was never written. And I think that the council vote on the library and the fact that ECAC never took a vote in support of the expansion project, though, as I said, it could have as I, and as I said, I was not the only ECAC member who didn't support the library expansion project. I'm not a climate friendly counselor based on my library vote. And that seems to be saying that there's no room on ECAC for someone who does not see the expansion project as the more sustainable option. So the chair expressed to me in about March that she was considering stepping down because she didn't want to have to deal with Andrew Rose, me or Steve Roof asking for changes in the climate action plan. In addition, Dwayne Breger and Andrew Rose requested a dramatic change to the climate action plans emission reduction projections put forward by the consultants right about then too. And once the projections were amended, I pushed for the climate action plan to still provide the actual steps needed to reach our adopted goals, as required under our charge, which it appeared until the last minute that the consultants were unwilling to do. So, but I kept pushing for it and we ultimately did get that put into the plan. Laura continued to state that she was planning to leave depending on what happened with the structure of the committee. The process of going back and forth with all of our comments to the consultants was grueling and difficult for Laura to negotiate during the pandemic with a new job and small children at home. So she did still amazingly pull it off. However, she did regularly express irritation and impatient with the members and the process. Bottom line. I think that this issue is a waste of time for the council the council joined together to create ECAC as our first act which, although there was considerable wrangling about the details was a very positive move for the council. Now this is a very bad look. It's disrespectful of the work I've done and I find it petty. I propose we leave the language of the charge as it is. There's nothing that needs to be changed. I would say just appoint me until January and let the next council either appoint counselors or bring bring it back. No desires, but we should not be doing this now. For the comments from anyone else before we turn to the document we have in front of us. I'm sorry, Pat, did you have something you want to say. Well, first of all, I do want to say that Darcy has worked extraordinarily hard on this committee and I appreciate that work. I appreciate the work of the committee. I am not in support of counselors being on this committee or any town committee. I said it in the last meeting a town council meeting. It's a place for resident voices. And while you have connections and knowledge, you didn't really, I don't think brought anything to this particular committee that wasn't already there in the members. In fact, I feel like the emphasis on special status and stature, having a counselor provides gravitas, which was some of the material you sent to the steering committee of can to get them to support your position. I have no right to comment on composition of a committee that is a council job. That's a council creation. It is not policy in terms of energy or climate action has nothing to do with policy and I have great respect for the organizations that you're part of. I've written to can to Susan to bearish and expressing my dismay. When I first learned about their wanting to participate in supporting having a counselor on this committee. It is I was thinking it was double dipping but it's actually triple dipping your vote is not more important than any other counselors vote. And because you have a strong emphasis on energy and climate action doesn't make you more valuable than any other counselor. There should not be counselors on any town committees. And that's the bottom line for me. So this one, this gives me a little bit of pause, because I, I usually do not support having counselors on a committee. I mean, I made that really clear with DAB. It's the here's a rub for me and and I'm saying this openly and I'm saying this as a council member who's hoping that this this council starts to figure out a little bit like even more how we want to do things right and how we want to set a culture. When I was on CRC, I felt a little bit uncomfortable with how much I felt like CRC had. I felt had that gravitas sometimes with planning board and ZBA. And I've really sort of looked at that right because I will be I am very in awe of counselors who have strong convictions who think really hard about things who do have, you know, as Mandy Joe said, you know, you're elected by people who believe a lot of the same things that you do and as people who make laws, you know, we're here to push certain. And I want to say push certain things through. It's not like that it's some to direct things and to get things done. And I very much admire the fact that Mandy Joe always looks into everything that she does. I feel like she's extraordinarily intelligent. And I think that she doesn't make any bones about the fact that when she can, she will present a case to further the fact that she believes in and that her constituents believe in. And, you know, I think that she does it in a very strong and effective way and I, I actually admire that, you know, I when I think about CRC I think about it's a committee that has to it addresses certain issues that we have in the town zoning's one of them and right now it's our charge to look at zoning. So it makes sense that CRC is working closely with resident bodies that are also working with that. To me, I'm also thinking, you know, what do we have a specific committee that works just with, you know, the climate change do we have, you know, we have counselors on that committee. And then, you know, would it be that maybe that council committee could then work as much in conjunction with ECAC as say CRC does with planning board and ZBA simply because it makes that much sense. So, I'm sort of torn, I'm sort of thinking that when a counselor has has interests and has a political feelings and an agenda to make things happen because they believe in it. How is it appropriate for us to do that. And I also believe in consistency right so for consistency I probably say that I wouldn't support having a counselor on this. The only way is I wonder if the difference in gravitas between a council committee working tightly together with a resident committee that's also working on something is very much different than what this charges and and I'm saying that very very clearly because I've really tried to, to figure out where I, it's logical that I fall on this. So I guess my question. I know that we're talking about, you know, action ability and in consistency. A majority of people think it's not okay to have a counselor on this committee. Do we think that as counselors, because we found this such a priority. Do we have a committee that deals mostly or you know has this as part of their charge, and then could it be that they we, we, the chair or you know the council itself says we would like you to work more closely with ECAC. So I'm just putting that out there is something that I've struggled with. Thank you, Sarah. Further thoughts on the members of the committee. So I will answer that CRC's part of CRC's charge is to review and make recommendations regarding climate action materials so I just want to state that so there is a committee that has been given that charge in similar ways to the zoning review and make recommendations on zoning charges. So I just want to state that I have actually tried to further separate planning board from CRC in terms of recommendations. It's one of the reasons why CRC adjourns its joint meetings with the joint hearings. So I think that the board even taking up their just deliberations on recommendations to try and further separate those two from from that influence because that influence has from the public point of view, then concerning. So I think there are a lot of different concerns about CRC and having too much influence over the planning board discussions on zoning and so I'm trying to operate within town council votes of hold joint hearings, but also eliminate as much as the deliberations being joined because of that influence that people have can have rightly stated there's concern about. And so I see this as something similar where the getting the counselors off of that committee and having that deliberation separate from it. It is similar to what I've been trying to do to separate planning board from CRC in terms of their deliberations regarding zoning proposals. So what I'm hearing as I listen to this is that on one side there's a view that this is a special committee created very beginning of our tenure. Because it's a special committee because treated differently than other committees. And it's done that way because climate issues are considered to such importance that it's imperative, apparently, that we have to have one or in this case to counselors, serving on a resident body resident committee. The other side is the argument that no matter what the good intentions and no matter how much the hard work or effort or whatever of the council members or the lack thereof, quite frankly, counselors by the very nature of their elected position are like the elephant in the room. And we've heard this concern expressed by other members for our community who do not want counselors on resident bodies, precisely for that reason. And there's also the concern of, you know, the counselor or counselors getting three votes essentially, which seems least from the, you know, from my perspective to be just inappropriate. There's also the issue of the confusion that this creates in the minds of both of the public and also the members of the committee as to who or for whom the counselor speaks, I assume the counselor speaks on this committee for themselves. It's their place to expound their views, it's not the right they don't see themselves nor were they placed there as far as we can tell, simply to be a liaison they're there to actually advocate for argue for various positions. And so there's the confusion in the minds both of the public and of the members of the committee, when a counselor speaking, are they speaking on behalf of council they're speaking for themselves. And what happens when two counselors don't agree. So, there is the problem and I think for us the issue is one of policy going forward. Is this the way we want. Do we want counselors serving on resident bodies is the question. And it's hard to see how a counselor can remain neutral in fact they don't apparently on these issues they argue for their particular case. There's no chance for them to push their own agenda. However noble and however laudatory and how good it may be, which is simply not given to anyone else on the console. So that that troubles me. And we did from the very beginning, identify climate action as something of primary importance and the initial decision was to put counselors on that for precisely that reason. Two and a half years later, a number of issues have arisen a number of questions have arisen. And I think what we're trying to do here is as a matter of policy. We focus on what makes the most sense going forward in terms of counselors being on resident bodies, whatever they may be. We do have certain bodies that are created for specific tasks like the library building committee that is coming up the school building committee. These are not resident bodies the way resident may be present on one or two of them. There are essentially time limited specific tasks. In some cases and can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in some cases the presence of a counselor might actually be required by either by contractor by state law, but there it does seem appropriate to have a counselor present, but it's a, not a policy body. It's a body that is, you know, tasked with very specific purpose and has a time limit. And committees are very different and resident committees so I guess I need to be convinced that somehow the problems that have been raised and the issues of lack of clarity. People pushing their own agendas, getting three votes instead of one. How is this not a problem, not just for this committee but for any committee, which is a resident committee to whom we look for their advice their thoughts their guidance as opposed to this committee where it's five counselors. So that's where I'm at Mandy and then Sarah. Yeah, I wanted to talk about something a little more pedestrian regarding this which was in the chairs email and and I apologize to Sarah because I know that's probably who she was referring to. So we were talked about how when a member doesn't show up, and that members a counselor. How do you remove that person or not remove that person but how do you deal with that right that was one of the identities of, or issues that the chair of ECAC brought up is creating issues with counselors on a committee. So I wanted to touch on that one briefly not to say Sarah's done anything wrong or anything but you know because Sarah you did mention in a meeting that you haven't been attending these meetings so so. But to reference our charter, which is section 9.14 which actually it would indicate how the chair needs to deal with this, which is that the town manager would have to remove Sarah, or remove the counselor that's not showing up, because section 9.14 says any person appointed by the town manager to a multiple member body may be removed from office by the appointing authority. If said person fails to attend regularly scheduled meetings for a period of three consecutive months without express leave from the chair of such multiple member body. The same thing applies to the council but this is a multiple member body that the town manager appoints, which means when we put counselors on this on a committee like this. If those counselors aren't doing their job and attending meetings and that is deemed by the chair to be affecting the ability of the committee to either get quorum or do their own job. They have to ask the manager who is hired by the council to remove someone who hires them. That is awkward, and I'm just going to say that that is awkward, and probably is one of the things that hits me as why this hybrid committee is not why at least I've come to believe it's not wise. Because things like this happen. Creating these awkward situations is not something that helps. And then I just want to address one more thing which is as with Pat Darcy, you've done an extraordinary amount of job but I believe Sarah in our last council meeting said she didn't think she had anything to add. And that's why she hasn't been attending and that's I respect that position to I have nothing Sarah against you making that decision I completely respect that. There is no guarantee will ever have counselors or always have counselors that feel they have something to add or to contribute to ECAC. Do we just leave them open. Do we change the makeup of the committee, depending on who gets elected to the council, or, you know, like these are the these are the things that problems are created when we do a hybrid committee like this, and I, I guess I just keep coming back to because the solutions aren't easy they're not clean and they might need to change every two years or one and a half years or one year and that that's not the way to run a committee and the most steady option. So certainly the most logical option is to keep counselors off of resident committees that are made to and form to make recommendation specifically to the council. So, so it wasn't it wasn't just because I had nothing to add and I'm going to partially try to explain this and then I'm also going to ask perhaps, because this is a very sensitive issue. I feel like it needs to be explained to other counselors that I would maybe ask George or the town council president if we might have an executive session at least just for this committee in which I could explain this to other counselors. I first began on ECAC ECAC was working with other members of the community that were, you know, considered disenfranchised, perhaps at risk. We had a meeting, and we had people end up zoom bombing us and then something else happened. I had taken an inadvertent action, which led to an individual feeling that I put them at extraordinary risk. I let the town manager know what it happened. I had let the town council president know what had happened. The town manager actually knew more than landed. It was extraordinarily upsetting. I had to work with an outside agency, and it led to me having to take an entire month off from town council. I am not at liberty to discuss because it would put someone into physical jeopardy exactly what happened and I don't mean to like make any drama. I don't want to answer any questions but I would want to make sure that whatever I said was kept private. This was extraordinarily upsetting to me, and I did not want to throw shade at absolutely anyone. But I did feel somewhat not completely safe sometimes in the when the AC AC meetings that went forward when we were first starting to do zoom. And also was a huge part of why I did not continue to go. Now when that happened, I asked to be taken off of AC AC, I asked I asked Lynn, I let Paul know. Lynn said, I want you on there, I don't care if you don't go. Just stay on. So I did. When we were changing committees and people will see that I asked to be on a couple other committees. I did not I asked specifically to not be put back on AC AC. I know I don't care if you don't go, just stay on. And so I have. I would not. I try very hard to do my homework and to show up. And I, you know, without good reason would not do that. So then I think we also have to ask why would you keep someone on a committee, if they've said they don't want to be on it, or if they said, I don't feel safe. Right. And Darcy has also tried very hard to get on CRC. And I, you know, Lynn makes I'm not throwing any shade Lynn makes excellent decisions I'm not I've you know I voted for her I'm not saying that. But I'm also saying that there could be a complication where someone who feels very a counselor who feels very strongly about something would perhaps not be placed on a committee that deals with that. I don't know why I don't know why. Right. But then where does that put a counselor who feels really strongly and has a lot of knowledge on a certain subject that they wouldn't be put on the committee that deals with that. And, you know, I couldn't imagine not having Mandy Joe on a committee that, you know, deals with zoning or laws when she knows so much I just don't see that. It's not as straightforward as it seems and again, I would be more than happy in an executive session to answer more questions that this committee has or the rest of the council has that being said, because it is so complex. And we only have about six months left of our tenure here together. And we have a certain, you know, we've sort of worked out things ourselves. And Darcy has no chance of getting on CRC in the next six months. I guess I would be open to discussing with the rest of this committee in an executive session what went on, how things could be different, any other changes we want to make. But I would suggest at least letting Darcy finish this last six months. Whatever change we make, could go forward from there. That's my suggestion, because I think it's more complicated than what we're putting forth and I can't give you more information right now. I actually raise a good question that I don't know the answer to, and I probably should which is assuming for the sake of argument if we were to make any changes including how many people serve on this body. Would that take place immediately or is that something that in other words, I would think that the current members would finish their term, and this would be something that would apply to a future appointment. I just don't know. I don't know if Mandy has thought on that I know Pat if anybody in making a change is that mean immediately that the council members would be removed if we did make that change. Or does it simply mean that as a matter of policy going forward, we would basically suggest to the council and hopefully council would agree that they might not that we not put counselors on these kinds of committees that's I guess my question Mandy have any thoughts on that. So, I'm a couple things Sarah thank you for your candor. I like I said I have nothing against you it's just her Laura's thing mentioned and brought up. That's awkward, you know, and and if you've asked to get off. I, you should have been let off, you should have been able to resign you shouldn't have been forced to remain me that you want to be on and that's just wrong. I feel like you have to remain on a committee you don't want to be on that that I can't agree with. So, you know, I wish I had known that before because that's just wrong. And but, you know that brings up all sorts of other issues. But when the council passes something a revision or whatever it can decide when that revision takes effect. So if the goal is for this to take effect January one 2022 that that can be part of the motion that can be part of the recommendation coming out of this committee that it take effect January one 2022. Instead of immediately bylaws take effect within 14 days unless you put at day 14 for the charter unless you put a further date out and you can always put a further date out. And so you can just, you can put a different date on the vote, in terms of when it would take effect. I think in our, I think technically her term is still going from what I remember Lynn saying and Darcy's technically expired a month ago. The council hasn't through I guess the president hasn't forwarded to the chair to the town manager. A recommendation for filling that, I guess technical vacancy so Lynn has, or Paul has just assumed Darcy's continuing on. I mean, even though the term is expired I'm not exactly sure how that works when a term expires. I guess they're not just date certans there until someone else is appointed I, I've never quite understood that when we actually generally confirm appointments for date certans but we should clear that up to I guess is we could make this, we could make a recommendation that it not take effect until January one. I guess I got another simple questions to be questioned the term appointment is three years. So, how could Darcy's term be expired because they needed to be under the staggered and Darcy's was staggered. Okay, so that's in going. Okay, all right. Sarah. So, I guess the other thing that I just would say is that for something for all of us to think about, especially for people who are running for reelection is the role of the president. And one of the things that president does is to assign people to committees. And it first that you know seems somewhat innocuous and you know Lynn has definitely done a good job about keeping the majority of how she does things completely transparent. However, I think that there can be a case where the president may not want to put a certain person on a committee. And I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm not running for reelection, but I think it's something that counselors need to think about. And I think when they appoint a president. They need to think about. And and how we are defining the role as president is something that all counselors need to think about. I appreciate this but really are straying away from what we're supposed to be focusing on this discussion is not about the role of the president as interesting or important as that may be this question is about a proposed change to this charge. And it seems the focus of the discussion at the moment has to do with whether we want to have counselors serving on these kinds of bodies. And that's what I'm trying to get some clarity on. I've had some strong arguments for why counselors should not serve on bodies like this. I'm not interested in a particular body so much and I'm certainly not interested in personalities. I'm simply trying to understand. Give me something give me a good reason why we should put people on resident, we should put counselors on bodies that are resident bodies for the number of reasons that have been stated I'd like to get some kind of answer. Sarah to have a chance to she was trying to say something there. I understand Pat but I want us to keep focus on the issue we're not talking about the president and the president's powers. We're talking about this particular charge because we have lots of other things we need to do. So I'm just asking her to just focus on the issue at hand. Okay. No, Sarah, or anyone who wants to help me I'm just trying to make up my own mind as to whether I should. Whether I should support this proposed change or not. And, and I'm not. So that's what I'm asking for help with that from anyone. You know, I think what Sarah was getting at with her talking about considering of presidents is the presidential power relates to whether there are resident committees that are not appointed by the president should have counselors on them to sort of check some of that power I think that was where she was, you know, and I'm certainly allow Sarah to correct me if I'm putting words in her mouth but that's sort of what I was hearing about concern and why she was bringing up presidential power and the presidents under the charter sole authority to appoint council counselors to council committees. That that can that a committee like this then that has counselors on it because the manager points that and frankly how we've, and how the manager has done those appointments by having the council forward to the manager not the president but the council as a whole forward to the manager it's desired appointment that that can serve as a check on presidential power of council committee appointments by, I'm not sure what by but I think that was the Sarah's thoughts, the train of thought she was having regarding supporting members counselors on a committee like this. George, I think that unintentionally you have a habit of steam rolling things and particular people sometimes and I think that you need to draw back a little bit. I think the issue that Sarah brought up was really important and I was sitting there thinking about it. And so I'd like to hear about it. I'm getting on it, excuse me, and you cut her off you cut us off and that's, I don't think that's helpful and I'm very glad that Mandy Joe said something that because I was getting to a similar place, but I would have liked to have heard Sarah's response, even though it might take time, we waste so much time on things that you don't interrupt us for and I love you dearly and you know I respect you but I need you to pull back a little bit and I think you owe Sarah an apology. Any further comment. Questions been raised about the power of the president and how having committees that are not appointed by the president could be a check on presidential power. So that apparently is being proposed as a reason why we should not have a policy on having counselors serving on resident bodies, because it might serve as by having that policy, it might give the president excessive powers. Am I understanding that argument. Just a question. I'm sorry. Sarah go ahead. That was that is the one. The fact that there's a counselor that has a lot of interest in a particular subject. Here you Sarah. She seems to have been disconnected is that correct I can't I don't see her. I can't hear her audio so Sarah if you can hear us, you might try and exit the meeting and then come back it looks like there's no mic next to your icon so maybe your audio is not connected. It's true I do still see her icon but I don't see her and I don't see them. I'll try and reach out in case she's not able to hear us. Send her message. Sarah can you hear us. Yep, sorry about that. So I just think in George's right this may. But I'm also what I'm saying is is that a counselor who would like to work with a certain subject. Usually applies for a council committee that works with that subject. If the president who is the one who assigns counselors to a committee decides for whatever reason that they don't want to have that person on a committee that deals with something that they care very much about. Then that counselor has absolutely no way to work with that subject. So I guess the other thing that I'm that I'm saying is, is it something for all of you to keep in mind at a further time, because you know Mandy Joe was able to stay on CRC she's chair of CRC and she works with things that she cares very much about. So I guess what I'm saying is another reason to think about when we're making this decision, how do we make sure that counselors get to work on things they care about and that's all I'm saying is that, you know, it's it's also complex when we're talking about counselors working on things within committee and within their counsel duties. Thank you Sarah that and I apologize if I if you if I cut you off but that certainly helps me understand more clearly the connection that that I was struggling with between the issue of the president's powers. And the issue that we have here in front of us and you've made that point I think quite well. So, further thought on that point or other points Darcy. Yeah, I would just like to underline the fact that being a member of the committee. Me means that you put in work. And I would hope that counselors in the future would would want to put in work. One of the things that the chair has said repeatedly is that we need more people on the committee who will do work. And I am basically really interested in that kind of a role on a committee. So as a liaison, you would not really be asked to do that. And nor would it necessarily be appropriate for you to be doing work for a committee so this committee needs needs workers and I am willing to do that. And I hope that counselors in the future would be willing to do that. So I just wanted to put that out there that that's something that Laura has really been looking for is people who will put in time. And one of the things that's coming up is our climate action plan implementation, which if you looked at the implementation, chart, you know, there's a number of issues that require bylaws or, you know, some, some intensive work. Someone needs to put it together. And now maybe it'll end up being staff that puts it together, but ECAC can also chip in with that. And work together with staff to do the work. So I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, but ECAC can also chip in with that and work together with staff to do the work. So, and a lot of times ECAC is needed to, to, you know, to, to accelerate the work. So I'm just, I just think that it's better to have more hands on deck. You're muted, Pat. I'm sorry, my phone was ringing before and I remember to put it back on. Thank you, George. I'm a liaison on two committees. The housing trust where I participate fully. Except to vote. I ask questions. I share my opinion because the chair and that committee has given, given me permission to do that. On disability action awareness committee as a liaison. I don't want to be in the room. Because if I were restrained, I definitely don't vote. I wait until they engage me. If there's something very specific that's coming up in terms of council process or something that I know about that they're kind of trying to see if they want, I may offer that information. And I work very hard on that committee to understand the issues. It's been extraordinary for me. that I've done listening to the resident voices on that committee. And that and the nature of how that committee needs to be integrated into work that CRC and TSO do. So liaison is only as passive or as a chair and a committee want it to be. And you can do plenty of work. I think it is totally inappropriate for counselors to be voting members on town committees that are resident. Okay. I see no hands. If I'm missing anyone, please pick up. I would like to go to specific proposed changes that are on the obviously the number of voting members and the issue of liaison. We've been discussing I think at some length now. What we haven't discussed is well, good. Mandy has made the change. Is that your change, Mandy? One non-voting member. Right. You're right. You can't do that. So one non-voting member, town of Amherst sustainability coordinator. So Paul had made three in his communication to the committee. He had made three suggestions. And so the change that he's proposed would be to remove town manager designee and insert sustainability coordinator. Thoughts on that? If he's okay with that, I'm okay with it. The reason I think we say always town manager designee is because the council can't assign anything to anyone other than the town manager. And since the composition specifies the town of Amherst sustainability coordinator, what would this change entail beyond sort of in a sense overstepping, potentially overstepping our authority? Well, we've given non-voting members. So I don't think it's we can't put non-voting members or anything on like that because you can only choose not to appoint them. It's staff support saying, oh, hey, manager, this particular person is the one you have to spend time or something with. I mean, it seems to indicate both. So I'm okay with changing staff support to sustainability coordinator at his request. Okay. Any further thoughts on that suggest a change? And I don't think it's got the hyphen, which is the hyphen from both of them. I wasn't sure how it was done. All right. I guess I would say that there's no reason why not to keep it the way it is because we don't know how the staffing is going to change in the future. And we may have other sustainability staffing in the next however long. So I guess I think we're safer keeping it the way it was so that since you've already since she's already been elevated to a membership position anyway, that it gives the town manager more leeway to somebody else. So it could be her plus another staff person or not. It leaves it up to the time manager to make the decision. And under the non-voting member, we have identified the sustainability coordinator. So, okay. So perhaps we leave it as it is. Sarah, you have your hand raised. I'm sorry, Darcy, did you want to finish your thought? Just have a question of what is the purpose of the non-voting member sustainability coordinator? Why it's there? Why the change if it's non-voting why? So for the same reason that we did it in the district advisory board, there were staff members we thought that could provide a whole lot of benefit to being able to be fully involved in the conversations and staff support is not always thought of as fully involved in a conversation unlike a member even if they're non-voting. Staff support is, you know, at least the way I think of it it is someone who helps post agendas but doesn't necessarily get involved in conversations and substantive matters of the committee deliberations whereas a member does. And so elevating the sustainability coordinator to membership, which I don't know whether I gather Stephanie has been contributing as if a non-voting member, but I don't know. But formalizing that role out of respect for her, but also out of recognition that the sustainability coordinator in dealing with what this committee is charged with probably has a non-member role of being able to weigh in on the substantive matters. Yes, she's already doing that. So there's the suggestion which sounds like it's sorry Sarah go ahead. So to that point what Pat said about liaisons is from what I understand that's actually not true and a committee shouldn't let you do that much work. So it's really nice that they do but the rules are saying that absolutely you should not. So I guess when I'm trying to come down to like what makes sense if we were starting this all over again what would make sense to me and what we've done on other committees is that if we feel that a committee could use certain support people and it makes sense and they do work we let them be on it and support that committee but we don't let them vote. So here's something that I'm going to put forward is that this committee maybe doesn't have a town council liaison or you put liaison in there and then if it works out and you know like we do with other committees it says that we should have one then we put one on if it doesn't need it nobody's interested we don't but I think that maybe a town councilor should be put on there as a non-voting member. So that town councilor is doing work but that and but that town councilor doesn't have a vote and I'm saying this as a compromise in the in between I'm just putting that out there. Sarah if I can ask you and this is open to anyone an interesting suggestion but it still seems to not address the concern of the councilor getting a voice multiple times and also the confusion which has been expressed by more than one person about who they're speaking for and clearly they're speaking for themselves they cannot speak for the council so they're essentially there to and they're not serving as a liaison because you suggested that's a different role so I guess my question for you and for the others is you know that still doesn't resolve the to me the the issue of just the fact that as elected officials speaking in a resident body we just get a certain degree of deference and attention A and B then creates the question of who is this are they speaking for the councilor speaking for themselves and also gives them a chance to do something that the other 12 councils can't do you I think very rightly made the point about liaisons that Pat actually is I think describing things liaisons probably shouldn't be doing according to our rules but so if you take away the liaison and still have a town councilor taking the vote away certainly addresses the issue of having you know multiple votes but it still seems that the the the issue of just the sheer fact of having an elected official speaking at that body even though they don't get a vote um you know is is problematic I really struggle to see how that's not problematic um so anyway interesting suggestion I don't know what the others that you think if you took away the vote Pat would that satisfy your concerns no they would not okay all right um yeah I mean one one another possible compromise in terms of workload for this particular committee might be to expand it to nine people nine residents instead of seven I know Paul thought that was bulky but um if that if the workload is as intense and I'm sure it is um um then why not increase it to nine residents I would absolutely agree with that because that's what we're coming from and um this is a committee that just like other committees you know has problems in the summer with quorum and we want it to be a committee that continues its work throughout the year because of of the fact that we want to get this climate action plan up and going that was um that was a um topic at the last meeting as to you know how how we can keep things moving um so yes I would I would support if if that's an issue uh changing to nine members um I wouldn't object to that all right there are two other items that I'm going to come back to this we're not I'm not closing off the data on any of the issues that we've raised um obviously but the suggestion is that we might raise seven to nine the suggestion was made but I'm not hearing a strong support for it the moment that we I'm sorry that we appointed councillor with um with non-voting status um Darcy I think we just heard three people saying that they would support nine uh thank you I'm not really anything out I'm just trying to summarize where we're at where we're not agreed is to whether we want a councillor on this body or not or two councillors um Paul made two other suggestions I'd just like to bring them up and have us review them because other than other than what Mandy has put in here these are the only specific or concrete suggestions that have been made and suggestion he made if I can find it quickly it's in the packet was to the language of the purpose so the purpose language if we can look at that for just a second and I'm neither endorsing this nor not endorsing it I'm simply trying to report to you what was in his message to us um under purpose um he had suggested language the energy and climate action committee ECAC shall guide the town in in meeting the climate mitigation and resilience goals established by the town council I'm wondering if anyone thinks that language is an improvement or doesn't make any difference or actually is worse than what we have so he would insert um uh meetings climate mitigation and resilience goals he would insert the phrase established by the town council any thoughts on that I'll write it in not because just so you can see it I I would just ask um how that differs from what's already there we we have the goals that the town adopted in 2019 um with the target dates um so how does this change that I don't understand I'm not sure he's changing it so much as may and it may not be having this effect but if I understand his suggestion simply to clarify that um these uh climate and mitigation goals are goals that are established by the town council now maybe that's just obvious and it's so it's it's just a waste of of space um but that was the suggestion he made um and so Mandy yeah um so I'm torn on this um the referral for us to look at this charge didn't deal with the purpose did not ask us to look at the purpose oh okay charge itself that asked us to look at all of the member sort of this is outside of the referral so I feel like this is outside of the referral at the same time I think it's a change as long as you change the word it's to the in meeting the climate mitigation and resilience goals I think it's a change that provides more clarity and recognizes you know when when as I've said before when we did this charge initially we were newbies and we were still trying to figure out whose authority is where and and the town's goals are only goals when established by the town council because the council is the chief policy-making authority of the town which I think this change is aiming to sort of clarify that it's it's the council's goals that ECAC is guiding the town and meeting because it's the council that adopts the overarching policy so I don't actually think it's really changing the meaning it's just um clarifying providing more clarity than frankly what we had about the different roles when we did this three months or two months into our tenure and so I'm torn on can we make this recommendation when it wasn't part of our referral um but it's also clarity issues so I don't see the harm in doing so okay all right um further thoughts if the change were made we would change it's to the and we would argue or I would suggest that we would treat it as simply a clarity issue and I think whenever a document comes before us we can certainly address consistency clarity right um and so we can you know address our usual criteria any thoughts people willing to make that change I think we should make the change well let me put that in there for the moment we'll come back to it but that's and then the third suggestion again I think it would fall under one of our three criteria was about 2a so under the charge ECAC shell the town manager suggested deleting section 2a of the charge um I'm not I just want to be clear on what uh first of all I'm always unhappy with brackets say what you want to say um so if you want to say 100% renewable energy say that but brackets that really makes me nervous um is this no longer relevant is it relevant and should just stay here the way it is um what a says is climate action goals adopted in article 16 passed by the fall 2017 special amherstown meeting so ec shall recommend for adoption to town council target dates benchmarks and or annual inter annual climate mitigation goals to achieve so this is something that we are seeking to achieve we're seeking to achieve climate action goals adopted in two fall 2017 and then there's this bracket which if I understand it says that that goal was 100% renewable energy slash electricity so Paul was recommending we deleted any thoughts on that Darcy your hand is up well that's a substantive change that wasn't in the referral um and um uh I uh think that B would refer to the to the goals that the town council adopted obviously right A is is important in that we are moving forward on community choice energy and and electricity um so I think it's good to leave it in there because electricity is going to be a big issue coming up um and um and we did pass it in 2017 so right right I I see no harm in leaving it in there it it is is compatible with the town goals anyway and I'm just checking his memo um I guess the his is a rhetorical question do we really need is his question and then he gives that text and Darcy what you're saying is yes we really do need it Mandy generally with Darcy I think if we start trying to modify things because ECAC has done them or we've adopted them we get into a whole can of worms and it's not part of what we're supposed to be doing with this right fine and and I actually also agree that taking that one out remove something substantive that would provide less clarity about number two um so no right we can certainly make number two he thinks we may not need it but we'd have to redigger it to say something else I think so let's not mess with it okay I still have a problem about the brackets because I just would like a sentence you know it says something like to achieve or to attain or something like that as opposed to brackets but your point is just let it be and nobody else has that problem so all right um those are all the suggested changes made by uh that were made by Paul we reviewed them the only one that I believe we've well yeah the only one we've adopted is under purpose we have suggested changing the wording that you see here otherwise as it's presented to us this and we're also suggesting and it sounds like there is a majority at the moment to change seven to nine the easy way to do that in your computer is to just reject that change under number of voting members because it originally said nine that requires the degree of technical skill that I probably don't possess I have no idea up here I'm to reject so I highlight it and I apologize to you highlight it and then hit reject thank you hey that I think I've heard of that just right there yeah thank you and then you can do that again under composition with the seven there okay um voting members colon if you just highlight that section and hit reject it should do the same thing and turn it back to nine yeah and then you'll have to change seven to nine residents now I'm agnostic on this um I think the what I sense from some of the comments that sort of not really explicitly stated is that um the larger body gets the more unwieldy it gets and the more difficult it is to to be effective but what I'm also hearing from Darcy and others is that given the workload on this body given summer vacations the desire to be active year round given the nature of the of the challenge we face um in this case nine um is worth it is worth making that change and then obviously it can be revisited in the future but put a few more bodies on here in the hopes that that will help them with the workload all right all right um the only other change that is uh is the issue of liaison and the removal of a town councilor town councilors from this body which obviously there's disagreement about on this committee uh Mandy I'm just gonna try to at least make a motion so we could move yes that would be appropriate at this point um I move to recommend the town council adopt the amendments to the ECAC charge as shown or as proposed and modified at today's GL meeting is there a second second the angel is all right we have a motion it's been seconded um further discussion so did we drop the idea of making it effective yeah I think that exactly I um that's certainly something I want us to talk about at the moment the motion does not include language that has an effective date um and I will amend that motion to be effective January 1 2022 and can I make a quick comment on that please so I'm the councilor and I've already told everyone and I said it since the first two months that I was on ECAC I don't want to I don't think I add anything I don't necessarily feel safe and I don't want it right now I'm the councilor Darcy's term has expired and it's me and if the president wants to me to continue I've already said and I said more than a year and a half ago I don't I don't want it to be me so that that raises an interesting issue so if you're gonna ask the one councilor who's stuck on it for the next whatever my money months which is me no and I was as much as I would like to support having a councilor on this committee I think that's only as good as the fact that that councilor can be appointed by the president and so as much as I would like Darcy to be the one just to stay on this committee and I feel like she has and I would like her to be able to do the work even if she was non-voting that's where I'm stuck is on a personal level that I would like to see Darcy continue to do work I don't think necessarily that a counselor should have a voting position so that's that's where I'm stuck so I don't want to be the one I don't if it's me no thanks and and you guys as you know counselors whoever stays on is going to have to take this up later on but I'll remove my addition or friendly amendment to that motion about the effect so at the moment it stands as it's presented to us right now and I guess I'm still in this state of confusion because it sounds like Darcy is still attending and still participating or no I am still a member right now so I guess I'm confused because apparently you are and you are not so you are still a member because no replacement has been put forward right and so that if we if we decided that this goes into effect on in January the thing I say is it puts me betwixt in between because I've been willing to serve on this committee because I believe Darcy should be on it but it's become abundantly clear to me that my not being on this committee and my not making it very clear to everyone out of because I don't like to make drama is that counselor doesn't do work so openly say I'm a counselor that does work if you'd like to make this amendment and it'll keep Darcy on then that's I'll take the fall for it what I think I'm hearing and from my colleagues and I just think for myself is that I am concerned that your request was not honored that's troubling to me and I certainly personally will follow up on that just as an individual and I would not think that this however this vote goes if it does pass and January becomes the effective date I would not interpret this as saying that you are expected to continue to serve what it's my understanding is that what this would allow is for Darcy to complete her service through January and that's why I would support it but I don't interpret it as a statement or as saying that you should continue to serve I personally would reach out on my own though I could do this on behalf of the committee if we decide to inquire of the president why a counselor's request to be removed from a committee was not honored that is troubling maybe there's an answer I'm struggling to figure out what it could possibly be but Sarah I don't interpret this as meaning that we expect you to continue to be on this body and that at least one of us and maybe more of us will reach out to the president and try to understand why this happened and if we could see that this that your request be honored but I like the suggestion of the day I know he just removed it but it basically would ensure I think that Darcy continued to serve as she has been serving until January any mandate yeah um so a couple things that don't necessarily relate to the date I'm happy to amend it if that's what the committee wants a January one effective date um but I would want the council appointments to be done properly so I I've never supported people just continuing on because things aren't done this is a problem I guess with our president not bringing to us the fact that we have to make a recommendation to the town manager on one I would completely support and I think Sarah if you tried to resign a year and a half ago that should have been respected um and the president should have brought to us the fact that there's an opening and polled to see if anyone else wanted to fill that opening so if we want this to be sort of a clean cut at the time of at the time of transition between councils then we should have an effective date and we should then also basically say and we need on our agenda recommendations to Paul on who to fill for the vacancy that Sarah's resignation creates and for the fact that Darcy's term ended technically and make those continuations for those six months or whatever formal and appropriate um if we don't think um that the clean cut should be then and all because of all that other stuff then we should just have an effective date whenever it's voted if it passes the council and if it doesn't pass the council we should still do everything we were just talking about to make these things formal and appropriate um yeah let me ask you a quick process question and I'm sorry Athena has her hand up um Athena thank you excuse me for jumping in um just in an effort to do what Mandy said make things formal and appropriate Sarah if you want to resign you should submit a letter of resignation to the town clerk's office and I can inform the council that there's a vacancy on ECAC and we can move on from there I'm not sure what happened a year and a half ago if if if you submitted a letter and it didn't get passed on appropriately or or what but if that's your intent then I would suggest that you kind of formalized that intent I'm not telling you to do that or not but I clean clean things up and so I think that maybe that should be in our rules of procedure um so that is great for me to to know and I guess other councilors should also know um because it's not a route that I knew I was able to take so that would also address the fact with Mandy Joe saying there's an issue if something needs to be taken off the committee I think it needs to be known to councilors that they if they're in a similar situation that they can use this so thank you Athena you're welcome all right so um do we have an effective date or do we not use the question at the moment we had it then we took it away do we want to put it back um that's the question what is the date of the new council taking office be the first meeting in January whenever that would be right would it be January three yes that's the first Monday in January okay so um suggested effective date would be January three 2022 um and all the other issues we've raised would have to be settled in a different in a different way I mean obviously Athena's made a suggestion for Sarah um we still have the issue of what to do about Darcy's um expired term and I guess I guess that was my process question what what do we do as GOL or do what maybe we just do it as individual counselors but what do we do to address the question of the expired term um so that could be made uh official one way the other and my preference would be to make it official that it be extended uh to the end of of the uh the term of this council so Darcy excuse me Mandy what um steps do does the chair reach out to uh president do we individually reach out to the president do we just put it on our agenda what do we do if we want it to extend or just address the the point that there's um a position that is is currently um uh expired but not filled I mean I would if the whole committee feels that that should be formally filled then you could reach out to the president as chair of the committee and say hey the consensus of the committee was get this on a council agenda for and start polling counselors for filling essentially what an empty right right right the new term that hasn't had an appointment so there's sort of continuing appointments going on and start polling and to do that as quickly as possible given that you know um a pad I think that we should extend Darcy's term and that's it and uh that leave a vacancy and we're talking about a few months and we're talking about eliminating counselors on this kind of committee and so now there's there is a reason to hold Darcy on it but there's I just don't see a reason for filling the other slot I I agree that's the council's decision to make so it should be on a council agenda for polling of who might be interested at the same meeting maybe this one comes up right like the decisions the discussions can happen together well what I'm hearing and again please correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm hearing is the chair can reach out directly to the president and inform her that this is the intention of the committee that these that at least the expired term be filled at the next that should be addressed at the next council meeting and the rest would be contingent on what Sarah does or does not do if she were to submit a letter resignation which I think she will but if she were to do that then the council president would have to make a decision about whether she wanted to fill that or not and but we as a body want her to address now the currently expired term okay I will do that quite happily and so we're then back to the motion and I believe Mandy the motion should then include a effective date of January 3 2022 is that correct that that would be a friendly amendment for me I would have to agree to that friendly amendment too all right so that the motion would now be that we adopt the ECAC charge as amended today during our meeting this is currently on the screen with an effective date of January 3 2022 we recommend the council adopt we thank you we recommend we are not we recommend that the council adopt this this charge this proposed charge change effective January 3 2022 it's been made and seconded is there any further discussion seeing none I'm going to call a vote and since the first vote of the day I'm going to try and do this in alphabetical order let's see if I can uh Pat hi uh Nandi hi and uh I'm already out of sorry the chair is an eye Sarah oh I said I did you not hear me I did I'm sorry that's okay that's all right I just didn't hear you all right the motion passes for uh yes one opposed uh it's four to one I will reach out to the president and I will inform her of the committee's desire and hopefully that will be acted on on august 2nd that's my hope I will reach out to her later today all right I'm going to stop sharing for a moment I want to say that we have in front of us the see where it is we have the clean version I'm going to share with you just a second we have a clean version of the ochre policy as we have been working on it over the past many many weeks I'm going to put that up on the screen now I'm hoping that you've all had a chance to look at it and that if you have changes I have a number of questions and comments I don't know if we'll be able to get through it all today I was certainly hoping that we could but we do have a hard stop of one o'clock and probably for some of you 12 30 yes 12 30 all right we have at least one hard stop at 12 30 though we still would have a quorum um but so on the screen you should be able to see the document uh pretty much cleaned up uh from what we left it at the last time um and I believe I made one scrivener change somewhere I highlighted one or two words that we look at but um and I made one scrivener change somewhere in here um but um we do need to go through it I'm afraid one more time um from the top and deal with any further changes questions concerns of problems and the first one is the preamble and it's actually the title um the town council policy on town council appointments to multiple member bodies um is it on appointments or is it basically uh on recommendations so um and that's a question is that title an accurate title because but this document essentially lays out if I understand it is the procedures to be followed by the committee's tasks with making recommendations to the council um and that the council's giving its blessing to that set of procedures and um and policy Mandy I think it's really a policy on making recommendations for appointments to multiple member bodies on making recommendations for town council appointments to multiple member bodies because it ends I mean if you look at it it ends with recommendation town council policy on making recommendations go ahead four I think four is the only other word that needs added for town council appointments to multiple member bodies so the this document states our policy or proposes to be our policy on how we through our various subcommittees make recommendations for council appointments to multiple member bodies okay Darcy please just uh if Mandy Joe could just quickly explain what difference it would make to add that so this policy if you page through it talks about when there's a vacancy what the CAFs are um how you determine a sufficiency of the applicant pull um how you apply for an appointment how you know criteria for selection I'm just going through these things reappointments multiple member body handouts statement of interest which deals with making a recommendation and then the very last interviews and then it says 10 committee appointment recommendation and that's the end of this document other than the appendix it talks nothing about how the council is going to vote to actually appoint a member it ends at making a recommendation to the council and so I think it clarifies that this isn't what happens in the council meeting this is what happens before those recommendations get to the council meeting Darcy your hands still up no I guess I just I'm just a little confused as to whether there there is some this is somehow going to affect council decisions I I'm not clear on that so uh I think yeah Sarah please so my I guess my question is is similar but I'm just asking for confirmation that what I believe this means that what we has been said um during these conversations is that none of these rules or recommendations apply to counselors when they are making their ultimate decision on a vote when it comes to the town council level um that what what in essence we're saying is that we are not going to give counselors any parameters by which they need to make their decision um it would be understood that counselors do not have any recommendations and that it is completely up to them by whichever parameters they so choose to make a decision so if their decision is simply I I don't know so we're not giving any recommendation and no the counselors really don't need to make any any um argument they would have for or against someone does not have to be um measured by these standards in a sense yes Sarah I'm thinking but at the same time um I think we all would agree it is I would say that the recommendations that the council gets from any given committee carries an enormous amount of weight um and it probably would be very unusual situation where uh the council would um would bring other candidates forward than the ones they might vote down someone that's recommended potentially but it's unlikely that they would in that situation then propose uh an alternative candidate so I guess the thought is that what this does is it tells the public and it tells us what our policy is um in terms of bringing recommendations to the council for these very important bodies um and that is important I think and I think that we really worked hard to and I think we've made real progress and I think we've come to a some degree of consensus on a lot of it there may be a few points where we still will not agree but I think this is I mean for instance the uh the current practice of GL with income will change as a result of this document and that's not something that that I can just you know the chair can't ignore that it just spells out what the GL needs to do in terms of interviews and so forth and interview questions which has not been as practice up to now so um you also are correct that it does not say to the council that when you come to a vote you must do this I think we've all agreed all along I think it's become clear but we've agreed that there is no way you could could do that if an individual counselor doesn't want to vote for somebody they're not going to vote for them right um but this policy and procedures um really I think clarifies and sets out the process and I think is a real step positive step um so does that but it is about recommendations it really is about the process up to the point where it comes to the council for a vote and as you just said at that point each individual counselor will make up his or her mind does that help Darcy and now it sounds like you still I mean if we leave it as it is it sounds like this is our policy on appointments to multiple member bodies and it it really you know it's about how it gets to us this is about how it gets to us and that's important that's important I understand that and it makes sense that that sections are about making recommendations I guess the the and Mandy just said this at a previous meeting that we almost need if we're going to apply it to the council it almost needs another section or something where it says the council shall be guided by the recommendations or something like that um but uh it just seems odd that we're spending all this time determining criteria that's uniform and then saying what you know it can be totally ignored well Darcy I'm really struggling I mean when I finally have to vote on x y or z right what sort of policy is going to dictate my vote I mean I I mean what would that be the policy would be you must vote for x because x is served for for two terms is that what you want I mean that's what some want maybe that's so maybe you don't agree with this or maybe you think there should be a council policy that says if x is served for two terms and they're up for reappointment you must vote for them I mean I just think that's outrageous but maybe you think that's wonderful um this says however that in making recommendations to the council the recommending body needs to take very seriously the fact that x has served for two terms and is given a preference but there's no tenure and and we've already seen votes even on this body where people have voted for someone uh over uh someone who had previous experience and that's that's their vote but the preference and that means something to me is that um if someone has served for one or two terms they have a preference but it's right but once it gets to the council do you want a policy that says you have to vote for x because they've served or you have to vote for x because they got the recommendation from GOL I don't think you do I wouldn't do this right yeah so right I mean that just is ultimately the end and if the voters don't like that they can say Ryan why didn't you vote for first going so and I better have a good answer um and if I don't or right they'd say well I'm never going to vote for you again but that's different this is about how we go about the and I think it's really a step forward I think it's very clear it's it'll be public and the recommending committees are going to have to follow it um I you know I've already expressed my desire to uh to shorten certain parts of this and what this policy says you can't do that you got to have interview questions advanced you've got to share them with the people being interviewed um and I think we did put in that you are allowed follow up questions so there'll be some flexibility some given type and so I said fine Pat sorry I mean you covered a lot of what I'm going to say recommendations are just that and um what I've noticed is on the whole when a committee makes a recommendation or the town manager makes a recommendation we usually just accept the people however there have been times when I have voted against someone who was being recommended because I felt like someone else deserved the position and I that's my right as a counselor my independence occurs um when I go to vote in any situation here my independence is constrained and and not in a negative way it's really structured around how I'm going to be working on a committee to make a recommendation um and therefore I can fight for someone I want using the recommendations um or or maybe a fight isn't really the word because but support someone or speak against someone's appointment because of the recommendations we're making so the structure of the process of recommend a recommending is critical but after that it's out of the committee's hands it belongs to the individual members of the council how they will vote on any committee's recommendation and I think actually that's a position you would take since you you know you have also like me uh Darcy voted against some of the some recommendations have been made that have been made so um yeah so the title I think it sounds like we can accept by consensus I think I have a question about the last sentence and I think I know the answer but I need to raise it um think of DAB we did not follow I'm just if this policy were in place we would have violated this policy and so the question is are we locking future councils into something but my thought is well in that case we would go to the council and say look given that as we did basically he said given the time constraints we are not going to do uh interviews and it would be then the council would either could give us permission to do that or not but um what this document at the moment if it were in place we would have to have done everything that this says for DAB and that would really have been a challenge um so that's my only question right now it says this policy shall apply to all appointments to multiple member bodies made by the town council and I guess I would just like some assurance that it's not you know such an issue arose where we want to short-circuit this policy we could do that by simply appealing to the council and asking for permission and if they granted it fine if they didn't then we'd have to do what the policy says. Mandy? Yep um to be clear you could add except if waived by the town council um but it's what you just described is exactly what CRC did with respect to one particular appointment that was discussed a couple weeks ago um back in June was CRC waived its own policy by vote and so the council can always waive the policy by vote explicitly waive it um so I don't think it needs to be set in here that right it's allowed but it's always allowed right it would have to be done by the council and so we would have to we need their permission we could not we could not waive this policy ourselves because it is a council policy correct right okay uh in the next second I'm just going to go through this uh we're not probably going to get through it all it's already 1225 I'm open to suggestions but we could proceed a little bit further um but by one o'clock we do need to stop Pat needs to leave at 1230 um I would like to get the minutes approved and I know Mandy will not be at the next meeting um so uh thoughts uh the Athena please sorry I'll have to boot you all at 1245 so I can start the other meetings so all right that's a really hard stop sorry about that yeah no no I think most of us are very pleased by that that's so you can start you'll stop this and you're welcome thank you thank you Athena but I'm not saying we will go to 1245 but at 1245 we will be kicked off anyway um suggestions also we need I need to check public comment um I have not it because it's screen sharing I can't see does anyone tell if we have a public president there may be there are no attendees at this point so we take a moment we pause for a moment and pass you know determine whether we can accept the minutes and then come back to this for the time that we have left um I think I would prefer that if you would be willing I have looked at them I have made one small screeners change otherwise I'm prepared to make a motion to accept the minutes of and what are the dates uh the minutes of June 30 and July 14th as presented second Pat seconds any discussion any changes any concerns seeing none I'm going to me proceed to vote uh this time I'm going to start with uh the chair and the chair votes yes um Mandy hi Pat hi uh Darcy yes and Sarah hi the minutes are approved above sets five zero um thank you for that um back to the item that's on the table back to the section called vacancy I had no problem with this if anyone does please speak up there was a question about the definition of impending vacancy I'm satisfied by that I think it makes things a little bit clear does anyone have anything um I think it's fine but anyone else I have no problems with this section section three community activity form it will be noted in the president's report that two members of the committee uh object to the fact that CAF so treated as personnel records that will be in the report um whenever the report gets written otherwise the only question I had was a small one about immediately um it just really just for language sake um CAFs for multiple member bodies appointed by the time counselors separate from CAFs for the time manager appointed multiple member bodies and are automatically electronically distributed to all counselors period what I would like there's just too many damn adverbs in case it's a train wreck of adverbs can we take out immediately does anyone care besides me take it out thank you and we we added that um that everyone all all applicants submit a CAF somewhere right yes we um let's make sure that's in there it should be in there um or it's maybe somewhere else um it's there only those individuals who submit a CAF after the bulletin board notices published shall be considered part of the applicant pool going forward right so that would include right it doesn't exclude right it includes everyone so yes it is there and the word of was inserted here I just so you see it um I believe that's needed whose term is expiring to confirm their interest and notify them of the requirement to submit let me see um so by the way we have two years right so and that may get debated in the council let's see what other counselors think about that but we it seems as consensus have agreed to two years not three sufficiency of the applicant pool um I don't know that I had any change the second paragraph yes um I have a question George please I see and I probably should have brought it up before but um all right it seems like the them how rather we've had situations where um the person you know there are people on a committee that their um terms of are expiring and they were not notified that they needed to reapply and the time passed and they just weren't weren't reappointed because no one told them that they needed to apply um so do we have something in there to um to give notification to to incumbents um that they need to reapply yes to um the chair of the recommending committee or their designee shall reach out by email to all individuals who submitted a CAF fired as well as to any member of the board or committee whose term is expiring to confirm their interest and notify them of the requirements to submit a new CAF sorry sorry all right it's there thank you um my only again please speak up don't be shy I know pat is now past 12 30 so if you need to leave please go right ahead and do so um your presence is always welcome but I realize you have a hard stuff um we will continue for a few minutes and try to get through as much of this as we can my next concern was town council assesses I I just shouldn't be this is about the recommending committee the recommending committee assesses the applicant pool holistically um right um so I was puzzled why we had town councilmen um and maybe I missed something or anyone what we shouldn't be the recommending committee assesses the applicant pool I think now with the changes you've made yes and I think it originally was this way because okoh was trying to establish a uh a policy for reappointments that would also give guidance to the entire council but since this committee has decided that's not their place then you could take it out I'm going to take it out for the moment but again any discussion please um I mean if we take Sarah's point that that do we want in this document to say that the town council should assess the applicant pool holistically in the context of the I mean it yeah it seems this really is about the particular subcommittee looking at the the needs and the history of the body that they're um making a recommendation for and try to do that holistically so I really think it is about that recommending committee I agree um we get into the situation of it's never the only time the town council technically ever so far has assessed the applicant pool um sufficiency is at the time of voting on recommendations so unless we're going to change that policy to assessing it earlier it makes sense to delete this um for this particular document I do think counselors individually always look at what the applicant pool was um to determine their own votes frankly okay um again I'm happy with this as it stands I assume people are happy with the demographic um categories we included location of residence also home ownership rental status I think that was so that was strong um selection guidance any final thoughts there we do say that the recommending committee may create a standard reference list doesn't require them to do so but they may do so and we acknowledge that each multiple member body will have its own selection guidance but overall it should be guided by the following criteria and then we we spell them out input from the body's chair I wanted to look at that one last time we seem to have limited at this point to skills or experience we're not asking for you know list of you know character traits or you know that sort of thing um we're really focusing on what we're asking from the chair um is is there any preferred knowledge or and or expertise that might be needed given the current need to the body it seems that it seems to me that's appropriate um I'm not sure everyone agrees but that's what we have but we are not sort of just saying to the chair you know sort of tell us you know what are you thinking our things our things on your committee um we're asking for something fairly specific okay reappointments um now here I think we do have well what we have come to agree upon and what I would stress in my report but again if you have a descending view you should speak up so right now I'm seeing a fairly high degree of consensus here and any place where you do not agree and you would like that noted in the record you should let me know either right now or by email right now the only one that I'm highlighting is the use of treatment of CAFs as personnel records otherwise we seem to be largely in consensus reappointments was I think the most difficult and what we've come to again maybe it's not complete consensus but that that preference is given to anyone who has has served less than six years and if reappointed would not serve more than six years um preference is given to them and otherwise preference is given to other unqualified applicants then the signs the town council will treat every opening whether a seat is held by a current member who seeks reappointment or not as a vacant position it should probably be the recommending committee I would think so I would think so that's why I highlight it so again this document is essentially guiding the recommending committee so I'm going to suggest changing this to if I can do it my computer's giving me trouble I don't know why oh I think I know why because I'm still in this ridiculous let's go back to just I need something else I think that did it all right so I'm going to change that to the recommending committee a tree to seed is held by current member seeks reappointment out as a vacant position residents seeking reappointment will have their current servicing spirit okay this we all agreed to this and then the final sense that that I asked to be inserted and I am getting a sense that that is agreed upon by the rest of you that a committee or board members under no obligation to seek or accept reappointment nor is the town council obligated now here we do introduce the town council nor is the town council obligated to offer reappointment to a resident seeking brought on this I prefer to leave it as it is but it seems to go against maybe not I would agree with you George because we've already I think we've established in this entire document that we're not giving any recommendation whatsoever to the town council when it makes its decision as a whole so are we offering reappointment we're recommending so if we would change it nor is the recommending committee obligated to recommend reappointment to a resident seeking it would be I guess how you would reword it thoughts on that again to get away from the idea that somehow we're dictating to the town council this is focused so nor is the recommending committee obligated to offer to recommend reappointment obligated to recommend so this was meant to both recognize the importance of the preference but also to recognize that there's no such thing as tenure and I'd like to think that we've all come to see that but anyway that's the language multiple member body handouts this was inserted I think Mandy you inserted this I believe is that correct that yeah and was there some comment about inserting links here I don't know I don't think so right this is just a policy no I think that was thinking for the appendix right okay which I thought on to get us moving forward if we can get through to number 10 I don't think we're going to I'm afraid today we're already 1240 and Athena's I think finger is already reaching toward the eject button over that end button George yeah did anyone have so statement of multiple member body hand I think we'll have to come back and deal with the appendix next time and I think we'll have to come back and vote on this next time so what my request and recommendation was going to be that we forward the this recommendation of the policy without the appendix to the council and only after it passes the council because it might get changed at the council do we come back and create an FAQ based on what the council actually passes so that maybe it's not an appendix to this it's titled FAQ guidance for the public whatever but we adopt it separately and modify it after the council has passed the policy instead of forwarding it on with the council so that we don't have to modify it at the council meeting if other things are fair enough I guess a question quickly to the rest of you are there any sections in what remains where you had questions that you would like us to because we can put this off until next time or we could vote on it right now Darcy you do um wherever we dealt with follow-up questions um yeah wasn't that the last meeting but I listened to the recording yeah I you had some concerns oh does it where does it deal with follow-up questions so are there interviews yeah I'm sorry number nine interviews um I think it's maybe eight eight the committee may by majority vote agree to allow follow-up questions by committee members during the interviews it's the second sentence of eight okay yeah so I I uh that strikes me as uh being not a unified policy um and so I guess I'm wondering under what in what situation would one committee allow follow-up questions and the other committee not um why wouldn't it seems like whatever we do that should be what the public expects um it should be you know if they're in front of Darcy or if they're in front of GOL they should expect the same type of interview right so I guess I just I'm wondering what what would be the rationale for sorry I think it was a compromise between some committee members on this committee wanting to always allow it and others wanting to never allow it and so I think it was a compromise of the committee gets to vote on whether to instead of it you know I think that was my that's my memory of why we ended up actually it was already in the policy in some other wording surprisingly enough okay I think Darcy you raised a question with this and I think there are still some things we probably should look at we shouldn't just rush to a vote and we really are out of time so we will have to take this up starting with your question about number eight and the rationale behind this we'll have to take this up at our next meeting the managers we know will not be present but we hopefully will have four of us here and hopefully we can get through this um and we can have a vote um and we will I think manage suggestion of postponing the appendix for later until the council acts makes sense so we would have a vote and hopefully be able to send this not to the august 2nd meeting but to the august whatever it is 23rd whatever okay well we need to get off so I'm going to seeing the presence of seeing no public is present we're not going to have public comment and we've passed the minutes the future agenda item essentially is going to be this and again we will return to bylaws for future consideration that will certainly keep us busy thank you all for your work and I will reach out to the president about the other issue later I'll call this meeting adjourned