 So seeing the presence of the quorum, I'm going to call this meeting of governance organization legislation to order. It is 1031 on March 3 2021 pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of open meeting law. This meeting of GL is being conducted by our month participation. We are being recorded. And I'm going to just check and make sure everybody can hear and be heard. So I'm going to start with Mandy. And Darcy. Here. And Pat. Present. And Sarah present. Great. And our guests Chris. Yes. Felicia. And sarin, can you hear us? Present. Great. Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to put up on the screen just for a moment for my colleagues sake and for the public's sake. Let's see if this hopefully is what I want. All right. You should see the agenda. Is it large enough? Or would you like it bigger? Good enough. All right. So we're going to begin this morning with the decarbonization resolution. The council sponsors are present. And so is the sponsors of the resolution from the community. Then we're going to turn to the Tibet Day proclamation and the sponsor is present. The resident sponsor is present. Then we are going to look at rule of procedure 6.3d. We have something in the packet for that. We have a discussion topic item number five. And then a series of sort of housekeeping exercises. That will do. We also have three sets of minutes that we need to approve today. And they are in the packet. So that's what we have on the agenda. Any concerns about it or I think we're going to pretty much follow this order. Is my plan. I'm going to stop sharing the screen now unless I see any hands from my colleagues. And I'm going to ask Mandy to share with her screen. The decarbonization resolution. As I said, the sponsors here are myself and Darcy Dumont from the council. And I've listed ECAC as the. Resident sponsor. That can be corrected for the record. That was just what I thought was right. But I often. Have the wrong thoughts. So. I think that is not, that's not the community sponsor. So what would it, what would it be Darcy? Felicia, what is the name of the group? Electrification, acceleration. Committee. One more time, please. Building. Okay. Sorry. Building. Electrification. Acceleration. Committee. Yeah. Okay. I'm using my marked up copy. So. Thank you. As we go through, you'll see changes. I will be suggesting they haven't been made yet. I just want to say the people that are the sponsors and all that are here, but it's going to be easier for me in sharing to. Toggle through that. Yeah, maybe I don't know is, is a town committee. Can it be a community sponsor? Because we could add energy and climate action committee to give it a little bit more. I think it's just, yeah, I think there's nothing wrong with that. As long as it seems like they've been involved. They've been, as long as they've been involved in the creation of this document. And are sponsoring it publicly. I think that's perfectly okay. Do my colleagues have any thoughts on that? We just add that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. My concern is, has ACAC agreed to sponsor it? Oh, they endorsed it. Okay. We brought it to them. Okay. Okay. This is a new development for us. I mean, yes, we've been at this for two years now, but I think it was actually Pat's suggestion. There may be also Darcy, but the last meeting. That we should include in the actual resolution at the top. The names of the. President sponsors or community sponsors. And of course the council sponsors. Just for the record. Also for the sake of my colleagues, when they get this in the packet, they have a better sense of where it's coming from. So I thought that was an excellent suggestion. And I think that's going to become our regular practice. So thank you. So as you see, Mandy's already gone through and done some of the little sort of things that we do here at GOL, putting it into the proper form. Generally speaking, we do not discuss the merits of a proclamation of resolution. We're concerned simply with clarity, consistency and actionability. But since this is the only committee that's going to be looking at this, I'm going to give us a fair wide latitude with this. And essentially what we ask our sponsors to do is respond to questions that the committee has, to respond to any edits or changes we make, if they are concerned about them. And in the past, generally speaking, actually I think in all cases, we're able to come to an agreeable compromise. But if you see something that you don't, or you just have a question about in terms of the change we're making, or if we have questions for you, we'd ask you to respond. But this is not the place for us to be speaking on behalf of the resolution that should be taking place. In other forms. Okay. So what Mandy has done, just again, just bookkeeping or just clarification we put and after each whereas she has, we're going to go through whereas by whereas. So the second whereas has a significant change. Amherst is committed to a goal of carbon neutrality. So that I think thoughts on that. Mandy, why don't you first explain. So I did it. And I don't know whether this is the right language or not, but, but I think the 80% reduction is one of the old votes, but the current council goals. Is carbon neutrality by 2050. The climate action goals that the council passed in 2019. I actually looked them up. There's two other goals. Some reductions by 2025 and 2030. From 1999, 2016 levels, actually not 1990 levels. So I don't know what you as sponsors would want to put in there, but the 80% seemed an old. Go. So I went with the 2050 carbon neutrality. It kind of. Repeats the second phrase though. So I don't know whether you wanted what you would want, but I feel like for consistency. The 80% is the wrong reference now. What do you think Felicia? Felicia, I think that that is, I think that's good. I think it's better. I think it's a definite improvement, but I don't think it matters. The question is whether the. Combine the two. Oh, no. Amherst. Has committed to a carbon neutrality through the town council's energy and climate action. Prioritizing planning process or whatever. I don't know. Somehow. So actually, now that I read it, it's not the town council's energy and climate action committee. It's the town's. Okay. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's, I don't have a problem with that. If that is what the town decided. I guess I'm not up on what it is. So. Unless somebody else has anything else to say. I think that's the point isn't. You know, what exactly we said it's just, we want to go forward. So thank you, Andy. So what it reads now is where is Amherst's committed to a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. And the town's. Energy and climate action committee recommends prioritizing planning to achieve zero emissions by 2050. Satisfied with that. I guess carbon neutrality. It's probably net zero emissions. I don't know. The goal is, I'll just read the climate action goals we adopted. Cause that'll be easier. 50% reduction in town wide greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas emissions below FY 2016 levels by 2030. With an interim goal to meet 25% reductions by 2025. Be carbon neutral no later than 2050. Be prepared to achieve carbon neutrality as early as 2030. And I think that's the point. That's the point. We're not going to do that. I think that we need to, we need to make the federal no later than 2050. Be prepared to achieve carbon neutrality as early as 2030 by planning and advocating for state and federal action and taking advantage of technological advances. I know that the state. The state plan is to get a net zero. By 2050, that is to say having a certain amount of sequestration. Balancing the portions that cannot, it cannot be achieved. emissions by 2050 is, it is, that's pretty, it's not gonna happen for one thing, but it's also not consistent with what the, at least with what the S9 says and the, and the governor's climate energy and the clean energy and climate plan is. I don't know if it matters. If that represents what the town of Amherst has decided to do really achieved zero emissions by 2050, then it's fine. It just isn't consistent with the statewide goals. Darcy has her hand raised. Darcy, please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's just talking here about what energy and climate action committee is doing and they are, they are following the town goals of achieving carbon neutrality or net zero emissions by 2050. So inserting word net would be appropriate. Yeah, I think that would be roughly equivalent to carbon neutrality. Right. So there is Mandy's point that we're essentially saying the same thing twice. And what's nice about what she read was that there are some very specific goals that are included in our climate action goals of the town that are actually different and more specific spread out over years. So what I would, and it complicates things, but I would suggest is inserting one or more of those goals and leading carbon neutrality out of it because that's what net zero emissions means or you could purchase carbon neutrality at the very end. But I kind of liked the reference to specific goals that reminds us, at least those that was on the council, what our goals actually are, reminds the public. But it would take a moment or two to get that inserted. I agree with Mandy and I don't know what the sponsors feel but in a sense this whereas says the same thing twice. And I don't think that's what you want to do. So Mandy, I don't know, you've got the document in front of you. You may not want to include all of the specific interim goals that may be picking one, maybe one with greenhouse gas emissions. The year should be, I guess, when you said fiscal 2016 and the year 2030. I think that actually is, that certainly means something to me as a counselor reminding me of what we're committed to. And so this document is doing that. I don't know if you wanted to add anything else or if that's sufficient, but I think there was one, at least one other interim goal that you mentioned, Mandy. There's a 20, 25 of 25 percent. Okay. That's a pretty important goal. Yeah. So maybe you should, you mean the 25 percent one, Darcy. 25 percent, 25 by 25. Okay. Then I think that should be included. No, that's good. That's, you know, I think that's important. We have no problems for that. No, that's good. Okay. Okay, good. So I think that's sufficient. So now you're saying three very different things, but all three very important things. There's a nice progression through 2050. Okay. Next, whereas I have no problems with that, I'm looking at my own notes. I'm trying to watch the screen for hands raised, but you can also just wave your hand at me or just speak up quite frankly. But we have one change. What is it? One, two, three, four, five. I think it's the sixth. Whereas I want the sponsors to weigh in here, Mandy, again, if you want to say what your change was. Yeah, I change this, this hails from my charter commission days where citizens isn't inclusive necessarily of all residents. So I always, if you're not referring to voting and things that actually require US citizenship, I always try to change it to residents yet. And obviously that's something that is up to you guys, but that's my suggestion. That's a good idea. Okay. If we could, I think that makes sense to me as well. If we go up just to one whereas above, I may be misreading this or maybe you corrected it, Mandy. You have natural gas. This is natural gas and propane are dangerous fossil fuels that generate indoor and outdoor air pollution, comma. It seems grammatically that should be leak. In other words- Ooh, I missed that one. That's all right. Leak, explosive gas, amazing infrastructure and put. Okay, good. Thank you. I got to put. Thank you. You got to put. That's all right. So if we want to continue scrolling down, no other changes that I have. Again, Pat or Garcy or Sarah speak up. So again, these are again, just minor changes. And then finally the first now, therefore, be it resolved. Thank you, Mandy. I missed that. And my change from four to upon is a consistency of the rest of the, right, be it resolved. And I think we normally end each resolved with a period, not the semi-colons. Yep. That is also correct. Mandy, thank you. All right. No changes that I have and that Mandy has or anyone else apparently. This is actually a move. If I, these two were, you know, it was like all Amherst, all Massachusetts stuff. And then a few Amherst things and then back to Massachusetts. So it seemed more logical to bump them up to the Massachusetts section versus the Amherst section. I like that. I think that's good. Do you have any thoughts? It really was a cut and paste. Right. No wording change, just moving to, to create consistency and clarity. We don't have a problem with your Felicia, do we? I think that's fine. Oh, I was on mute. Sorry. No, I'm just fine. And then my, the last be it further resolved is we always have the clerk of the town council, not the town clerk. And we tend to list it by office hierarchy. So governor, then senator, then rep. So that's the only change in the last one. This, my question on the one before that was it seemed more of a where, whereas clause instead of a resolved clause. I agree. It is. I mean, the easiest solution is to just move it to somewhere in the whereas section. Yeah, yeah, sure. Go for it. We need, we need to get Mandy Joe working on this from the state's perspective, I think. I'm sorry, you can't take away from here. We're lucky to have her. Boy, she's not going anywhere. I don't know where you want it. Yeah, it doesn't matter. I don't think there's any place where we're talking about jobs or infrastructure or that kind of stuff. Low income. Let me see if it works there. Yeah, it might work there. Yeah, I think it will, too. Does it work there? Yeah. And before that, we just talked about. Adjust position and then the effects on the music color. And then, you know, it works there. And if we could scroll down, can I, can you go back, say, George, can I look at that again, please? I just want to see. Job as it just requires a safe climate is launched. What is that is launched there? What does that say? I think that's as it's done as it happens. OK, if you don't have any problem with it, man, Joe, you're so much better at this than I am. Effort is launched. Yeah, the effort is being launched. It's interesting to me. I mean, I'm fine with it this way because it, you know, we're just asking the state to look at all this and just thinking about it and doing it. There's a part of me that still wants it in the be it resolved like, no, make programs like launch programs so that this happens, we're asking the state to do that rather than just say, be it resolved this, you know, whereas we need it. So if you want it down there, I would just recommend adding the we call upon the state legislature state legislature and, you know, to whatever it would be. Right. It steps to ensure to ensure. Yeah. Yeah. That the just transmission is equitable or, you know, we could reword it if you'd rather have it in the resolved. I just want to think about it. Darcy, do you anything you want to say about this in particular? I think that considering the the current climate legislation, the omnibus bill, it needs to be in the resolves. And I guess I am missing why we moved it. I can see I can see why we moved it, but I think I agree with you. We're trying to push the state legislature forward. We're doing this not just as Amherst. There's 12 other cities right now who are on board trying to get resolutions passed because collectively, it gives a boost to the legislator to say, move on this, give municipalities more self determination, do things at the state level. We're getting close to 2025, you know, we have to move. We want you to, it has an impact much bigger than our one town has. And as you see from this, most of it isn't asking anything from Amherst really. It's saying citizens of the state, residents of the state. Are saying- That's great, manager. What you've done, that looks good to me. And I think, you know, there's new legislation, jobs with justice legislation that is exactly what this is talking about. Yes, there is. 1972. No, that wasn't right now. MD 1972. I mean, sorry, HD 1972. Just was just filed. So that's the rewording that I'm- So let me read it and let's see what people think, be it further resolved. We call upon the Massachusetts state legislature to ensure that a just transition includes the equitable creation and distribution of high quality jobs as the Commonwealth launches the effort to decarbonize our buildings and restore a safe climate. Brilliant. Thank you, people. Darcy. Sorry, go ahead, Darcy. Yeah, I, if we're done with that, I, are we done with the whole thing? Well, that's not yet. I'm asking if first of all, the sponsor's okay with that change and that it stays in the be it further resolved section. The answer is yes, apparently. I do have one very, very small change to make the very end of the document. Mindy Dahm is only one person. So it should be representative. Thank you. So. It's all right. So on the document now has been gone through and we've got the, so Darcy, please go ahead. Yeah, I just very briefly wanted to go back to the second paragraph where the goals were because it seemed, it seems like we should say Amherst is committed to a goal of this, this and this and carbon neutrality by 2050. And I'm not sure why we need to mention unless we have a, whereas what the Energy and Climate Action Committee is doing. So just end there and carbon neutrality by 2050 semicolon and then strike the remaining clause. So unless you want to add that, you know that Energy and Climate Action Committee is will be assisting the implementation of the plan or something like that. I don't know. I don't think it's necessary because it doesn't really add anything right here. It does conceivably from the perspective of the legislature and the governor, it might just show a little more mass and bulk there from coming from the Amherst side. But I don't think that's, if I thought that that would actually make this thing pass and not, and keep it from passing, if it weren't there, I would be different, probably this is just fine. I have a question. Should it be the Amherst Town Council has committed or just Amherst? Has the Amherst Town Council committed to that? We're the ones that adopted the Climate Action Goals. Yes, absolutely. Town Council, more bulk, more moist bulk. I would like to end with carbon neutrality by 2050 and either have a separate whereas that would just be, but again, I will bow to the sponsors here. This is their document. And if you want to keep that extra part of it. George, for you, I have a question. And you're saying to keep that the energy and climate action recommends prioritizing as a separate whereas, is that what you're saying? Well, I'm suggesting that I'd like to, if you're going to keep it, I would separate it and have a separate whereas. Okay, thank you. Or I would just delete it. I think I don't want it deleted because prioritizing the planning is something that has to be happening now. I don't mind if it's a separate whereas at all, I think it should be, that's not, I think it should be in there. Okay, turn it up, that's this great. Chief, and maybe we should say instead of to achieve the Council's goals. The Council's goals, yes. Because we want them to look at all of those goals, not just 2050 Council goals. Yeah, you count Council. Good, good. So the new whereas the Towns Energy and Climate Action Committee recommends prioritizing planning to achieve the Town Council's goals, including net zero emissions by 2050. I would want to say climate action goals. I would take out the including, oh, climate action goals, period. Take out the including net zero, yeah. Because it's redundant. Well, because it sounds like that's the main priority, which it isn't. Excuse me. Angie, do you want to take out also by 2050? Can you lower your hand? Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. Thanks, Sonny. I did, didn't I? I was going to say, why, why, why not keep it in? Why not keep 2050 in? Because it's not just 2050. It's 2030 and 2025 too. All right, okay. Turn, yeah. It refers back to the previous whereas. So would you like to keep it there or see or no? I would not like to keep it. Good, then the sponsors are in agreement, fine. So we leave it as it is and that's semi-colon and fine. All right, there's no semi-colon. Yeah, it is. It's after 2050. It's right here. Oh, there it is. All right, so anything else? I don't see any hands. I don't see any waving. I don't see any voices, but Chris. Can you put it, take the formatting away so we can just see it as a clean text? Mandy, please. Let me know when to scroll. I don't know. I think the only reason I might have said that was because I plan to read it all, but I don't plan to read it all. So that was on, it looks fine to me. It is easier to see those two paragraphs like this than with all the things. It might still, oh, I think we go on to three pages. Oh, we can't get rid of it. Oh, that's fine. Yeah. Speak for yourself, Patricia. I, hey, I sponsored the abortion rights thing and that was like five pages at least. So, all right. All right. Well, so I am prepared to entertain a motion unless there's any further comment or discussion. I move that Joe will recommend, is this a language? Well, that we declare. We declare it clear, consistent and actionable. Right. That's what we do. I move that we declare a reservation calling for swift just building decarbonization in the commonwealth, clear, consistent and actionable. Second, the Angelus. And I've just lost my screen. Yep. That's all right. Hopefully I'll get it back. So I'm prepared to move to vote. We'll start with Pat. Aye. Darcy. Yes. Mandy. Aye. The chair is an aye. Sarah. Aye. All right. The motion carries unanimously five zero. So thank you very much sponsors for being present. Thank you. How can we get a copy of this latest draft? Chris. So Mandy will send you a copy when she sends one to me and she'll also send it. I think she almost always she sends it to theme as well. So when she sends it to the council clerk, she will also send it to you. To Felicia and Chris. Yeah, I'll, if I don't have, I know I have your email, Chris. If I don't have Felicia's, I'll get it from Darcy or Chris. Okay. And you're going to send it as a doc X file. Are you? So that ordinary mortals can use it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. You're welcome. Very much. Thank you very much. Take care. Thank you. Bye. So we're prepared to move on to item number three, which is the Tibet day proclamation. We have the sponsor present, Sarang Dundup. And so Mandy is going to put the proclamation up on the screen for us all to see. And, okay, Sarang, if you would be good enough to unmute. So as we go through this, I imagine you were present through this in the past 15, 20 minutes. So you see how we work. And so the first thing is the sponsors. And my understanding is the council sponsors are a Shawnee Ball Mill and Pat D'Angeles, Lynn Grissimer and Dorothy Pan. The community sponsor is regional, the original Tibetan Association of Massachusetts and Mr. Sarang Dundup president. Is that acceptable to you as the sponsor? Yes. Good. Okay. So, and then we're just going to go through this whereas by whereas. And Mandy, do we both, these or not? You normally do. Do you want me to? We could also, we'll do that later. I mean, you've got. I'll just work through it. Okay. So I had no, I read through this. I had, the only concerns I had were with the, the now therefore, with the be it resolved at the very end. There is one correction in the third whereas that Mandy made, which is a semicolon after law. Yeah. I changed the semicolon to a comma and in the second whereas I added up the Oxford comma in. Thank you. All right, fine. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. Oh, and I added a comma in the fourth one after 2020. Yep. Thank you. I didn't see that one. And then I think there was another comma. The, let me, this one here, there was a sentence, the 1 billion people in Asia and then China. So I just added a comma instead of the period. That was just a minor correction. Thank you. And then I had a question on the next two. Yeah. There's the type of there. The type of monk instead of month. That's an easy one in a sense. But what I had a question for Zaryn is, is the last two months, because we do this every year, what I don't remember is, was that last year's or it was in the last year's not. Okay. It's a, Tenzin was died in January, 2021 and in February, 2021. That's what I just wasn't sure of. I'm sorry. It was just a question. Okay. Okay. I capitalized town. Yeah. And the last one's a period instead of an an. Well, you know, I have a small wonder. I don't know why for reading at this time where the town of Amherst is home to a small vibrant community. Somehow or other, I'd love to take the small out and just it's a vibrant community of Tibetan Americans. And it's never bothered me before. So I don't, it's not a major thing, but. No, gone. Right. Okay. So the, the final, the therefore now therefore be here by resolve that we the town council of the town of Amherst, we usually don't say in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but we can recognize the local Tibetan American communities, plea for justice for the people of Tibet on this 62nd anniversary of Tibetan national uprising day and continue to proclaim an anniversary be lowercase a that looks like, I don't know, seems like it should be. I was going to suggest that the focus here should be on the proclamation. So I was going to suggest up above to say in recognition of the local Tibetan American communities plea for justice for the people of Tibet on this 62nd anniversary of Tibetan national uprising day comma, we proclaim. So each time we do it, it's not just suggesting each time. So it's we proclaim March 10 as Tibet day is what I'm going to suggest and take away to each. So, and, and so we proclaim actually should just be proclaimed. I should know where you're right. Proclaim March 10, 2021 as Tibet day and further either call for or simply hoist or raise. I'm not sure which would be better. Do we many, do you think that's something we were basically calling on the town to do something? We actually don't raise the flag. Let me see what I didn't get a chance to do. Let me check out last year's pride. It's the same language last year. Yeah, it is something. Well, I'm wondering about the pride one. Okay, all right. If you've got the pride one handy, good for you. I will take me 20 minutes. Let me see if I can pull it up. I might have it here somewhere in line. Thank you. Okay, I've got 2020's pride and courage all right and recognize this proclamation by hoisting the pride flag is the phrase used there. Okay, so and further by hoisting the Tibetan national flag front. Let's just. Because I recognize this proclamation by and further recognize, I mean, okay. I recognize this proclamation and further recognize this proclamation by hoisting the Tibetan national flag from March 10 to March 20, 2021 to help exactly to help cultivate awareness for all residents of animals or just cultivate awareness. Yeah, that's right, good, good. Do we want the help in there or not? I think it's just a help. In other words, this is a number of different things we're doing all meant to help cultivate awareness. So I think the help is fine. Sering, any thoughts on your part? Is this acceptable to you as a sponsor? Yes, it is. It looks pretty good now. Thank you. Thanks. It was very good to begin with, but thank you. We just, that's great. So good. So I don't see any other comments or concerns from other members of the committee or from the sponsors. Not seeing any, I'm prepared to entertain a motion. Pat, would you like to make the motion? I move that the 2021 Tibet Day proclamation is clear, clear, consistent and actionable. Second. So we have a motion, we have it seconded. I'm going to move immediately to a vote. And this time I'm going to start with Darcy. Yes. And then Sarah. Aye. And the chair is an aye. Pat. Aye. And Mandy. Aye. Very good. Okay, again, the motion is declared clear, excuse me, the proclamation is declared clear, consistent, actionable by unanimous vote. Okay. All right. Please, Mandy. I do not have Sarah's email. So when I forward it to you, can you just forward it onto him? I will. I will do that. Okay. Okay. All right. So, Sarah, thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next item is rule of procedure, 6.3 D. And the chair should be able hopefully to find that. They take him a while. You want me to pull it up? No, let me try this, Mandy, be patient here. It's the one. I think this is that. I've got two of them in my. I want to make sure that the right one. Yeah, I think it is. You'll correct me if I'm mistaken. So I'm going to go. This is 6.3 D. Trying to get dizzy. Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't shown it yet. Good. I want to get it. Good. Good. This is what we want. So I'm going to. All right, come back here. Share a screen. That's what I want. So you should see on your screen. Could you enlarge it, George? I will do that. Thank you. So, um, What? Okay. Okay. I just wanted to hang out for a second. Zoom. Okay. Thank you very much. Zoom to me means zoom. All right. Is that better pattern? Would you like it more? No, that's fine. Thank you. Okay. So, um, We have in front of us. If this, um, wording has proved to be somewhat. Problematic. I have a suggestion here, but, um, let's look first at what. Mandy has given us to she's given us, first of all, essentially the original language of, which is D in front of you. And then an alternate E, which is language suggested by counselor Brewer. Um, And. Can I clarify something with that? Yeah. So, um, I put it in the notes. The E would replace D. Yeah. There's alternate for D essentially. Counselor Brewer also made the suggestion as I put in the notes to remove the charter right to postpone from hers completely. Um, she actually didn't have that in her suggested language. I put it in there so that they mirrored each other in content at this point in time. Um, and so I don't know why she didn't have that in her suggested language. That would move it in counselor Brewer section from. Two to one. Can. Well, I, The more I look at this, I don't mean to cause problems, but it seems to me the right to postpone. I don't see why that. anything. It just says we're going to do this later. But in terms of to call the previous question, that seems to me to, that is an interruption that needs to be there. So in some ways I'd like to reverse where they are. It's not important, but it just... I guess Pat, are you saying that if I'm speaking in my three minutes during that speech, someone should be able to interrupt my speech and call the question, or should they have to just wait till I end my talk? Because I ask, because right now the way Councillor Brewer's suggestion is, and the way we proposed it is, calling the question cannot be in the middle of someone's three minutes. They have to wait till the end, but they can do it at the end of that three minutes when someone's stopped. Yeah, no, I hear you, and that's probable. But then why is the right to postpone? Why can that be an interruption? Why can't... I'm sorry. No, no, no, no. Councillor Brewer wanted it out completely, and I went back and read the charter, and I actually agree with you that that should probably be moved to what is listed here as E1, not interrupt but speak without recognition, to claim it without needing recognized. Which is actually the practice we've had when it has been asserted. They have asserted it without recognition. Right. So it doesn't have to go through raising your hand, waiting till you're called on, blah, blah, blah, but... Right. So I'm going to suggest there's offers an option having two, E and F, or I guess it would be D and E, and separating out... The issue seems to be around two questions. When can you interrupt a colleague? Okay. And when can you speak without recognition? Right. So if we had an item which addressed that issue first, so when can you interrupt a colleague? You can interrupt a colleague only when what? To raise a point of order. Right. To raise a question of privilege. So the other thing that I didn't put into this is those two items, along with about three other items under Robert's rules, already allow you to interrupt a colleague. So that portion of the rule does not change Robert's rules. It just makes it more known to counselors. And that becomes another question since we default to Robert's rules. Those two things are already allowed even if we remove them from the rules. So it's a question of do we want them in here to alert counselors that they can interrupt colleagues? Or do we want to streamline our rules to not include things that are not changing Robert's rules? I guess what I'm... Yeah. I'd love to hear from Sarah because she's good at this, but you don't have to talk. So I guess what I'm thinking is that I feel like we don't... Although like Robert's rules we default to, I feel like there's an issue of civility that I don't think it's just Alyssa that's had an issue with, but I think that as much as we can make it clear that we're not out of hand interrupting someone, I think we need to make that clear because I do think that there is an issue where we've limited it to what we have the two minutes and then the three minutes. I think somebody needs to be able to say what they need to be able to say. We've limited how long they can pontificate on that, but I don't know that we want to encourage... I don't know how to say this, like blatant interrupting where it makes it really clear that one counselor is trying to make a point and if they're making it for the first time and no one else has, then I feel like it's dismissive and rude to have someone just like you... It's obvious that like say the second counselor who's interrupting is hearing the first counselor say something and it's obvious they don't even want to hear it, so they interrupt to call the question. I think that we want to... And even though it seems sort of, I don't know, silly to put it in, I think that we want to say if a counselor is making a point, they're limited to however many minutes, but they should be able to make it before someone then says, okay, now I want to call the question. Point of order is different, but calling the question, I think you've got to let somebody get their point across before you're like, and yeah, no thanks. So what if it said counselors may only interrupt the colleague? So the first one says you shall not interrupt the colleague... Excuse me, the first one would say you may speak without recognition to do, right? So if you said counselors may only interrupt the colleague to raise a point of order or to raise a question of privilege, why isn't that sufficient in terms of at least... Because I agree with Sarah, and I think I'm hearing this from a number of you that... And we have not done this. This is... I don't believe in two years anyone has ever done something like this. And all we're doing is making it clear that given our understanding of how we proceed as a body, it is simply against the rules to interrupt a colleague except to raise a point of order or to raise a question of privilege. We'll leave aside the charter right for a moment. Why shouldn't that be a separate, like E or D or something, right? And then the other would be you shall not speak without recognition except, right? Right, to doubt the presence of a quorum or call the previous question. So is that... If you insert it only, would that solve the problem or is that not a solution? So we could go back to the D language that starts with counselor shall not interrupt a colleague except to raise a point of order or we could change it or to express a point of personal privilege period and then a new E that says counselor shall not speak without recognition except to doubt the presence of a quorum, call the previous question or start the charter right to postpone. That's what I would suggest. And does that... That doesn't create a problem with Robert's rules and it makes it clear what our rules are and makes, I think, the point that a number of you are making, including Sarah, which is we don't want people interrupting someone while they're speaking, except in extremely rare circumstances that we all would acknowledge are acceptable, but otherwise not. So why not a D and then E would be address the issue of speaking without recognition? I wouldn't go for that because... Oh, I'm sorry, George. You said just talk. Here I am just talking. But I think that it makes our rules clear. I think that it makes it more clear what we feel that as a town council our culture is around speaking to each other, but I think it still protects our rights as counselors to call a point of order. So I would be amenable to that. Looks like Dorsey has her hand raised. Dorsey, please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah. I wasn't part of the initial discussion on this, so I'm not sure what you've already discussed. And I think I agree with what you're saying about not interrupting counselors, but I wondered if you had discussed whether we want to add something to calling the question to ensure that it is not used to prevent debate. We discussed that at our last meeting, I believe it was, and one of the, because I brought up a similar point that I didn't like it as a strategy, and it seems to me, and George, you might have said this, that if it became a strategy, we could go back. So I don't think it needs to be changed. But if it's used, if there has been zero discussion or debate. A counselor has a right to do that. And again, if it became something that was a regular habit, I would say that that would be problematic. Well, the counselors have a right to do it under Robert's rules, but I'm just saying that we could make a rule. I don't want to. I think, Darcy, the point is, if someone does make that motion, the council then gets to decide. So if the council is a body really wants to have a debate on something, they can vote to do that. And if they don't, they can vote. Where would there ever be a situation where we would not want to debate? We just had one. And a majority of the counselors did not want to debate, and they voted so. You may not have liked that vote. I'm not sure I liked it completely, though I did vote for it. It was a decision made by the counselors that they did not wish to have debate on this measure. And a supermajority voted that way. So I think I had your initial reaction. And then I thought about it some more. And I thought, you know, in the end, it really should be decision by those 13 individuals, if they want to have debate on this or not. And it has to be a supermajority. It's not just a simple majority. And we did have one instance. And I understand why some people were not happy about it. But I don't think a rule requiring debate before you can move the question and call the question would be, I would not support that. Mandy has her hand up also, George. Mandy, please go ahead. I was just going to suggest I've made the changes in my copy, George, if you want me to. I want to show people can see them. I'm going to put this in. So, but before I do that, I'm going to Darcy, you wanted to make a point. So go ahead, please. Yeah, I just my point is that in the majority on a particular issue, the people who are the pros on a particular issue could prevent people who have the opposite opinion from discussing an issue in the public eye. And so it just seems like the only situation where I can see that there would be situations where it would be appropriate to do that, where, for example, council already had a discussion at the same meeting, they had the discussion before the motion, which we sometimes do. So that would make sense, because we could say, okay, we already, we already discussed this. That would make sense to call the question there. But I guess I just feel like it's really not good to prevent discussion if it hasn't been done had at all. It can't prevent discussion unless there are nine counselors who are supporting it. And or if nine counselors support a continuing debate, that is what happens. I don't think there's any need to change anything here in relation to what you're saying. I'm going to put the wording change in so we can look at it. We can come back to this. I think it's a separate issue with Darcy suggesting is introducing a further rule. And we can come back to that and discuss it some more. But let me first focus on the initial question of getting this clear. And it sounds like we might have a consensus, at least with this specific point. And then I'm going to come back to the larger or the other issue of whether you want to require debate as a rule. So Mandy, if you'll bear with us for a second. So D, how do you have it written to counselors? D would read, counselors shall not interrupt a colleague except to raise a point of order. And then you're going to delete the comma and add the word war to raise instead of express its raise. A question of privilege instead of point of personal privilege. And Mandy, this is because it's used this language is used somewhere else. The question of privilege language is used in rule seven in our motion order of whatever. And then the rest of that the rest of that is deleted is deleted. Yeah. Yeah. So D would read counselors shall not interrupt the colleague except to raise a point of order or to raise a question of privilege. Okay. And then E would read counselors shall not speak without recognition except and then you delete everything to the word two and number one. Yep. And keep the two. Yep. So you'll have to add in, I think the accept, recognize the word. Should not speak without recognition except to doubt the presence of a quorum or to call the previous question. Put the put the comma in to the presence of a quorum comma to call the previous question. You can delete the or after questions say comma or and then delete everything up to to assert the charter right to postpone. Okay. All right. So let's look at this for a moment before we go back to the other issue. I think this addresses the concerns of Councilor Brewer. I hope it does. I think it makes it very clear to us as members of the council that we should never interrupt a colleague, colleague except in these two cases and that we should never speak without recognition except in the case of that in the presence of quorum calling a previous question or asserting a charter right to postpone. So I think this is much clearer and hopefully we'd meet with Council Brewer's approval. The question about charter right to postpone, can we address that briefly? Mandy, you've included it. Council Brewer wanted to delete it. Can you give us the argument for why we should include it? So the simplest argument is that's how we've done it traditionally in those times it has been asserted. So the charter right to postpone is a charter thing. We can't stop someone from asserting the right and it needs to under the charter be asserted at the time of vote or earlier. And in our practice of voting, when we start voting, we either start raising hands or we go through a roll call. So if you're not the first person on the roll call, you almost have to. Right, you have to speak without recognition or somehow figure out a way to get the chairs, you know, the the presiding officer's attention as they're starting to do a roll call. So it makes sense to me to add it in to speak without recognition. I think I did air last time when when I suggested it be an interrupt a colleague that doesn't really make sense. Had more problems with the interrupting of a colleague than the speaking without recognition on that one. And I can't think of any reason that I'm aware of where you would take it out because as you point out, it's it's there. It's a fact. And in fact, we do have it have exercised it. So good. Any further thoughts about these two changes because I would like to actually entertain a motion on this. And then as I said, we'll go back to the whether we want to introduce further rule. But can any other thoughts because otherwise I'd like to have a motion. I just want to say out loud that I think the reason why Councilor Brewer wanted to take that out is because I think that she's feeling a little bit about this. The same way that Darcy feels about, you know, being able to call a question without debate is that it can it's sort of a nuclear option, which is a weird thing to say, I guess, when I say it out loud, and that it's something could be abused, which I understand. But I also think that GOL has decided and I also feel this way that it's a it's an extreme measure that that does need to to be there. But I guess I just wanted to point out why I think there's action to it. Okay. And these changes don't address that. That's something that she can raise at the council meeting. I don't see there's any way we can address it. Given the fact that this right does exist. And all we're saying is that when you exercise this right, you are permitted to do it without recognition for the reasons that man is stated that you could be hindered from exercising this right, simply by the role of the dice by the fact that you're not the first person called upon, or the council president just doesn't notice you. And that would seem to be agree. Okay, good. So I'm prepared to entertain a motion. The motion would be that to accept changes to rule point, well, actually, it's to recommend to recommend how we're going to do it because we've really created two separate. I'll try to craft something. Thank you, Mandy. And to recommend that rule that the council adopt the so to recommend the council adopt a revision to rule 6.3 that deletes everything after point of order and adds the phrase or to raise a question of privilege period. And to add a section E and renumber accordingly the following phrase. Councilor shall not speak without recognition except to doubt the presence of a quorum comma to call the previous question comma or to assert the charter right to postpone period. So to our noble note taker to our do you need that repeated? Yeah, I had a few. Jenda, I knew I would have to have it repeated. But no, okay, so let me can I read what I have exactly. Thank you. So what I have is because I got lost somewhere but to recommend that the council adopt a revision to rule 6.3 that deletes everything after point of order and adds the phrase or to raise a question of privilege and to add a section E and that's where I kind of lost it. So let's go back just one step. I think you want to insert D so oh 6.3 D okay D and so right and then good and then you what point you were lost was where and to add a section E and that's basically then just quoting the entire phrase that's there. Councilor shall not speak right so just from the screen without okay I just okay I just yeah the whole entire yeah and then the only other thing was then to renumber or read letter accordingly. So if you take a moment if you want to read that back one last time that's fine because this is a little tricky. Okay so to recommend that the council adopt a revision to rule 6.3 D that deletes everything after point of order and adds the phrase or to raise a question of privilege and to add a section E and then I'll just insert that exactly and to renumber accordingly. Re-letter. Re-letter sorry. That's all right that's great that's perfect. Okay. Very good. So that is the motion the clerk has the motion and is there a second. Second DeAngelis. DeAngelis seconds thank you so we have a motion it's been seconded any further comment or discussion. Seeing none I'm going to proceed directly to vote and this time I'm going to start with Sarah. And that's an aye. An aye. Darcy. Yes. The chair is an aye. Pat. Aye. And Mandy. Aye. Very good so again the motion carries unanimously five zero. Thank you. All right the next item in the agenda is a discussion item and we Darcy please go ahead. Where we move on. Yep. I just I do you know I'm interested to know if there's anybody else on the committee who agrees with me that there should be an added section about thank you I'm sorry. The section about what Darcy I'm sorry. The the section that I would like to add would say something like counselor shall not call the previous question unless counselors have had the opportunity to debate the topic earlier in the same meeting. So I'm just interested to know if there's anybody else on the committee who thinks that would be an important thing to add. Well Darcy you can make that motion and we can then discuss it but we can also do it informally I don't either one is fine. Let's do informal at first. I'm just if anybody else agrees with me and if they don't then it's probably not worth putting a motion forward. Well Darcy I'd like to say how thrown I was when Evan called the question that quickly it was not something that was easy for me but on pondering it and thinking about it I think that that is legitimate and as I said earlier to you is that in the previous meeting I discussed that if it became a strategy that happened frequently that it would be problematic but I don't I don't see a need to add what you're saying. The whole point is to stop debate and and in some ways we need to trust the integrity of counselors to use that appropriately. Could you explain what your thought process was that allowed you to then decide it was a reasonable idea? I'm not going to share that. Yeah I think that's inappropriate. Quite frankly I think the larger question is a good one Darcy and it's not an easy one but I don't think it's appropriate to ask a particular counselor why they voted a particular way at a particular vote so I mean you can do it but I don't think it's appropriate but it is appropriate to ask whether we are wanting to create a rule that would require debate before someone could call the question and that's the question that's what you've asked to see if others support that and at the moment it seems the answer is no but asking people why they voted a particular way in a particular vote seems to me not appropriate. You mean as happened at the term council meeting? Well I assume that's what you're I mean you could ask me why you know voted for so and so to be the MVP for a particular team but I assume what you're interested in are my votes as a counselor so I think that's not appropriate at least in a public forum like this but anyway. Can I just say that I think until this occasion came up in which this actually happened I don't I think I probably would stand where Darcy is standing right now but I think in real life being a counselor I have seen a situation where sometimes some sorts of debate are either hurtful or inappropriate and do not further the justice or the betterment of the decision that we make so that changed my mind but I think that in seeing a situation where I wouldn't want debate on something I think that we should keep this here and then I think that the point has been made that this shouldn't be used strategically. I haven't seen it done I can't imagine it being done if it happened I think the optics would be horrible if it was something like say we somebody called the question on the library that would be absolutely horrific and it certainly wouldn't be furthering the the justice of that cause so that's what I'm going to say about it is that there's I guess sometimes an exception to a rule and I think that this shows why we need to have that rule. Well Darcy what I'm seeing is that there doesn't seem to be support on the committee for a possible motion to this effect. I'd be happy to mention this in the report to the council that this came up in discussion so that at least it's on the record and other counselors can see it and if they have thoughts they can they can speak to it. The other way to do that of course is to actually have an actual motion but I don't think that's necessary I can certainly put this in the discussion of rule 6.3d and mention it as something that came up and briefly present your concern and then note that there wasn't a consensus to proceed and no motion was made. All right we have I have review of calendar draft I'm not even going to put it well actually I could put it up on the screen just briefly but Mandy. I'll be right back. Okay I just want you to see it I appreciate Mandy going through it and if I can find it quickly never find things when you want them. There it is thank you bear with me put you away I'm going to save that screen I believe that's it right there I should be able to see this hopefully pull up just a bit so we can see it that's so at the moment this is what we have as our proclamation calendar we just acted on to bed day and at the moment things look quiet I don't know whether we'll get an arbor month proclamation I don't know if we'll get a child awareness day proclamation or art week proclamation or a southeast asian heritage month proclamation I guess one question would be what role if any do we have in soliciting these in the past we have not we have been reactive not proactive and maybe that's the way we continue to be so this is what our schedule looks like at the moment are we missing so the question for you all is whether we're missing anything or and or if you have any thoughts about what role we should play in soliciting proclamations if any the answer might be you know we don't have a role to play but once proclamations are presented to us we then kick into gear I many no many okay many please yeah I just a couple of changes to this that I think we should add the tenth to to bed day so we know that it's March 10 to the lbgt q one we should put month down so we know it's a full month so the proclamations the it's pride month or lbgt q month right right yes the month is June and year long but hey what that'd be green okay all right lgbt month okay yes and in September I think it's Puerto Rico Heritage Day or Puerto Rican Heritage Day I don't know which one it is heritage heritage and we celebrate I don't know whether it's a day or a month but we celebrate it on 23rd so just a little more clarity on those things interesting to answer your question um I think there's something in the middle right if we do it month if we if we have some of these that are traditional um you could almost say go l start sponsoring them just you know it's on a geocalendar and go l becomes the sponsor so that it's just a traditional it happens every year and all um others there's generally community sponsors and if they're on top of it I guess my thing is if they're on top of it we'll hear and we'll get the request from the president to have a counselor sponsor well in advance if the community sponsors forget for some reason or aren't quite on top of it and we're like oh to bet day's coming up in March and we haven't received it yet under our rules maybe we should just as a committee be the quote sponsor um I'm uncomfortable with that but I guess I like the idea of something in the middle I I'm uncomfortable with us being the sponsor of I think these should definitely come from um the community uh and with an appropriate council sponsor but I'm not sure I'd like to make go l the sponsor um thoughts on that I'm a little reluctant with that I'm thinking that maybe the chair should be tasked with and working with Jen I mean Jen's fantastic so you know just saying to the chair wherever the chair may be you know here's the calendar you know you should be in touch with with with Jen um on a regular basis just to see what's in the pipeline and keep the line of communications open I think what happens often is we get things at the last minute you know somebody says oh yeah what about so and so they and then we get it and it's got to be done you know next week or tomorrow and we do it but it's it's somewhat um you know last minutey um so maybe it's a chair's responsibility to keep track of this being communication with Jen um I guess the question is should the chair then or some member of GL also be tasked with reaching out to some of these bodies I mean like Arbor Day I assume that's not Jen's you know um right probably I'm sorry probably the shade tree commission yeah yeah yeah so maybe the next I'm sorry Pat no go ahead George well maybe the next step for the chair is for him having gotten through the help of you all a sort of hopefully a fairly exhausted list is to then identify the sponsors um and in many cases it Jen would be the contact person certain to Black History Month MLK Chinese New Year to Tibet Day I assume though Pat you've been involved in this a lot um Southeast Asian Heritage Month I assume that's going to be through Jen um right so anyway go through and identify the contact person um and then reach out to them you know a month or so in advance to just make sure that that we're on their radar um so we know what's coming George I'm going to Tibet Day as an example I have been sponsoring it since the council started right but it was because the community asked for a sponsor not I didn't generate it right and it seems to me the one concern I have about making this sort of automatic pilot is our to make sure that we reach out to the community I know that the gentleman who spoke today didn't have a lot to say but he might have in another instance so I think um I don't want it to become by rote I guess is what I'm saying I think that always the community sponsor is contacted right right and that they be invited to be here and so even if they decide not to they feel they feel welcome they feel connected and they're still a council sponsor who can carry the so maybe what I need to do is taking this list um then add you know the contact um and then show it to you again and we can refine it and um because I do think with pat that it's important that there be this constant connection even though we do it every year there is that human connection and invitation um the larger another question is down below that mandy has put in here which is you know what do we recommend to the council going forward I'm not saying we need to talk about it today but I think we should come back to it and we certainly can start thinking about it today um you know what do we recommend to the council because I again this idea of rote I kind of share pat's perspective that you know this is an opportunity for a community to recognize publicly and if it's just on the consent agenda it has this sort of pro forma rote aspect and so we're caught between desire to get our meetings under control in terms of time but also the sort of performative um you know sort of public uh aspect of our job um giving people you know connection to us and to the larger community in a public forum so reading them out loud or acknowledging them seems to be an important function of what we do um it's clearly much more uh I think impactful when three people are physically present and they can be recognized and and so on the human that is really important we can't do that right now do we want to do so I think at some point maybe not today but at some point I think we want to take up some of these questions that mandy's put here at the bottom and and see if we have anything we want to recommend to the council in terms of how to proceed um what the rule what what sort of our practice should be so any thoughts on that either now or do you something you want to have on the agenda coming soon to continue this discussion when I bring back this list with contacts and so forth we could then make it an item to discuss um what do we think should be our practice as a council first Darcy please yeah uh I'd like this list I think that one nice thing about it is that um if we already have the previous um proclamations from the previous years we actually will be able to skip the process of going through them line by line which takes up a lot of time and although there'll be you know some changes um and I agree that we need to to if we're going to do them we should do them in a way that honors the sponsors and that we could do something like have the have the community sponsor read the proclamation during the meeting instead of us so that they are featured so this is a council meeting you would suggest having that being read as what you're suggesting yeah now again the argument against that or one is the idea of time imagine you know like proclamation today that is the decarbonization proclamation and we have some that are you know really lengthy um so again this is something we can talk about next time but I I like the idea of having read but then some of these are two or three pages and it's just time um so and um but anyway that one of the things that the council is going to have to come to grips with is increasing the number of meetings that we have because the proclamation issue aside it is very difficult to get work done in two sessions a month and you know maybe we need to go back to this idea of a work session where votes aren't taken with things like that that would I think open up some room for the reading of proclamations um I mean there's no point to them if there isn't kind of a public yeah and I you know I'm going back to when the um I think it was last year maybe the year before because of COVID it's hard to know uh with the Tibetan day when the the Tibetan community invited Tibetans from DC from the larger organization and it was extraordinarily moving to have them or at least for me in in the council room with us now we can't have them in the council room but it's that same kind of quality that is part of our job is to um yeah allow for emotionality and connection in terms of these things I think yes no I think you're right and giving people a sense that they're heard and they're recognized is extremely important now was it Melrose maybe one of the communities mentioned last meeting they actually have a physical document now that's cost money and I know but there you're not reading it but you know you actually give them something um and I wonder if we could I mean again money's an issue but we could explore a way in which um you know at least in some circumstances these proclamations are printed out or in some kind of physical form signed by the counselors and then presented to representative of the group maybe that is too much but again that then you're not read but it's a physical copy that the group is recognized and it's public um so that's another option Mandy so what Melrose does is they do a photo op during the council meeting so after passes they have the representative of the you know the community sponsor there with the formal pretty you know folio stamped or whatever and the council and the sponsors stand in front of what would be our council sort of table and and thing with a photo op and then that can go on a web page or a facebook page or something that says here's the proclamation you could put the proclamation there but you've got a nice photo of the counselors with the thing to it and a photo op doesn't take as long as reading sometimes two or three pages right right and I think has more lasting impact um and so that's something I think we could consider going forward we're not going to decide today but it's something we could consider recommending to the council I think what I'm hearing and please raise your hand or just speak up is a sort of desire to pursue this um and a recognition as Pat has stated I think that there's a public aspect here that's important that we need to need to acknowledge and somehow incorporate into our practice and the consent agenda isn't isn't really cutting it for this particular issue and we'd like to explore it some more okay so I'm going to tentatively put that on the agenda for next time I will work on this document um and put it up in the share point and people are welcome to send me further suggestions or additions or corrections or whatever um but my task would be to try to identify what I think are the potential contacts for as many of these as I can um and I think also that makes a good point about I have been keeping past proclamations and I can also assemble those into a into a file and that can be accessible to the committee um so that's my task lost you George I'm sorry you still hear me or not I don't know what happened okay so I'm going to stop sharing okay so everybody's there everybody can hear um we have um timeline lid is not here um she had I think she might be in attendees okay well let me have a look um so um it's listed as Lynn PC so that might be her I don't know but I will bring her in if she she may not have anything she wishes to present to us I think we as a committee as I said last time we are now keepers of the process for what that whatever that means um but we're supposed to be keeping our eye on this and um part of it is you know just agreeing with Paul what the deadlines are and um part of it is making sure the process is is going forward but almost all this probably all of this is done by staff they've been doing it for a long time do we want to review evaluation documents um do we need to you know what's our role in this other than just making sure that things are moving along um so that's where I'm at and I'm looking for guidance from the council president but I'm also looking for guidance and thoughts from my committee members um the document is in your file or in in SharePoint and of course it's the one we've been using all along um the timeline document um I'm going to open it and share it for just briefly and Mandy are you your co-host is that correct I can share I'm not I was going to say if you could just explore and see who if if Lynn is here if she wishes to yeah I can't do that you have to do that um all right okay let me see attendees thank you Athena um so we will bring her in and I will share the screen um for a moment and I will also try to get this bigger if I can let's try 125 percent see what that does a little bit more okay a little bit more Georgie we'll do let's try 150 percent yeah thank you I can scroll here so so um and Lynn may be busy doing other things so this is Lynn this is Lynn's PC it's not Lynn's PC when I registered to come in it asked for my name but then it listed Lynn's PC so sorry that's all right I've always wanted to talk to your PC get the secret story get the true story okay Lynn um we're at that point in the agenda where um we're talking about the the evaluation process and the goal setting process anything you wish to add or share with us at this point the one I have not done anything on paper but I've been thinking about this and the one stumbling block that I keep coming up with is the requirement in the charter that we have to evaluate the town manager annually and so I'm trying to figure out if we moved the town manager evaluation to be completed in November December which I think is worth seriously worth considering how do we accommodate for this six-month gap do we just pray that nobody calls our hand on not following the charter wouldn't we Lynn do a sort of truncated or checklist kind of evaluation for that six months there's I'm just going to tell you the amount of work that goes into doing these evaluations is not small and so I've tried to figure out what would a mini look like I don't know could we say listen annually in this case is every calendar year and we did one in 21 and if we 20 and if we do one in November December of 21 we've still done it annually maybe that's the that's what I would say okay okay okay so then if with that I can take this and move everything on the evaluation we already discussed the goal setting and the goal setting with the idea that we would set goals for but we would review them but they would be considered at least two year goals and then the only other thing I need to bring this into sync with is the existing town managers contract because right now we have always voted you know consistent with the evaluation which also is consistent with his contract for whether he will have be compensated extra or not and I also have not had a moment to talk about this with Paul I'd like to do that okay so that's really where I am okay idea that we we say listen we done it annually because we just did in a different month Mandy Joe I think that helps a lot okay and please Darcy go ahead thank you yeah I'm just talking off the top of my head here because I haven't thought I hadn't heard your proposal but I can see where we would want to do that um the the issue with upcoming councils like a new council will be seated in January right um so then they will have to operate on the goals that we decided the month before or you know this this group of people decided the months before and then they won't have a chance to make their own goals until the end of half of their half of their first term is over I'm just throwing that out there I don't really necessarily have an opinion about it I'm just thinking I know that's right Mandy hands your hand up Mandy please I think we're actually thinking more along the lines of and and Lynn can correct me of sort of decoupling the two from each other which sounds strange but doing the goals still as a fiscal year so like the new council seated in January they would update the goals that June or July and it would be essentially their terms goals two years which would go six months into the next council's goals but a council is not going to be able to be seated in January and in January have goals you know so that six months allows them the manager to continue sort of finishing the prior council's goals while the new council gets its feet and sets their own goals we could move that maybe a quarter or earlier but I think the thought was to maybe decouple that from the evaluation I don't know how well that works and what Paul thinks about that but the council goals the second half of an evaluation the second half of our goals is much more on the administrative side that you know can be a value I foresee not changing very frequently in terms of goals versus the first half which were more of the policy goals so I think you can decouple those two in a way that as we figure it out will work can I can I just speak to that add on so you know a new council is seated in January one of the things that you would hope that they would do either in an orientation period or as soon as they're seated is the town manager would give an oral presentation on the goals and you know a kind of a six month progress report at that point if the council the now newly seated council wants to do some amendments they could do it because what you want to be able to do is in fact evaluate from essentially January 1st to December 31st so that the town manager needs to know these are the 12 months that I'm looking at the biggest problem is then it's not consistent with budget which often drives what you're able to achieve with goals and the other issue could be that in June when you reestablish goals or whatever you now change them but the question then is are you now evaluating the town manager for six months on the previous goals and six months on new tweaked goals and I totally agree with main to Joe about the more of the administrative goals they don't change that much it's really the policy goals that have more likelihood to be tweaked or changed I mean we would not have included some of the goals that we now include in policy the town manager may feel like we're moving the goalpost line right another yeah I'm just going this way and all of a sudden and that seems like very unfair you know I'm glad that Darcy is now in this discussion because Darcy was in one of the groups when we spent a fair amount of time trying to establish goals yeah so I'm not because I have nothing else to say I'm not sure how much time you want to spend on this no I want to just base with you I appreciate you coming in to give us an update I guess as chair I'm just concerned you know going forward that you each time we meet talking about goalposts we just keep kicking them all down the field farther and farther and I understand that there's just there's only so much human beings can do but I guess I'm looking for guidance both from you and from my colleagues as to what we need to decide at some point and we're still not there in terms of what this actually is going to look like this document that we're going to then supposedly follow and recommend or show to the council and say here's here's the basic roadmap that we're using we're not we can't make that decision today but at some point I think soon we have to make some decisions about what's going to be do when and I don't know how to proceed with that maybe it's something that we should assign to a small group to sort of work on outside of the committee I just don't know I just seems to be difficult for us to do it in committee it seems really hard for us given all the various permutations what's helpful is when you come forward with a specific proposal and then we can chew on it but you've got so many things on your plate it's just it's not fair so let me let me just say george I just assume take this back if you form a subcommittee they have to meet in public anyway I know exactly and I think you know I have two larger issues but that you know I'm not even sure I should bring them on one of just is do we even need to look at these data collection instruments are we just going to when they should be starting to be collected and the staff does that anyway but you know do we need to look at them do we want to look at them do you want to know the staff does not do the instruments they do the data collection okay so who creates the instruments uh basically ivy they're created them are what was done in the past and I think that there might I'm just thinking a lot but there might be a place for the committee of five of us to look at these instruments and say you know but this might create more chefs in the kitchen but still you know one of the things that I think I personally feel is this process is much too complicated much too right couldn't this be simplified to some degree and and make life easier for everybody and still achieve the goal which is an evaluation so but is there a role for us to play in that and then looking at these instruments could we say you know can we simplify this the first one of course is is the council evaluation document is this something this committee wants to get into somebody needs to look at it at some point I think and it seems to be it would be this committee so what role do we want to play there do you want to leave it up to the council president and and just not worry about it and we just attend to sort of timelines and make sure everybody is is on the same page or do we want to actually look at the evaluation documents the instruments and and discuss them from the point of view are we satisfied by them a and b can we simplify them in any way can we do anything to make this process a little less burdensome on everyone involved the president the town manager the counselors etc everyone seems to be carrying a tremendous load and I'm not sure that that's really been all that that it really improves the final product man at a minimum we could start looking at the doc at the instruments I have some thoughts about them having now developed two rounds of the one we use I certainly have some thoughts about the one that we've been using for staff it's not been changed in 10 years and I even have and I have some additional thoughts about what we go out to the public with so that's one issue the other issue is I do think I need to have a conversation with Paul where I talk about the timing of goals contract and evaluation okay I mean we've only had one conversation with him once and it may be that it would be good to have him also come back to this committee with when we have a more solid basis for a discussion okay so what I'm going to what I'm hearing is that it might not be a bad idea I will reach out to Lynn obviously on this that sometimes soon on our agenda we have an item that we will devote some time to related to looking at specific data collection instruments and reviewing them with Lynn present and talking about them and secondly we're waiting to hear from Lynn on our conversation with Paul and when it would be appropriate to bring him into the discussion one more time and at that point also we would be sort of reviewing this document that's in front of us today in terms of just timeline so I would suggest their next meeting we begin looking at these data collection instruments but I'll leave that up to me in touch with Lynn but I'd like to put that on the agenda and does that seem sensible to the rest of you I think this is important I think it's something we need to keep our eyes on but it is complicated a lot of moving parts okay I'm not I see Lynn's hand still up but that may be residual but if not Lynn please go ahead actually I had a comment on an earlier item when I was still in the audience I had my end oh okay I apologize for not seeing that just very quick and it has to do with your resolutions the cpo's have played a significant role in resolutions yeah I think that's a terrific way for them to be connecting both with the community and the council yep Angela tends to keep a running list and as we know Jen Moisten has been particularly active in making and trying to bring in more communities with resolutions so that was just a comment I wouldn't make good good but go out should be definitely reaching out to them and working with them in most cases that would be the chair but then inviting them went appropriate as we did the other day with Jen I think makes a lot of sense thank you all right I want to go quickly to bylaws for future consideration I'd like to put that up on the screen Lynn thank you you're welcome to stay if you wish but I imagine you might have a few other things you'd like to do but I'm going to put this document up I hope and just a moment um let me just close that and um Mandy's been working hard I want to just begin to think about us going forward in terms of our agenda I want to go through this with you for just a few minutes it's now 12 15 we have basically this I'd like to give about 10 minutes at most of this and then we just have some minutes I'd like us to approve and then any new business or any future agenda items and then we're done so I think we can end on time I apologize but what happens to the appointment process the appointment process okay um okay I think it was number five on the agenda I say oh yes right you're absolutely correct all right my apologies more important than I think I think you're right I think you're absolutely correct so let me just take this away for a moment um and let's go back to that thank you Pat we had as a discussion item I don't know how I lost that in the in the scrum um whether this should be a single process for making recommendations to the council for appointments to council appointed bodies this is something that was raised in the council comments at the end of the year and was and got into the GOL report and was picked out by at least one of you as something worthy of us talking about so please yes let's go to item number five my apologies thoughts on this because right now we have two committees CRC and GOL that do make recommendations to the council on council appointed bodies and they have fairly similar processes but not identical um there have been issues raised in the past about term limits at one point I think CRC sent a memo to GOL on that issue and asked for clarification so that's one thing that we could take up if not in detail today certainly at the next meeting and then there's the interview process so um I'm not sure quite how to tackle this I um but I'm open to thoughts just uh so Sarah please won't you start so I guess what I would say is that I think that when you're a member of the public and you want to serve on a committee I think that the it seems more clear to you what the process is to be elected to a committee if there's one process we already have two because town manager appointments are so different than town council appointments um and I just from being in town government for a pretty long time besides hearing about parking I think the other thing that I've heard a lot is that people would apply to be on a committee they would never hear if their application actually made it to anyone then they would never hear if uh interviews started then they would never hear who actually got on the committee and it was really frustrating to people people really felt like their applications went into a black hole that you needed to know someone in government in order to get on a committee and those are committees even like the the the ag committee so they're not like real high profile committees so for me I think that it's really important that we have made I think town councils made great strides in making the process for application um to the committees that we appoint to be much more public you can see when someone got your application you can see ahead of time when interviews are going to be everybody gets interviewed I think all of those things are extremely important and I think that it also makes it seem much more I guess I'm going to use the awful word transparent if the application what you have to go through for all town council committees are the same and I know that there's also the debate well but different you know just putting somebody on finance committee as a non-voting member is so different than somebody for planning or zba but I I just want to put in my pitch for why I think that they should be consistent just I'll stop there for right now Sarah if you good um I mean I'm going to put up on the screen if people want I have enough in the in the SharePoint and available obviously in the right in the posting the specific policies for all three committees OCA back in the day and then CRC and TOL and I guess I need some guidance from from those who think no I know I know it's okay I just I'm a little bit at sea as to what exactly specifically people are talking about are they talking about how meetings are noticed to the public are they talking about the interview process are they talking about specific I mean right now all the both committees require an SOI both committees have public interviews they do the interview process slightly differently but they're public and available to everybody both committees obviously begin with the CAF so I guess I'm struggling to get clear on what it exactly is that's so different that that needs to be made it's the same for everybody um so Mandy please thank you I wanted to give a little bit of background of where this agenda item likely came from which is a vote of CRC back in October after CRC did the planning board and ZVA actually I'm not sure we did the ZVA appointments we might have only done planning board last spring because I think ZVA got done by OCA before OCA was dissolved um there was yet again as with many of the ZVA and CRC appointments that council has done discussion regarding term limits or no term limits and reappointment and how do you consider someone who's already on the board that's seeking essentially a reappointment to seeking to continue their term or add to their term on the on a particular body and so CRC discussed that after the process after the vacancies were filled for planning board last summer CRC discussed this and recognize that there were apparent differences amongst counselors regarding how you consider reappointments and term limits um they acknowledged that the council hadn't adopted the language in the town's appointed committee handbook and so it wasn't binding on the council um and yet each of the policies as Sarah said um regarding CRC's policy and um GOL's policy on finance regarding just the process for recommending appointments have now differed beyond the fact that each individual counselor also has their own opinions on those two matters um and it appeared to be causing issues not just at the stage of council appointments when it's at the council but when committees are trying to make recommendations to the council so CRC in some sense believed that I'm reading from the report and that that um the any policy on how to consider reappointment requests or term limits is likely more of a council policy not of an individual committee process to recommend appointments um and since the issue kept recurring and there were multiple committees having to consider this matter now um it should probably be discussed in more detail at the full council after reviewing recommendation by appropriate committee um so and then the question was whether such a referral or recommendation should result in a unified policy or not CRC did not discuss or take a stance on but it did vote unanimously to quote request the council refer to GOL's sections 2.3 and 2.5 of the town's appointed committee handbook for report and recommendation to the council on whether the council should adopt with or without modification those sections I don't think that referral ever actually happened but it ended up in sort of this future considerations relating to how how we're talking about it today but I just wanted to to to bring forth that sort of history as to one of the reasons it's in front of us today is it's been a struggle particularly during the recommendation process and then when those recommendations make it to the council how those sections of the committee handbook versus the corresponding sections in the process to make recommendations that each of the two committees CRC and finance have adopted relate to each other are they applicable are they not are they applicable to the council as a whole um or does each individual councilor get to make their own decision on how to weigh term limits or not um you know I I to go beyond that I struggle as Sarah sometimes does with this transparency issue that she hates using the word but um I think the people the residents should have should know how they're going to be treated and what the process is um what I struggle with is as a councilor can I seed my beliefs on whether there should be term limits or not and my beliefs individually on a reappointment and what reappointment means and what a vacancy means to the full council um as a policy or does that reside individually with each of us as counselors who were elected by the people knowing that the with the people knowing we would be as individual counselors voting on individual recommendations for actual appointments so I struggle with whether it should be a council policy or not in terms of those particular issues um but I do agree that whatever happens needs to be transparent you know and so maybe if we don't agree that it should be a council policy on term limits maybe what the council policy is a statement that says there is no policy on term limits and each counselor will deal with that on their own right and so for what it's worth that's that's what I got right now um Sarah go ahead so yeah that's the struggle and that's the thing that I feel like it has made appointments our appointments so um I'm gonna say awful I'm just I have a migraine and I pulled out my back and I have an ear infection and so yeah awful and I think that's something that we we do need to agree on so do we take the the handbook that we kind of relied on because we weren't a council do we still rely on that or do we as a council say forget that that was never us and it's not us do we make it I think we need to make a decision as a council do we pay any attention to term limits and do we want to place them or do we want to tell the next counselor whoever's coming in we don't pay attention to that um and I think that we also manage a hundred percent right like when it comes to deciding and also deciding for reappointments for me I feel like the council needs to set forth how we deal with reappointments do we even consider them if we consider it and you're you're already been sitting there what does your do we want to say like look you need to do a b and c in order to get um to be put back on or do we want to just say look it's up to us we're going to look at everybody there's nothing you can do is job performance that's going to mean that you would get you know reappointed again we're just not gonna we're not doing that and you know we'll give you reasons when when things come up again they're you know we'll just we'll decide and we'll tell you but that's what we do I think we have to make that clear and I think part of it is so that the when the council has to make a decision again it'll take away some of the um hotly debated questions I think it would make it a more constructive process and then I think for people who want to be elected to planning board zoning board finance committee is a non-voting member they'll know they'll either know what they have to do to get on they'll know what they have to do to stay on or they will just know that the council has deemed that there aren't really any hard and fast rules but the council will decide what's going to have to happen by its wisdom at that time I just think that we need to give the next council and the public that guidance and honestly I'm so I'm sure Mandy Joe also who was thought this out so much and put so much effort into this it's just an exhausting topic that actually I don't have the fight for anymore but I think that the council absolutely should weigh in and help out the next town council. Well it's going to be our role I think is GOL to sort of shape the debate and I don't think this is something you want to just put on a council agenda and then just let people sort of just go on and on at some point they need some kind of direction of guidance from us and then they can do with it what they wish they could just say it's bunch of nonsense and and just go off and spend two and a half hours or three hours discussing it but I guess I need help from you to get clarity on what you want us to do. I you know so I have in front of me I don't have it on the screen but I have in front of me the two documents that CRC and GOL use and they're very close to identical in many areas but they do have slight differences in their approach to term limits. In CRC it basically says it treats every opening where the receipt is held by a current member who seeks reappointment or not as a vacant position and that's not the language of GOL. GOL essentially says that there is a preference given for reappointment but it doesn't guarantee it. I'm not sure those are ultimately all that different quite frankly and I'm not sure do you want to actually craft language that both have to use. So there's term limits there's also the whole issue of just the process which I think is very public and transparent so I guess I need help if not right now because we're nearing the end of our time today for the next agenda I need help on what specifically people want do they want to talk about term limits do they want to talk about interview processes do they want what is it specifically they want to discuss that they feel the council then should that we could then recommend to the council they should take up as a larger discussion what are the issues here and if it is term limits can we come to some understanding ourselves as what the issues are and then present that to the council. I for one speaking personally think that I don't have a problem I just don't have a problem the public the process is public there are slight differences between the way the two committees go about it but it's all there in black and white it's sent to all the the candidates anyone in public can find it it's it's on both of our websites you know so it's not hidden it's it's but if there's a feeling amongst the group of here that there should be a single council process for x y or z I need to know what x y and z are and then we need to talk about so I don't share the concern that I hear from some but that's just one person and I'm perfectly willing to put this on an agenda for next time and I apologize for getting to it so late and almost missing it that's my fault but I do need help as to what exactly you want us to talk about is it term limits Darcy has her hand up any of your process is it right so Darcy please help me yeah I guess I think that you know seems like the threshold question is do does this group recommend a unified policy a town council policy on this and then it makes sense to me to look at those sections that CRC was suggesting that we look at which I think our term limits and is the other one interview process no my understanding I'm sorry the interview process between CRC and GOL is different in the sense that the CRC plans its questions in advance all and all of the applicants are there at the same time and they take turns what we did was have individual interviews and individual counselor questions that were not decided on in advance so those are there are differences in that process and are people suggesting that the council wants to adopt a uniform interview process I mean I personally would be opposed to that I think it's crazy as long as there's any of your process and you know what it is and it's you know I don't see a problem but that's a discussion that perhaps we need to have as a group but yes there's the difference there but there is a difference with term limits as well Darcy yeah I guess I I think you know like if we were recommending a unified policy then that would kind of require our looking through you know sort of taking up one of these sets maybe the GOL set and going through and writing a new rule for our rules of procedure which would encompass all the different parts but mostly we may not change anything except those sections that were you know when we have another we will have further appointments to make before this committee dissolves before our term is up and when we do that we review our policy we review our process and we can change it at that point so we don't so at that point this committee would review the process it would look at the document which is available to you at any time to review and then we would we would either accept it or we would amend it and then we would go to the process of interviewing candidates so all these things are still up for as a committee they're still up for discussion review as a committee when we get ready to actually interview somebody for finance I think they're excellent and I will defend them to the death but I'm only one vote so but we do that as a natural course that's a whole different question this is a question about whether we as a group want to spend the time which we can trying to come up with a set of policies that we want every committee to follow which in essence means CRC and GL and that's what I'm asking is that what you want to do and if it is what you want to do then I will put some some documents are already available we're available to you today but the CRC memo is not there I will put that in as well but I want to focus it as much as I can for the sake of our time and the sake of getting something done it sounds like term limits is clearly something that some of you at least one of you maybe more of you would like to review with the thought that maybe we would recommend a policy that the council would adopt for all of these kinds of situations that term limits would be one Mandy maybe there's a solution that's sort of a middle ground right now each committee has their own process for making a recommendation much of that process is actually identical between the committees and so maybe there's a middle ground of geo geo making a recommendation that the council adopt a not necessarily a process but a a here's how things I guess it's kind of a process but it's not a specific process it's things that are more generic of take things like you'll fill out a calf when the calf when you hit submit it goes to every counselor but the chair of the relevant appointing committee will respond and acknowledge receipt something like that some of these basic ones and then when you get to something like interviews it could say something like each committee each appointing each recommending committee will adopt a their own process for interviews you know and and so the council's seating that part to each individual committee for some of these things where you could have a unified process that that is more transparent about sort of the steps that will take place there will be interviews every candidate will get an interview every person who submitted a calf will be contacted when there's a vacancy and that process starts people will submit SOIs but the nitty gritty about how that interview will happen or when the SOIs will be submitted is not part of the council policy that's left up to each individual recommending body and then there's the dealing with the the the people who want to continue their term and have sort of essentially submitted for another two three one you know we've got different lengths of terms for our appointments too um and then how do you deal with that and term limits and and part of a recommendation could be that the council takes no position on term limits it is up to each individual councillor to make that decision on their own that would probably be where I stand um you know but it could also be the council has a term limit policy of x the certain things are not left up so maybe there's a middle ground um where you can have the transparency of here's how things will work and what the steps are to get to that recommendation and then the recommendation but not set forth the exact process each committee will use to comply with those steps so what I'm going to ask I we we need to move on and we need to get a meeting to an end but what I would ask I will put this on the agenda next time I'll put it near the top of the agenda and I will not forget to not skip over that I apologize again for that but what I would ask of you is that you look at the two documents that currently are used by CRC and this committee they're both in the packet they'll be in the in the share point again for the next meeting I will include the CRC memo that was originally meant to be referred to GOL but I think Mandy is correct it never actually did happen but it's that memo will be included and I need you then to bring to me and to the to your colleagues on this committee specific places where you feel that there's a problem because I don't see it okay I'm just that's just me but I don't see it so help us next time with specific so is it term limits and where do you see the difference and or whatever it is and then have ready an argument why you think the council needs to weigh in on this when I look at these two documents they seem perfectly you know they're slightly different but it's public transparent blah blah blah it lays out the process everybody gets notified da da da da I don't see a problem so help me see what the problem is and help convince the rest of us that if you think it's necessary that we need to go to the council and say we need a one single policy on x y or z that's what I need from you next time um and so if we're going to have a fruitful discussion Darcy yeah um so okay we'll collect that and the I would just recommend that everybody not only look at the gol and the crc policies but also look at the town managers handbook policy and term limits and the oca policy and term limits because three of them all agree on the term limits um and so I would suggest looking at those and just thinking about the whole purpose of why why those policies were set up to balance experience with the need for new blood um and that that is sort of like why and it's actually written into them as to what what the thinking is behind allowing reappointment after one term and generally allowing people to serve for around six years before they're you know that it's a good idea to replace them with new blood so I would strongly suggest that you look at all of those um and think about whether we should have a a council wide policy fair enough and this will be at the top or very near the top again hopefully we don't get I we don't have any proclamations or resolutions that I'm aware of but that does tend to eat up some time I know but it will be near the top of the agenda and these documents some of them are already there I will make sure the CRC memo is there the town manager document is or is in your packet for today um but it'll also be in the share point for next time as well okay um so I'm obviously not going to uh go it will have to leave for next time a review of by-laws consideration I would like to adopt the three sets of minutes I looked through them thought they were fine does anyone have any particular concerns or issues and if you do please speak up but otherwise I'd like to entertain a motion to adopt or accept the three minutes of minutes of January 20 February 3rd and February 17 before I entertain that motion any concerns or problems would you like to remove any one of those sets from this list for a future review as I said the chairs looked through them they're excellent they're quite detailed and I had no changes to make I don't see any hands or faces or anything so I'm going to then make the motion that we accept as presented the minutes of January 20 February 3rd and February 17 2021 is there a second second the angeles thank you there's a second I'm going to go immediately to a vote I'm going to start this time with Sarah I and Darcy why don't you take me last because I wasn't there at one of those meetings okay okay the chair is a yes Mandy hi and Pat hi and Darcy abstain fine so the vote is four in favor one abstention the motion carries what I'm seeing for there are no items unanticipated there are no attendees we have driven them all away so there is no public comment I have no items and unanticipated for next time what I'm anticipating is a thorough discussion of what we have just been spending some time on and there will be documents ample documents available to you to review on this idea of recommending something to the council as a single policy I would like to put the data collection instruments on the agenda and begin looking at those that's a second item I'd like to put on the agenda for next time if Lynn has had a conversation with Paul that may also appear but I think we can take up the data collection instruments on our own and begin reviewing them anything else that people would like to have on the agenda for next time okay that's those are the two items that I see right now and again of course the third item would be actually going through now by law by by law to see where we are because I think Mandy's done a number of gotten some good results back we could actually begin moving on some of these bylaws either to make recommendations or dismiss so I'm going to begin a next time as the third main item I'm working our way through that document I've spoken to Sarah and and she was asked not to be involved at least at the moment in the ad come so I'm going to we'll continue to work on how to get those addressed but there are others that we can begin to turn to Darcy are you still okay with the ones that I've sent to you or no do you know I remember which one I know I know it's it's a pain but we we need to try and and just the emphasis next time is going to be on Mandy and me and maybe maybe Pat just to see where we stand both of you are new and I'm not going to put any pressure on either of you but Mandy myself and Pat Mandy in front of you can you remind me I will send them to you I will I will send them to you and as a reminder that's all right Mandy I was thinking of turning because I've gotten some responses from the town manager on various ones I was thinking of turning it into a memo with a recommendation on each of the bylaws of what to do whether it's a change or not and so that we have something other than that would be great and we can start okay that'd be great if you could do that and submit that to me I will put it in the packet and we'll use that as our working document when we turn to this but that's the other sort of you know whatever weight that weighs over us is trying to get through these so thank you please do that both if you could Darcy I'll send you your set I think it was just two and that's it that's all I have it's only 1245 okay sorry guys try to do better next time try to remember the agenda next time thank you all right see you guys later take care go well all right thank you Emily bye bye thanks Emily