 Alright, you're good to go. Okay, seeing the presence of a quarrel. I'm going to call the for April 26 2023 meeting of the governance organization legislation committee to order and pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 21 extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 22 22 and extended by chapter this meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. So, I'm going to do roll call in Greece. Present. I'm present Mandy Joe present and Jennifer top present Michelle Miller. Okay, thank you. I'd like to pop into looking at both the flag policy and the public dialogue. I know Lauren was saying on the public dialogue not to rush but there were a couple things I thought would be worth talking about. But I was wondering if we could start with the flag policy. And what I'm thinking is that where is it on. We I'm going back to Andy's concern that this would the Tibetan flag be allowed and I don't think we had a direct answer from Lauren, but when a rereading section. Let me see. Of the definition section three I believe it is. It says on number five under section three one displayed in conjunction with official ceremonial positions of the town council when accompanied by an official action such as a formal vote proclamation or resolution of the town council. I miss that sounds to me like that we vote on in terms of a resolution or proclamation would would fit that flying the Tibetan flag is in commemoration of national uprising in that country. So I'm not sure, but so I'd like to hear input from you folks and because if we can get this out of here. I want to start really getting it refined and regulations made. And the other question I had is should we be adding, should this be a have a section on banners, or are we just leaving that with the town manager, which I mean he would be doing it anyway but whether we need to put it in the policy. So any thoughts, Mandy. A couple of thoughts as I've reread this a couple times. I agree with you on what you just said I think number five. You know I think something like the Tibetan flag does not fall under anything other than number five, but I don't think number, you know I don't think the fact that it is excluded under say number one that that doesn't mean we could include it under number five. You know I don't read it like, oh, since it's not an official flag of a government, we can't do it under number five. So I think I think it counts and I think it would would, I think the town council would be able to continue its typical practice, given the proclamations. So the question I have is how number one, a new one, and then another question and number how number one relates to number two we added, you know, in number two the resolution proclamation commemoration or citation. Number one only required that for the well so. Number one defines what a commemorative flag is with those five items. Number two says you could fly it at the request of a member of the town council. Ignore what we added last time which I asked us to add it meant that only number five, the array it was originally written only number five. Those displayed in conjunction with official ceremonial positions would require the proclamation resolution type thing numbers 123 and four would not. I think, in some sense, all of them probably should, right. Potentially, even if it's just something short. And so I'm curious whether we could delete from number five of section 3.1, you know, flag, you know, whether that one could just read flags displayed in conjunction with an official with official ceremonial positions of the town council period. Because number two requires everything. To have a resolution proclamation commemoration or citation. It's true. So, or do we just not want to mess with it is the other question maybe not messing with it. While keeping the additional thing in number two in there is, and then I have to review it. Number one says that the town council is authorized to display a commemorative flag to fly at town owned or town maintained properties. And so I'm not sure to answer your next question about banners. I almost think that this and I have to read it more closely. I almost think that this policy covers requires town council action for all commemorative flag at all town owned properties, unless we can find where it designate something else. So I'll read it closely, but I'm not sure we need a banner section because I think this one might cover it. And then I had actually gone back to the public ways policy, whatever it is given our designation of the town manager what we've fobbed off to the town manager almost doesn't actually include banners at all. I could see so if we wanted to give that authority to the manager I think we need to modify that, that, that policy whatever it's called. I'm sorry Mandy were you finished. Yes. Good points by the way. I do agree with Mandy that we need to modify the public way policy to include banners so that the town manager does that legitimately legitimately under that. When it's when I read number 31. Okay, it can set it doesn't have to satisfy all five of these. No. So then I'm going to raise my question. If somebody came to us and said, I want to fly the flag of Russia. What do they have to do get a community council sponsor, and then it would need to be voted on in the council and the council could deny the request or not. Okay, which is may authorize the display of commemorative flags. So, and I think that was one of the things that Lauren talked about the most. Jennifer, do you want to address that because I saw you naughty. Well, I just had a question because I think Lynn raises a great question. So what would be different about that than the flag that you know the court case was about in Boston, I'm just being devil's advocate. It has to be approved by the council but does the council have to have some objective criteria. You know so let's say they came to a council member in Boston when they asked to fly that flag, and the council said no voted no. And then they then bring a case that it was because of the content. I think because of the way Boston was just flying anything and had no process whatsoever about flag flying is why they want the Christian group won the case, because they were one of the only flags denied. Right. So if we vote it down we don't have to give a. Okay, I mean I just wanted to make sure we're. No, I think I'm going to go to Mandy and Lynn these are good questions so. Let me just add to my one question and that is, are we sending this off for legal review I hope it already had it. Lauren had this in her possession when she came to us two weeks ago. As far as I know. That's yeah she did have it in her possession and was asked to look at it as well as the public dialogue stuff. I mean, what do you think legally. Yeah, so what I was going to say is based on the memo and what Lauren said last week, the reason this one, this policy is being at work being asked to adopt it. If you go back up to the purpose in adopting this policy. The town council declares that these flag poles owned and maintained by the town of Amherst are not intended to and do not serve as a forum for free expression by the public but rather as a non public forum for the display of governmental and non governmental flags. And as an expression of the council's official governmental speech and policy sentiments and that's the, that's the key in Boston there was that the court determined that since Boston had no policy and never had to say anything that flagpole was not governmental speech and therefore stopping some. So it was a public forum basically so think about the South Bridge case we also talked about the court in the Boston case for flags basically said that flagpole is the equivalent of a public comment period and you can't stop people from saying things that you don't like on it, because because Boston did because they ruled it because Boston had always allowed flags to be displayed generally without regard to anything and without official government action. Boston lost the argument that the flag poles were official governmental speech. And so this policy deems them official governmental speech and once they're deemed that, and we do all of this then you, you are allowed to basically say, if it's governmental speech, you can regulate it. It's only if it's that full public forum that you can't do content based regulation. Yeah, and that seems to be my understanding as well. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. So, going back up to the purpose to answer my own question this one talks about the purpose is to adopt a policy about permanent flagpoles on the town common only. Right, not banners at all. And so we, you know, and so in that sense, it does only cover those flagpoles, we should probably encourage Paul to adopt a similar policy regarding banners as executive speech or something. Although I don't know right there's still public way if I guess we need we need to designate him as the person to decide those banners, and then he gets to adopt it as governmental speech if he wants to or if not then he opens himself up to that. I would say. Okay. So, when does that does this discussion so far answer your concerns. It does. Yeah. And are there any other changes that anyone sees or has been thinking about that we need to look at now, Michelle. I just I had a question about Mandy's last comment. So, Paul as the chief executive of the executive branch is he able to adopt something as governmental speech. So those banners are on the public way. Yeah, technically we are the keepers of the public way and we have to authorize them. We've generally just handed that authority to control the public way to him, although I looked at the public ways sort of that that Bob, I call it the fab off policy I don't know what the title is. The one where we said Paul these are yours we don't want to see him at a council meeting. We've handed a bunch of stuff off to him it's not clear whether banners are part of that and so one thing we should do is make clear that those, those banners are part of that, handing off the jurisdiction to him and I think if we've handed off the jurisdiction and then make sure we include his ability to adopt regulations, particularly with respect to banners, then he would be able to adopt a similar policy related to banners and so then I would assume it becomes the speech of, I mean, whether it's the executive or the legislative through the executive because we've handed him that authority. I don't know but we just have to hand him that authority I believe and then we'd be okay. I remember Paul saying that the bid or the chamber or both have been involved in decisions about the banners, you know what goes up there. My concern and you know is, can someone put up anti an anti Semitic parade is going to happen in Maldon Massachusetts everybody's you know, is there speech that we would not want to see on a banner. And if that that does not reflect the majority values of the community. That's that's where my concern is that if a Christian church wanted to put up a banner about Easter week or something like that I don't think that would bother me but you know I'm concerned a little bit. So, and if no one else has that concern we would be fine. But Mandy, and you can say no. Would you be willing to draw up something to go to Paul. What do you mean about a new addition to that policy where we've handed stuff off. Yeah, I'm happy to do that went in looking at it I realized it needs some other changes to so it's still talk about temporary zoning related to the pocket outdoor dining it still talks about the temporary zoning that's no longer an effect and the outdoor dining regs from the state that are still emergency regs that were extended for two more years but clean that up. Okay, maybe that's come back before we do anything about engaging Paul. We should bring that to the next meeting. Fine, I would request Athena I think I don't I don't think I have an updated word copy of that policy instead it's just that I can just download the PDF so it would be nice to be able to get a word copy of it. Yeah, I'll get that to you. Thank you. Could you send me a copy as well Athena. You got it. Thank you very much. Michelle and then Lynn. Just following up to that. I think it would, it would. I think it would be important to check in with our town attorney on this because if in terms of how to how to go about it because if we essentially are the government speech as a legislative body and then we say that we're handing banners over to Paul. Not that I don't fully trust Paul's, you know, judgment, but how sort of who's if something gets put on a banner through Paul. Somehow for however, and many reasons that could happen that is something that proves to be offensive or or does not reflect our government speech. And who, you know, who, who's responsible for that how does that get. I don't know it just, I know we do this with other things as well like say, through the legislative body to Paul but I mean at the end of the day is it that we are still responsible for what is on those banners. Good question. And Mandy, are you going to an answering that or otherwise I'm going to jump to Lynn. I was just going to say, I think I'll take notes and I think we might be able to do something like this one has a definition of commemorative flags, right. And so we might be able to say, hey Paul, if it fits within these four categories, we don't need to see it if they're their likenesses of us flags or, you know, so us flags, I'm not sure I do other nations but you know, we might be able to modify some of these include things like welcome back students banners or banners of the three universities, things that we've seen where we can say, you know, they can go up but if it's x, y, or z. You can't approve that banner, we're keeping that that thing. And so we might have to modify this flag policy but I think we can maybe do that delineation Michelle. That would, that would be great. Yeah, that would be really good I think. I'm going to go to Lynn. My comment is more that I would rather that we hold this until we also deal with the public ways policy, and bring them both forward at the same time. And just to note that our next council meeting well our next council meeting is on Monday this is not going on that agenda. No it's not. The next one after that is the 15th and the one after that is not until June 3. It's possible that we could deal with both of these between now and June 3 and have them come up on the June 3 agenda. Okay, that makes some sense. Anybody in disagreement with that. Okay, great. Any other questions directly now on flag or banner policy. So, so I, so I think it's clear that that we're going to hold off on that. So I think we're ready to move to public dialogue. And I put a few things in the packet. I think they were in there before but just some public speaking native and invocation in the beginning. It's still unclear to me how fast we need to move on this, but since I'm interested in seeing what we can do and also I'm starting to hear some confusion that people think we're trying to affect public comment and what we're yes we are in the sense that we're acknowledging freedom of speech issues and and civility don't necessarily coincide Lynn. I just want to mention some of other people may have been at the MMA seminar yesterday. We didn't see the audience but Lauren actually was one of the two panelists it was on and public records, but this issue came up. And what she and the attorney are consistent and the other attorney are consistently saying is this issue is going to continue to remain unclear and tested over a period of time. And maybe she said that to this committee last week I was unable to. Yeah, she did. Yeah, so whatever we do whether we're in a hurry or not. We need to realize that whatever we do is probably going to have to come back to be modified over time. So that's all. Yeah. Now I agree with that I'm just sort of trying to figure out whether we need to really look in terms of our rules and procedures and remove the word civility. And it's hard to know because we're, you know, respectful. All speakers are encouraged to present this. This is public speak and native. Their remarks in a respectful manner. And again, respectful and is open to interpretation as is civility. So I'm not sure where to go with this Jennifer. You know, it's just like the native policy that predates this court case. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. So I can answer that it predates Southboro but it is when the ACLU sued native school committee, and this policy when that that lawsuit never went to trial never they mediated it and reached a settlement. And part of that settlement was the ACLU agreeing that this native policy met their criteria. So, so I would say to Southboro but the ACLU sort of said this is good. Couldn't be challenged now. Do you think that's what we don't know. Maybe maybe not but but you know, it was brought to my attention that the ACLU had sort of put their stamp of approval on this one by agreeing to settle if native adopted native school committee adopted that policy. You know, my guess is, you know, and so, so who knows if Southboro would change that right but at least it had some sort of ACLU. Okay, to it. Your freedom of speech is there. Yeah, expertise. So, one of, so one of the things was also included was the remote invocation I'm really not too supportive of that if we're going to invoke anything at the beginning of the meeting I'd like to see it reference the land grabbing that we've done in this country. And then taking over indigenous lands. But do we want to look at our policy, do we want and see where we might make any adjustments that to coincide with native. So I think it would be useful to go through rule six. Yeah, that's the one you had on here at rule fives a different. And rule five and rule six are kind of a common, you know, native's policy is kind of a combination of the two, but rule six is our code of conduct. And so it might be worth us pulling it up looking at it. I know there were a couple of proposed changes by myself and I think Michelle way back when we sent them all in. So there's a bunch in this, it's got sections on public it's got sections on counselor, we might be able to, to get through some things and at least be able to look at some of it, because I think Lauren said last time when I asked her that Southboro really applies to the public comment section not the sort of non public part of the meeting so we might not, you know, I think that's section 61 and 62 more than anything else. Three, four and potentially five right and so might be worth just looking at it and talking through them, along with the changes that Michelle and I, then maybe others proposed and see. We have the. That one doesn't have the proposed changes in it. It was in the packet under other rule changes. The PDF, but it might be a. Oh, it's also the, it's also the word document in the packet other rule changes comments and discussions 315. If Athena wants me to put it up I could. Okay. Thank you, Athena. Yeah, so right away in 61 be discourse accounting shall be marked by civility, openness and respect even in the face of disagreement now this is counselor behavior can we call on counselors to be civil. And isn't that outside of the public. Yeah, yeah, that's, that's outside I was wondering if we know we have like a six one a six two and a six three right ones public civility and engagement one is general rules and one is counselor rules I wonder if it would just be clearer. If we had it if six one sort of folded into six three. You know, into counselor and invited guests or presenters or, you know, the not or clarified that six one is the non public comment portion, I don't know. You know, like, I think we can require during the meeting participants, not during the public comment period to be civil or respectful or whatever words we use. I need to look at a difference. You know, maybe rule six needs to delete essentially most of 6.2 public civility and engagement and move that to rule five somehow work five point whatever public dialogue is the public. I don't know. I think so because rule six is about codes of conduct. And so we're talking and rule five is really talking about when public dialogue can happen. And so what I'm thinking here. We have a couple of things that I believe are right in terms of there's something about we incur. Let me see where I can find it I'm going to be that just, we have to just address 6.2 which is public civility. I mean, if we clarify that 6.1 is for meeting participants. Like, what is right now it says all me. Right. Michelle. Yeah, I think that given what we're dealing with with the public piece of things I do think that that should be I think it's confusing the way that it's reading right now and I think we should keep what is a matter between counselors separate from what the expectations are for the public and Pat I just wanted to ask you so you didn't feel comfortable moving the civility portion for the public up into number five. Is that is that what you said. Yeah, it seems to me. Let me let me go back to five here. 5.3. 5.3 is a type of meeting Pat. Wait, I can't. I didn't understand that 5.3 is a type of meeting I think we're really dealing with 5.1, which is the public comment section of regular meetings. Content. Number of public comments per person. recognition. It seems like 6.2 is basically all that a lot of it has to go away because. Well, I don't know if it has to go away, but it needs to be clear, certainly clarified. Yeah, yeah, because I feel like recognition, you know, who regular meetings, there's nothing in there about how you have to be nice. So, right. We'd split that up, right. I don't see the point of splitting it up. No, our rules currently split up that portion of sort of the being nice out of public comment and say the public has to be nice at all times which would apply to public comment and so we're supposed to be nice all the time too but we don't do it. I still feel like six, five and six are really different. You know, and six is the one that focuses on on how counselors should behave with each other and with the public, and what we're hoping the public will do when they engage with us. And so they feel very distinct to me. Yeah, I agree that they're distinct I just wonder if we should for six just even move the order of 612 and three as to make the public piece more clear and distinct from the counselor pieces. I don't think that's a big change but it might just help to verify things. I just feel like it's split because 6.2 the council it starts the a the council welcomes the public. Maybe it should to meetings and encourages public comments and then it goes on about, and then 6.3 looks at counselors conduct is 6.1 so is when we say all participants of a meeting. We're in a space together in the town room and there are folks from the public there are they considered participants of the meeting. I think during the public comment part they might be. And only during that is that because then we're really open here on 6.1 basic. Yeah. I'm wondering what is professional conduct. And we, this is a place where we can use what the SJC said we can be saying the council requires an atmosphere of respect and what was the respectful on blanking. Right. So it's a professional conduct and civility but peaceful and respectful conduct. Among all media participants. Respectful is not a requirement under south. We can't use that one simple might be but not respectful exactly. I thought there were two things in that this peaceful and time place and yes, yes, thank you. I'm placing manner is rule five in some sense. Putting up the time place and manner into rule one of the rule five things and the peaceable for public. So precious. So the council requires an atmosphere of peaceable conduct among all meeting participants. And we can't use that in someone with bodily harm. Not tolerate harassment discrimination or offensive behavior. Or any number of the council and I was trying to try to be clear that it's the council and me and, and people in the, if you think about zoom in the panelists section. They might call to speak, or Lauren to speak, they should also have to not use. I don't think behavior or whatever. But I think the first paragraph needs clarified. A lot of it does. I could try. I think it might be easier if we just go through some stuff see what might need clarified highlighted and then have someone attempt to do it. Okay. Okay. Let's let's certainly mark that as. We also probably need to look at appendix a, because we're guided by that. Create a culture of grace, healthy balance, respect. We might want to just stick with six for now. Yeah. And there's really, you know, okay. So we, we agree that we need to look at the very six point one. Yeah, go ahead. So I'm just, I'm actually looking also at the hard copy so we took out. This is a question I have like, initially in the heart, you know, in our original rules of procedure it says that residents shall confine their remarks to the substance of the issue at hand. But can we say they can only discuss the issue at hand. Is that still something we can, or can they say address any topic. We can limit in gen, I mean, Lauren said this it gets hard though and you have to be consistent right you can you can learn said you can say public comment is only for items on the agenda. During the meeting, you can say only items within the purview of the council you can say everything. If you say only items on the agenda though you have to be consistent with that because the minute you allow someone to speak not on the agenda. Not on on the agenda. So, I don't know. Right. So I just want to ask so we've taken that language out from on 6.1, which I think is good. Right. Like what I'm seeing on the screen is much shorter than what's in the hard copy. Yeah, it is currently part of the rules. Yeah, participants. She'll focus their remarks on the matter being discussed or voted on. Yeah, I'm not seeing where you're saying things were cut out. Jennifer, I'm sorry. Yeah, so I guess I'm reading a printed copy that the last date is September 27 2021 so I must have an old copy of the rules of procedure. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, never mind, never mind. That's right. So I think a just needs modified to exclude public comment or add something about the public comment period. Right. Because a is basically trying to say, if we're discussing the regional school budget. We can't add we should not bring up comments about the gravity belt thickener to talk about Monday like now is stick to whatever the topic is. Is there a difference though because we have specific comment periods. Where we don't allow a divergence from what's on the, what we're just what's on the agenda or we're looking at, and the initial general public comment. It seems to me that's a period where residents can bring up issues that they're concerned about whether they're on the agenda or not. Right, general public comment. Yeah, and so sometimes I feel like I don't know how do the idea of commenting on things that are in the purview of the council. And I've heard people say well school salary, you know teacher salaries and stuff aren't the purview of the council, but there are aspects of it that are in the purview of the council when we look at the regional and the school budget etc etc so I'm hesitant to. I'm not sure. Jennifer. No, I agree with you I don't. You know I think we should be air on the side of being expansive and not restrictive. In general, yeah. You know that this is the one opportunity to general public comment is to say what's on their mind. So I think that goes. I think it's 6.2 be that says public comments shall focus on matters I you know I think we need to, to redefine some stuff or capitalize things so we know what we're talking about right. Okay. But I think the question is then do we want it to be within the jurisdiction of the council or. I think that the restriction this committee wants to. It's what we've operated under. Although that gets ahead of BCD and E, or 61. If we want to go I'm already jumping ahead beyond that. Yeah. So I think 6.1 B is problematic. Okay discourse accounts will be marked yes it is definitely problematic. But I think that's what we exclude. I think as what if we exclude from the public comment periods, you know, except during public comment periods, but then if you're saying that. Wait, it's like you're encouraging disability. Incibility. Incibility, yes. Just be as mean as you want. I added that that that piece about if a council feels this rule has been violated. I feel like this belongs in the council counselor conduct section. Not in the general, you know, rules for conduct. At least that's how I interpreted it that it was referring to how counselors. Yeah. That makes sense. I think if this is, I'm also looking at a large copy that doesn't have all of this. Yeah, I got to start looking at the screen. I think Athena, I heard Athena's voice. I might be wrong. If 61 is renamed so that it applies to panelists only then then this part wouldn't need to exclude public comment period because it only this rule only applies to panelists right. So, I mean, that's the question. Do we want a public. We can't call it civility right when we get to 6.2 the general public comment section or, or public in the audience, the audience side, and the participant side, except during general public comment. And panelists, when we ask Paul for his opinion when Dave Zomek comes or Guilford comes, they have to follow it to. And then there's the audience sitting there watching. What is their behavior while watching. Right. Okay, 6.1 and 6.3 can be combined and 6.2 becomes sort of what happens when you're watching. This is, this is specific to audience. Yes. Well then do we need to remove from, well we're combining but all participants 6.1 a all meaning permit participants including counselors residents and staff. So should we simply take out residents in that sentence. But I think that's why I think it just needs someone to once we've talked through someone just needs to attempt to make it correct. But Lynn may be leaving I'm she's muted right now but she was going to leave about 1015 for another meeting. And Michelle I know you have a hard stop Michelle though your hand is raised. Yeah, my hard stop is at 1045. Yeah. My hand is raised because just just just assuming let's say that we adopted some language about a point of order if one counselor feels it's something another counselor said was outside of the rules or whatever. I don't, I would feel uncomfortable or I don't know how that would sort of play out in terms of a staff member. So if we're holding you know so if we just went along and said okay there was going to be some something that we could have as counselors as a recourse if I say something nasty to Pat and a meeting and somebody always. It's very, it could likely happen though. So, I just want to, I just want to say that like if Dave zone Mac, because he's only the nicest person in the world but let's say he said something that I felt to be, you know, offensive I would not want to say point of order, you know, I don't So, mixing them in feels a little bit weird for me. I just see Athena's hand so I don't maybe she's Athena. In my mind we don't need to specify that a counselor can call a point of order because that's how a counselor raises an objection because someone's violated the rules so you know any rule that's violated could be raised by a point of order and that would specifically apply to any, you know what we're calling panelists in this section. So a counselor could interrupt Dave for being rude and are violating a rule and then Lynn is the as the person sharing the meeting would figure out how to deal with the violation. Yeah, so that can basically come out. I mean I think that I wrote that in there we took that retreat, and sort of learned a little bit more about how the rule like calling a point of order could really be used for any role that is out. So that makes sense to me thank you Athena. So, C and D, I think should apply to. At least the cell phones should apply to everyone whether you're panelists, whether you're participant or audience member. D is a little bit harder with the audience members but in private conversations, you know, you could potentially say that are disruptive or something. I don't know add because I think disruptive behavior. That's the peaceable or whatever that was like. Well, generally speaking, the only times I've ever gotten up to talk to the public during a meeting was on a break. But I think this is referring me talking to a resident who or any participant public participant during a debate, or am I wrong about that. So I've always interpreted D as always violating when Pat you and I lean over because you've got a question and I answer it or I've got a question and you answer it. Or two members of the public leaning over and carrying on a conversation or a counselor carrying on a conversation with a member of the public during the meeting. So I've interpreted it all three ways. I think that's why Athena says how to enforce it better. At least see the cell phone thing kept in there for everyone. I don't know what to do with the private conversations because at least, you know, Pat, you know, when you know I've answered questions for Nica or, you know, Jennifer I think sometimes you lean over I don't know what you're saying but sometimes it's what's the motion we're voting on and instead of disrupting the whole meeting, you can get it answered with just that quick side question. But for me, and Athena go ahead. I'm sorry that was residual. Oh, okay. For me, if I lean over and say, Jennifer, what's the vote, what's the vote and she she goes she points at it or where it says it. It's the, it's the no amendment, whatever. It's the end it's not really a conversation it's a question. The conversation would be. Hey Jennifer, why are you voting on this or, hey, did you know that your, your husband's ex baseball coach called me and said that he was a great player. I mean, that's a conversation. Well, actually I do see it sometimes what I noticed mostly which has gotten me incredibly frustrated with our rules and procedures most people aren't following them anyway and I'm not talking about the public. I'm talking about us on so many levels. But so I'd like to hear from Jennifer Michelle. Yeah, think about the private conversation. That D. And then I want to go back to be. Go ahead, Michelle. I think it's been interesting as I participated often at home this year and so I do notice sometimes that something is happening between counselors. And I often from being at home and wondering if there's something that would have been helpful for me to hear or, you know, so I don't know, I agree with Pat that a conversation is more than just getting a quick question answered for clarification. But I think it can be a slippery slope sometimes, you know, depending on the circumstances so I don't know what you were Mandy what you wanted to hear but in terms of like are you asking if I agree that that should be in there or you know, I don't I just wanted to hear what you think because I don't even know what I think about. I write it's one of those ones that's like, how do you enforce it and what is it. Right. Jennifer. Yeah, I don't I mean. You know, usually I guess if I turn around and say something it's maybe something that I thought was funny, but there's really not enough time to ask questions, although because of where I sit I will sometimes ask a question of Paul if I don't understand something, which maybe I shouldn't do. Also finds private conversation, you know, it's not very private actually, if you're in the middle of a public, you know, and then the during council meetings, as Pat said, what about the recesses what how does this make all of it right. This is why I'm like, I don't know. I don't think why don't we leave that one alone. I would say that a recess isn't part of the council meeting because the council meeting has essentially paused. But but this language here disruptive conduct that could be broad enough to just add into up there everything that applies to panelists to and that. And so that would leave a little bit of wiggle room for someone asking the person next to them a question. But if somebody's cell phone is going off repeatedly then if something else that was disruptive then that could be kind of all. So if a conversation was disrupting the meeting then that would rise to the level of being a violation of the rule. I think that's wise. I think that. What do other people think I'd like to add that up at the top. Mandy was that a nod yes or. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think, I think in that one we probably have to get rid of disrespectful though, potentially, just saying just say. Disrespectful maybe for participants is okay but when we're in the public audience. I don't know. I guess it's just the audience sitting there, and it's not public comment time. Yeah, I don't know. I mean someone was in the public in the room, making faces at us or something we. Right, or, or behavior as a put well I don't know. No, we're holding up the sign we allow we say we don't have audible but we allow signs what if we just don't like the sign oh yours is disrespectful but not disruptive like. I wasn't disrupting I was just holding up the sign. It would seem that unless we it was threatening. You know, it was harm that you couldn't regulate that sign. Yeah, I remember a situation where we had a lot of signs in the audience at one point, you know, or something but but there was a group that brought a lot of signs in, and they were very respectful they were not disruptive. Right, they didn't the signs did not disrupt the meeting I would argue, but I point this out because I noticed during the meeting that some of the people specifically held their sign to make sure it was seen by the back camera like and so it was kind of like half in the aisle half not. And it wasn't disruptive of the audience in the aisle but I can imagine if someone actually went and got close enough to the camera so that the sign covered the entire eye of the camera, whatever the sign said so that you could no longer see the meeting. All you could see was the sign you could potentially argue that that's disruptive. Right. Yeah, and I think the solution is simple which is the person just get is asked to lower the sign. Yeah, and they'd only continue to be disruptive if they refuse to do that. Yeah, or something like that. So I feel comfortable making the move that Athena's suggesting. I'd like to go back to 6.1 B. Maybe it would be helpful to take anything that applies to public comment from 6.2 and put that into 5.1. And then make this really clear that it's applying to the audience during meetings not public comment. So you're talking about moving it back to. So I'm saying, oh five. So, you know, I would. Yeah, public participate. Take that out and say attend public comments. This, this in my mind doesn't belong here. And then, and then maybe, maybe this additional public comment period doesn't apply here either. And it's just about the kind of the conduct of audience members not public comment period. I think that would clear things up. Yeah. Because then it's the present show, you know, then you're talking about the present. That respects the orderly procedure of the meeting disruptive conduct. No audible demonstrations, which is audience. Right. F. Kind of does both right public comment, but also that's the audience if we're going to continue to allow signs. This I like this very much the council supports the right of the public to express dissent or dissatisfaction with its local government. And I think it should say the period there or in a peaceable manner. But I think. Yeah. I think it should be in a peaceable manner is good. Let me take out. Civil and respectful. Right. And should 6.2. If whether. Simply say public engagement during meetings. Does that. I would almost say audience. Expectations during meetings. Or something like that. Yes. Okay. Because my screen froze. Okay. Yeah. I don't like that word. I don't like that word. Behavior audience behavior sounds so. Yeah, it does. That's why I didn't use behavior. I was like, Oh, I don't like that word. Audience audience. Conduct. That could work. Yeah. We have counselor code of conduct as the rule. Also, why are we taking? Why are we exchanging audience for public. Public comment. And what the audience does. During council discussions and stuff where there's no public comment happening. Oh, okay. But it's still the public that we're referring to. Yes. Conduct. Okay. Okay. It took me a while to. I think the very first thing that should be part of this then. Would be F. Yeah, I agree. That should be at the top. Well, really. Yeah. Yeah. After a. After a, yes. And then the council supports the right of the public to express dissent or dissatisfaction with its local, local government and a peaceable manner. And then we say. Oh, and then maybe. So a, then F, then even D. Then G. They can dissent. Yes. And then we're, what we're including. Is those financial not engaged in audible demonstrations. And then, but you can review record. If you have permission. Yeah. Yeah. I can go with that. How are other people with that? Is this the right. Is this the right order that you said. Um, hey. We'd be getting rid of. Well, D would be moving, right? Yeah. Yeah. I think D is moving to the public comment side. But. I don't think it has to, I think it's okay. Yeah. That, that sort of says it keeps it within, you know, we're talking about the full audience, but we're also saying here that, um, that the public will have a chance to participate during public comment. I think, I don't know. I think it's clear, clear to have it here. And I would put that one as the generally one is the second one on the list. Personally. Wait, wait. Where, where Amanda, you're saying after a, after welcomes the public to the meetings, then they generally only participate during. Yes. Yes. And then just center dissatisfaction. And then. No audible and then respectful. I feel like respectful makes sense before audible. The disruptive conduct makes sense before audible. Can you say disrupt this? Well, that's what we'll look at that. Yeah. I think we actually have to delete the word disrespectful or I think it just says, if disruptive conduct conduct. Yeah. I think is what we have to do here that you respect the orderly procedure of the meeting. You're not screaming public comment in the middle of. Of what you're being recognized. Yeah. I also think that it's confusing to have C here and not in the public comment portion. Because I might read this and think that you're saying I have the right to express dissent and dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction outside of the public comment period. And if that's not what we're saying. That's what we're talking about. Because I might interpret that in, you know, like I might interpret that, that I'm in the audience. It's not a public comment period. And you've told me I have the right to express my dissent. And this is how I do that. Okay. I hear what you're saying. I wonder if this shouldn't say that council supports the right of the public to express their scent or disfaction, dissatisfaction, blah, blah. I think that's a good point. The public comment. Or what if I just add this to see. Either to say in a peaceful manner during the public comment period. Or it could be added to be. I think, I think the dissent or dissatisfaction can go on both. The public comment period, but also this one, if maybe we add to the end of this one. I don't know if that's a good point. I don't know if that's a good point. I don't know if that's a good point. Non audible means or something. No. No, you know, like, like some, how do we indicate that signs are okay? Can we just add this? Can we just add this to. To see. What you see. I'm sorry. Those present shall not engage in audible demonstrations of approval, disapproval. I think we should just say what we mean, which is signs are allowed. Like, you know, if it's signs that we're talking about, let's just be really clear that, you know, could you say signs are allowed, but no, what is it? Right. Disruption. It's local government in a peaceful manner. We could say something like those present shall not engage in audible demonstrations of approval or disapproval. Or just audible demonstrations, how, you know, semi-colon, however. Written. Or signs. Are permissible or something. But maybe we want to get rid of. While signs are permitted, those presents shall not engage in audible demonstrations. I like that. Pat. That's it. Yeah. But I still think we should clarify and see that we're. I mean, is there other ways then that an audience member. That's not in public comment period could express dissent or dissatisfaction in a peaceable manner that we would not approve of. Well, they shouldn't say anything out loud. I mean. Like how, if you're saying that I have the right to express dissent or dissatisfaction, what might I do to express that? That we would not. I guess if people started cheering from the audience. Well, That says. You know, whatever the Southboro case had signs. And, you know, I think it was signs plus words, right? But a sign could say something like. You all voted wrong, you know, or even harder. But you couldn't have people who are sitting in town hall chanting during the night. Can I. Can I say the council supports the right C as it is. And then. Those. Where is it? While signs are permitted, just adding that up there, while signs are permitted, those presents shall not engage in audible demonstrations of approval or disapproval or coming right after C. I mean, it clarifies from, I think. I would get rid of everything after the word demonstrations, the approval or disapproval, because, because it's also. You can have signs that aren't approval or disapproval. Right. Just, yeah. Expressing just audible demonstrations. A sign can express a desire before we vote. That's not necessarily. Yes. Yeah. Now. Looking at E. And thinking about the SJC decision. Can a recess be called. Yes. Yeah. And I believe Lauren said, yeah, or we could adjourn the meeting. Those are two things that the select man did, but he did it. In op. Yeah. In a very different way. You can always call a recess to try and get control of a meeting. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So that should be. He as it is, right? Yeah. So are people okay with this section? Oh, we need to look at F. There were no recommended changes to that one. Yeah, that's the recording one. Right. Can we go back up to the first part? Did we make all the changes in 6.1 that we were talking about? I don't think we made the changes. Yeah, that's what we just talked about stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Cause the question is how does 6.1 relate to. 6.2 and 6.3. This is specific to panelists. You know, but some of it is like cell phones. Right. Like, yeah. I think, I think originally 6.1 was supposed to be everyone. I think 6.3 was like counselor. Yeah. And I think that that's, it's still important that invited speakers and presenters and guests and council members. We're trying to, that's what we're trying to address. That we want on atmosphere, a peaceable. Atmosphere. But the sticky part is that. It doesn't include the public comment period. So we're trying to, we're trying to make sure that we can be insulting. During a public comment period. We're getting rid of civility. Well, this is where I wonder if 6.1 just gets folded into, or you just keep the cell phones. And the private conversation ones. Or just repeat them into 6.2 and three and you fold 6.1 into 6.3. So we're trying to, we're trying to make sure that we don't have any speakers and guests. But you fold cell phones and all into both of those. I think we had. Roll into 6.1. So, so we roll stick three into 6.1. Right. But we also don't want the public using their cell phones and stuff. So we can just add that one to 6.2. Two. Just repeat a couple of things. So have it in both places. Yeah. Yeah. And then I just said, Hey, wait, this part of it replies to everybody. Whether you're the public, whether you're staff, whether you're counselors. And that's why I like invited speakers, presenters, guests. You know, we're saying you can't use insulting, threatening or abusive language during public debate, except we, you can insult people during public debate. You can't use insulting or abusive language during public debate. Right. That's why I think that 6.1 and 6.3 need combined. And then whatever that cell phone thing, and maybe the private conversation thing need to just be repeated in 6.2 somewhere. I'm stuck here, but I'm willing to move things around if that's the. Consensus of the rest of you. Has Michelle gone. And I don't actually hear. I mean, I'm willing to take a stab at combining one in three. If I get Athena's sheet here. I'll share it. Yeah. And Athena, can you make sure I get a copy of this sheet too? And then maybe I could. No, you have to take your own notes. Oh, I'm just kidding. Yeah, I'll send it. I'll send it around. Thank you. We still have a quorum. So, I mean, I guess the question is looking at number three 6.3. Half of that is about three minutes. No more than once beforehand. Yeah. And so. If someone like Dave, like how do you do that with, with a invited staff member? I know that's. One of these rules are followed anyway, but anyhow. So maybe. Did we just add in the four times? That's a, that's a request. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me hear what Athena was going to say. So maybe I asked your question. So maybe there's a differentiation between. Counselors and those invited to. Present. Are those panelists. In zoom. Everyone's a panelist, but yeah. Yeah, we invited Mindy Dom and Joe Comerford to come and speak to us. Lauren. Or other people from KP law come and present issues to us. We invite guests to speak. Sometimes we have joint meetings with other committees and all. So maybe six point one is invited speakers. Presenters and guests and six point three stays counselors. Yeah. And six point two is the public. Yeah. So we don't combine this with six three. Yeah, I don't. Yeah. Although I think we'll end up repeating some. Yeah. But we could, I could at least take a stab at something. And that would be wonderful, Mandy. And also, I don't know, since we're really trying to clarify these different roles and the behavior in these roles, it seems to me repeating something we're showing that we're not treating the public differently than we treat invited guests or we treat ourselves in a certain kind of way. This. Jennifer. I'm sorry. No, I agree. I didn't know if you thought I had my hand up. Yeah. And then if in, in six point one, it could simply, can you back down? So we're, so we're not rolling into six point one. Correct. We're not rolling six point one into six point three. Yeah. Yeah. We're going to keep it sort of like its own little, but. So I think you can get rid of in a six point one a, including counselors, residents and staff, it's like all meeting participants shall focus their remarks on the matter being discussed or voted on. So maybe we, we, we move. I think it would just define meeting participants as. Those invited speakers, presenters, guests and counselors, except during the general public comment period or something like, I don't know. We have to play with it. Yeah. Again, the general public comment period, you can kind of, you can comment on anything. Yes. Within the purview of the council we've kept. I mean, if you want to start talking about banners, you could, you know. You could, because it's on. Yeah. Well, but if you wanted to talk about. I don't know what. So I don't think you could talk about something, something that I would argue is not within the purview of the council is the performance of a, an employee that is not the town manager or the town clerk, because those are the only two we have any jurisdiction over on hiring, not the lifeguard at the pool. Right. Right. And if, and if someone from the public wants to address that issue, they should be contacting the town manager directly. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is there, shall we move on? Yeah, I'll try to take a stab at this. I don't know how well I'll do. Knowing you, it'll be great. Between the two of you, it'll be magnificent. I need to hear something. Jennifer, you were saying something. No, so we're really just saying in terms of public comment, as long as it's peaceable. And within the jurisdiction of the council, people can pretty much say what they want. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Do you want me to add those into that public comment section and five while I'm making. Taking a stab at all of this. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. What was the change on five? We're going to the things you had highlighted regarding moving from 6.2. I will, in whatever draft I, as I work through the, what we talked about, we're going to move on to the next slide. Thank you. Thank you, Mandy. Do we want to wrestle with counselor's comments. Conduct rather. Of the potential changes that were already asked. I guess we're all right. I have in here. Because we had a. Counselor when, initially when we were asking for counselor input, we were asking for staff. I don't particularly agree with that. I don't see the point of it, but. I do. Did want to bring it up because the counselor brought it up. I mean, if somebody were to say something not complimentary to a staff, we could defend the staff. Yeah. I think that's what we're specifically not allowed to do under this court case. Well, no, I'm during public comment, but. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that. So Jennifer, do. Athena's going to put it up. Yeah. See that. I don't think we can do. I don't think the second. Sentence we can do anymore. The first one. Says should. And so I think. KP law indicated we could have aspirations. But not. We can't do anything about it. So I don't know. I don't think the first that first sentence. Violate Southboro. I would like to get rid of stand up for staff. Members of the public show focus on policy, not people when debating. I think the stand up for the staff. We can't do. Yeah. So, so this is under counselors conduct. And so I think. The, if we split this into two, we can't do anything about it. I think we can do anything about it. I think we can do anything about it. And so I under public comment. The council requests members of the public focus on policy, not people when making public comments. And then. Go ahead. Under whatever five is. And then here would be. Counselors should focus on policy, not people when debating issues. You can add that one in. Although. I was wrong. I spoke too early. Why were you wrong? I was going to say, I thought the focus on policy was already in 6.3, but it's not. Right. Oh, well, I'm glad I brought this up then. So C Jennifer. 6.3 C. I had made a requested change. I don't know what I think about it, but, um, Where are you? Yeah, I gotta see it. I think I'm at a point where I'm not sure it's, I'm not sure it's about 6.3. It's about maximum numbers of times to speak. Is that in our. No, it's a suggestion. So yeah. I don't. Necessarily. So. It was, let me just say it was a thought and I, like I said, I don't know what I actually think of it anymore. I've noticed sometimes that. discussions end up with three two or three counselors sometimes just going back and forth. Sometimes redundant sometimes not. And so this was a random thought of what do we do I don't necessarily think this is the right solution, but that was sort of what I was thinking like if if we don't frankly we don't follow see anyway. Anyway, all the time, maybe non speakers get to be recognized. Before someone's spoken more than I think that there's a real attempt. Jennifer, that's fine. No, I think that Lynn, I think, It usually happens, you know, let's people speak once before someone speaks twice. I mean the reason I would, I would not be think there's like the addition of no more than four times because again I think the presiding officer can use a lot of discretion but since we can't really talk out of a public meeting that's the only time we have. And yeah, I mean I've, we've all sat through some that are tiring in a certain kind of way, but I do think that Jennifer's right that and I don't feel comfortable with this first. We can, we can ignore it and reject it. That's fine. When do you have anything you want to add. Sorry. First of all, if anybody wants to keep count fine but I, I agree that you should just ignore it. I'm not going to sit there with a thing that says stroke one stroke to war you're out okay. Yeah, I've and I think that you have intervened when two counselors are going at it and it's not really furthering anything. I think the big issue that I noticed and this, you know, it's a little bit like what Mandy Joe's noticing but it's, we've gotten to the point that it's clear people have made up their mind. And we just need to call the question or agree that we're ready to go to the vote. That's all. Yeah, I think that's important. I, you know, a lot is on you for consistency and having the clock up for residents and counselors has, I think has been helpful. Yeah, and I mean, I will say that we need to just make sure we continue to use it. I know when now that we have somebody who is, I hope we still have somebody who's working with Athena during council meetings. But she wasn't there the other night. So I don't know where we stand on that. She was just out of town. She's out of town until after the first. Yeah, I think when she when she's there it helps a lot. Yeah. I also ask Lynn to tell me when to use the clock because sometimes it's you know where people are asking questions and then it starts to wander into debate so it's really helpful and when you say let's go ahead and use the clock so it doesn't feel like somebody's being singled out. Yeah, and I hear that Athena but it seems to me it should always be used. And then there's then that such a consistency we all you know it's like training your puppy. We all get used to I have three minutes, unless I'm presenting something. I think it should be there for counselors it should be there for the public at all times. It's a personal opinion. So deciding when to use it feels like an inconsistency and nobody has to agree with me that's fine. I think that's, that's part of the difficulty, right. I agree Pat, it should probably be used all times but then if a staff member or the sponsor or committee chair is, or committee members trying to answer a question, are they held to the three minutes to right. Answering a question feels different. Yeah, you know it's, we're talking now about setting a time limit of three minutes three to one minutes according to our rule depending on the number of people being clocked so that helps the presenter, the public person and it helps the counselors but I too many times the question is, and it can be stopped if Dave Zomac is going to be answering a question, and he takes four minutes. I don't, it doesn't feel like the same thing it's not a lack of consistency for that. So, so I need to differentiate between when a sponsor is answering a question, and when they're speaking and supportive their thing because sometimes that line is very blurry. Yeah. So I can use it. So this is counselors only at this point, the three minutes not staff. Right, but, but if there's a council sponsor of something. Yeah. So maybe that's maybe that's the first part of the debate is ask questions and then we're going to debate the thing then that's a distinguish that a line that it's a little clearer for me but Similar to public hearings. So isn't when a presenter, they're given initial there, they have more time or presenters, a combination they have more time. Wouldn't it be similar when they were answering a question about the proposal or the policy that they were presenting. So do we do we want to adhere strictly to this. They're going to present their thing and then any questions and stuff after that is three minutes. I was actually going to say, once the questions asked, don't we want to encourage brevity and answering. Right, like, which actually goes to three minutes except when introducing or presenting a measure do we actually want to put a time limit on introducing and presentations of measures, not just for counselors but for staff members to like. No. Like, whenever something comes back. Do we want to five minutes, do we want something I don't I don't know but you know we don't have any limit lens the one that tries to I think rain presenters in by talking to him before the meetings and saying you get this but And then it's good luck with that. And it's that's absolutely right. I mean I I, you know, Athena, we can talk about this but I'm actually beginning to feel like we should just always be using the clock except when it's presenters and, you know, questions and even if it is the clock up there just reminds people of a need for brevity. That's only if it's ticking does it do that if it's, that's, that's the issue is is have it be ticking because when it's ticking. It starts. It makes people aware of it. I don't think I think the only people that might not be able to see it is they're on certain phones. Otherwise, I think anybody can see it whether they're in zoom or whatever. You did something with Vince O'Connor which I totally supported because he answered a question. And then he made his statement and you were very clear about that that this is why I ran it over. Yeah. And and I totally supported that and appreciated the clarity. In that case, you know, I mean Vince does have a history, a knowledge of history in Amherst that sometimes is beats even Mandy Jill. By far. I don't know longer than Mandy's been alive. He was probably in town meeting that whole time. Are we. My dog is dreaming so she's in the background. Are we done right now with this section. Is there anything else before we move to snow and ice. We've gone from flags to conduct to snow and ice. Hey, you know, snow and ice and brush. I got the brush. Jennifer. Yeah, so actually somebody pointed out and I think when I look at this, are we now not. You can't hear me. No, we can. What are you on. Oh, snow and ice. I just wanted to ask. Are we now calling it, which I think is good obstruction of public ways penalties for the violation of obstruction. Are we not calling it snow and ice but obstruction obstruction of public ways. That is the plan I think someone asked maybe we could say obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal or something. I think it would be good to have snow and ice in the title for search purposes of nothing else. Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. I agree. Nice and obstruction. Yeah, I just use the shorthand for us of snow and ice. So, and because we haven't officially changed the name it has to be voted on, but yeah. So obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal. Yeah. Can you put it up Athena. Yeah, I'm looking for the right document. Okay, here we go. Thank you. So what change did you want to the. You wanted snow, ice and obstruction. So I was doing it as obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal. I think that's better. I agree. And is it a change in this, which I think is good that we're saying the owner of real property so it's not just residential but applies to commercial ownership as well. Yes. No, in the packet there are comments from the tree word Morden. And also, including adding totes to things that can obstruct the sidewalk or driveways. But before we do that. I'd like us to think about the enforcement. Paul was, I thought very clear about why the enforcement should rain remain in the police department with the traffic. The parking officers or the traffic officers being the people who contact and who residents and can give out citations. And then what I remember that the comment was well, somebody calls DPW and they say to go to the police and then the police tell them to go to the DPW. So what I feel like is we need to really clarify the process with both DPW and the police department. And it could be that the resident complains to the DPW and it's the DPW that contacts the police department but that might be wonky. But so somebody doesn't go in the circle. And I don't know whether there was agreement about following Paul's recommendation. It's given that we're hoping there's going to be more inspections happening. Do we really want the building inspector inspection inspectional services out there. Doing this for us and you know we it's like when you get a ticket for parking it happens kind of immediately after you've over the limit in a certain way or if you get a parking ticket for doing something inappropriate on the street you get to take it right away. And it feels like that would be a reasonable response to me calling, except I'd go talk to my neighbor but calling and saying they haven't cleared the snow and ice I can't get into whatever. Jennifer. Yeah, but wasn't there a concern about, you know, if enforcement was really happening. There's been a lot and Lynn, you probably know this much better than I do but there's been a lot of times where DPW, there's been complaints and it doesn't change so they go and clear it. So, if you know that's going to happen, then why do you clear it. And so, I think that there's some learned behaviors by residents and staff that have created a problem. My sense is two things. First of all, if the complaint goes to DPW, don't give the resident a run around have DPW call the police. Giving residents run arounds is one of the ways that we really annoy our residents. Second of all, I really believe that they can do warnings and then they need to ticket, but it needs to be a way in which the ticket then goes to the owner of the property, unless it's written into the lease of the property, that the person who is inhabiting the property is supposed to take care of that. And, you know, that's a nuance we may not be aware of when we're the other but having this, the issue of absentee landlords, who, frankly, don't even know it snowed in Amherst. Right. And then, you know, the ticket goes and it just sits there and at some point that ticket needs to be resolved and it needs to be resolved with the person who owns the property, unless I stated in a lease. And but finding out that whether it's stated in the lease seems problematic there's a student house on the corner behind me, and they always have someone clearing snow, and they always have someone mowing the lawns etc. My resident neighbor, who lives on the other corner blocks the line of sight because they often don't mow their lawn at least in the front so when you come out you really can't see you have to get out too far to see. So I don't, I don't know how you would deal with the who owns who's responsible here on the landlord and they would maybe have more effect anyway, I'm not sure Mandy and then Athena Athena can go first. Okay. It makes sense to me to clarify that this is police officers of DPW isn't going to come and clear it on private property. If it doesn't make sense for anybody to call DPW and then DPW to call the police. I mean, it, it makes sense to me to just make it really clear that if someone is complaining about an obstruction that they can call the police to come and give a warning because Paul's memo said that the parking enforcement officers would come and do that so it seems like it doesn't mean DPW on private property anyway. And then the other issue with between renters and landlords and so on, seems like it belongs with the property owner to then resolve with their tenant and not for the council to or for the town to determine who's because we don't have access to people's leases. If it's in the lease, they'll deal with it. Right. Mandy. Thank you, Athena. So, I mean, it sounds like part of the problem is the police officers never even go out and check when they get called. So it's not even that they're not writing tickets. They don't even go inspect. Right now. Because they send you to DPW and DPW sends you back and and so so another my my own experience when I've done this in prior locations I've gone to I've literally walked into the police department and said, I'm complaining about snow obstructions here. A week goes by and nothing is done. And the only assumption I can make from that, given the current bylaw is that the owner was never even contacted. Right, because there's no clearing and the current bylaw even says, we can do it for them and then charge them to do it. And so, I guess part of the question is how do we get someone to actually write that warning or that ticket. Or that or simply make the phone call, or, or, you know, when when a phone call is made, whether it be to DBW or whoever we designate how do we actually get a enforcement officer that Paul says he wants to actually go out and do something. We're just the legislative body I don't know how we say it you know if they don't believe it's their job they don't, they just ignore it right they say oh no that's DPW they'll fix it. I don't know what that solution is other than to include everyone and say everyone hey start writing tickets, you know if it's the building commissioner that's out there if it's Alan Snow our tree warden that's out there I. I don't know what the solution is. It seems like a question. Yeah. Because if the police do not have the capacity to do this. It's not. Or if they just don't want to and then it might not even be capacity I don't know they might just feel like that's not what their job is no matter what we wrote in a bylaw. All is saying it's their responsibility. So I would suggest bringing that up with all that. Right, I mean doesn't really happen I guess part of the. Yeah. Yeah, I think I would like to take that route. We're addressing it directly with Paul first. And I can do that. You know you want this but this is a residence experience over and over again how do we clear how do we make sure that this is going to happen that the resident is contacted either with a warning or fun you know. So, Mandy your hand still up my hand is still up. So, if we don't want DPW doing the actual clearing the question is do we keep D in section D the remedies of. After do notice perform cause the clearing to be performed and then recover expenses if we're basically just going to find a way. And do we keep D at all. And if we're going to find a way. The next question I have is up in the data block that doesn't look like a data block here the non criminal disposition we just have $50 per 24 hour period. And we have many general bylaws that have a first offense second offense third offense, where the first one's a warning the second one is like a $50 fine the third one is $100 fine xyz do we want to actually create the step sort of system within the penalty block up above on that. Jennifer and then Lynn. So our goal is to have the obstruction cleared, not just define. So that's really like I know the disability access committee that's they want it fixed. Yeah. So that's why I'm comfortable, you know, just to say we're going to find a way that that doesn't solve the obstruction issue. Nor the repeating of obstruction issue. Then. First of all, I know that we have had been hesitant in the past to put fines and bylaws, but rather to put them in regulations. So we don't have to open up a bylaw when we knew when we need to change it. I just raised that this may be one of those exceptions where we don't care. Another thing though that I, I absolutely agree. The goal is to get it cleared. I want to make sure the D doesn't open the town up for liability. If we don't clear it. In fact, the whole bylaw, because what if we don't clear it and then someone falls and our bylaw says, after such a point in time, we cleared it, but we charged. I think we're now liable. Or if we cleared it under this following all the rules and then someone fell. Yeah. So, in that regard, let's make sure. What we have a law review. Yeah. And then, so I have one final question which is Alan snows comments about public shade trees contact the tree warden for evaluation should we be reconfiguring be to to do his sort of two things. His two comments. He had two categories and they're sort of all one category should we just reconfigure be for the two categories. Or we might be able to just say, I don't know, we'd have to figure out the wording but Well his other reason for maintaining it in the police department was to maintain quality accounting and a fiduciary control in one department. I'm sorry I got distracted. So, can you pause your question again Mandy. It was about Alan snows thing about rushing growth. Those that are private trees versus those that are public shade trees, the shade trees need to like he recommended that if they're shade public shade trees that that the first thing that be done is not the fine that contact him. The tree warden for evaluation, and he said it normally takes him two to three business days so do we need something in here about. You know I had for the purposes of this bylaw vegetative overgrowth up to seven feet above the surface shall be considered obstruction, we could add a sentence that said. If that overgrowth is from a public shade tree. Yes, I think that's a good idea, because it really does want to be contacted for evaluation before anything is done or before before a violation is issued or something. I don't know what the right language is. I'm sure if it's violation because if it's a pub, if it's our tree, if it's a town tree. The town can be very. The town can violate this bylaw that's got private, you know, on my neighborhood where there's a ton of trees next to the sidewalk that's on town land. It's not public shade trees necessarily, and they might block. I know that he was very concerned that people residents could use it, because they wanted the tree to stop blocking their living room window, not have anything to do really with the street. And then they would do it and say oh but it was, you know, so he was concerned he wants to be able to view that and I, I support that. So one of the things that he mentioned is should we be defining obstruction really clearly, because it can be signs it can be and he's suggesting trash totes toters, and I think that's a good idea. Plantings brush snow. And he actually suggested everything through C click fix which is DPW. Yeah, that's not police. Right. Again, like who goes to enforcement. And I see he suggested 10 days or so to correct some of the issues two to three to 10 days so we need to look at our 24 hours issue. Brush. And then the issue with like the toters. I mean that's a real education we would have to get word out to people. That they're required to drink, you know, not bring them in like my neighbors toters are outside right now they're at the end of her driveway, but I cars can get by, but sometimes the wind knocks them over once they're empty and things like that. It's a little. So my husband puts the toters out two days before it drives me crazy so now I have a way to tell him I'd love to say it's not allowed. I'm not going to put up a law anyway. I read Alan's toter thing is more of if a snowstorm is coming and the toters sit out there. Our sidewalk plows. The area where sidewalk plowing can't get plowed and so the question becomes, should we be sidewalk plowing private properties. That's a good question, right? If the toters are in the street, that's his. For the general plow to. Yeah. Yeah. It is 1124. And I'd like to bring this back I'd like to talk to Paul directly which I will do. The committee agrees about enforcement and the issues that are being raised about why can't there be this dual enforcement between police department and DPW with clear lines about what happens when and who does it. Does that make sense. I'd like to, we, I believe there's just one person in public attending. And if, so I'd like to open it for public comment, and then move to vote on the minutes from the last meeting, and to end on time. Does that feel comfortable to people. Okay, so with it snow and ice will be back with us at our next meeting. I don't obstructions of sidewalks. No, and ice is not back with us at our next meeting. Pardon me. Are we in public comment. Not yet. I'm going to officially open the public comment period. So if an attendee would like to speak they could raise their hand and let us know. And please come into the room. Bring her in. And will you state your name and where you live. Hi, I'm Anita Sarah I'm in district five. First, you have a thankless task all of you and you're doing an amazing job I've written many a bylaw and rule myself and I know the difficulty of saying too much saying too little and being this interpreted. One of the things that struck me in the discussion and particularly around the, the issue of counselor conduct. I think sometimes with rules, they're drafted in terms of prohibitions, which leads to Athena's good question of enforcement but sometimes rules can also be. I don't know, even if it's expectation all because in terms of of counselors the expectation is that all counselors will be attended at every meeting and fully participate and fully listen and if there are questions, even if it's just where are we. Any questions that shared with others. I know it happens a lot boards that I chair to try to look at, particularly in that section around code of conduct to a it's just a thought process, more than anything to think about what, what the reasonable expectations are, and maybe even state them. And then a couple of other things. I'm finally paying attention to, to these rules and I had have, I guess it's a question about, and you don't have to answer it now or, or ever but about public dialogue, and when that's appropriate to use and because that seems like a really good tool for getting good public engagement and and good dialogue. The other thing I was thinking of while you're on five is the district meetings and do both district counselors have to be present at all meetings, you know what if one is called and one can't make it. It's unclear in, in the rule about whether it requires the two, or could it be just one if the meeting is recorded and, and the absent district counselor would have the benefit of that raw data from people living there and finally I noticed that you folks are paying attention to abstentions, and it's always been something of a bugaboo for me. So how, how they are sometimes misused and, and the fact that they do fundamentally change the vote so I urge, urge you all to continue, you know that conversation on, you know with Athena and others about the appropriate use and the impact of abstentions because it could be profound. So thank you. Thank you for everything you're doing. Thank you, Anita. Okay, then what I'd like to do is make a motion that we accept the February. Why do I do that. April 12 meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second. I can't second my own motion. I can't second it. Thank you. Is there any debate or I was trying to give someone else the opportunity. I know I My problem is I wasn't there for the whole meeting so I didn't want to second it. I can still vote. I can still vote whether you were there or not. Okay. I'm going to assume that everybody is trying to vote right now, Mandy. It's just a matter of time. Yeah. Lynn. Aye. Jennifer. Aye. And it's an eye for me. So the vote is unanimous to accept the minutes as presented with one absent. All right, I am going to adjourn this meeting. If that's okay with everybody. Very productive. Good. Yeah, good meeting. Thanks for your work. Thanks.