 And George, are you okay with host or do you want to know I'm getting good at it? Well, I'm getting some matter of opinion. The answer is yes, I will do it and my colleagues will help me if there's a problem. All right, you're all set then. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right, seeing the presence of a quorum I'm going to call this. I'm sorry. I'm going to put your video on George. Ah, thank you. I was eating my stone. No, I'm not. So, you don't want to watch. Just because George sucked it up. I was trying to have my breakfast. So, see the presence of a quorum I'm going to call this meeting of GOL to order. It is 1033 on May 19 and pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. This meeting of GOL as being conducted by remote participation and is being recorded. I'm going to begin with each of my colleagues on make sure everyone can be heard. And I'm going to start with Pat DeAngelis. Yeah, I was looking at the agenda and while the citation is very nice and you know I support the, the queer proclamation. I wonder if we can't because those things will go very, very quickly. And even reporting on Fincom will go quickly. I really want us to look at the OCA referral process I think that's going to take the bulk of the meeting. So we keep losing it, not intentionally, but we keep losing it so I'd like to start with it, even if we have to put a time limit on it but it just feels like. Well, we'll come to that in a moment. I first just want to make sure everybody can be heard. And, but we will definitely come back to that point in a moment, because I have some thoughts on that as well. But so yes, we will come back to that in just a second. Mandy. I'm present. Marcy. Here. And Sarah. Present. Thank you. All right, Pat. So let me put the agenda up on the screen. So share screen. I think that's the agenda. So everybody see that. We do have some very important matters. I agree with items two and three should not take long. We could move those down later in the meeting. I have no problem with that. We have no one coming to see this morning. So we don't have any guests we have to worry about. So we could move those two. I really do think we have to we have some serious business related to thin come. And time is pressing. And we have even more serious business related to DAB. And I need to bring you up to speed on both of those. So I'm a little reluctant to push those off later in the meeting. So I would suggest as we move two and three to the bottom of the agenda, and I'll keep an eye on time, but I do feel this is speaking for myself that we do have to pay, we have to pay some attention right at the top to the status of income and what we're going to how we're going to move forward, and the status of DAB, which is just really time pressured. And I need your help on how to move forward. I would suggest doing three, four, five, and six is what I would suggest. So I'd like to make sure that the three, four, five, don't go over an hour or something. I agree with you, Pat. So we could agree that by what 1130 at the latest, or maybe 1115 we would then turn to item number six. I agree it's going to take at least an hour and may not may take longer. So we need to be sufficient time, but I really we really do need to take care of three, four and five is my personal opinion. So maybe agree that item six would be started no later than 1115. Sounds good. Okay. To me anyway. Well, that's my suggestion. And I think Mandy's okay with that. I don't know about the rest of you, Sarah Darcy. So 1115, and I would ask the help of Pat, as Vice Chair, just keep an eye on the clock, because as you can see often get tunnel vision. So when we get to 1115 just speak up, don't worry about interrupting me or another speaker, and we will stop and go to item number six. And hopefully we get to it sooner. But 1115. Okay. All right. So, so that means I put everything away that I just put out. I want to take a look at the income status. Quickly. So hang on for a second. Ah, yeah. Share the right document yes I do. All right, so I got to stop sharing. And then I have to share again. So let's look at this. This is where we stand at the moment. The vacancy notice was published on 511. There were 11 outstanding applications 11 CAS that are within the three year limit. All of them are contacted. There have been no new applications. And of the 11 that were reached out to three have gone back to me saying yes. As often the case, many have not responded and most likely will not respond. Since many of them did not respond this previous time we did this, but the rules require me to reach them out to all of them. So we've had three people respond positive as the pool to moment has three people in it. Bob Hickner is the current member of the. And he has expressed an interest to continue. Mr. Kim was a candidate in the previous round and he is asked to be considered. And Rika Rika Clement, which is a new. Someone we've not interviewed before but was had expressed previous interest with three in the pool. I would like us to agree on selection guidance today. And we could decide well, we can't make the pool sufficient yet because we need two weeks to pass. So the earliest we could declare the pool sufficient would be June 2, which is our next meeting. So what I'm suggesting is that at that date, we could declare the pool sufficient. And at that point, begin the process listing SOIs. The timeline is tight. How many positions George, how many positions just one, we just have one position. Oh, Bob Hickner's and he's willing to continue. He's expressed it. Yes. So I think. Right. So I think given the assuming we adopt the usual. If we talk about our guidelines and talk about our process and agree on that ideally today. If we meet on the second, we can declare the pool sufficient. I can solicit SOIs. And if we do run into a problem time wise, we would have to push everything off by by two weeks, but that would not be a real catastrophe. It would mean that the position would be big. Well, I guess having your would continue in theory for two extra weeks. Until the new candidate was was voted by the council. But if we don't make, I guess what I'm saying is we don't make the June 21 council vote. The next council vote would be, I think it's July 15. I don't think that's the end of the world for finance finances work is done. So I think we if we have to push things off. We could. But this is a timeline for getting it done. So that the position is filled before the end of June. So that's the, and those are the dates. So, if we were to push it off, we would be making a search July 12 is when the council would meet. So that would be the sort of fallback. I'm going to stop sharing that. I guess just in general when we think about interviews are custom in this committee has been to do the interviews. We have everybody come to the same meeting, but we do them sequentially so 123 however many there are two of the three current candidates have been interviewed by this committee before. Which also raises an interesting question about the interview questions themselves. It has been a practice in this committee up to this time to not take a very formal approach to the questions basically each individual committee member can ask one question and a follow up question. And we tend to be somewhat loose about that. Our focus is more getting a chance for people to get just to talk. And so, for instance, in the case of Mr. Hegner, I would be interested in learning more about his experience over the past two years. And that's a question for instance that would not be appropriate for Mr. Kim or Ms. Clinton or any other candidate. So, I'm a little concerned about. I'm happy with the process we've used, and I think it works well, but we have two new members, and I need to hear from them about whether they want to revisit this process and make any changes to it. But the current process, as is in the document is in the packet. We do the interviews and we tend to do the vote that at that meeting as well that could be pushed off if we want to. We do the interviews and then discussion and then vote in the same meeting. It's not a special meeting. It's the regular meeting of to well. That's how we've done it. Any thoughts on that do people want to change that do they want to, because I'd like to know now, if ideally, before we start. Sarah, please. I feel like I've already died on this hill. So I don't know if I want to be resurrected and come back and do it again. But you know I'm going to say that I, I have some concerns with follow up questions, only because I think that follow up questions then allow someone who's on the selection committee on this on, you know, that if they have a bias and they have a sort of a political agenda. I feel like it opens the door for some push their political agenda. And so that's back to that old question is that okay to do or not to do, and I don't think it should. I don't think it should be okay and I know that some people do so my preference would be, and also you know how I feel about interviews being separate so my preference would be that there wouldn't be a follow up question. I'm fine if different in this case with finance committee, if people here feel like you know we all get a question and I don't know if you give them, if we're still talking about them having it ahead of time, or you want the spontaneity of just being able to, you know, just whip out that question that we have. I don't have a problem I guess in this case with people just having a question and asking it cold at that time. I think that the interviews were together. And I'm fine with it being one meeting and then we decide. So I'm going to ask if we do the interviews together as was done with playing in CPI where everybody's kind of in a row. It kind of forces the questions to be the same question, right, or does it maybe you would say, you don't care what the question is. And the usual procedure is Smith gets asked the question and then Jones then Riley then right and everybody gets asked the same question answers it. As you know I do not like that but that's what was and that's fine that's what it does, but in this committee, we have the individual in front of us. And we just go around the circle, and somebody asked a question, for instance, you would read the SOI, and you might something might come out of that that you'd like to ask the candidate about. But you can't because you have to submit the questions in advance, and the candidate has to see them in advance, and I personally think that's, you know, I just think it's silly, I think you should have the freedom to ask the question you want to ask, and a follow up to that, or usually I allow a second question period it doesn't have to be a direct follow up it just be a second question, but no more. Roger for the interest of time. We had the experience the first time we did this, where one of the people being interviewed just love to talk. And I really struggled, I didn't do very well, and kind of getting him to stop talking. And so we used up a lot of the time just with. And so that's a challenge is practically. But I mean, we'll all get SOIs we, I think we all agree the SOI is a really valuable. And you read it and a question might occur to you would never occur to me. Or you might look at the SOI and find it completely useless and so you're going to ask something totally different. I would like to ask Hegner about his experience on Fenton. And you know what's he learned what what would he change, I don't know something like that. But you know, I do we need to write these on advance and is it a rigid script. I really would resist that but sounds like you are okay with not it being rigid, but you want everybody in the room at the same time. I don't know how others feel about that. Did you want a rigid script. Yeah, right, right, right. So I see what you're saying. And I understand. I understand what you're saying that you're saying what I'm hearing from you is being able to ask the question somewhat spontaneously, right and then have follow up gives you much more of an informative and more informative. And I totally see that working in, in theory, and I know that you're saying that hey the first time we did it for the most part, it did work. And I think the only thing that I'm saying is that I think that it's excellent in theory. And I know that what I'm saying seems more canned right. I feel like in my experience with Oka and things that we, and even CRC and talking about different questions. I feel like it leaves. It makes it more stilted and but at the same time it also it precludes any questions that have to do with bias so I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm just saying that that's the thing that I fear is the bias creeping in and I'm not necessarily right at all. So I hear you. I guess that's just my feeling. Others please take the way in. This is a time where I feel like given my personality, I like to engage with people from questions that arise more spontaneously or naturally. I mean reading the SOI and that's not a spontaneous thing as you're looking at it and you're trying to understand what's triggering you what you want to find out. And I prefer that kind of interview to everybody answering the same question. And I know that when that happened, the question who started would rotate and things. So right now I would prefer each of us to come with a question or two. And but I think I wonder if those questions shouldn't be shared with our committee before we asked them. Because each of you might have some input on a question I designed or something like that I don't know. But this is a time Sarah where I feel like I want to move away from everybody sitting there together. The other piece for me and I'll bring it up I brought it up last time. I was really uncomfortable that one person sat through the other two interviews and the and if we're going to allow that and we maybe have to then we should let every candidate know that they can stay in and listen. In my communications pad I do make it clear but I will also make sure that I make it clear that you're welcome to I mean the meeting starts at 1030. My interview is at whatever time if we do it sequentially. But you're welcome to attend the meeting in its entirety, but you'll only be brought into the room for questions at this specific moment and then what you do after that or before that is up to you. I could make sure that everyone knows that it is a public meeting. We certainly cannot prevent anyone from staying. But I hear you that I could make sure that I believe I did the first time but probably not as clearly as I could have that, you know, your interviews at X time. But the meeting starts at 1030, and you're welcome to be present during the entire meeting. Something of that effect. And then people make up their own minds. Sarah has your hand up. Actually, was services response to something yes otherwise I want to go to Darcy. I'm going to go to Darcy first and then come back where is the response to some particular. Yeah. Okay, so Darcy Darcy. No, I think Sarah said she was responding to something fun. So just really quick, I think then what I would say is what if my question that I spontaneously pop on all of you is, I asked this person. So, we recently had a case where we had to publish the finance committee to find a stream of income for the community safety working group. How do you think you would respond to that kind of a request. Like what if I make it really specific about something I care about. That's that so that's all I'm saying is that it's inappropriate, you know, be like what, but somebody could do it if they felt like it was important. Maybe if you want to keep the spontaneity. Maybe we do just float questions to each other if there's some way to do that without violating open meeting law we send them to George, just to make sure that you know, then I get to be the judge and that seems like a bad. No, really, I mean you know why should the chair be the one who decides what are the good questions what are the bad questions. I think there's there's a lot of risk in this but and that's all right it's an open meeting. As long as people are respectful. And I think I don't have any concerns about this committee in that regard. If someone wants to ask that kind of question. You or I might think it's unfair but it's a good test of the individual. This is a very important committee, they do not vote, we need to remind ourselves about they have no voting power, but their their contribution is extremely valuable. And so seeing how they respond under pressure is, is, you know, important. So, I think there's, again, I would say value is spontaneity. There is an element of risk. And hopefully people will use good judgment, but, you know, I say we just go for it. Darcy. Yeah, I have a question and a comment. I guess that I, I, you know, agree with both ways of doing this I feel like there's definite, a definite reason for having some basic questions that we always ask that kind of equalizes the process, and then I like the idea of not being able to add an additional question, but I know that. But I mean, we can, we can vet that by having counselors submit a question to George and then looking at them together before the process and and agreeing on them. But it's so that's complicated and my question is. Are we going through this process right now because we are amending the, the geo well interview process that we already have. I just try to get a sense from the committee whether they want to revisit the process and change it. And that's an open question. Obviously I've expressed my opinion but it's just one of five. I want to get a sense of whether people are satisfied with the process as it currently exists so that I can go forward. When time comes we can go forward, or do we want to spend more time going through our process in revising it in certain specific ways and maybe we'll need to come back to this next meeting. One more time, if people do feel they want to make some changes. The current system is pretty loose and pretty on rigid. Do you want to make a little less loose and a little bit more rigid, putting it that way. For instance, do you want to have questions, we did not have questions submitted in advance before the chair did not vet them or send them out to other members of the committee is my recollection. People were told you have one question and a follow up question. Read the SOI. And that's what we did. That's what I would like to do. But if the group here consensus is that no we want to be more specific. We want to see what some of these questions are going to be in advance, then we're going to have to make the decision as a group as to how we're going to do that. So we're looking for today, since from the group whether they want to revisit this process, and maybe today is not the best day to do it but time is running out. Or do they want to live with the process as it currently exists. And so that we can begin to move forward hopefully the next meeting. That's the question. So we're also looking at, I mean, it just seems like a lot of time to put into revising our process when we're also looking at the overall, you know, unifying getting a unified process between all the. But again Darcy that requires the group that committed the council to make a decision and we can't control that timeline or. I understand that I understand that it just, you know, seems like. So Darcy it shows you at least shows me that this isn't such a simple thing that that what we do here with Fincom is not quite the same as what happens with planning and CPA. And so to have a single process for everything. We look at DAB, we've already agreed that DAB is not going to have interviews. So if we had a single process for the entire for all council appointments, DAB would have to have interviews. Yeah, that's your opinion. Absolutely. And, and, and it's, I think we should go to Mandy Joe and then move it around because I. So to answer the quick question, I am not in favor of modifying the policy right now that GL has adopted. I think we should just move forward with it. To respond to some of the things that have been said I would not be in favor of submitting questions ahead of time to George I think that would be an open meeting law violation. The committee decides that we have to agree on the questions then it needs done at an open meeting and then it. You know it gets rid of the spontaneity of hearing someone answer a question spontaneously because then they'll be submitted to all the candidates and that's a decision we make but I don't. I don't think we should report submitting them to one person who then doesn't disclose them to anyone else but kind of approves of them because I think that's an open meeting law violation. Right. And one other thing I am entirely in favor of setting a time limit to answer each question and enforcing that time limit. Well, I. I think I would like to stay with the process as it is. I would encourage counselors to have more than one question because if we don't know them in advance, then your question may have been asked, but I want to get the word spontaneous. I want a spontaneous answer from the interview ease, but I don't think my questions are going to be spontaneous my follow up might be, and I think that's an important distinction. Yeah, yeah, that's all I have to say right now. Yeah, I just want to say that I'm all for just going with the process that we have now. And Pat makes an excellent point. My assumption is that everyone comes to these interviews with at least one maybe two or three questions in mind, and then that's what I assume we do in preparation. Now when I did this the first time I actually did not ask any questions I just managed the meeting, but I did have questions that I could have asked if I wished, but for the interest of time, and for the fact that it's hard for me to do two things at the same time. I just, you know, kept my questions to myself because I felt that they were being addressed. But yes, I would accept assume everyone comes with questions. And good so that my sense is that we are agreed to go with this process at least for this round of appointments, or these recommendations with the processes it stands so I'm not we're not going to revisit that. What we need to do next is establish the sufficiency of the pool, and this is a somewhat delicate topic but, and I don't really know how to address it and I'm probably going to step on a landmine here but given the fact that that we have three candidates already expressing interest to go forward. And one of them is someone who served for two years. I guess to put it in the simplest language. I would consider that a sufficient pool. And maybe we should talk about that. Yeah, I do too. Yeah, I mean, in this instance, and we interviewed three when Sharon Povinelli resigned, we interviewed three candidates and it felt like it allowed choice. So it allows choice, but okay so we're not going to we cannot declare the pool sufficient today we have to wait into a second. And we may get more people stepping forward. And if that's the case, then that's fine. Okay, good. So I think that for the moment if anyone sees something we're missing that we just look at the. I'm going to put this back up for a moment just then we'll move on to sort of greed. This is the timeline one last time. We have 14 minutes left before we shift. Okay, thank you. Okay. So, I need you just quickly look at this because it's a very tight. For instance, we if we determine the pool sufficient on June 2. I solicit SOIs from the candidates that later that day. They have one week to get them to me I must have them by June 9, because they have to go up one week before deliberation. So hopefully everyone will be on time. The rule is that they're not on time they're removed from consideration. And so they get one week. Then a week later we do the interviews and our procedure has been up to now to do the interviews and the vote at the same meeting. So we can change that if we have to for some other reason, but, and then we would send that recommendation to the council and the council books on June 21. It's a tight timeline. Something could go wrong, but that's what I'd like to try and do. And as I said, if something does go wrong, we can push it off into early July. It won't be that terrible. I'd like not to do it, but that's Mandy. It doesn't look like we're going to get to voting selection guidance today. So please have the finance chairs input ready for next week so we can vote selection guidance because if we don't vote that we can't move to soliciting SOIs. Okay, I have to show you here is DAB. Okay. And we have a problem. Yeah, but before you share a screen, I just want to remind, we're not supposed to be sharing names publicly and since this is recorded name should not be shared. We've all received this, the CAFs. Okay. So I'm trying to see what document I've written that has names on it. I think I have. I don't know whether you have or not. I think I did on the, okay. I think I probably did show something on the previous slide. You see what I got here and I will. This is, this is the timeline. I guess what I need to tell you is this. We have currently, I believe, eight applications for the 13. I'm sorry. 13. Applications for DAB. Oh, unless they were. I'll have to double check. I thought there were 13. I was slightly lower number, but, but it's more than eight. Some have come in in the last day or two. Okay. Yeah, there's three that came in this morning. Okay, good. All right. So then definitely the numbers going up. And all right. You just find the DAB file. I need to give you accurate. Okay. So we've had applications from all districts. And so one question is whether we can. All right. Let's look at this. We may be able to what I promised everyone was to adopt. We would send out selection guidance and declare the pool sufficient today. We can see how we can do that. Especially since I haven't had a chance to update the pool. I have not a chance to look at the, these applications that have come in the last couple of hours, or the last half, half a day. What I had was what I had last night. So, I guess I need some advice here. We can come back to this later in the meeting. I realized we only have 10 minutes. What I had promised everyone reached out to so far, contacted everyone who sent a CF and told them I would get back to them on or about the 19th. Send them selection guidance. I think we're ready to, I think we've, have we voted on selection guidance, I don't think we have. So we could do that now. What we basically agreed is that we will not do interviews will rely on the SOIs. I think everything else we've gone through and we're happy with, but I need to make sure that's true. We could declare the pool sufficient right now. But there's going to be some districts that don't have. I just haven't a chance to look at what we've got. I'm sorry, I just. And I don't know if anyone else is Mandy the other chance is anybody a chance to look at the CFs. I have. I can add it if we're aiming for a pool of candidates a sufficient pool that would allow us, which we normally do choice. The only district that conforms to that right now is district one. You know, we can appoint up to two individuals from each district, which means a pool should probably be no less than three, but probably looking hopefully more like four. One district only gets one, no matter what. But the only district that is sufficient in that sense is district one. Districts two, three, four and five would not be sufficient under that criteria in terms of diversity. Gender and race are not diverse, I would say we're doing decent on age diversity. I wonder if we look at diversity for sufficiency of pool, but given that in theory only, if we want choices only district one is sufficient from numbers point of view. And that would not be if we went forward with district one only enough to actually convene the committee, quorum wise. It gives me pause to do only that one on a separate timeline because we still wouldn't be able to have a court appoint a quorum of a committee versus if we get a couple more districts where we could get to a quorum of a committee. It might be wise to do it so I am in support of waiting another two weeks and the timeline gets screwed up that way but hopefully if we can go back to council and everything we can get some more candidates in all the districts in the next two weeks. Yeah, I see. I think that three is would be deemed sufficient to but I agree that one. Probably just two districts. I see three in three. And there's some that I have. I don't know what district they're in but I will I promise to go through what I've been doing is putting them into I do the research and put them in their districts, but I haven't had a chance to look at the most recent submissions I'll do that later today when I get a moment. And I send them immediately a notification of receipt, and I put them into the various files but it sounds like, and I think three is is really bare minimum and really I'm not comfortable with it. So I'm an agreement that this timeline is not something is given to me by Sue our dad or by the state. It's a little bit of time to play with it'd be nice to be able to get this done the way we originally planted, but two weeks is not going to make that much difference. It does look like July and August are going to be the, you know, main months until. So, I think we can still two weeks more won't hurt. And at that point. So I can revise this, and I will notify all the candidates that we pushed it off by two weeks, and that they'll hear from me now at another point. They're happy there. They can live with the guidance that we have the document that we presented to the council they're happy with that. And do we need to vote on that we need to adopt it or can we just agree that by consensus that that's the process we're going to follow. And so, I think we already agreed on the process but the selection guidance I think we have to actually vote on right which would be at the next next meeting we would vote on selection. No. All right. About reach go out in the last day that that resulted in three applications today. I think that Tom clerk did something. I made a few individual outreach efforts. Maybe the League of Women voters is beginning to have some impact. Maybe Paul did something with the CFOs or the residents advisory committee. There are a number of initiatives that are out there I think we just have to give it a little bit more time. And I think two weeks is more than enough. By that point, we will have a sufficiently large pool that we can then get going. That's good. Okay. We have four minutes. Well, I think we can I think that's, we can just, let me see. For a second. So what we've agreed is that we're going to postpone DAB for two weeks. I will notify people that I will go through the most recent applications. We do need to vote on selection guys the next meeting. So the next item is item six. Okay. Great. So let's go there. I'm going to suggest that's open to obviously to debate is that we use. So Darcy and I went through this, the local process and we produce a document for you to review both redlined and clean. And stop sharing. By the way, I was going to so I was going to use Mandy also went through our document and had some comments. I was going to work with that document since it has all three comments in it that we can view. Find it quickly. For the patients, let me share. Let's see that everyone can see this. Excuse my French. I need to be made larger. A little larger would be good for me. Let's see what I can do. Thank you. Thank you. So my thought is we're going to have to go through this section by section. As I say what we're looking at right now is a document that has been viewed by three of us at different times and places with comments and changes. The most recent here are Mandy's, but So town council policy. And procedures has been so that has been struck. We also get this track changes on so I can make track change to this as we go. This has been struck so I'm going to take this out. I can put it back in. I'm going to take it out. This is an issue that we need to discuss right from the get go. The draft that has been taken by some is to distinguish policy from procedure. And so a number of things have been suggested to be removed or have been removed from these drafts because they're too much procedure and not really policy. This is a policy. So people need to speak up if they don't agree. Town council policy on town council appointments to multiple member bodies. This draft is now going to change the date. And the other issue is, we did not be, we're not specific, we didn't mention the bodies. So for instance, if this policy were in place from the council, and the DAB came along. We could not do what we did with DAB. So one question is whether we want to make this specific to specific bodies, ie, Fincom, ZBA and planning, or do we want to keep it as it is, this would apply to any multiple member body appointed by the town council. I think we have to look at that after we look at the body. And so we'll leave that question for the moment open. We agreed this is a policy document. And anything that we agree as a group is too much procedure should come out. But again, it'll be case by case, but the focus here is on policy. According to this title. Well, yeah, go ahead. And the answer here can be policy. So we'll, we'll just look at it as a case by case. Okay. So we're going to do it line by line, the charter gives the town council the authority to appoint members to certain multiple member bodies such as the planning boards, unbored appeals and the non voting resident members of the council finance committee. And the appropriate references. Herein is laid out policy to govern such appointments. And most of what we're dealing with is the actions of specific committees who are actually not making the appointment, but are making recommendations and this policy is meant to guide how they go about making their recommendations. I would just add to govern recommendations for such appointments. People comfortable with that distinction that basically what this is meant to do is I understand it is to guide council committees that are supposed to make recommendations guide them and how they do that. It's not actually governing the appointments themselves. Andy. Yeah, go ahead. Just the language. I'll just put it in. We can play with it. But you wanted to suggest what to govern how recommendations are made for such appointments. That's the distinction that I think is important to make, but I'm just, we're doing this together adopting. I'm sorry. I don't understand the difference, the difference. Well, as it's written, this policy governs such appointments. So let's go back maybe again it's just the right policy the council has the authority to appoint members to certain multiple bodies. Herein is laid out the policy to govern such appointments. And the title is time console policy on appointments to multiple member bodies. I guess the, the, what I hear from George is nearly the entire policy as written is governing committee actions to get to a recommendation to the council not the council's vote at the end of that at the council meeting. And so it's not necessarily governing the council's vote on appointments. It's governing getting to a recommendation to the council. It's basically the council's policy on how town council committees who make recommendations to the council for appointments to multiple member bodies are to do that. So you're saying that the, the committees might have a standard selection criteria or whatever, but that the council would not need to follow that. The council under this draft is not adopting that selection criteria of the committee is so if you want the council to have to follow it I think the council then would have to adopt it not the committee. Well, I thought that's what this process was that we are adopting a unified process as a council around appointments. I don't, I don't understand how what, I guess I don't understand what we're talking about here. For example, if the committees had a unified process where, where they included that preference language. You're saying that that would just be the language used by the committees to make the recommendations but then when the recommendation gets to the council, the council doesn't need to use that. I think Sarah would like to say, please go ahead I'm sorry Sarah. Thank you. This is indeed what we're saying. Then my question would be. I think one of the biggest issues that's difficult for the council and making these appointments is when it gets to the full. When the vote comes to the full council. So my question would be, if we do this on, we do a policy on selection to for appointments of the committees, are we then going to do a separate document to help guide the town council on their selection to appointment process, because I don't think you can have one without the other because if it's a free for all once everything gets to the council and there's no guidance with the council itself doesn't follow any rules, then why in his name, would we be spending all of this excruciating time in committees. It doesn't make any sense I would say there's guidance for everyone and we make a separate document that we make a second document, but it doesn't make any sense to give, you know, extreme guidance to the committee and then tell town council, whatever you want. And so it's either it should be the same either it's whatever you want for the committees, and for whatever you want for the town council, but it, or each gets selection guidance I think. So, I think we're confounding two issues. One is, do we want each committee that is tasked under our committee charges making to make recommendations on these body appointments to operate under the same policy meaning they always have to do interviews to accept an SOI they always have to announce it so many days in advance and only, you know, deem a pool sufficient bias, after a certain time that it's been posted do we want uniform policies on how that happens in committee, or not. I think that's question number one and my understanding is the reason we're dealing with this is because the council wants the committees to do potentially interviews the same way, or at least always hold committee hold interviews say or always have selection statements of some sort and always adopt selection guidance of some sort. And so that's question number one but what I'm hearing from Sarah and Darcy which is what I can't agree with is that they want a policy that every counselor, when they are tasked with making a vote at the council to appoint and those tasks are individualized that the counselors that they want the council to say you have to follow this rule when you vote, and as a counselor, I can't agree to that because I was elected by the residents to make that decision on my own once the council, and I can, and this is where we get really disagree on all sorts of things, you're asking almost I feel like let's take it to a different issue. If we said well, everyone has to the whole council has to decide and take into X consideration when they vote on the budget. And if the budget meets X that it's balanced you have no decision to say nothing else because well we've said the guidance is you vote yes on the budget if the budget is balanced, you've taken away all my, what I was elected to do, and I can't agree to doing that on these appointments either. I have, I have a looser interpretation of guidance. When I go to put a tent together there, there are directions there's guidance about how it's supposed to be done. Generally, I don't follow it until I mess around and then I follow it, or not, because sometimes my messing around work so I don't feel like having guidance determines what I need to vote. So that's where I disagree with you Mandy. Having guidance is gives me a framework to think about things but my decision comes from a very different place. Or hopefully it comes out of my thinking that was a bad way of stating that but you know what I mean I think. I think we're hearing at least three of us say that we should take that language out. I'm sorry, yeah, in other words the changes that have been made so far should be removed. That's what I'm hearing. So, the distinction that that I thought might need to be made between a policy governing such appointments in general. Okay. I understand that that you would like that to be stricken. I'm just trying to be clear on what this I mean I think the idea of a preamble is important. I think that the preamble needs to be absolutely clear as clear as we can make it. So that was the spirit in which this was suggested but maybe this makes it. I see Sarah's hand up. So I can see the wisdom and making the statement saying that this is how the committees. I know about making recommendations to the council because I think that Mandy Joe is right in the sense that how committees go about selecting recommendations to the council and then the council's actual vote are two separate things. And in order to get this document done, I think I would be willing to say well right now, why don't we concentrate on how the committee, you know, maybe we keep this wording in and say for, for making things very clear so we don't have any muddied waters. Right now this particular document only addresses how committees make selection to make recommendations for appointment to the council. You know I'm okay with that because I think that it's true that I myself would like something for the council at least. I know what Mandy Joe was saying and I agree in the fact that we all do have to come from, however we feel we can't just say, you know, if you have one plus one, then hey to wins all the time because sometimes, you know, math doesn't work on for what we're doing. I guess what I'm thinking is what Pat said is a little bit. I think that that maybe just giving some general guidance to the to the council right so it's saying, you know if we decide there's no term limits right if we're we're deciding that I think there should be a separate document to town council for council to help right so you tell councils either this is what we think about term limits or don't even think about term limits. Right, I mean, there should be some just general things for counselors to consider and I think especially we've all gone through this a lot, but Council is going to change. And I think that for posterity and for helping other councils. I just think that maybe we should have a separate document that just helps even guide the thinking right of the council, or at least lays out the things that the committees have said, right, the term limits is a big one to me right if we decide there are no term limits, then I think that's something that counselors know that they need to take into consideration. It doesn't mean they have to do it but it's something that they need to take into consideration, because those are our rules. I don't know if that's useful or not. Mandy. That is extremely useful Sarah, to me, and I would be interested in working with you on trying to draft something like that. But for what we're doing today, if I understand Sarah's point and your agreement with her if I understand it is that this document is essentially to guide those committees that are making recommendations to the council. I'm going to focus here so that going forward, the chair and the members of of GOL or the chair members of CRC consult this document. Assuming it's approved and it gets voted to guide them and how they go about making recommendations for these particular multiple member bodies. It's not a document that is directed to the town council as a whole, and designed to tell counselors or guide counselors or where do you want to use how they should vote. That's, I think, so this is focused if I understand what you're saying, Sarah and Mandy this is focused on giving committees, these two particular committees. So it's addressed to those committees from the council. It's not a document addressed to the council as a whole. Does that make sense. That's how I understand this. I'm sorry. I would say yes but I would also say that with a caveat that I would be very interested in trying to I think that it has to come with the statement that we GOL will come up with. General guidance to the entire council for when these recommendations come to them. I, and again I'm willing to have it be, you know, definitely written from a hey these are, these are, you know, it's guidance, but I do think that we need to have both. Mandy. I am willing to move forward with that. If, if that is our decision we change the title to town council policy on committee for committees making recommendations for town council appoint. I'm just making something up right now. I just grabbed this in my name. Yeah. We could come back I mean the preamble again maybe something that will have to be fine. But I getting a sense and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the focus of our discussion today is on that idea of guidance to committees, who are making recommendations. And so I'm going to leave this language in but I agree with Darcy that we will come back and revisit it at the end. The following policies shall apply to all appointments multiple member bodies made by the town council again, we'll come back to that but that's a fairly simple statement. Vacancy. I'm going to read the entire paragraph. Please speak up if you have any concerns or changes. Vacancy or impending vacancy occurs on a multiple member body appointed by the town council, the chair of the council committee responsible for recommending appointments to the council for that body show right and submit to the clerk of the town council for publication on the town vacancy notice in accordance with charter section 9.12 a vacancy occurs whenever the town clerk receives a signed resignation from a member of the body. A member passes away, or a members removed from the body in accordance with charter section 2.90 or section 9.14 in appending vacancy occurs when whenever member escape and impending vacancy occurs whenever a member of the body passes away, or a member of the town council of their intention to resign, or a member's term is expiring, regardless of whether that member seeks reappointment. I think this is clear I think it's fine, but anyone concerns questions changes made one change here that's it. I just had one question on the highlight of the chair of the council committee, the way it's written. There isn't sort of. I know George you consulted GL before you posted the vacancy notice, based on this language as chair of CRC I did not I just posted a vacancy notice on the board. So is this something that we want the chair to handle with consultation or without consultation from the committee, making the recommendations. You could insert upon consultation upon consultation with the committee shall write. I, I have strong feeling one way or the other, but you could make that change. I also don't have it. It's just a question I brought up for what I understand. Right. Exactly. Do people want to make that change that feel strongly about it. In other words, assuming a chair. I'm sorry. Please pick up. We could make that change or could say the chair of the council committee or their designee, which that's a separate issue but why don't we put both of them in. The chair of the council committee or their debt or their designee responsible for recommending appointments to the council body. I think the need would be after body. Okay. Or there does it go there. Yeah. I mean, it could be after you know, you write it after consultation with the committee it's just after consulting with the committee shall submit. Consulting with the committee. Right. Yeah. Can we get rid of right and and just say shall submit to the plan. Yeah. So it sounds like we would like to make it the practice that the chair wherever he or she may be consults with the committee. Before they post the vacancy notice. Any other changes to this section. I don't know if we can get back through this at the end, maybe not today, but. And give you all a chance to look at it. In the light of day, instead of in the heat of the moment. Yeah, I would just make the comment that. You know, I have an interest in getting this back to the council fairly quickly, but if it ends up that we don't do that. I have a whole lot more comments that I would make if we were if it were a slow process because there's, you know, I, those of you who used to be on OCA know that I objected to a lot of this. Any of the CF in particular the CF section, or are you also thinking of the vacancy sector, because I think maybe, excuse me, Darcy, if you have serious concerns or reservations about any of these sections you should speak up for better or worse, I think you should. This is going to take as long as it takes, I cannot, and I will not rush this, just because you or anyone else wants it done tomorrow, I will push it as fast as I can. But it is a, as you can see, this is not an easy thing to do. And hopefully we'll get it done sooner rather than later. But I would personally urge you, if you have an objection to section one vacancy that you feel strongly about you should speak up. Is there something in section one about vacancy that you feel we should discuss or that you would like us to come back and talk. Yeah, what good, what is that. Yeah, I just, you know, I, I, the last sentence, the whole whole concept of an impending vacancy. Is, you know, that goes that goes to the whole issue of, of, you know, whether how, how existing member reappointment should be handled. So that can, can you clarify that more, because I'm not seeing a problem with it and I'd like to understand what you're thinking is. Um, I think that I personally would not like to treat reappointments as vacancies. So that, you know, that I, we've, you know, like it's majority that, you know, the super majority or whatever the council doesn't agree with that, then I don't want to waste a whole lot of time on it, but I'm just saying that. It's important to note it. I think it is valuable Darcy that you at least note your objection for the record. Yeah, even if it's the only right. And so your objection or concern is that you would not like. Again, if you just rephrase it for me again, just so I get it right. You would not like to treat reappointments as vacancies. Sarah has. Please. Yes. Thank you, sir. I agree with Darcy and the fact that, that this brings up a lot of other issues because if we say that a read appointment is not looked at as a vacancy, then that means somebody could serve 20 years. So we haven't talked about unless you put something in about, you know, term limits. I just want to be really clear unless term limits also are stated here. This means that any reappointment, at least the way I read it, literally, is that if someone could stay in for 100 years, unless there's something said about at what point we don't consider, you know, when someone's term is up, I mean if. So I don't know how we would. I understand Darcy saying that she doesn't want to see it that way but I, again, do we want people to be in for until the day they fall dead. I mean, that's where I guess I would look for clarification. Don't we treat it this later in the document I think we're getting right this is treated later in the document we'll discuss that when we get there. I think there is, I think a consensus about reappointments about a preference for six years of preference. We'll discuss this later in the document here we're just trying to distinguish. Again, there seems to be some disagreement about vacancy versus impending vacancy. I just wonder and I don't know if Joe has thoughts on this I'm just wondering if we're really looking at it from reading things in a. Maybe not so maybe not maybe we all agree that that doesn't matter because later we talk about term limits but when I don't see anything about that and vacancy, but I could be wrong. That's just something I'm wondering. Here's my thoughts. We have to deal with what an impending vacancy is because under section 9.12 which these multiple member body appointments are subject to 9.12 he says vacancies whenever a vacancy occurs or is a bout to occur on a multiple basis, the appointing authority shall immediately cause public notice of the vacancy or impending vacancy to be published on the town bulletin board so we have to figure out what about to occur and impending vacancy means. And the only other thing I would state which is also something I stated to the town manager when he was not even posting these as openings. And the only other thing I wanted to point out about the appointment was, well, if it's not an impending vacancy or vacancy. Why are we acting the fact that we actually have to act to appoint someone to that position, even if it is someone who is technically a vacancy at some point because if we don't act. There's an opening their their term ends June 30 whatever year and without any action. That's a vacancy there's no automatic renewal or anything anywhere and so I see this first one as defining what impending vacancy means. I'm taking a position one way or the other on on reappointments term limits or anything else I have to agree I don't see. But again Darcy, I understand Darcy does not agree with me but I don't see how this is taking a position one way or the other on that. It's simply distinguishing two categories and doesn't say yeah or nay about whether you get to stay on forever or whatever that's seems to be totally different so. I think concerns noted and will be in the notes in the report. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm daydreaming the other path. Bad daydream. I am not uncomfortable with it being stated the way it is here. But I am uncomfortable with giving reappointment and making reappointments automatic. And I say that for a couple of reasons. One of them is sometimes a new candidate has experience that is would bring something vital to the committee, and a person who has the term is expiring or they're seeking reappointment has been doing really good work but this other person bring something that I want to be able to choose. The other piece for me is. We're white, most of it, not all, but the majority of our committees continued to be white, and a person's color is not a reason specifically for me to vote for them and in fact it can be a kind of reverse racism like Josephine because she's Asian or whatever. It seems to me that it becomes critical though, that if a person of color has applied for a position on a committee, and they're, they're possibly new to government. But they're, but they're bringing an incredible work experience or educational experience to the committee or potentially bringing that that's a good vote. And it's a good vote because they may be a really outstanding candidate and also we're beginning to look and say okay we need more diversity. So you should trump anything else using that word but anyway that's kind of what I'm putzing in my brain with. All right. We're happy with the language of one, at least for the moment, and Darcy's concerns been noted. Sarah would you say you share that should I say that two members are uncomfortable with treating reappointments. As vacancies. I'm okay with the language. I'm okay with the language as it is. Okay. All right. Section to community activity form individuals interested in serving on a multiple member body appointed by the town council shall fill out a CAF to express their interest in service. They have been kept on file for three years. If an individual including a current member of the body submitted to see if within the past three years. They do not need to submit a new CAF. If an individual address or contact information has changed since they submitted to see if they should contact the town council to update their CAF. CAFs for multiple member bodies appointed by the town council are separate from the CAFs for the town manager appointed multiple member bodies and are automatically electronically distributed to all counselors. The chairs of the recommended committees or their designee shall reach out to each applicant upon receipt of their CAF to confirm receipt of their CAF and maybe just to confirm receipt. And take out that you care. That's all right. Yeah, yeah, I got it. I'm thinking just taking it out. Yeah, just to get just a little bit less and inform them of the current status of appointments to that body. Okay, CAFs are personnel records not public documents and therefore cannot be shared distributed by counselors. Okay, again, I would note that one member objects to the treatment of CAFs as personal records. Now there are two of us. Two people are good to members. Okay. Yeah, I'm, I, I also don't like the, the fact that the CAFs are only distributed to the new CAFs are the only thing that counselors receive. They don't see the pool anymore. They used to see the whole pool and now they don't see the pool anymore. So, yeah, that's another objection. I asked the question about that. Yeah, please go ahead. Yeah, because we determined the pool as, you know, in terms of the whole council, once you're on the council you get anything submitted from the time you were on the council to the time you leave the council but the entire pool. Later in this document is deemed those who submit statements of interest, and the council sees all of the statements of interest, and all of the CAFs, even though they're not public documents even if that CAF was submitted to the council or became a counselor during the count, you know, for the council meeting where the council votes that so I don't quite understand your comment of the council doesn't see the whole pool because the council does see the whole pool as we've defined pool in this document. So the question of timing, for example, none of us have seen anything about the applicants for finance committee right now, whereas in the past, we would have received their CAFs. Now, we haven't gotten to the period of time when they'd have an SOI, and don't get their CAFs because they are, they, they submitted them formally. We could search our emails to try to find everyone whoever applied for the finance committee, but we wouldn't know which ones of them have accepted because we don't have that information yet. So, anyway, what I'm saying is it's much less transparent to counselors now than it was. And, yes, we will get them two weeks before the, you know, interviews, but we would, we would have them a month or six weeks before in the past. Why would this be somehow a desired state? Is that because you want to say, oh my goodness, I don't like this pool, I'm going to go out and find some other people is that is that what's what's going on here. Well, that, that could be, yeah, could be for anybody on the council if if we're and so you right and two weeks, two weeks in advance is not enough. The more transparency to counselors and to the public. I feel like is better. So anyway, those two things you can just note my objection. Second one again if you could restate it please. So, I understand you object to treating of CFs as personal as personal records, and the second is you object to that. We use CAS and CO as how I as instead of CAS because the CAS came more quickly and directly to, you know, they had the information on them, and they came directly to us. And now, now we get the CAS but they don't have any information on them. So anyway, yeah. I don't understand me at some point because I don't know that I can write that in a sense that I can understand so I'm not I don't push you now but if you could at some point maybe communicate to me. Exactly what it is that it that you in this paragraph that you object to because it doesn't say anything about that at all. You object to something larger, which is that if I understand you and I'm still struggling. At any given moment. Who all has a, you know, I mean three years of time right who who all over the last three years has expressed any interest in serving on income. And, and you want to know that what every every other month you want to be informed I just don't. At what point, do you want to know, because those people, most of them will not even respond to us. No, I just the applicant should should use should submit new CAFs instead of SOIs but that's okay. All right, well that that's that's. We could I mean what we could say that you know everyone should submit a new CAF. I mean it doesn't take long. It doesn't you know and so we could that's something we could consider is is in that way. Everyone would be alerted. I understand your concern is it's kind of like these, you know, trust me, going back over three years to find these is not a lot of fun but it's even harder for planning and zoning but. So one possible suggestion is that we could require that if someone wants to be considered, they submit another CAF. That is that onerous to people ejected that I mean I'm not saying we're going to do it today we're going to decide today but that's something we're thinking about. Any thoughts on that. Interesting idea that you know that every time a notice of vacancy goes up. If interested or still interested you must submit a CAF and then I guess you'd only count those CAF submitted from the start of the first vacancy notice. Even if one was submitted two weeks before that would we have to go back to that person and say oh you're not quite counted yet. You know I, I, it's, it's an interesting thought I think I'd have to give it more consideration but I'm not necessarily totally against it and part of that is my reaction is chair of CRC where I'm going back three years and never getting responses and the pool just keeps getting larger. The quote pool gets larger and larger but the actual pool is quite small. Is it really asking that much if someone is seriously you know interested just to take five minutes or 10 minutes at the mouth less than that, and just communicate to us by filling out the CAF that they would like to be considered for the current vacancy. I really don't see the CAF as very valuable. I mean it does have demographic information on it, which we could ask for in the SOI I've never. I also keep them so everybody who sent one in about planning or zoning is in my file on planning and see you know, but I don't, I must admit I do not go back over to see if somebody's missing that I want to contact. I think I like the idea of people whether they file the CAF before or, or are filing it for the first time that they're doing they're putting out some energy that, you know, I think that I don't know that energy can simply be put out because they get contacted by a chair of a council and are you still interested in because we have an opening so and then I would say, and if you are please fill out a new CAF. And that, you know, now what I say is just get back to which is also fine, but it does address Darcy's point which I think is legitimate one that when you're dealing with CFs over three years. And also just don't keep, you know, less than even right. So this would alert every council member. When the committee's getting ready to begin the process of making recommendation, who is interested in who isn't the CF really you're right pad it doesn't contain a whole lot of useful information though it does contain some. It's mostly a way of people expressing their interest, and also alerting counselors as to who's appoint who's applying. And I think that's Berkley legitimate. So maybe we need to think about changing that slightly and saying look if you are interested. Please submit a new CAF. I'm not going to get back to it but I think it's interesting thought and that would I think address Darcy's concern. And also, as you just said, you know, basically says the person well if you really want to be, you know, take five minutes and just send us a CAF. Sarah. One thing that I know something to consider is that when people, I don't know this when people fill out a CAF now do they get like a copy of what they filled out. What I'm thinking is is that if they had a copy of, you know, like a receipt of it right like you just filled this out and they get kicked back. So what I'm thinking is is that then it like makes it even easier because if you have a copy but you did, you could literally copy and paste if if like in the worst case scenario that you know in two weeks like you have to do one for something if you if the town automatically gave you receipt or whatever of the CAF, it's a copy and paste that would make it even easier. Do you, the CAF have no substantive information in the many more though that's, well they have demographic information demographic information, which is important information. So then alert the chair of the individual committee, which is what I do and I assume that Mandy does as well. And you, I immediately respond, give a personal note saying thank you, and letting them know what the status is so it serves a multiple purposes you're right it's not, it's not a substitute for an SOI, but it does do some very important things to not the least of which is just it brings them in contact with town guard with with council. What the town does is a whole nother question right because given so many committees and so on, it may just be beyond human capacity, but what we do right now as chairs of these two committees is I respond, and I assume Mandy responds to every single CAF, letting the person know we've got it, and telling them where things stand. Yeah, I to answer Sarah's question I just looked up our council CAF, and it does have a checkbox to say email me this form, you can uncheck that so it would be up to the individual to get a copy of that or not. Can I just ask one more. And this is probably we're all going to be thinking about these things is that people who fill one out and say they're interested in all committees or three committees. So we have to make it clear that you can fill it out for these three committees, but you still need to look for when a vacancy is because we will only be considering new CAFs for those committees. I think we'd have to completely change the advertisement process if we went that. Yeah, and the and the form itself with maybe. I don't know but we definitely have to completely change. Yeah, the positions, which could be good because it could help it as far as like keeping people interested and also making it way easier for chairs. So, something to think about. We're going to give a time check is 1202. Yeah, I'm willing to take this to 1215 but at that point we really do have to stop because we do have to a citation and a, what do I have a citation and a proclamation. We need to review. And I'd like to get a set of two sets of minutes that I've looked at I'd like to get them approved. And I would give at the max 15 minutes to that. So we can begin section three. Unless the committee, I really, I don't have a hard stop, but this has been a long week and we have later meeting tonight. I'm really not eager to go on a well and pass the 1230 mark, but we could go a little longer. But right now I'm thinking of stopping at about 1215. Yeah, I have a hard stop at 1230. Okay. Yeah, I do too. Okay, so let's try to let's start with section three. So the concerns have been noted, I will make sure they get into the report. I think again, I would suggest what we're doing produces good fruit. If this isn't easy, but this is an interesting suggestion Darcy based on your concern. And we'll see where it leads but so I think it's worth this, even though it is time consuming. The efficiency of the applicant pool. After the notice of vacancy or impending vacancy has been published for not less than 14 days on the town bulletin board pursuant to Charter section 912 e recommending committee may assess the sufficiency of the applicant pool, recommending committee chair. Again music or their designee shall collect all CAFs. I just keep putting it in here. I, you know, I long for the day when I can just turn to Pat and say, you're my designee majority has these, you just heard her right she just said she has all these files with all these things in it. I could just turn to her and say, but it'll never happen as we know. So anyway, do you want to accept. I know she'll just tell me to go to hell. Put it in there. But it doesn't have to be the vice chair can be anyone but I'm not like, go ahead and put it in there. The under the lined out CRC and GL should actually be deleted instead of just yeah. Yeah, let's do some next sentence. Sorry. Residents who submitted a CAF and the proceeding shall be contested. I didn't just held it. Sorry. That was me. Before I send it off to George. Good girl. Is me something to do. Yep. Making you happy on these things Pat. All residents who submitted a CAF and the proceeding three years shall be contacted prior to determining such as the afternoon pool to confirm continued interest. And what we're imagining is we might even say and required to submit a new CAF but they're not there yet. The applicant pool shall be all residents who submitted CAFs within three years. And who confirmed continued interest. Yeah, they or their designee needs to move down to the next line. All right. Thank you. Oh, right. No, nothing. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. You should delete the order designee above. Here at one. Yeah. That's a mistake. Thank you. I'm getting punchy. Okay. So now do we discuss whether we want new CAFs every time? Well, we could certainly put that language in here and then come back to it. What are people's thoughts on that? Interesting thought. We're not going to sell this obviously today, but it would, it would sort of make a marker for us to think some more about it. And the sort of changes that would be required. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just wondering, George, could we maybe have signed one person or two people or three people to kind of. I know we're all so busy right now, but just to like give a cursory idea of how things would change. If we decide we want to do this. That would be helpful. Just brainstorming like. How the process works, how the forms work and how we, because we would have to overhaul it. So if we want to do that, maybe just informal. I don't know what it would be. I don't know what it would be. I don't know what it would be. I don't know what it would be or pastry or. I don't know what and just try to look at how it would formally have to be done. I would be willing to do it. Would it be a consultation with Athena? Wouldn't you just be having a conversation with Athena? Yeah. And, and, and could be the chair plus whatever. I mean, Why not the chair and Sarah. Reach out to her to do it. Right. Okay. I think that would be helpful. If we're interested in doing this, I think we should, I think it would make it. It wouldn't, it would be a fairly sizable overhaul. So it would be worth just meeting with Athena and trying to just brainstorm how it structurally would have to change. It might not even be. We could complicated. It might just be going through step by step and. I think I would be interested in knowing if, if we're pursuing this method. Yeah. We could try and do that. We don't think we'd change the staff or anything. Because we could figure that out. But what, what we would want out of it, would it still be that. You know, like in here, someone who submitted a calf within three years still needs contacted to say, do that. Cause that doesn't change any work for. That's correct. Right. You know, and so what, if we went ahead and said, you know, and maybe it's not three years maybe it's the start of the fiscal year the start of the you know the council term or yeah and what what would the proposal be and what would the changes in the policy that we have right now have to look like maybe but but what what is a formal proposal of is it just from the date that the bulletin board notices written is there any contacting of priors, you know prior applicants and all of that. And how would like people who check off multiple boxes could you do that. We no longer do that. Yeah, maybe we need forms for each committee. Well, I'm not sure. I've had this situation in this most recent round where someone listed every single committee. And so I felt, I just reached out to them. I mean they listed planning boards on board and Fenton. I think what Sarah is saying is, you know, planning board CAF. Actually I think ZBAs is the one that went out earlier, you know, was adverse the bulletin board notice went out. April 2, maybe. Fincom just went out May 19. Would we consider those that submitted a ZBA calf on April 3, but also checked Fincom as close enough to the Fincom date. I think that's where she's getting at. Yeah, like many Joe saying, you couldn't. If you're saying that they have to put one in for every single round. I don't know how you would expect someone who checked off three different committees, and then they're all you know maybe two to four weeks apart. Perhaps the town actually sends them something saying, Bing, we now have a vacancy you need to do another CAF I don't think we can expect people to be that on top I couldn't need that on. And it's more concerning with ZBA and and planning board because those put vacancy notices went out a week apart. You know, and so what do you do with the ones in the week. Since the process is happening near simultaneously. So I think through and coming back with a proposal on that. And I think there's something that we can, we should be wasting a famous time on this one for us to figure out. And so, I don't know if we want to, I'm not sure that I have any brilliant ideas on this. But I just think it bears thought because it may not be that confusing but it is enough to where where you know we might even talk to Athena a little bit because they do. I don't know. I just think we have to be really clear about dates and and that the, you know, the multiple committee they might not work anymore that's all. Okay. You know my first initial thought is most of our appointments happen unless there's an odd out vacancy, April to for June 30 right. Maybe instead of three years, maybe we go back to January one of the current year, something like that. I'd like that, you know, and that would also ensure from Darcy's concern that the counselors always have every calf because pretty much you're getting sworn in January 2nd, 3rd or 4 something like that. I wouldn't ever necessarily go back to a different counsel's term. What I like about going back two or three years is that it reaches out to people who at one point had expressed an interest and then for you know they were turned down, or whatever. And, you know, this would put an end to that basically except for, you know, so isn't there a value in terms just outreach. And then going back two or three years just to say, even though it doesn't produce very many candidates, at least, you know, it says to them, we're thinking of you. And if you're still interested, just fill out CAF for this body. I guess. I think the question is for Darcy is that we shouldn't be having to go back and collect everything so if we're considering part of the pool every single person who had put out a CAF, then that it should be the chair's responsibility as soon as we know that there's a vacancy that all of those CAFs, even from three years ago, be. Right. You know, they'll have to be confirmed obviously, but then it would then become, you know, this is the chair's job anyway, to gather them all together that within a certain amount of time like 12 hours, they're all sent out to their distributed to the rest of the committee. And that's what I'm just thinking. But they'd be distributed if they responded. In other words, they got. So somebody two or three years ago gets my email saying, you know, there's a vacancy. And if you want to be considered, send us a CAF. If Darcy thinks that okay, or if she, I think I, and I'm not so Darcy, for you, does it, does the whole pool mean every single person that's applied in the CAFs for every single person who's applied in the last three years, whether or not they respond like we you want an initial pool of every single person, because that's what the pool really is. Before George starts knocking off people because he said they didn't reply. I would, I would, you know, like here it says, you know, yes, will automatically be sent to all counselors, you know, on initial application so, so that is the optimum. It's just that we don't get, you know, we don't get the CAFs. If they aren't a new application but I yes I totally understand your question Sarah. The question is what do so the problem is is that we do get all of them, right we do get pretty much everybody within our term. We have to keep them in folders what I'm asking you is is it more clear for you if, when this comes up that George actually, or whoever it is actually collects everybody from the past three years, and initially puts them out to everyone so that you can see everyone altogether, even before he stopped he starts saying calling people and they, you know, somebody might say George Smith might not reply. I think what you're saying is is you want to know that George Smith applied and Mary flower, and you want everybody, even if you don't respond, you want it in one package no. The optimum, I do remember that when we were, some of us were on OCA, we did get a spreadsheet that was everybody who had applied and what, what was the result of the contact with them. And so, so we had an idea, but we didn't have their CAFs. Thank you that with Pete planning board and ZVA and any appointments at CRC there's a spreadsheet distributed that's not a public document before the meeting to determine sufficiency of the pool that indicates all of that. Right, so I think that maybe that should be a uniform process so that that counselors get everything from the last three years together with the spreadsheet. And then I think that one of the things with OCA that came up is that it should actually be the chair, and that's what we're doing now but maybe we should make it clear, the chair is absolutely the one that that contacts people. But it's just more of a tight package, I guess I think is what Darcy saying she wants a spreadsheet she wants to see everybody and their CAF from the last three years just easy enough to do because the chair would have to see them. Actually, so, so let me let me go a little farther I actually as chair don't have all the CAFs right now. Even though I have a list of names because I got that list of names from the prior chair of OCA who did the planning board and ZVA and now I keep a running total and I knock off the three years older. I think that those that are older than two years never respond to anything so there's no need for me to go out and ask Angela or someone and hunt that CAF from before we were on the council because I'm not going to need it because they will never be part of the applicant pool that in the current policy needs that we have distributed to the counselors. And so that would actually be a lot more work for someone that is not the chair. Now going forward as we transition councils. I'm hoping to eventually be able to put them into like a SharePoint folder that could then be updated regularly and uploaded like that but you can't guarantee every chair will do that. You know what I'm saying. I don't know so so I, I, like I said, I don't actually have all the CAFs to distribute I have a spreadsheet that gets updated regularly at this point. I'm just thinking if we made that policy and then you know if somebody was a chair near the technical support they could get it. I'm just thinking it would streamline the whole thing in general. I think it would be a lot more work in the beginning but I think if we learned how to do it, then as councils are turning over. If that's something you have to do, then obviously somebody would help you out and then we would start having the CAFs. So we might be able to add that into the community activity form section of this but I also do want to do a time check. Yeah, I think we're going to have to stop. Yeah. We've reached the point where we have to stop. I just want to say, I'm sitting here thinking, I don't know whether I care. And so I'm trying to understand who a three year span of people who are going to all be contacted. And I'm going to get every one of those CAFs and whether they're interested or not, and, and do what with them. You know, I don't, I think this is going too far. Yeah, that's just where I am. Now I have to agree with that you should get the CAFs to people who are actually interested. And I much prefer everybody having to read every time you apply, and also maybe only being able to apply for one. So if you want to do ZBA finance and something else you do two of them or three of them, I don't know. But I don't see some of it. None of you have yet explained to me what's important about knowing who applied three years ago. And just because they, I don't know. So just so one of the times that Oka first started doing this. We found out that when it was someone else besides the committee who contacted people and it was such a big job this could even happen to a chair that someone who would actually filled out a form was not contacted, and only caught the fact that they weren't contacted and they weren't considered until we were actually choosing people. So I was there was no. There's confusion about with a confusion. It was just a confusion. It wasn't that it wasn't anything malicious and that what I'm saying is that it can happen. But I think what that led to was just wanting to be able to see everyone because mistakes could be made and I don't have any feeling about that one way or the other. That's just the only example that comes to mind for me is that someone actually because there was a gazillion people is the first time we did it. It was an honest accident. So, but that's, I think that's one of the reasons. All right. We're going to have 1220. Yeah, we're going to come back to this. I'm going to have to put this away. I'm going to put up. We have two documents. Let's see if we can get through them. First is a citation. I'm going to put that up first. This sponsor here is is Lynn Grissimer. I've gone through it once. So I think I've taken fairly, let me just make it bigger. So zoom 200. So, so the citation recognition and mirror city charity upon receipt of the gold award girl gold award girl scout. Apparently is the term counselor sponsors Lynn Grissimer the community sponsors growth scouts of Central and Western Mass. I've gone through this line by line. Initially time anyone have any concerns anyone look at this other than yours truly and see anything that needs to be changed. I think it's fairly it's well written it's clear. I like us doing these sorts of things. I'm nice to recognize the achievements and members of our community. But that's a whole other issue. I just had some minor changes, as you can see that was it title is fine format is fine. I guess I would just say that, that if we are spending our time on proclamations with regard to individuals, we just have to accept that we need to do it for every single individual that comes to us. This is citation, first of all, not a proclamation. And citations are in fact in recognition of the achievements of individuals in our community. I think that's an important thing for us to do. We don't get that many. They're very rare actually. I'm thinking of making one of my own. But I do think they're important, and they do come to us. So I'm just saying that we, if we do one, we have to do all that come to us. We would vote on their clarity consistency and action ability and the council would vote on whether to adopt them or not. That's the council. Right. As we saw with the course center. Some counselors did not think it was relevant. And so they made that decision as individual counselors. But your points taken. Our experience has been we rarely see these. I'll make a motion to declare the citation and recognition recognition of Mira said he charity upon receipt of the gold award girl scout, clear, consistent and actionable as amended. Second. Oh, go ahead, George. I don't care. That's all right. So it's been made and seconded I see Darcy, please. Oh, no. Okay. I'm sure your hand, your hand is up. That's okay. All right. So I'm going to go to a vote and start with Darcy. Yes. Hi, Sarah. Mandy. Hi, the chairs and I, the voters unanimous to declare the citation to be clear, consistent, actionable. I will send it on to Athena and to Lynn, and I assume Lynn will say something briefly at the. Better be brief. I guess I just have a, I understand, I mean, our meetings are crazy, but I think it's really important that we do this. It's kind of one of the few moments when, you know, No, I agree. I agree. I'm just being snotty. I know. So again, moving quickly. So bye bye citation. This is the, excuse me, I'll find it quickly. This is the LGBTQ proclamation. And I'm going to share the screen. Why is this term so slow. Okay. You. So 200. So I inserted, you can see I did read this is obviously done this before. There are two changes made. First is the council sponsor, councilor sponsors are pat the angeles and Evan Ross. Is pat get a space between her D and angeles. That's a question. Well, it's, I prefer the space. Yes. But it's been a vote on that. So pat D. Angeles and Evan Ross. I think it's important change made in now therefore now therefore we, the town, by the way, we keep referring to ourselves differently, but I'm not going to worry about that today. And sometimes we're the town council of the town of Amherst, sometimes we're the town council. All right, do hereby proclaim June 2021 is LGBTQ pride month encourage all residents to celebrate our proud and diverse LGBTQ community and recognize this proclamation by raising the pride flag. On the UN flag. So, the one that suggested this change I think your strike through would actually need to be a delete George on. I just wanted people to see the word hoist. And hoist to the council counselor brewer yells at us for still using the word hoist and wants us to use raise. And so I'm wondering if now's the time to change it to raise and then she also has indicated sometimes it's nice to know which flagpole we want the flag on. I want to go back in that now therefore because I actually think it should say the Amherst town council, not the town council of the town of Amherst. Thank you. Thank you. I like that. And since I'm a sponsor do it. So we the Amherst town council of the town. Right. We the Amherst town council. And again punctuation. The least the comma after town. Oh, no wait. Yeah, I think. Therefore, we the Amherst council do hereby. I don't think we need those two commas. Now we don't, we don't, we don't. Okay. Who says we don't get things done here. So we the Amherst town council do hereby proclaim. Excellent. And I someday someone will explain what is the problem with the word hoist. It sounds like you're grabbing your crotch George. Fixing your penis. I don't know. All right, please. Okay. Any other thoughts. Emily, don't put that in the minutes. George, can you just actually highlight hoisting and delete it because the strike. Thank you. So by raising the part flag on you and flagpole from side. Okay, good. Oh, go back down. We never spell out 24th. We just write it in numbers on the voted this voted this. 24th day. That's getting too like coity toity there was spelling it out. I voted this 24th day of May, 2021. Three to come after May. I don't think. I'm losing it. Any other changes concerns. Is Lynn's name spelled correctly. Yeah. Okay. You need to add it to his dictionary. Yeah. I have a dictionary. I know I know I'm so out of it technologically speaking. I'll make the motion to declare the LGBT, well, LGBTQ pride month proclamation clear consistent and actionable as amended. Thank you. Thank you. Pat. So I'm going to move immediately to a vote. Sarah. I, I, I. All right. Darcy. Yes. Okay, Mandy. I, but I think Sarah voted too many times. We'll let the minute take a figure that out. Pat. I only if there's a new dance video. Okay. I haven't to work on that. Chair is a yes. So the vote is five zero unanimous. Thank you all. And so that is done. Can I make a motion that we accept the minutes for the. Two times. Yes, as I did make two, a couple of minor changes. If you're willing to accept me my changes. So, um, What are the dates? April 21 and May five. Thank you. The minutes of April 21 and May five as amended. By the chair. Emotion has been made. Second. Seconded by. Okay. By Mandy. Again, I'm going to make me to vote Darcy. Yes. I'm Andy. Hi, Sarah. Hi. Hi. The chair is a yes. So that is five zero. The minutes are approved. Maybe we should all proclamations and resolutions to the end of meetings. We might do them quicker. Yeah, I was just. I want to start out with something I think I can manage. I hear you. Maybe. Have them at the end. Very motivated to get them done. Okay. Well, I don't know. Anyway. Next meeting. We did get. Two referrals from the council. One has to do with a resolution supporting a. Bill before the house and Senate. And the other is a committee. Charge. And that we will need to review. And I, we have until June 21. Okay. So my intention is to act on that. Actually, I could use some advice here, but my intention at the moment is to act on that in two weeks time. So those two. Would come to us. That would mean inviting. And again, I could use some advice. Who should be invited. To participate in this. So we have this is. I think I'm going to move on to the next slide. And I would like to take a look at the commission. The commission heritage reparations advisory. Or commission, I think I would start with Michelle Miller. The one that. Came to me her and Matthew are the ones that came to me about that charge that I helped get it in the form. It currently is. So maybe approaching Michelle and asking her to be present. And if she wished one other member to be present. I don't really want a. Participants, the sponsors should be one or two at the most. I would think. Yeah. So that would be Michelle and Matthew. Okay. Well, I will. So I will invite them. And if they have someone else, I mean, I would. Okay. And we would deal with those two. And we are continuing to work on this process that we've been working on today for over an hour. Anything else that. Yes. I would like, I am meeting this Friday with three sixth graders who are writing. A resolution. About some. Senate legislation on climate. Issues and animal management. They wrote a letter to the bulletin, which was accepted. And we're going to expand it to a resolution. And I would, I meet with them Friday. I'm hoping to be able to bring it to our next meeting. Okay. So there may be three. Items related to our charge. Plus this document that we're working on. We will be hopefully. Declaring will have to deal some business with income and with DAB. So again, we've got, we'll have a very full agenda. We will need to. I'll have to sit down and think, but we will have to get both Fincom and DAB moved along as well. So we've agreed to postpone the DAB process for two weeks. I will notify everyone who has submitted an application that they're going to hear from me now two weeks from today, not today in terms of the actual process. And Fincom, we will be able to declare on June 2nd. We should be able to clear the pool sufficient. And then get kicked into gear. But that's just a formality that should not take as long. So we should have good time available to, to continue with this process that we're working on, but we will have three, it looks like we'll have three documents to do it. Now we could put off these two Michelle and Matthew to the meeting after that. But I, we have until June 21. So I don't know if anyone has any thought on that. So we meet. We meet 16th as well. Can we adjourn because I have to go. Okay. Nobody's. So right now we're going to invite them to the June 2nd meeting. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Your hard work and patience. And thank you as always, Emily. Thank you. And. See you all. Some of you tonight. Yep.