 To have a legal review because I think you don't need that anymore. Okay. Let's put that under other business terms, terms of office. Legal review. I mean, yes, good. And this opening of the meeting I'm opening the annual meeting as well as whatever other business comes before the board. And welcome all the public that's here. Thank you. Okay. If no other additions to the agenda, it'll be approved by unanimous consent. Public comments. Steven or others. Even has public comments. Steve, hold on. Can everybody hear Steve. Okay. I can't. Nobody can. Kim said he could or couldn't or could. Could not. Could not. I mean, everybody needs to try. Let's try. Speaker's up again. Did you hear me now? Yeah. Yes. Okay. This is, I hope folks read what I said this morning. As background, but I'm concerned that we're. Moving. One, we don't have it. An audit. We don't have it. This, the charter requires a public hearing before the annual meeting. We haven't done that. There's an annual audit required. And I verified today that the city audit. The audit that's managed for the city. Does not audit CVPSA. So it doesn't count. As a unified audit. And then I'm concerned that this. It's not going to work. It's not going to work. It's not going to work until a few minutes ago. And it again presumes. Televate is the automatically shoe in for the next phase of the work. And it assumes the core group. Is going to operate without. The. Imprimatur. Of this board being granted and or clarification on open meeting law. Applying to that. So. I'm pointing out that this body cannot. Be able to delegate them to another body. That are not members of this group. So. I'm just raising process issues that are. Seem to be recurring. So I would ask you to read what I said earlier in the day. And then take action accordingly. Thanks. Okay. And. Thank you for those comments. And I want to make sure people realize I am going to try to make sure that. People try to be brief. We went way over last time. And I know there's a lot to say, but if we could try to stick with that intentional, you know, two minutes. When we're speaking. Two, three. On a topic within the board and then not speak again until everyone gets a chance to speak. That would be really important. And that would be helpful. So the next thing on the agenda is to approve the minutes. September 9th minutes. Entertain a motion to approve. December. December nine minutes. I'll move approval. Second. Second. Okay. Comments. All in favor, raise your hand or say yes. Any opposition. Okay. Passes. Thank you. I would like to announce before we go further for everyone listening that Paul Sharon from the very appointed. Board member has resigned. Effective now. And so our board is a member of eight. And hence a form is still five. So we're going to move that out. With, I hope with the 30,000. That was the motion that was made last meeting with Doug. And I just put that 30,000 under consultant. Actually put a little extra because with the, with the actual budget, you're supposed to have a zero balance. So we had talked about 30,000 there. You would have had $3,000 balance. I would have had $3,000 balance. I would have had $3,000 balance. Want me to go line item by line item on the FY 23 budget. I certainly can. The only thing changed is the consultant line. Intercept time. I would move approval. Okay. And that's okay. Second. Is the budget approval. Yeah. I'm just wondering if we're going to discuss it a little more. Well, if we had a motion, then we would discuss it. Yeah. I guess I'm very much not familiar with the procedural quirks. And. Generally speaking, you don't always do it, but you get a motion on the floor and then you discuss it. If a motion doesn't have enough strength to get a certain then why discuss it? But we do plenty of discussion without a motion. So it can happen either way. Since Doug put a motion on the floor. Cause I asked for it. Then. If you just do a second and then we can. If you don't want to do it. My reason for doing it was to generate the discussion. Nobody wants to talk about it. It's okay with me. I would like to talk about it. I will second. Okay. Doug made the motion. Justin second. A discussion. Justin. What would you like to say? So I guess I'm. I just have like a real high level question today. Having let having read everything that was sent by the city managers. And then having really read all the correspondence. I've read everything. I feel like I can for this. It seems like. Like we, what's, what's the goal here? Like, cause it's not. So it seems like the twin cities are going on their own for getting the consoles. Like that seemed to be pretty clear from the city managers, right? That they're going to go. We knew that before. Yes. Yep. And so they. So is our goal. Our goal here. Is to. I mean, ultimately. Is it to get the funding? To create the infrastructure? Or is our goal ultimately to govern? Like, is the CV PSA supposed to govern? I guess like, I don't. I don't really see the role of the committee. As this thing moves forward. And that, that will inform, I think, like what we do with the budget. Like, do we see ourselves doing all the legwork to get this infrastructure in place? If the answer is no, then I don't think we need any money. If the answer is yes, then we need a lot of money. Yes. One of the steps. And I see your hand, Kim. One of the steps is to think that we would move forward. And work with Montpelier and capital far to move with their radios and simo cast. Trying to get that funding in place. And help them work with their select boards. We knew that the cities had already told us they were going to take the consoles out of the big picture. And just work on it themselves. So that's great. And I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think the city has got to be much lessigare. And just work on it themselves. So that's great. But in the letter, we heard that Barry wasn't interested in working with the capital far on the radios and consoles. That's what I got out of it. And the other comment about that, as far as the letter, the city's letter, Even wants to know if he can comment. Okay. Kim was had his hand up, although he took it down. Do you want to talk to him? Yes, I do. I'm not prepared to vote to have Televate do anything at this point. This is nothing about Televate in this budget, nothing. Well, your, your agenda. If the, and the only voters who appropriate a budget of 35 and 50. To do the basic outline, that's one thing. But I asked you. If you had any information from Televate. And so what they intended to do with this 35,000. I'm not, I don't attach this budget to Televate when Doug made the motion for the $30,000. It was to keep us alive. And there was no decision made on consultant or what the range would be. We were waiting on hearing from the city. So now we've heard from the cities. And we know who our partners are very have stepped out. They don't want any assistance. So in a future meeting, we will decide. If this budget were approved. I think we'd want an RFP. As we have for every major expenditure. Okay. This budget is a work in, in progress. And I went over the charter with the Vermont League lawyer. They got our charter online and read step by step, the requirements for the annual meeting quote, the public meeting that's supposed to happen before February one. And then we go to January 13th and we then have a final say. And at that point, we commit ourselves, whether we put something on the town ballots or not. And that's January 13th at our regular January meeting. And that has been posted as not only a regular meeting, but a public hearing about the budget. My question is. When do we decide how we're going to spend the money? I think we could do that. I think we can use 35,000. Planning and all the various things that you mentioned. But I'm not at all convinced that the board has approved how that would be done. No, it hasn't. So when, when, when will that happen? Well, we tried to have a discussion last meeting. And that's why with the proposed budget I put in, it had 50,000, which was what the rough numbers were from television. Just if we were going to move ahead. And not only do the governance and cost allocation and funding strategy, but also starting to look at. An RFP. Then those were the numbers. And that's why I put that there because I tried to say it verbally. December 9th. But I felt it got lost. So I just put that as a sub branch. That this is the information I have from Rick. And in the first one, he has a 35,000. His, his only draft to me is about governance for that 35, but he said he could eventually rework it. If you're really serious about it. And he, you know, likewise, the 50,000. He put base outline in our, in his report, his August report. About what they would do. As far as them. Administratively. But he's not willing to do another proposal until we are sure it's what we want. And we have clear guidelines for him. I just want to be clear the, the board. Even if. I think the board can readily spend the money that's. Listed in the agenda. For. Working on. The items listed there. But until we have a. Proposition as to how. That money is going to be spent and who our consultants will be. If it's just a raw number, I can support it, but I can't support it if. Until we have a full chance of how the. Money would be spent. And I think. We might want to, we might want to, we might want to, we might want to. Provide those services. That's what I would want to do. It's usually you get the RFP. When you have to get your money right now, you know, we have that. $40,000. Five of which. So. If the answer is yes, we get the money voted, and then we'll do an RFP that I'm going to support the budget. Well, the budget as it stands right now with what the board approved on the ninth was just $30,000. And our balance is another $30,000. That gives us $60,000. And that's what you'll see. If you look at the, at the two budgets. Well, I see 35 and 50, which is in your agenda. And if that's the motion. And then I will support it. Okay. See this. No, I probably can't get it right. The budget you're looking at. Does it have an FY 23 number one? And FY 23 number two. I'm looking what's on the agenda. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, what I expect is what we're being asked to approve. I think you, I think you're talking about. You're both talking about. Two different things. One of them is the spreadsheet. It's got budget, budgetary information. And the other item is what's in the, in the, in the. The minutes. The agenda. The first thing in the agenda is the FY. 22, 23, 24 budgets. And that was attached. Yes. I think you're talking about, you're both talking about. Two different things. One of them is the spreadsheet. It's got budget, budgetary information. The other item is what's in the, in the. In the minutes. Yes. And that's the, and that's the item that's. Then made a motion and seconded. And that's taking an additional 30 that Doug proposed. We put on the town ballot. At our last meeting and the 30 of our balance. And. And it makes the consultant, if you used every penny, 63,000 500. And that would theoretically if, if. But we're not approving. Which consultant or what they're going to do. No, absolutely not yet. It's too early. Yeah. We won't know. We won't know what we got until after March. It's just like we put the money on for phase one. Can we put the money out there? And then we went and got the consultant. And it might not be tell me, but I'm just, I use that as the information I had. I don't know what to call it, but an assessment. For an RFP. For $50,000. Well, more concern than that. I want to backpedal. I didn't even think we can get $30,000. Past on the ballots. So to me, that's what we're talking about is what we need. What we want to really do. What can the voters tolerate? And what can we do when Barry has more or less. Said they don't really want to go to the next stage with us. Well, I think we could put on the ballot 25 from each city roughly. Because that's what's going to be needed. To do an RFP. No. I've said before I have a problem with the two cities paying for all the planning for the towns. And I think that's something that needs to be. Discussed. With our. Partners and work out how this is going to happen. And we don't have to spend the money all at once. But. Even television said before they could do an RFP. And the cities will benefit to some degree from that. Because. There is work on the towers and there's work. In building connections. And frankly. They have a lot of benefit in it. So we need to meet with everybody. Figure out what's needed and do an RFP. And we should have the money to do it. And I don't think 30,000 will do it. You can make an amendment to the motion. We tried 50 and it didn't float. We didn't know much about this. Well, if that would help, I'll move that we. Increase the ballot amount. To 50. In. Talking about the budget. The budget amount. The budget amount. I can just ask a quick question about that before this comes up for a vote. Oh, we have a discussion of an amendment. Yes, yes. And whether or not it's a second. Yes. Can we give the money back if we don't use it? Like, let's just suppose we get 50,000. And for some reason, this whole thing goes to shit. And it all falls apart. Can we give it back? Yes, we can. You can always get money back. I know that's like. We can give money back. Yeah. Okay. As long as we can charge interest. The money is always running. Steve also has his public comments. If you want to recognize him at some point, he's still waiting on his public comment. The money would be paid quarterly. So. So Kim, you made an amendment to the motion. I want to add. 50,000 under consultant instead of 30. Yes. And. For right now. The only taxing we have are the two cities. Okay. I think Justin raises a good point. We can always turn it off. We haven't had a good discussion about how we can use all this money. And I want to do that. Okay, Doug. Okay. When I made the motion, the original motion, I was doing on the basis of item number four on the agenda. And all that is a $30,000 ballot request. Revision. Are we still on that? Okay. Are you looking at December 20th? The fourth item is review proposed three year budget. That's what I'm looking at. Okay. And goals for 2022. That's where we're at the budget item, which has 30,000 that we added. We revised the 50 to 30. For their motion that happened last meeting. Yeah. So. Is Kim suggesting that that 30,000 be replaced by 50,000. Right. I had proposed 50,000 the last meeting and that didn't fly. The motion was made for 30 Kim tried to make an amendment at last meeting and it didn't pass. So here we are again. Yeah. Are we still on a discussion stage or where are we at? Yes, we are. Anyone else for the amendment? I'm sorry. I don't have a second down for the amendment. Justin, was that you? The amendment was came. I will second the amendment. To 50,000. Okay. And then Steve's got his public comment. Okay, but he doesn't. Go ahead. Doug. I'm going to talk first before he. Yes. The reason we went to 30 was we had a collective. Belief that. 50 would not fly. So. I guess I have to ask myself and others. What has changed. Since the night. Knowing all the stuff that has been sent out and all the articles in the newspaper. That. 50,000 is going to pass mustard. Okay. So. Well, for one thing, we got an opinion from. Would you please put your hand up? I just want to try to keep order. If I'm going to ask Steve to have permission, I need to have everybody else come through the chair. Please. I'll put my hand up. Thank you. Go ahead, Kim. Yes. The board has precedent. Got to get our discussion done. Then we can take public comment. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have an opinion from the Mont League of cities and towns. That says ARPA money can be spent for. Public communications. And reading the newspaper. Neither Barry nor Montpelier. Have. Factored any ARPA money into their budgets and what they can do. That's what we're going to do. Particularly. Particularly with Justin's suggestion. That we. We are going to need no matter how you do this to get a grant for anybody. We're going to need to have a good RFP. And. And it's going to cost money to do that. And nobody is going to benefit if we don't. Just don't see how we can do that. I'm $30,000. Okay. Sally as a board member, would you like to participate? Any comments? Capital fire. I know. There's no money in the till I got it. Yeah. I mean, and I don't. I don't see us continuing. If we end up putting money into this. I think people's feeling is. Yeah. I mean, I think that's probably going to be the general thought. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Stephen. Please. Limit your comments at two minutes. Point of order. This apparently the recording is not working. And we. I'd suggest we stop pause the meeting until we get it working. I've never heard any. Message. This meeting is being recorded. We talked earlier. And I asked Orca and they said they were recording. They planned to, but there's no indication on screen, which should be there that the meeting is being recorded. And. And because I don't have speakers here. I can't set my own recorder out and make sure this important is not working. And I'd suggest we stop, pause the meeting until we get it working. I've never heard any. And so. We'll do that in a second. Okay. I'll make sure this important conversation. Is captured for the record. Well, you've set your little recorder out when you're. There's no speakers here. There is no speakers here. Oh, I can take it. I'm happy to take it out of the year. So Steve can record that way, or I can click record on my side. I just didn't want to click record without permission. I don't think you have to. Yeah. I mean, I can email them, but unfortunately I don't have a. A number to text him or call him. See, they probably said it on automatic or it's, it's not recording. So we need to pause and get that figured out recording in progress. I can do this. I can do it on mine from this point on. It's working. It's working. There you go. Okay. Now it is. So everybody wants to repeat everything. They said already. No, no, we'll just have to do with our minutes. I don't see. No, Brent's not here. So how's, how's anybody going to. I'm taking notes. I've tried to get a temporary secretary and nobody volunteered. So. I object this. I object wholeheartedly. You can't chair a meeting and be secretary. It was no recording going. This is. We need to revisit the things that have already been addressed. Okay, Steve, you've said your statement, please. Anything else related to the topics that we were discussing? Okay. The budget. That's what you raised your hand. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. The statements in the. What's called the annual report that I just got a few minutes ago. I'm going to talk about the last two paragraphs above the board of directors directly conflict with what you, how you just answered Kim. About having this wired for tell of eight that we're going to use tell of eight and the core group and tell of eight is going to do this and tell of eight is going to do that. Similarly under item four of the agenda. It says that tell of eight is going to do the governance in phase two. And tell of eight has no experience in New England governance. So. I'm going to talk about the budget. Do you have any comments about the budget? Yes. The budget. I want to make explicitly clear that item four does not include the three lines below. In item four. Okay. And secondly, you're going to need more than that to put an RFP out a system design is the next step. And the system design is going to cost over 50,000 itself. So. And if you describe budget as a hard word. That is limited to the, what we ask of the towns. That's a flawed way to go about this. We need to craft a budget that allows the towns to be part of it, but allows us to still go out and solicit funds. From. Municipalities. Okay. It's going to take $100,000. Sum it up. Okay. And then I have a response to Doug's question also. About the budget. I guess Doug, the, the answer that I would have. It's just like a, for me, like, if we're not going to get what we need, then I just don't think we should get anything. Okay. That's just like my answer, but maybe 30 is useful. Maybe I'm totally wrong. I'm totally willing to admit that 30 could be useful for us. I just, like, if 30 isn't going to be useful and kind of like, I don't really care to get anything then. That's how I felt. I presented a budget last time with one with 50, 50,000 at least that would get us phase two. And one with nothing and just using our reserve. And then going into next year to see if we really had partners. But right now I see capital West. Totally understanding their finances. And I think that they don't want to be part of us. If they're being asked to, to contribute money. So they're, we're saying then that capital. Far isn't going to go with us to the town select boards. We'll be going to the town select boards by ourselves. For money to an organization that they're only a group of through capital far. So I feel like it's a total regrouping and assessment. We did the televate report. We got great regional support, but the reality came when we asked for people to make a firm commitment for the next phase. They're not ready to do it. So I don't want to, I don't want any more town money. I wouldn't put anything on the ballot, but the, but I gave the board two choices. And last week, last month, they said no to the 50 and they supported Doug's 30. So that's what's on this proposal. Okay. Now we have an amendment on the floor. Kim is your statement about the amendment. Very concise. Something we have not heard. Otherwise we're going to go to a motion. I think if we don't have at least 50, we might as well fold up CBPS and be done with it. Okay. So we have an amendment on the table for 50, to amend the budget. Okay. So we have an amendment for $50,000. With the assumption that we'd be asking Barry and mom. To your. To have that on their ballots. 2650 for Barry. And 2350. 23500 for Montelier. Okay. All in favor of the amendment for $50,000. Say aye. Aye. Aye. No. Okay. So roll call. Okay. No. No, no. Justin is an eye. Oh, I'm sorry. So good thing I said that out loud. Yes. Okay. Kim, your vote, please. Yes. Doug. Sorry, I've got to ask a question again. Is this for the budget? Or is this for the ballot item? The budget. The budget. But if you put it. It's the budget. It's the budget. It's the budget. $50,000. Wait, I'm confused. It's one and the same, right? Well, when I put it in the budget, I put it by the towns because that's our source of money. So if, if. But Doug's point is maybe he wants to support $50,000. And then think about where it comes from. I don't know, Doug. What's behind it? I understand. Well, I'm just trying to get it clear in my feeble brain. I'm just trying to imagine that. I only see. 50,000. In the budget. But I only see 30,000. I'm the ballot. And I thought we were talking about the ballot. No, number four doesn't have the ballot item there at all. Other than that in the budget, the money is distributed by the cost allocation with Barry and Montaigne. 30,000. It's distributed between Barrie and Montpelier. Yeah, I see that. And the assumption is if you're putting it there that you're going to go in that city's ballot to do it. But the vote right now is just about the budget. Donna, maybe we can't talk, but how do you get to the $50,000 and not include the ballot? In the past, we would put it in the budget, make the cost allocation formula, distribute it in the budget by town with the assumption that if we're having a certain amount of money from Barrie and a certain amount of money from Montpelier, the assumption is it's there done by ballot. So if you're putting $50,000 in the budget, just tell me where you want to put it if it's not by town. Donna, we have an additional 30,000 left over, right? So the actual budget is going to be closer to 80 if we get this 50, right? That's the expense side, not the revenue side. The revenue side has a carryover of $40,000 expected. Five is for our administration and there's some 30, 35 for a consultant because our administration has gone up to more like 6,000 with the additional known cost. Anyway, I'm sorry the ballot, I mean you can put $50,000 in your budget and then decide to do something else with your ballot item, but then you'd ultimately have to change your budget to reflect it. I'm sorry the question came up there in the middle of the vote. You're doing your roll call. Yes, Doug, you're next. I vote yes. Sally? I'll vote yes. I'm going to vote no, sorry, but it passes. It's just like, okay passes four to one. Thank you. Now, I don't know when you have just a quorum, if you can pass something four to one. I know the council has a certain number we have to have. I'll check that, but for right now it passes. Will's there, okay. Will, would you like to be filled in and vote on this item? Yes, so I think I caught the tail end of this, so I vote yes. Okay, that's $50,000 to go back in our budget. All right, so now we'll go back to Doug's motion that has been amended to read that will put $50,000 in the budget for FY23 with the assumption it's going to go in town ballots. Something that's going to go where? $50,000 in our budget. Yes, no assumptions about it. Once it happens, if it's loaded in, that's where it comes from. Well, that's right, but people don't seem to get it. Okay, the motion for $50,000, all in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, so it's going to be the same as before, it's going to be everybody. No, no, I'm voting no. Doug, it's a roll call because I'm no. Okay, Doug's no, Donna's no, Justin. Yes. Yes, Kim. Yes. Yes, Sally. So this is for the whole budget, not just that item. This is, no, this is adding our, changing our budget to reflect $50,000 divided between Barry and Montaigneur. I want to abstain, I think, because we're not putting any money into it. So I guess I feel kind of awkward voting on something that we're not contributing to, which I don't think that we have the money to do that, but I guess that's my opinion on it. Right. Well, if it were your money, would you want $50,000 in the budget this year? I mean, I think to do what you want to do, but I don't know that you're going to get that approved. I'm going to abstain. Well, none of us know, none of us know. It's all what we're going to aim to do. You know, we'll get out there and we'll promote it if the board passes it. Anybody want to talk to Sally's concerns? I mean, you're a board member, whether it's from your town or not, you get a vote. So you want to abstain? Okay. Yes, I'm going to abstain. Yeah. I think Sally's making a good decision. Well, I feel the same as Sally does because, you know, Capital Fire is not putting anything into this, but I mean, if CVPSA is going to continue to function, we've agreed to join that. You know, that's where the funding is coming from right now, unless there's a different proposal that the $50,000 gets some portion of that somehow gets parsed off to Capital Fire Mutual Aid. I don't know how Sally and I can vote on things like this, especially when it comes to financial stuff, if we, if we're not a contributing factor to that. I understand your and her quantum, but you do have the authority to vote on it. That doesn't mean you mean, but you can abstain if you'd wish. It's your choice. This motion started out with $30,000 and it became $50,000. I don't know if that would make any difference in your mind. I think I have to abstain like Sally did. Okay. So we have six. We have two noes, two yeses, two abstaining. The motion doesn't carry. Yeah, me too. All right. Somebody's talking. Kim is that in your house? Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you. Households are quiet until you get on Zoom. So now we have the budget here without any motion. Somebody want to make a motion? Doug, you're muted. I need to clarify a couple things in my mind and I'm sorry I'm being really kind of hard headed about this. My way of thinking, setting up the budget for fiscal year 24, we can put any number in there that we decide to put in there. That number should not be contingent on what happens at the ballot box on March 1st, 2nd, 3rd, wherever it is. You understand what I'm saying? Just generally if you put a number in your budget, you have an idea where it's coming from. So if you put $50,000 there, where does it come from? All right. But let's assume for a moment that we're lucky and the vote passes on $30,000. You've got 40,000 fund balance or parts thereof that could move over into 24 and give you whatever to use for your budget in fiscal year 24. Who knows between now and then Sally and Will may get together and talk with the folks at Capital Fire and they may come up with some money. We would then put it into the budget as revenue. But I mean, it's kind of like we need to have a discussion about the ballot item in terms of whether it's going to be able to pass it on. I think there was some agreement at some point that $50,000 would not do it. $30,000 might. So why do we want to cut off one of our legs to get X amount of dollars by setting up a situation where you've got to go for a ballot item with $50,000? I do not understand that. So are you going to make a motion for a lower number? We do have to have a number in place by January 13 of what's going to go on the ballot. I'm hearing people again. So by January 13, we need to have a number if we're going to put anything on any city ballot. So you can do whatever you want with our budget. But come January 13, we have to know what our numbers are to put on the ballot. And generally speaking, that is tied back to our budget. And that's what our members, member, we're all here representing our members, would look at to say, what are they going to do with the money? Here's the revenue coming in. Here's the consultant work coming out. And that's why I sent a sample of the warning to give an idea of the verbal age as I understood it about moving ahead on our next phase for study. Can I ask a quick question? Yes, go ahead. Doug, is your sense that we can find the money elsewhere? Is that based through your point here that we should set our budget aspirationally and then get whatever we can from the cities and then maybe we can get money from elsewhere? I'm not, I'm just, I'm very ignorant about this. So I have no idea if there is money there. You won't know until you go look. Well, I think this is a, can I speak, Ms. Chair? Just a moment. Are you done, Justin? Okay. Yes, Kim. I think we're in a very fluid position here. There's a lot of money in grants that is coming from whom and how I think it's fairly complicated. And I would say to Sally and Will, I think there are ways that the towns can get what they want if we all work together, but we haven't had a serious discussion about how that would happen. Basically, if the towns want to join CBPSA, that would have to be approved by your select boards and voters. But then you could vote on a ballot, but we'd have to have a whole rejiggering of virtually everything that happens to CBPSA, because all the towns would have to consult with whatever we do. But we have to... I'm sorry, Kim. That's a little out of order and we're already 749. Well, if you want to kill CBPSA, keep it up, but I don't. No, I mean, that's the talking to the towns is a great discussion. But right now, the only people we can have on their ballots come March is Barry and Montalier. That's true. So that's what's on the table. I'm sorry to reign you in, but it's time. I feel we need to focus. So right now, we have no motion on the table. The last two didn't pass. Which means the last one didn't pass. So there's no... We're not going to approve a budget. Pleasure of the board. And again, it's... This is a the budget that is before you that was passed on December 9th stands until it's changed. And that's with $30,000 in it. So that's fine. Well, it can be brought up again on January 13th. Absolutely. Absolutely. That's a final review. Donna. The spreadsheet is the budget. And you've mentioned that the $30,000 is in there. Forgive me, but I don't see it. I don't see the $30,000 in there. Okay. Barry has $15,900. Montalier has $14,100. That's the $30,000 divided by their percentages as is our current cost allocation. Those two figures are $30,000 and represent what would be on the ballot. Yes. Okay. And that passed in the December 9th meeting. Okay. All right. We've got motions that have failed, correct? Yes. So right now that... We're looking for a new motion. Not necessarily. The proposed budget from December 9th has the $30,000 in it. And if nobody wants to change that, then that's how it stays. If you want to change it, then we need a motion. No. I was going to make a motion to accept the budget as mailed out. Okay. This one's already been approved. So... Okay. All right. It's just confirming the things that happened at the 9th meeting. And every time we have... So that was bringing it into the annual meeting. Then at the public hearing on the 13th, we'll have another final say, receive comments in between now and then. And that's our final opportunity to make any revisions is on the 13th. Okay. Okay. And then I wanted to discuss options for the March 22nd town meeting ballot. And I passed out the... Or distributed the warning sample so that you see that in our warning, we mentioned to elect one at-large board member and that I put the $30,000 in there and showed how it was split. And this is the wording that we used last year. And the mirror is close to the ones we've used before. John Odom did some tweaking. So I sort of wanted to stay in that same pattern. This would need to... This warning, what right now has the $30,000 in it. If that changes, then the warning has to change. But I, as chair and Brent householder, as board secretary, needs to sign it. And then we need to file it with both city clerks, Barry and Montellier. So I just wanted to give you an idea that we're also advertising and warning for the at-large board member slot. And now there's going to be two. Right now, there's just one. Kim's slot is up. At-large is every three years, whereas appointed is every two years. So... I guess I was thinking of the Barry rep who just resigned. He's an appointment, yeah. He's an appointment. Right now, the at-large is Kim, myself, and Brent householder. Everyone else is appointed. There might be more at-large. Hey, Donna, does my term expire in March? I'm just wondering if I need to... Yes, it does because you filled Dan's slot. And Dan had the slot that ends on the even years, odd years, even years. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, because it's March 2022, when you end, even years. And actually, the board terms are at the end of the annual report. Okay. Public records request. All right. So, I'll just find my little sheet here. I'll tell you, the papers and emails are flying. Can't keep up with it. Be truthful. There we go. Sorry, it's in the stack. So, one, violation was the May 17th open meeting law violation that Steve felt that our gathering at Sarduchis was a violation because there was, on the 17th, a quorum. There was enough number there to be a quorum and that we were gathering with the consultant from public safety and he felt it should have been a worn, posted meeting with minutes. The board has two options. It could decide that the May 17th was an inadvert error and the cure would be to treat all such social gatherings as a board meeting in the future. Or it could decide to use the part of the open meeting law that says a meeting shall not mean occasions. Kim, your people are talking again. Sorry. Would you mute? Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't have any way other to tell you. Meeting shall not mean occasions when a quorum of the public body attends social gatherings. Conventions, conferences, training programs, press conferences, media events, or otherwise gather provided that the public body does not discuss specific business of the public body. That at the time of the exchange, the participants expect to be the business of the public meeting at a later date. What is the board's pleasure? What's the remedy here? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Justin, go ahead. I didn't see your hand. What's the remedy here if we say it was an open meeting violation? Will you just acknowledge it and move on? Well, no. That's not going to happen in the future. I heard that all social gatherings, et cetera, et cetera. We know there's going to be a quorum, then we treat it like a board meeting in the future. So anytime we think, oh, we're all going to go to the 4th July picnic and be at the float. Probably you don't have to do that one because you're walking on the street. But if we have a social gathering, another social gathering at a restaurant, then we would post it like a meeting. We'd take minutes, even the man said we all arrived. This happened. Food was served. We all left. I mean, we may not have any group discussion. Is there a third option to say this was an inadvertent violation? And maybe this is an inadvertent violation, but it was on the borderline and we'll try to avoid this stuff in the future. You know what I mean? It's like a soft one. Not that the league mentioned to me. It's either one or why or the other. Okay. Can Steve wants to say his piece if that's okay? Nobody else on the board has a question about the two choices first. Okay, Kim. Well, I don't think it was a violation of the meeting. I think it was a social engagement. And frankly, as I've written you, it was impossible to have discussion about much of anything. The acoustics were so bad and it was billed as a social meeting to get acquainted with our elevate people. And I think that's what it was. So I don't think it's, I don't think it was a violation. All right. If you would re-mute yourself. Anyone else? Doug? I tend to agree. It was a social gathering as allowed by Vermont statutes annotated regarding open meeting law. You could hardly hear yourself think. So I don't know how you expect anybody to engage in any conversation. And I think Mr. Whitaker's comments that people were discussing things is a little bit far-fetched because who did he hear talking about anything? So I'm on my own client to go on with acknowledging that we violated any open meeting law. Okay. Sally and Will, I know you weren't there. I don't know what your feelings are about it, but you still can have an opinion. Yeah. I mean, I had training that night, but I, I mean, you guys are all saying that there wasn't even a chance to talk because of the noise there. I would go with the social gathering. Well, we talked to our immediate neighbors, but I'll tell you, him was two people away from me and I couldn't hear him. And Doug was way at the table. So, yeah. Will, do you have any? So I guess, again, I would have to agree with what Sally said. I mean, I wasn't there, but I've been to Sarducci's a bunch of times. I have no idea how you could have a meeting in that place at all. The food is fantastic, but to have a conversation is impossible. Okay. We're going to let Steve talk and then I'll entertain a motion. The board needs to make a motion to make this official statement of how they felt this violation is being treated. Stephen. Yeah. A number of folks who were there, I point out that this was scheduled, the Sarducci's was scheduled for Tuesday night and it was warned, people were notified that it was happening and then it was moved without notice to those same people who were notified. So you moved it to the Monday night and numerous people who were there said they were talking about technology issues which will, are likely to come before the board. So the fact that it was a challenge to hear does not eliminate the fact that people were talking business. Admittedly, we're talking business that is likely to come before the board. The technology, the redundancy, the resiliency, the radio antennas, the towers, etc. People were mining the consultant's brain and talking amongst themselves. So there's no way to minimize this. It's egregious that you're even trying. Okay. Thank you. Entertain a motion that in treatment of the filed violation of the May 17th meeting, the board has decided and then I would just quote that whole big piece in the minutes as a motion that the meeting shall not mean the occasion when blah, blah, blah. And that we're treating this gathering like a conference. I think in my notice it was actually said it's like a workshop. Would somebody make a motion like that or you have another motion you want to make? Go ahead. Well, maybe this is one. Maybe, yeah, you're muted. It's hard. Yeah, I'm looking for words that would deny. Oh, okay. We can just say, okay. Deny the violation, open meeting law violation of May 17th gathering at Sarducci's. Okay. I'll second that motion. Thank you, Kim. Kim, second. Board for the discussion, all in favor say aye. Wave your hand or yes. Just gonna abstain. Just abstain. Okay. All right. I'll write that up in the minutes as well as an official email to Stephen. What was the vote? The vote was all in favor except one abstention. Okay. Doug. For the for the minutes, if I might, I'd like to say that it was an opportunity for me and I would hope the rest of the board to learn about this aspect of the open meeting law for Stephen's edification. The movement from Capitol Plaza to Sarducci's was because Capitol Plaza was closed and not open when it was originally scheduled to be there. So we had no choice but to find another location which did occur. It came at very short notice to anybody that was attending. I think as a board, should we ever be lucky enough to be in a position where we get a chance to go out on a social event that we talk a couple of people to not go so that we don't have a board issue? And if we need to have somebody take minutes while they're trying to get their spaghetti down, then okay. But along with all these things, there's got to be an intent. And I'm sure that nobody that attended there intended to violate any open meeting law. Okay, any other comments? The next issue, actually on mine, there was the verbal complaint which I now have an email complaint about December 9 City Hall backdoor not unlocked. I was right there. I heard Steve as soon as he knocked, I stayed at that door back and forth from 6.15 to a quarter till 7 until five minutes till I came back in and got online and let the board know I was going back out to the door because Stephen hadn't come yet and I sure he was. And literally I'm talking to them when you started knocking and I left immediately and went to the door. The city has a problem with the door. It's changed and added a tie to the back that's loose enough that you could pull it around to jam the handle. But it happened. It's out of our control and I tried to deal with it efficiently. But anyone who knocked was easily heard and the door was unlocked. So I do not feel this was a violation. Any other board comments? If you're un-muted, would you like to talk? I understand the problem has been resolved now. There's a way to keep the door open. Well, it's not a problem when the city remembers you have a meeting because then the auto lock hasn't happened. But once the auto lock happens, then the key only works to let you in not to really unlock the door permanently. Yeah. That's a $10,000 aspect in our upcoming budget. Anyone else comment? Steve, you have the complaint. You want to have a comment? Yeah, that's not all that's in the complaint. Did you share the complaint with the whole board? And you've had it for over a week. Oh, Steve, you've kept me so busy. I am beyond myself. I have a life and commitments. So why don't you just state it for right now because I can't find it. I've got my email so jammed up with your stuff. Well, then you'll have to be able until the next meeting because I didn't bring a copy with me. I presumed that you had shared it with the board. I had a time. It includes the lack of access to the speakers, which Cameron made available to you. Okay. No, that's not a violation. Sorry. We've gone over the sound thing before. It's not your discretion to just say something's not a violation. It's up to the board to discuss the issues, including the locked door. Absolutely. It's illegal to hold a meeting with a locked door. Okay. So you'd like a motion from the board. Okay. We can go back to the unlocked door. We'd entertain a motion that whether the, which I asked if the board saw the unlocked door as a violation or not. I heard no, but it would be good to entertain a motion to address the complaint, entertain a motion that. I haven't seen the complaint. Does anyone know if I'm sorry, Donna? I shouldn't ask this because it's so ignorant, but does anyone know if open meeting violations require intent? Like if there has to be an intent to do it or whether it's just strict liability thing? No, if you'll answer this question. There's some things like we did. We, a posting got missed by the, by the city. I sent them, I sent it to them in a timely way, but staff confusion. It didn't get posted in the hallway. That was an inadvertent error. The, the intention was to get it done. It didn't happen. So our cure was I actually got John Odom to commit that I sent it to him instead of another person. And he has a commitment to post it. And then when I miss him, I posted myself on the hard cardboard outside of his box, which happened recently. He was gone. Everybody was gone. Nobody had a key to the glass box. So I put it on the other bulletin board. So that was our cure. And likewise, if indeed the board decided that was a violation, then the cure was what I did, which is talk to the city and let them make sure that when we're on the schedule, the door gets unlocked. And if not put a tie, a cable tie on there that will fit around so it will hold the latch. And they did that. So the board can decide if it was an inadvertent error and then it has been resolved, or they can decide they don't think it was an error. So what is the board's pleasure? Invertent error wasn't a violation. I don't think it's a violation. I don't think there's any intent here either violate the law or you don't. On the other hand, I think this is a problem that's again, growing pains with the pandemic. And it took a while to figure out how to run these meetings. And I don't think it's a violation. You're talking about the unlocked door right now. City halls unlocked door. Okay. So Sally, you want to make a motion then we'll see if that passes. Not clear about the consensus of the board. I'll make a motion that the door was not a violation of the open meeting law that someone was taking care of it. It was a mechanical issue that happened and those things happen. Okay. I'm going to ask Sally to add the date that the city hall unlocked door on December 9th. Okay. You can add the December 9th to meeting to that. Okay. It was not a violation. It was a mechanical issue. I would appreciate it if you would say and someone was there to let people in. And you were there to let people in. Yeah. I'm not sure what the issue is. Did you hear from a lot of people that they couldn't get in? Nope. Okay. And let me tell you, I heard Steven. I'll second that motion. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion by the board on the violation? Sally's motion is that it was not a violation. It was a mechanical issue and a person was available to open the door. Any further comments? Any other board comment? I'm sorry, Steve. You did yours. Now the board has a motion and they're going to vote on it. No, you're disinforming the board. I made an offer to put a cone in the door and keep it unlocked and you rejected that offer and insisted that the door be locked. Steven, I actually put lots of things in front of that door and that door pushed him right out. I put a cone in there to push that. If you want to get into all the arguments, but you're out of order, I'm probably out of order. So we have a motion. Seconded. Is the board in favor? All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed. Any opposed? Okay. I just want to clarify my vote. I think it was from a hyper technical legal reading, probably a violation of open meeting law. I also think it's not a big deal and I think Donna did everything she could to remedy it, but my opinion is that I think it is a violation of the open meeting law. I did talk to the league about it too. I mean, it was fine. If it was going to be an overt error, we'll just cure it. But they said they didn't feel it was an error because we could respond to anyone coming to the door. Oh, no, I guess I mean the moment that while it was locked, I would say, is the violation. I think if one could easily respond and guarantee that they can answer it, I think that the, I think it's fine. I think the remedy and the cure that you came up with is good. But anyway, that's it. That's all you have. Okay. All right. All in favor of the motion, say aye or wave. Any opposed? Any abstentions? You're going to abstain again. Okay. Okay. Fine. The other piece of that was we've gone through the open meeting law and the law requires that the public have auditory availability to all remote meetings and that we have provided. Stephen has requested that we use the city's laptop speakers to have it on the screen and that we then would avail ourselves of the city council. Well, one, the city council room is not always available. And two, every time Stephen and I have been in the city council on remote meetings, he does not leave their equipment alone. In fact, he has received a letter with warnings from the city to say that he has recently was dated October 13th, that to do address his behavior during these meetings and process, we've observed you becoming increasingly disruptive and verbally aggressive. Your recent action of slamming the city laptop closed during a public meeting very much crossed the line. You've been asked on multiple occasions to refrain from touching city equipment unless requested to do so. When we were there, he kept touching the screens, the laptop and the speakers, and hence we had speaker trouble. I didn't want to have to control Steve or anyone else or fuss with any equipment at the remote meeting. Now, if indeed, sometimes the council room is available and Justin or someone else wants to get trained on it and wants to be responsible to not only manage it, but keep Steve away from it, then fine, I was not willing to take on that responsibility. Stephen didn't like the answer. So then he went to the city council and said, will you train somebody? Will you let the public safety authority use your equipment? And of course, they said they would, they would train us. But I'm not willing, given the the issue of this warning letter from the city to Stephen, as well as behavior I've witnessed to be responsible for it. I don't feel this is a violation. We're meeting the law with auditory. That's where I stand. What's the board's pleasure? Do you want to make access to the city equipment? Doug? No, I don't want to get into the, get into the equipment issues and everything else. If you start fooling around with it, you accept responsibility for it. And I'm not sure how much money is in that room, but I suspect the fair amount. So what's, if it works fine, if it doesn't work, can there's a way that we're meeting the rule of the law, then let's do that. And let's move on. I'm not sure that this is a violation at all. Okay. Are you making a motion? Does it need a motion? Yes, the board needs to address all the complaints of violations. I'm moved that the board does not find that any violation occurred. The denial of using city equipment. I need a little more context in there. Yeah. Deny that any violation occurred by not using. Maybe I should say unwillingness. You tell me, it's about my or us representing CBTA right now, whether or not whoever the in-person is in the remote setting, whether we want them to use city equipment. And whether in the past we violated because we weren't willing to use city equipment. I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time coming up with words. I don't know how we can do a motion that covers that, that way, Donna. Yeah. Well, what if it said, and let me just start it, and then you can see if it's comfortable that the, that the board does not see a violation of open meeting law by only using auditory equipment. Doesn't proud of Steve's problems. And doesn't wish to be liable for city visual equipment when it's available, it's not always available. Like tonight, there was another meeting in the other room. So what I wrote down, Doug, you can please change it is the public safety authority board does not see a violation of the open meeting law by only using auditory equipment and does not want to be liable for the city's laptop and screen laptop equipment. So moved. Anybody want to second that? I will. Okay, Sally. Second. Comments. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Thank you. And Donna, I'm happy to try to get this set up in the future. I'm happy to be here in person and to do the setup. If that's something. Okay, but we are assigned to a memorial room. That's where the space we have reserved. Yeah, we've got a T we have a little something in here right now. Sorry, I don't know if that was where. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, if you have to figure it out, I'll figure it out. But you'll have to see Cameron and get trained and get permission. But that'd be great. They'd be great, Justin. If you want to do it and if the board feels whatever liability you have, they want to, they want to take on and make sure make sure you present your certificate of achievement. You got it. Okay, that's good. All right. I think that that's all I remember from the two. Otherwise, there's more. I'll send it out to you. The other business, Kim want to talk about term of office. I did send the board the facts of term of office. I must say I was a little, I was very surprised that last meeting the board never asked me for any dates. It took me a long time to figure out the real discussion was about me and not just the charter term of office understanding. But since then, both Kim and Stephen have sent emails saying forget it, forget it. But the fact of it is, they took up a lot of time last meeting. So I'd like to make sure the board feels okay about my terms of office, as well as any ruling about partial and full terms of office. Any discussion from the board? Well, I'll just make a motion that the action with the last board meeting to have a legal opinion on term limits be rescinded. I think my reason for that is Stephen actually did a very good job in finding out when terms started and took a lot of work looking up minutes and going through the whole thing. It wasn't simple, but once we got it all done, it seemed like there was no need for any further action. And that's the reason for my motion. Okay, I'll second it. And Sally second it. So I just want to modify this that so you're rescinding the request of a legal opinion on you said term limits, but it's really on Donna's term limits that your question was about. Okay, I don't remember it specifically, but if that's what it said, yes, your name can be included. Okay, I'll check. So the wording of that, you want it to be just the same as what was in the minutes. I'll have to check that. Okay. And that was your understanding, Sally, with your second. Yes. Okay. Further any discussion on this, Doug? Forget it. I was going to say something that was not important. Nevermind. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Okay, passes. Great. That's 825, only 25 minutes over this time. Not a full hour, folks, we're doing better. Okay, well, thank you all very much for your attention to these matters. And our next meeting is January 13. And that is not a regular board meeting, as well as our public hearing related to the budget and the ballot item. I'll resend out the budget, I'll resend out the draft warning, anything else the board would like. Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned by unanimous consent. And thank you, Justin, for being there. It was much better without a mask and all. Thank you. Thank you.